I don’t agree that a person’s will is dependent upon brain matter. The closest support you have asserting that Terry made such statements is totally dependent upon the words of Michael, his brother and his brother’s wife. Have you given the fact that those she was close too (her parents, her siblings, and her close friends) didn’t know anything about that? Is that typical of a young woman not to share most everything about anything with sibliings and close friends most particularly? And during the time of the Quinlin case debates?
I agree it would be compassionate to let Terry die if that is her will. However, you’re not allowing her make that determination if you withhold any means or ability to receive nutrition.
Only to reinsert the feeding tube which the judge ordered removed. Her mother can readily handle hooking up the fluids to it (as our family, including myself, did for our little grandson) until a therapist can help Terry to relearn how to eat.
However, this nurse’s testimony is so wacky that even Mrs. Schiavo’s parents don’t call on her to offer the testimony in court cases. As has been stated, she’s been found to be utterly without credibility.
You give me too little credit, and yourself too much.
You wouldn’t understand my interest in this case in a million years.
My understanding is that Michael Schiavo has pinpointed the moment when he decided he would fight this to the end: it was when Terri’s parents declared in court that, should she become diabetic, they would be willing to amputate all four of her limbs, leaving her as just an unconscious head and torso attached to life support.
In what possible way does that speak to the dignity of life?
Daniel
An interview with Mr. Schiavo that my wife heard. But it’s a fair question, and if you’ll hold lekatt to strict standards of cites, it’s fair to hold me to the same; I’ll try to dig up something more direct.
A little googling turns up an explanation from a webpage hostile to my position: this cite claims Michael said this on a Larry King interview, and it refers to a question his attorney asked Bob Schindler:
Edlyn and lekatt, people with your viewpoints scare and sadden me. Your projection of what is God’s will and what is natural is very skewed by today’s medical abilities. Edlyn, if you truly looked “throughout history” you would see that until recently, a very large percentage of children died while young, mothers died from childbirth, people died from what is today relatively minor accidents, and older people did not live long enough to linger in a state of dementia.
Check for yourself. Google on “Victorian infant mortality” and do some research. Depending on the location (fresh air vs. slums), 10% - 50% of live-born children died before the age of one year old. Many others died before the age of five. Childbirth was risky. I can’t remember the figures, but I think 10-25% of women died as a result of pregnancy. Look into the history of it. This is why people used to have large families – they knew that several of the children would likely die before they reached adulthood. I would contend that this is more natural and more of God’s will (if indeed He does choose to interfere with life and death decisions) than what is experienced in today’s society. But I wouldn’t want to return to it.
The whole reason the question of “when does death occur” arises today is because of advances in medicine. Through medical advances (and yes, it could be argued that God allows mankind to use its brain to advance medicine) people are able to be medically rescued from situations that they would have died in years ago. In Terri Schiavo’s case, fifty years ago she would not have survived long enough to have been put on life support in the hospital. But today, a severely deformed fetus can be delivered and kept alive. An elderly person can be kept alive for decades – in pain and wishing for death. Because we can do this does not necessarily mean that it is right to do it, and it is not necessarily God’s will (unless He is a cruel and malicious God). Just because a body can be kept functioning does not mean that it should be, and that is the essence of the question that we, as a society, needs to address. This is the problem I have with Edlyn’s statement above. Mankind makes tens of thousands of decisions daily about who is worthy enough to continue – people with diabetes, malaria, birth defects, heart attacks, cancer, broken bones, infections, etc., etc. They could have died before, but today are considered “worthy enough” to be treated and live a fruitful existence.
I agree with you that starving a person to death can be considered cruel, but it is the only option available in most of America. I would much prefer physician assisted suicide be available, it would be much less cruel, but the powers that be (and I don’t mean God) have weighed in on that issue.
And as for today’s society making decisions about who should live or die, this happens all the time. As an example (my pet peeve), in 2002 43,000 people died in traffic accidents in America. In 2004 the figure was probably pretty much the same. It is proven that increased expenditure on roadway safety reduces fatality rates, but as a society, we have directed our administration to hold the Federal gas tax, which funds road safety projects, at $0.184/gallon since 1995. An increase could save lives, but it doesn’t happen. There are many other examples out there where society has determined that we cannot afford to spend the money to save lives. And every culture does it. We cannot afford the cost to protect everyone from everything at all times. As a result, lines are continually drawn. We just have to determine where to draw those lines. In response to the OP, in my opinion, the determination of a number of qualified doctors who have actually physically examined a patient should be able to render a decision as to if there is any sign of life in a body. I can’t think of any other way to devise a test. In Schiavo’s case, this has happened and the qualified doctors have determined that her essence is no longer there. Of course, a number of doctors, working outside of their specialties and working from edited video have come up to other conclusions, but I have no faith in their findings.
Edlyn, what is your belief that Terri could be taught to swallow again? This report from a State appointed Guardian Ad Litem indicates that she received various forms of therapy from 1990 through 1994 to no effect. Is there any indication that she could be trained now? (Warning, the link is to a large 1.8MB .pdf file, but it is a very comprehensive report completed for Governor Bush. The treatment efforts are mentioned on pages 10 and 11 of 40.)
I carefully read your post and agree with most of it, but it has little bearing on the case. Did Terri get a fair deal. No.
Her former husband has taken a common law wife and had children with her. In the state I live in he could be arrested for having two wives. He did not remember Terri’s wishes until 9 years went by, really now. When the medics were called to aid Terri they notified the police because it looked like a homicide. There was some talk she had been strangled.
The courts rulings were a farse. Michael should have been deemed estranged and control passed to the parents. But Michael received a great deal of money, cuting off all therapy to Terri.
Does this looks like a fair deal to you? Her parents are willing to take over all costs and support for Terri and they should have been allowed to do so.
What I write above comes from watching Terri’s brother and others on TV. She got the bums rush into death.
But, God doesn’t play any part in what I think, just common sense, and compassion for someone railroaded into death by a most horrible means – starvation. However, my knowledge of spiritual matters knows that though she will go through a terrible painful time, God will welcome her into the spirit realms.
As for the others they will “reap whatsoever they sow,” that is the law of spirit.
Don’t be sad for me, be sad for Terri. Fear, what would you have to fear from me, I am not killing anyone.
He won the money in 1992 and her therapy continued until at least 1994. And most of the money was earmarked for her medical care, so it wouldn’t have gone to him personally. If you’re implying his greed was a factor, I think you should recant.
Should we expect you to answer any of them? It is all well and good for you to “not take kindly” to questions that got to the heart of what passes for your argument, but you do yourself no favors by ducking the issue. How about answering them one at a time? At the very least, an explanation of your refusal to respond is *pro forma * in a debate.
[QOUTE]=lekatt] But I guess they can rejoyce now, while Terri slowly starves to dead, they got what they wanted.
[/QUOTE]
Who are “they”? Please show evidence that anyone is “rejoicing.”
I’m not sure what deal you think she’s supposed to get, but the case has been in court for almost a decade. If that’s not a fair deal, I don’t think you’re interested in one. You just don’t like the outcome.
That’s cute. I’ve read so many posts, articles and court opinions on this case that my eyes hurt. When this finally ends, it will be a physical relief to me because I will be straining my eyes less and will spend more time with books and less at the computer. lekatt, you are the most credulous person I’ve ever encoutered and I think you’d be up there in the “who ever lived” category. Leaving the comparisons to Hitler and Stalin out of it, there are plenty of claims in that have already been proven completely wrong. ‘Reading the news?’ If you think that editorial actually offered some insight, fine, but news? Get real. I’d link or repeat the relevant facts, but let’s not kid ourselves: you don’t care. You don’t care about the facts on the opposing side in any argument you get yourself into. You want to come in, do your spiel, deflect questions and leave. I play a couple of rounds of your game, and you link to that while asking me if I’m reading the news? Wow.
And her best friend, from what I’ve read. And, of course, evidence about her life and values. And the fact that her parents testimony to the contrary proved unconvincing, especially after they testified that they would not respect her wish to be let go even if she had it.
Yes. Most people don’t discuss their wishes with anyone other than their spouse or a close friend.
She will never again be able to communicate her will to anyone, if she even has any awareness at all.
It is my understanding that she does not swallow. No one really doubts that this reflex could be reimprinted: doctors have suggested using shock therapy. But even if it worked, she couldn’t be fed orally. These sorts of swallow reflexes are generally good enough to handle saliva and mucus, but they could never be trusted with food or water. There would be far too much danger of accidental aspiration, leading to deadly pnuemonia or even choking.
The source for the assertion about her parents being willing to amputate is their own sworn testimony. You can also read about it in the Wolfson GAL report.
I doubt it. Bigamy requires actual marriage, and I doubt anyone would go after a man whose other “wife” has been gone for 15 years.
Present some evidence for this, please. So far, it’s been nothing but slanderous accusation. If she had been strangled, it would be bleedingly obvious to the doctors that treated her. They noted no such symptoms. And where are the police reports about a possible homicide?
I love how people who haven’t attended trials, don’t know much about the rules of evidence, and continually misstate even the basic facts available to us laymen, think themselves in the position to declare court rulings a “farse.”
We don’t allow slavery in America anymore. Terri is not a puppet that we can give her parents to play with.
As far as anyone can tell, Terri’s brother didn’t come onto the scene, or even visit Terri very much, until after this became a big media event.
I don’t why you mentioned Hilter and Stalin, they were killers, and I am not a killer, Stalin starved millions to death. Looks like that would apply more to your side than mine.
You are right, I am not likely to change my mind. I see a husband that wants to get rid of his wife so he can “marry” his new wife. On the other side is a helpless 41 year old woman whose family is willing to take her in and provide for her needs. We only have hearsay evidence that she wanted to die.
So the path is clear, let her go to her parents and let them try to help her.
But in the middle we have science worshipping, cold blooded, individuals that state she must die because they say so.
I believe this is a wake-up call to all Americans to take their country back from “scientists” and liberals who place their rights about the rights of humanity. Laws are written by men, remember, but this country is run by the will of the people. I used to consider myself a liberal, but not any more, if Terri’s death is a product of their liberalism.