[QUOTE=Voyager]
Paperwork or no, if you were convinced that her wish was not to be maintained, you’d be fine with stopping feeding? If so, that’s fine - it becomes a matter of evidence, not ethics.
[/QUOTE]
Everything is a matter of ethics, and morality, especially if it’s personal.
Is it ethical to dodge the question?
I suspect this is not a good place to ask the question. I would imagine that a lot of people who do not hang out here still are very opposed to what happened to TS. Still, I would like to see some polling on the subject to see if I am right.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Don’t want to redebate this issue, but no I have no problem with following the wishes of the person who is ill. That was not done. She left no living will.
[/QUOTE]
If you didn’t want to debate the issue you wouldn’t have used such a loaded word.
[QUOTE=Snarky_Kong]
If you didn’t want to debate the issue you wouldn’t have used such a loaded word.
[/QUOTE]
No, he’s right; he doesn’t want to debate. He wants to take a huge shit and run away.
I might not characterize it as murder, but I think it was a homicide. I’m not a right-wing fundamentalist, as many on this board love to label anyone who disagrees with them. I’m still bothered by the case and I think it was handled poorly.
See Not Dead Yet for another perspective on the issue. Many people are very skilled at coming up with justifications to pull the plug on, or kill, people they consider “hopeless” and “Lebensunwertes Leben”.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Everything is a matter of ethics, and morality, especially if it’s personal.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. Since she couldn’t fly out of her body and tell all the experts they were wrong, and because she already said she wouldn’t want to be on life support, they were ethically and morally bound to abide by her request to be murdered should she be in a persistent vegetative state. She asked for it.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Don’t want to redebate this issue, but no I have no problem with following the wishes of the person who is ill. That was not done. She left no living will.
[/QUOTE]
All the weird-ass shit you believe in, and you won’t believe she laid out her wishes to her husband? Login| Stock Photography - Search 45.4 million Stock Photos, Stock Footage Video Clips, Royalty Free Images, and Illustrations
Terri Schiavo only made one explicit declaration of her wishes in this situation–she designated the person that she wanted to make decisions for her if she couldn’t. She did this by marrying him.
When you get married, you don’t have to fill out separate paperwork stating that your spouse is your next of kin. AFAIK, every state in the union explicity makes the spouse the health care proxy in the absence of any indication to the contrary. And why shouldn’t it be that way? I suppose I could come up with reasons why someone wouldn’t want his or her spouse to be making health care decisions, but it can’t be very common.
That was the one choice Terri made, and it should have been the only one that mattered, but the Republicans and the religionists worked their asses off to negate that choice.
Polls at the time indicated that about 85% of Americans would not want to be maintained in Terri’s condition. (This was despite the propaganda disseminated by her parents and their supporters that Terri was awake, alert, and lecturing the other hospice patients on theoretical physics.) Michael Schiavo knew his wife well enough to believe that she would be among that 85%. I don’t know why that’s so hard to believe.
Terri Schiavo needs to be brought up at every opportunity, because it was a total embarrassment that was emblematic of everything wrong with the Republicans–rejection of science, substitution of religion for common sense, and lack of respect for a young woman’s rights and decisions.
[QUOTE=DoctorJ]
Terri Schiavo only made one explicit declaration of her wishes in this situation–she designated the person that she wanted to make decisions for her if she couldn’t. She did this by marrying him.
When you get married, you don’t have to fill out separate paperwork stating that your spouse is your next of kin. AFAIK, every state in the union explicity makes the spouse the health care proxy in the absence of any indication to the contrary. And why shouldn’t it be that way? I suppose I could come up with reasons why someone wouldn’t want his or her spouse to be making health care decisions, but it can’t be very common.
That was the one choice Terri made, and it should have been the only one that mattered, but the Republicans and the religionists worked their asses off to negate that choice.
Polls at the time indicated that about 85% of Americans would not want to be maintained in Terri’s condition. (This was despite the propaganda disseminated by her parents and their supporters that Terri was awake, alert, and lecturing the other hospice patients on theoretical physics.) Michael Schiavo knew his wife well enough to believe that she would be among that 85%. I don’t know why that’s so hard to believe.
Terri Schiavo needs to be brought up at every opportunity, because it was a total embarrassment that was emblematic of everything wrong with the Republicans–rejection of science, substitution of religion for common sense, and lack of respect for a young woman’s rights and decisions.
[/QUOTE]
Her so-called husband deserted her, married another woman and had children. He violated the marriage vows and while this is not a crime it is immoral. He was a jerk. He wanted his real wife dead so he could legally marry his live-in. Now I don’t know about you, but I would think he would be the last person to have any say about his wife. Yes, morality counts, be thankful it does, otherwise you might find yourself being shot due to a broken leg. I will say no more on this issue, because I can’t understand the motives of the opposing side nor their lack of feelings.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Her so-called husband deserted her, married another woman and had children.
[/quote]
He didn’t marry until after Terry had been “murdered.” That’s how he was able to maintain control of her wishes being carried out.
You have no idea what their marriage vows stated, nor do you have any right to impose your morals on another person.
When come back to earth, bring cite.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Her so-called husband deserted her, married another woman and had children. He violated the marriage vows and while this is not a crime it is immoral. He was a jerk. He wanted his real wife dead so he could legally marry his live-in. Now I don’t know about you, but I would think he would be the last person to have any say about his wife. Yes, morality counts, be thankful it does, otherwise you might find yourself being shot due to a broken leg. I will say no more on this issue, because I can’t understand the motives of the opposing side nor their lack of feelings.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I can see how you might consider being by her side for 15 years, personally overseeing her care, and actually going through nursing school so he could care for her better to be "desert"ing her.
Actually, no…no, I can’t.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Yes, I can see how you might consider being by her side for 15 years, personally overseeing her care, and actually going through nursing school so he could care for her better to be "desert"ing her.
Actually, no…no, I can’t.
[/QUOTE]
That selfish bastid.
Despite the autopsy results, there are still people who insist Terry wasn’t beyond help and could have improved with therapy. The fact that her brain was shunken is attributed to her starvation and dehydration by said people.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Now I don’t know about you, but I would think he would be the last person to have any say about his wife.
[/QUOTE]
He was her husband. He had the legal right. I thought Republicans were all about the rule of law. Or are Republicans all about the rule of convenient, agreeable, God-compatible and Pope-approved laws and not the other kind, which we are free to break as long as our pastor says we can?
Or are you going to subject every marriage to government evaluation to determine whether a person is “good enough” to exercise his legal rights? Sorry, you can’t have children or own property or vote, because my religion says you’re subhuman. Wait, we tried that shit already.
Bottom line: Republicans had the choice of upholding the legal rights of family, or upholding the morality of the religious right, but they couldn’t do both. No matter what decision they made, they were shooting themselves in the foot. They chose to side with religion instead of law. Turns out the religious right wasn’t enough to carry the election for them.
I still remember how the last time I posted this, **lekatt ** just ignored it. So here it is for the ones that will like to learn about one of the court decisions that, besides agreeing with the husband, it also came just short of calling the few doctors supporting the idea that there was still something to do for her quacks:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5994647&postcount=25
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I will say no more on this issue
[/QUOTE]
Please, God, if you will grant me this one prayer, I solemnly promise to slay and burn a virgin lamb each and every day for the rest of my natural life. Amen.
Well, maybe not exactly a virgin lamb. No sense letting them go entirely to waste.
Yes, what a jerk, seeking companionship after his wife had been essentially dead for a decade, and still fighting for her dignity.
Why? Any judge in the world would have granted him a divorce. Michael could have walked away at any time and forgotten that Terri had ever existed. There wasn’t any money involved–in fact, he was offered millions by the nutjobs to walk away. The only motive Michael had for what he did was that he really believed he was doing the right thing for Terri.
Any of us should be so lucky as to have someone like Michael Schiavo fighting for us. I’d rather suffer a lifetime of lifeless indignity than have my wife go through what Michael has gone through, but I know she’d do it anyway, and that’s one of the many reasons I married her. (And yes, I hope she’d be able to move on with her life in the meantime.)
Um…OK.
It’s not as if you haven’t had those motives explained to you a few dozen times.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I may be wrong, but I thought at the time that it was going to be a problem for the religious right because they’d alienated so many people - most people could see this was a private matter and not one the government should have been involved in. You’ll notice Bill Frist isn’t running for President
[/QUOTE]
I’m going to bet that all it did was show the RR that they need to expend more effort stacking the courts.
-Joe
[QUOTE=Voyager]
how do immaterial souls age?
[/QUOTE]
Gracefully.