• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

right to life - right to die

Here's the latest:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/schiavo.brain-damaged/index.html

If you read the article they mention Terri's currently functioning at the level of a 6-11 month aged child.

They also state as long as the feeding tube stays in place she could easily survive another 30-40 years.

And for those that think the husbands a complete ass there's a time line on abcnews.com's web site that says he stuck with her for 8 years before he started searching for a way to end her misery. His story is really falling through the cracks in this case. At least until everybody has to appear in front of Congress.
 
I've only recently learned about this story and don't really know the ins and outs of it, so I haven't really formulated an opinion on this one way or the other, plus it's a horribly difficult thing to have to think about.

A quote from that CNN article, Motokid:

Without liquids, it could take Schiavo two to four weeks to die from dehydration.
Click to expand...

Ouch.

Doesn't seem terribly humane to me, especially if she *does* have some degree of awareness of what's happening to her.
 
They've removed the feeding tube. Here's the latest.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/19/schiavo.brain-damaged/index.html

Interesting side bar on web page that explains "persistant vegitative state"


And yeah, I know the act of starving her to death sounds extremely harsh, but so does condemming her to possibly the next 40 years of being stuck in the world she lives in right now. What happens when her parents die? She'd end up in some state/government run nursing home. From some of the stories I've heard about those places wouldn't that be a criminal act worse than death?

Nobodies really touching on what you would like to happen if it was you in this situation. Do you have a living will that states your wishes in case something like this happened to you? I do, but I certainly did not when I was Terri's age. And I now question if mine is worded specifically enough to make sure this type of thing does not happen to me.
 
Husband of Terri Schiavo to appear on "Larry King Live" tonight on CNN at 9:00pm east coast time.

Never really cared for Larry King but it should be interesting to hear the husbands side of the story for once.
 
Did anybody catch this interview?

There was mention of a law President Bush signed when he was still Governor of Texas that allowed the state to legally remove all life support from patients regardless of living will or not if the patient, or the patient's family was no longer capable of paying for their medical treatment.

Interesting that he believes it's ok to "kill" somebody regardless of their wishes based on financial abilities to pay for people in Texas, but in this case, in Florida, he wants to error on the side of life.
 
“My reasoning is simple - we cant give life, we shouldnt take it away either.”

Actually Sanyuja, humans give life all the time. There’s invetro-fertilization (test tube babies), there’s fertility drugs that help women conceive who otherwise might never be able to, there’s all kinds of tests and medications that help detect diseases, and immunizations that prolong life and create new life where otherwise nature would surely have ended it. Life expectancy of humans in the last hundred years has grown by leaps and bounds because man has developed ways to create life and prolong life from places and means that were unthinkable 100 years ago.

100 years ago my wife and first child probably would have died during the birth, but a cesarean section allowed both to be happy and healthy. My wife is about 5 feet tall and weighed 100 pounds when she got pregnant. She never went into labor, my daughter was just under 10 pounds at birth and almost 3 weeks past her due date. My wife could not have delivered a 10+ pound baby if she ever would have gone into labor to begin with.

Chemotherapy gives life. Penicillin gives life. People don’t die from small pox or chicken pox anymore (in most developed nations that is).

Man plays GOD all the time when trying to save lives, create lives, and improve lives. Sometimes this backfires and causes what’s happened to Terri Schiavo.

The irony is not lost on how some of the very “advances” man has made in saving/creating lives helps create some of these horribly difficult situations.
 
This is a sad issue. Make sure you have a living will, boys and girls.

I can't speak for others, but I wouldn't want this for myself. This isn't something that going to be cured. She has no quality of life and it's a huge emotional and financial burden to her family. I wouldn't want that for my family.
 
I think Congress should butt out.

I hate the way the are jumping on this to make political capital. It's being dealt with in the judiciary and they should allow that process to happen. Whatever decision is reached will not be right or wrong--it will be morally ambiguous, open to debate, and difficult--and there will never be a happy outcome for anyone involved.

For Congress and Bush to legislate--as if they have some higher wisdom to contribute (ha!)-- at this point is just obvious pandering to the right-to-life crowd. Their unanimity on this just shows what a bunch of cowardly unprincipled sychophants they all are.
 
So I understand that the courts ruled that the feeding tube should not be replaced. It could take her 14 days to die of dehydration. Man, that is *not* the way I would want to go.
 
I couldn't agree more, novella. People should have the right to live, and to die if they wish. I wouldn't however, go so far as to call them cowardly or unprincipled. It's much more difficult to stand up for one's principles then it is to bend in the face of opposition.
 
Robert said:
I couldn't agree more, novella. People should have the right to live, and to die if they wish. I wouldn't however, go so far as to call them cowardly or unprincipled. It's much more difficult to stand up for one's principles then it is to bend in the face of opposition.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the members of Congress who unanimously voted to keep her alive. It's a no-brainer that every one of them will gain something by supporting that view and lose something by opposing it, despite the fact that many of the probably believe that the tube should be removed. It's political pandering of the worst sort. I don't think they're standing up for their principles; they're kowtowing in the direction of the most votes.
 
I understand what you're saying, novella.

They had to know it would get struck down in the courts. It's possible some of them voted to make a public record of their stance on the issue.
 
novella said:
For Congress and Bush to legislate--as if they have some higher wisdom to contribute (ha!)-- at this point is just obvious pandering to the right-to-life crowd. Their unanimity on this just shows what a bunch of cowardly unprincipled sychophants they all are.
Click to expand...
It might not be a great idea to say that the politicians are pandering to the "right-to-life crowd" since the ENTIRE Senate (including the "right-to-die crowd" Democrats) voted to pass the bill. This isn't a partisan issue. It's simply about whether or not someone should be allowed to starve to death. The answer = NO.
 
Why not just give her an injection that will help her die within seconds? Starving to death is just plain stupid, when there are things that can do it faster.
 
There aren't many states in the US that practice active euthanasia, hay82. I wish all states did for the sake of the suffering.
 
Robert said:
There aren't many states in the US that practice active euthanasia, hay82. I wish all states did for the sake of the suffering.
Click to expand...
I figured that might be the case, but I just wondered why. How can anyone find it better to let the woman starve to death, than just ending it in seconds. In my mind there is no difference to the metod except for the time it takes.
 
hay82 said:
I figured that might be the case, but I just wondered why. How can anyone find it better to let the woman starve to death, than just ending it in seconds. In my mind there is no difference to the metod except for the time it takes.
Click to expand...

In the minds of some, there is a world of difference between taking a life and doing nothing to prevent death.

In this case, it's probably not a big deal becauase the doctors say she won't suffer.
 
How can a person not suffer if they're being starved to death? She's plenty responsive as it is. I find it hard to believe that she's not going to feel any pain as her body wastes away from lack of nutrition. If people ever used starvation a way to "put animals out of their misery," you can bet activists and whatnot would be furious. I just find it horrifying that it's ok to do so to a human being.
 
Not my words, her doctors said she wouldn't suffer. I don't know if it's because of her brain damage or because they'll make sure she doesn't suffer. I'm against letting any person suffer. I'd vote for active euthanasia if someone would put it on the ballot.
 
sweetsymphony said:
It might not be a great idea to say that the politicians are pandering to the "right-to-life crowd" since the ENTIRE Senate (including the "right-to-die crowd" Democrats) voted to pass the bill. This isn't a partisan issue. It's simply about whether or not someone should be allowed to starve to death. The answer = NO.
Click to expand...

There's no political downside to supporting the bill, whether you believe in it or not. There's a huge downside to opposing it. In my book, that's pandering, because it has no connection to what the people voting to pass the bill really believe. Apparently you agree with the bill. That's not the issue. My point is that it's completely implausible that every member of Congress actually personally believes that this bill should be passed, but they are too cowardly and politically weak to say what they really think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top