MERGED: Terri Schiavo

[A_Wanderer]

I am very curious here, your post is based on religion vs secularism. Yet, I haven't seen one conservative on here rage about what God wants for her. In fact, I've seen a number of liberals do that.

I do understand that, many "liberals" do use God and religion when justifying their arguments and I think that is piss poor as well. And I have not seen too many religious arguments about a right to life.

It seems that a significant piece of the lobbying in this particular case against pulling the plug is from certain Christian groups and these groups are aligned with the GOP. I myself would ally with the more libertarian elements of that party, and would hope to see them be the driving force ~ in this particular case the libertarian in me says hands off. The government should not get involved.

So to answer your question, political discourse and government must be kept seperate from religion. Christianity in the US is a force in the demographics as well as the politics so that distinction seems to get blurred. And when this happens badness seems to follow. The US is not a theocracy and neither is it's government, it is just that people are hyper-sensitive when that strip of grey starts to change.

Take no action and do no harm would seem to lend itself to the leave as is path. But I really don't think that dead or alive makes any difference to Terri because from what I have read all that is there is a body.

 

[indra]

You know I have read at least a few comments in this thread asking why not leave the tube in if it will make the parents happy. But almost every time the same people complain that her husband wants her dead and they just seem to despise the idea of him getting what they think he wants. I'd like to know what makes their wishes more valid than his.

It's supposed to be about her wishes, not either her husband's or her parents.

 

[drhark]

Hypocriteville, um no don't think so.

When you start talking about a soul being trapped in a body, you open up a huge topic of which the natural question would be, "when does the soul enter the body?" I'm not sure you want to go there.

 

[drhark]

You know I have read at least a few comments in this thread asking why not leave the tube in if it will make the parents happy. But almost every time the same people complain that her husband wants her dead and they just seem to despise the idea of him getting what they think he wants. I'd like to know what makes their wishes more valid than his.

It's supposed to be about her wishes, not either her husband's or her parents.

That's the whole legal issue here, what are her wishes? I think the court ruled incorrectly on the basis of flimsy evidence.

 

[BVS]

When you start talking about a soul being trapped in a body, you open up a huge topic of which the natural question would be, "when does the soul enter the body?" I'm not sure you want to go there.

No, I'm talking about an adult. If you believe in souls, then anyone who's already developed enough self to marry has a soul.

 

[BVS]

That's the whole legal issue here, what are her wishes? I think the court ruled incorrectly on the basis of flimsy evidence.

Why because you're a doctor, or are you a judge?

 

[DaveC]

That's the whole legal issue here, what are her wishes? I think the court ruled incorrectly on the basis of flimsy evidence.

She's got no brain, mate. No electrical activity within her skull.

She isn't a person anymore. Just a lump of skin and bones and tissue with the occasional muscle twitch. Why do we insist on keeping her alive?

 

[Lisa71]

I live in Tampa and this issue has been going on for years here in the local press. The national media is leaving out A LOT of the facts in this case. They are VERY bias in their reporting of the story (for and against). No matter what side you stand for I think it's just sad that it's come to this. It's a 3 ring circus and I'm sure she would have never wanted that. It's just sad....

 

[blueyedpoet]

instead of arguing can we just say a prayer or something like that for the grief that all involved parties have had to go through or will go through?

 

[nbcrusader]

Did you really mean to make her sound like a piece of meat?

Isn't that how people are treating her? Look through the thread at the number of "she's not a person comments" and consider your statement.

 

[cardosino]

Bush/Schiavo - What a hypocrite !

"The case is full of great ironies. A large part of Terri's hospice costs are paid by Medicaid, a program that the administration and conservatives in Congress would sharply reduce. Some of her other expenses have been covered by the million-dollar proceeds of a malpractice suit - the kind of suit that President Bush has fought to scale back."

- NPR commentator Daniel Schorr.

It's sad to hear Bush talk about the sanctity of life while sending as many people as can to death row while governor, and inflicting mass civilian and US casualties in Iraq for a war built on lies

Again, how this guy won the election is testament to Democratic weakness, not Ultra-Right wing strength.

And how are the democrats capitalizing on Bush's stance in the Schiavo case ? In typical incompetent style, they're doing nothing. As sad as Schiavo's case is, the dems could gain HUGE political mileage out of pointing out the hypocrisy of the current administration. If the roles were reversed, don't think the GOP wouldn't do it........

 

[Irvine511]

and Bush's approval rating has fallen from 53% to 45% in the last week alone.

so he's now not commenting any further on the matter.

such conviction!

 

[lady luck]

it's terrible we are talkng about rates and politics when a woman is going through such an agony...
where do the respect for life end up?

 

[pax]

(merged)

 

[drhark]

No, I'm talking about an adult. If you believe in souls, then anyone who's already developed enough self to marry has a soul.

So kids who haven't developed enough self don't have a soul?

 

[drhark]

Why because you're a doctor, or are you a judge?

Just a concerned citizen with a right to question judicial decisions

 

[all_i_want]

24 pages, 4000 views... you people sure love controversial tragedies. thousands of people die everyday for worse reasons. people who are fully able to experience their lives. keeping this woman alive is not going to do her any good, she is already gone. what is there to discuss here??

 

[pax]

I think people feel that her case is symbolic of larger problems--on both sides.

 

[drhark]

She's got no brain, mate. No electrical activity within her skull.

She isn't a person anymore. Just a lump of skin and bones and tissue with the occasional muscle twitch. Why do we insist on keeping her alive?

Possibly, or even perhaps probably, but that's not what her parent's think. I might have a different opinion were I there but I'm not. I won't support starving a woman against the wishes of the woman who bore her because of what she may or may not have told her husband.

WE are not keeping her alive. Her parents desire to continue to give her food and water.

Why not retry the case on its merits, or a trial de novo, as legislated by Congress, do a MRI, do a PETscan, let dissenting doctors testify. This case has really only been tried on it's merits one time.

The default position should be let her live, support her right to life, unless there's a preponderance of evidence that she would not wish to live, which there isn't.

I don't think you can have it both ways by saying, on one hand, she's got no brain activity, she's a vegetable, and on the other hand, act as if she has any intellectual capacity to think, "Damn, Michael, get me out of this body, we made a deal, remember?"

 

[drhark]

24 pages, 4000 views... you people sure love controversial tragedies. thousands of people die everyday for worse reasons. people who are fully able to experience their lives. keeping this woman alive is not going to do her any good, she is already gone. what is there to discuss here??

Whether it does her any good or not, she has a right to lofe guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[nbcrusader]

24 pages, 4000 views... you people sure love controversial tragedies. thousands of people die everyday for worse reasons. people who are fully able to experience their lives. keeping this woman alive is not going to do her any good, she is already gone. what is there to discuss here??

This is a dreadful standard.

How many irreversible conditions exist where the "quality of life" is not what we would want or accept?

 

[nathan1977]

"Do you really believe in that, Doctor?"

"Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything."

===

Kudos to whoever catches the reference.

 

[BonosSaint]

Pax brought up an interesting point. What are the real issues for this case? Tens of thousands of people are allowed to die every year, including by removal of sustenance. If this was a brief news item, written something like this:

"Forty-something year old woman, after fifteen years in a
possibly vegitative state, had feeding tubes removed
and all sustenance terminated after the majority of
physicians on the case held out no hope for recovery."

we would not be having this discussion. We probably would not think twice. Perhaps it is different because the media and the
court battles have personalized Ms. Schiavo and because there is such a war between husband and parents.

What are the real issues here? Is it the definition of life, the definition of viable life, a political agenda, a desire not to cheapen life further. Is it fear that this will lead to euthanasia of handicapped people, who are conscious but unable to lead what we define as a full life. Is it because the parents look so heroic and the husband so villainous? Or the parents look so selfish and the husband looks like he is carrying out Ms. Schiavo's wishes? Is it because the courts are overreaching or the government should stay out of family decisions? Is it that only God should end life or suffering or existence? We take life all the time. Is there a religious difference between those we take that we perceive as guilty and those we take we perceive as innocent? If there was a living will, would that trump everything?
Do we really think that Ms. Schiavo has any chance for a viable life or that she knows what is happening at all? And if she does not, does it matter? And who will define what is a viable life?

Is this really about Terri Schiavo for most people or is it a continuation of the ongoing cultural war? All I know is this is a family situation that seems to have gone horriby awry on all sides.

 

[drhark]

All very good and important questions that have been raised by this case. These questions need to be answered. I feel if we do not answer these questions, they will be answered for us.

 

[BonosSaint]

Whether it does her any good or not, she has a right to lofe guaranteed by the Constitution.

The right to life is referenced in the Declaration of Independence. I do not think the right to life is referenced in the Constitution specifically. Due process is. Not saying that it should be in the Constitution or not, but I do not believe it is. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a long time since I've read the whole thing. That being said, there are a whole lot of issues that need to be resolved.

 

[Irvine511]

Possibly, or even perhaps probably, but that's not what her parent's think. I might have a different opinion were I there but I'm not. I won't support starving a woman against the wishes of the woman who bore her because of what she may or may not have told her husband.

WE are not keeping her alive. Her parents desire to continue to give her food and water.

quite simply, it is not her parent's decision to make. it simply doesn't matter, legally, what her parents think. Terri was an adult who got married -- she chose her partner for life, and he became her legal guardian, and if Michael Schiavo were in a coma, then Terri would be making the decisions for him.

unless, of course, you're gay, and you're then forced to remain a child for life in many states. but that's another topic.

you're free to question court decisions, but unless you were in that courtroom, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that your reading of the case is more valid than the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals -- which is absolutely STACKED with republicans -- that voted, i think, 10-2 in favor of Mr. Schiavo.

if Terri's parent's weren't evangelical Christians with a keen sense of media savvy, do you even think this would be an issue? do you not think cases similar to this have happened before, and will happen again, but none of us will ever hear about it because there's nothing politically at stake?

 

[drhark]

I was talking about "right to LOFE", dummy.


But seriously
14th amendment :"... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

As far as "right" to life, we can look at the explicit intent of the forefathers as written in the founding document of this country.

The question of due process is a loaded one that's wide open to interpretation. Not an easy one, but I personally don't believe due process is served when a specific act of Congress is completely ignored.

 

[melon]

The question of due process is a loaded one that's wide open to interpretation. Not an easy one, but I personally don't believe due process is served when a specific act of Congress is completely ignored.

It wasn't ignored at all. The act of Congress allowed it to be entertained in federal court. It was. Just because the judiciary isn't a rubber stamp for the conservative agenda doesn't mean that "due process" was denied.

Melon

 

[drhark]

quite simply, it is not her parent's decision to make. it simply doesn't matter, legally, what her parents think. Terri was an adult who got married -- she chose her partner for life, and he became her legal guardian, and if Michael Schiavo were in a coma, then Terri would be making the decisions for him.

unless, of course, you're gay, and you're then forced to remain a child for life in many states. but that's another topic.

you're free to question court decisions, but unless you were in that courtroom, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that your reading of the case is more valid than the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals -- which is absolutely STACKED with republicans -- that voted, i think, 10-2 in favor of Mr. Schiavo.

if Terri's parent's weren't evangelical Christians with a keen sense of media savvy, do you even think this would be an issue? do you not think cases similar to this have happened before, and will happen again, but none of us will ever hear about it because there's nothing politically at stake?

Legal guardians are not allowed to make decisions to starve anyone to death. They can make the decision to remove life support. I beleive there is precedent in other cases that food and water do not constitute life support.

Very sticky issues. I prefer to side with Terri's life.

The 11th circuit did not re-review the merits of the case.

 

[drhark]

It wasn't ignored at all. The act of Congress allowed it to be entertained in federal court. It was. Just because the judiciary isn't a rubber stamp for the conservative agenda doesn't mean that "due process" was denied.

Melon

I could be wrong, but I believe the act of Congress called a '"trial de novo", or a trial de novo was assumed to be required when changing the jurisdiction to the federal courts.