The Terri Schiavo Case

[joedelt]

the arguments bulleted are reasonable IMO, but we all know reasonable people disagree.

the most interesting and perhaps poinant are those referring to how this is infringing on her first amendment rights to freedom of religion. this might be one of those rare cases where church and state are infact intertwined with the state making legal decisions against her religion.

the equal protection thing is also interesting. not sure about that one just yet; i assume it would be illegal in florida to lock somone in a closet, post a guard and let them 'die naturally' from lack of food or water. not sure how this is any different for Terry, other then that her closet has a window.

OK, I found this article here that sounds a little proposturous to me. I might be getting mixed up in the laymen jargon, but from what I get from it, the parents are trying to get the state AND the federal government to act at the same time. What is the legality of this? Can somebody clear this up for me?

But I am more interested in the red bullet points at the bottom. These are the arguments that the Schindlers made in Terri's favour. These sound a little too far fetched to me. Do these really count for a person with PVS?

P.S.: Anybody ever seen the movie Dogma? Did Terri Schiavo happen to have an affection for skee-ball?

 

[Elevatorguy2]

Set aside the Constitution, Church, living wills, his rights, the parents rights and all the other mumbo jumbo and at the end of the day you want to intentionally kill a living and breathing human being. That’s just plain wrong.

 

[Green Mountain]

We are diffinately screwed up in America. Scott Peterson is sentenced to death by lethal injection. He will spend years on death row making appeals for a stay of execution. During that time he will be sucking up millions of dollars of taxpayer's money for legal costs.

When I am king. We will give Terri Schavio the lethal injection and we will let Scott Peterson starve to death.

 

[Far_X]

If people believe there is a time to die, and when our time is up, it should make no difference whether she is being fed or not. Just by force feeding her, are we making her exceed her allotted time on this earth? Just by not feeding her, are we actually murdering her? Euthanasia is a really sensitive issue. If you believe in an afterlife, then I think the decision to keep her body functioning no matter what the cost, is a very easy one to take.

 

[jonnythan]

Set aside the Constitution, Church, living wills, his rights, the parents rights and all the other mumbo jumbo and at the end of the day you want to intentionally kill a living and breathing human being. That’s just plain wrong.

This is the crux of the argument.. how do you define what is a living human being and what is not? No one can seem to agree on that.

Let me ask this...

If you think Terri is alive, is a 6 week old fetus alive? What are the requirements for saying an organism is a "living human being" and is thus protected by the rights thereof?

I'd especially like to hear from people who support both abortion and keeping the tube in Terri.

 

[jonnythan]

the most interesting and perhaps poinant are those referring to how this is infringing on her first amendment rights to freedom of religion. this might be one of those rare cases where church and state are infact intertwined with the state making legal decisions against her religion.

FWIW, the US government is not required to respect someone's religion when making legal decisions.. it's only required by the Constitution not to make any laws specifically concerning a religion. In other words, your beliefs may require human sacrifice, but the US government has no obligation not to prosecute you if you do so.. yet it can't specifically outlaw your religion.

 

[CathyI8205]

There's a difference between being alive and living. We both have living wills. I wouldn't want my family to butt in my and my husbands business.

 

[Lil' Irish Temper]

Euthanasia is broken down into two categories, active euthanasia being when doctors and family members decide to actively kill to end suffering. Passive euthanasia lets the suffering person die by withholding medical care allowing the disease kill instead of a person.

Common sense distinguishes a difference between active and passive euthanasia by the human decision to take another’s life. It is common belief that it is wrong to kill another human. Committing murder requires an action to end another human’s life, which makes a person responsible for the death of another. Using this logic, many people are unable to find a moral difference between murder and performing active euthanasia. Opponents to active euthanasia deem this action wrong because they believe the decision to end human life in all circumstances is morally wrong. On the other hand, passive euthanasia allows no one takes responsibility for a person’s death because a life ending human decision is not made. (ie letting nature run it's course)

It is not exactly correct to say that in passive euthanasia the doctor does nothing, for he does one thing, he lets the patient die. If one kind of euthanasia is morally correct then both are and vice versa. Think of it this way by the example of making the decision to shake someone’s hand. When two people meet for the first time, the traditional action to take would be to shake hands. If one person does not shake in an introduction, a conscious decision of inaction is made. From this inaction, there is a consequence of alienating the person being met. So by not taking making an action, there still is a consequence.

This idea is then used to prove that there is no moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Let's use the example of Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones to prove this point. Smith will receive a large inheritance if his baby cousin dies. So while his cousin is taking a bath, Smith walks in the bathroom and drowns the baby, making it look like an accident. Jones also will receive a large inheritance if his baby cousin dies. While his cousin is taking a bath, Jones walks into the bathroom intending to kill him. Instead, his cousin hits his head and falls in the water upon Jones’ entry. Jones does not save his cousin; he sits back and waits for him to die, thinking about the inheritance he will receive when life ends. Both men acted from the same motive, personal gain, and both had exactly the same end in view when they acted. There is no moral defense in these situations, therefore, the acts are deemed immoral. So if a doctor lets a patient die for humane reasons, this act uses the same moral rule to allow for a lethal injection for humane reasons.

 

[baltimoron]

Set aside the Constitution, Church, living wills, his rights, the parents rights and all the other mumbo jumbo and at the end of the day you want to intentionally kill a living and breathing human being. That’s just plain wrong.

She's breathing, but is she really living? She's no different from the plant on my desk right now. It works to keep itself alive by using biological processes, but is not really conciencious. Terri is the same way- her body works ot maintain homeostasis by keeping her blood pumping and having her brain stem active, but the thing that really makes her living is not there anymore. She's not even Terri, she's Terri's body. Court appointed doctors have said that she has no hope of ever getting better. Why should we keep her living?

Another article, just to throw out there:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=606647&page=1

 

[zboss]

This is probably the saddest point of all this. If he only would have allowed therapy in the early stages she might have recovered.

How do you know he didn't? How do you know we didn't want to second-guess the doctors?

If your body is unable to sustain itself then you need to let it go. I believe what he is doing shows nobility while I think the parents are just being selfish.