The Terri Schiavo Case

[MikeFerrara]

Well think about what you are trying to do. You are taking thousands of years old writings and trying to apply them to modern medical and legal issues. Duh?


The legal issue is: Who is the responsible proxy for a person regarding medical treatment in the case of an incapacitated patient who left no evidence of intent in writing?

The medical issue is: Do individuals have the right to choose for themselves what medical procedures are to be performed on them?

Two thousand years ago, neither was an issue at all.

Not true. While 2000+ years ago feeding tubes didn't exist, the duties of husbands, wifes, children, parents and the community (church) are well covered. It still works when followed. When not followed we have these kinds of messes as people flounder in a vein attempt to find a better answer.

 

[Potapko]

Well think about what you are trying to do. You are taking thousands of years old writings and trying to apply them to modern medical and legal issues. Duh?
.

Sorry about the duh response. I am really not trying to do that at all, although of course from a Christian perspective those "writings" are just as relevent today as they were 2000 years ago.

The simple societal question here is what is the value of a human life. I know there are some that would make it equal to the life of a palm tree or a fruit fly. I think this view is in the "way out" zone. However, our society's decisions have been historically based on the foundation of Biblical morality. As we as a nation continue to redefine and cheapen the value of a persons life, we are no better than any other genocidal dictator that has ever worked his evil on a group of people. Who decides what is right and wrong? we do. Who decides who lives or dies? we do. Who has the final say? we do. Without a non-changing standard this is what we are left with

The measure of a society is how they treat their weakest and least "self sufficient" members. For an individual or a group to decide that another's "quality of life" isn't worth continuing, is making a judgment call that belongs to God alone. If feeding oneself becomes the standard we can open the door to killing all manner of people. We are already killing the weakest. This is the next natural step

It has been said and I must agree. If God does not soon judge America for her wickedness, He will soon need to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Ok, down off the soapbox for now.
Have a great Easter, one family in Florida won't because they are waiting for their daughter to starve to death or die of thirst.

 

[triton94949]

Not true. While 2000+ years ago feeding tubes didn't exist, the duties of husbands, wifes, children, parents and the community (church) are well covered. It still works when followed. When not followed we have these kinds of messes as people flounder in a vein attempt to find a better answer.

In contrast, 2000 years ago physicians (like St. Luke in the Gospels) would not have stuck a tube into someone to keep them alive "artificially." 2000 years ago, when you were seriously wounded or injured you died of the wound. The modern medical issue is the right to disconnect these modern devices, and the modern legal issue is who may speak for an incapacitated victim?

2000 years ago, children were the responsibility of their parents until married, and then once married the wife and children became the responsibility of the father, and his oldest son took responsibility for the father and all else when he died or became feeble.

If you want to argue from the principles of the Bible and of society 2000 years ago, then the husband would have sole responsibilty and final say, even though he had 50 wives and 100 concubines. The judges of 2000 years ago would have simply told Terri Schiavo's husband to do as he saw fit. The parents of Terri Schiavo would have long since been out of the picture. The parents would have had veto power over the original marriage at the time of betrothal, but subsequently, they would have no recourse; they themselves would be the responsibility of their own eldest son.

It amazes me how folks today can get such weird ideas of what is in the Bible and what is not in the Bible; almost as if they themselves have never even read the bible; and that includes the amateur preachers as well.

Mike I respect your personal views, but surely you can see that they are precisely that: personal and unfounded, neither by history, nor by Judeo-Christian scripture.

 

[H2Andy]

It has been said and I must agree. If God does not soon judge America for her wickedness, He will soon need to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.

if there were a God who punishes the wicked, most of the world would have
been wiped out long ago.

also, if the Christian God existed, he would be all-knowing and all-wise, and wouldn't
have to apologize to anyone for anything, ever.

back to Terri.

her parents want her to receive communion.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20050326/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_15

 

[triton94949]

Sorry about the duh response. I am really not trying to do that at all, although of course from a Christian perspective those "writings" are just as relevent today as they were 2000 years ago.

...

Some background, to perhaps bridge the gap between 2000 years ago and today:

In the 1530s, the Spanish theologian Francisco de Vitoria wrote that a sick man could refuse food without risk of committing a mortal sin if he had no hope of survival. Another prominent Catholic theologian, Domingo Banez, built on Vitoria's premise in 1595 by establishing the guideline that "ordinary" means of medical treatment were obligatory, but "extraordinary" means -- methods that would cause great pain or burdens -- were not required. That position was further solidified in 1957 by Pope Pius XII, considered the modern architect of Catholic medical ethics, who told a group of anesthesiologists that they were not required to provide life-sustaining care unless there was a reasonable hope of recovery.

Pope John Paul II has said feeding tubes are "morally obligatory" for most patients in vegetative states, and high-ranking cardinals have followed up by referencing Schiavo, saying that removing her feeding tube could lead to legalized euthanasia.

Theologians disagree about whether the pope is altering Catholic tradition, but there is consensus across the ideological spectrum that the Vatican's position in the Schiavo case has given Roman Catholics a new calculus for end-of-life decision making.

If the Popes cannot agree, then arguing amongst ourselves about religious ethics, by less august religionists such as we here are, is going to be useless, as well as being irrelevant.

Irrelevant, because in America, it is courtroom judges who alone are empowered by American law to make life and death decisions in general. And they are sworn to look towards constitutional, statutory, and precendential law, rather than to any decrees of religious leaders.

I am hoping that any further debating based on religion will therefore abate.

 

[jonnythan]

The following quote appeared in a CNN article today:

Bob and Mary Schindler have now lost nearly 30 legal opinions in both state and federal courts, which have consistently sided with their daughter's husband -- and legal guardian -- Michael Schiavo.

 

[Snowbear]

if there were a God who punishes the wicked, most of the world would have
been wiped out long ago.

Maybe the punishment comes later? Maybe it's not for us to know the timing of His plan?

Just 'cause someone calls himself a preacher or a pope, doesn't mean it's his place to tell God or His people what to do.

also, if the Christian God existed, he would be all-knowing and all-wise, and wouldn't
have to apologize to anyone for anything, ever.

You are correct... He is and He doesn't. Ever.

 

[triton94949]

Maybe the punishment comes later? Maybe it's not for us to know the timing of His plan? ...

This is precisely the theme of the recent movie CONSTANTINE with Keanu Reeves. Excellent movie. A little scary. But excellent.

 

[MikeFerrara]

In contrast, 2000 years ago physicians (like St. Luke in the Gospels) would not have stuck a tube into someone to keep them alive "artificially." 2000 years ago, when you were seriously wounded or injured you died of the wound. The modern medical issue is the right to disconnect these modern devices, and the modern legal issue is who may speak for an incapacitated victim?

2000 years ago, children were the responsibility of their parents until married, and then once married the wife and children became the responsibility of the father, and his oldest son took responsibility for the father and all else when he died or became feeble.

If you want to argue from the principles of the Bible and of society 2000 years ago, then the husband would have sole responsibilty and final say, even though he had 50 wives and 100 concubines. The judges of 2000 years ago would have simply told Terri Schiavo's husband to do as he saw fit. The parents of Terri Schiavo would have long since been out of the picture. The parents would have had veto power over the original marriage at the time of betrothal, but subsequently, they would have no recourse; they themselves would be the responsibility of their own eldest son.

It amazes me how folks today can get such weird ideas of what is in the Bible and what is not in the Bible; almost as if they themselves have never even read the bible; and that includes the amateur preachers as well.

Mike I respect your personal views, but surely you can see that they are precisely that: personal and unfounded, neither by history, nor by Judeo-Christian scripture.

What did Jesus himself say about adultery? What did Old Testement law say about it? Check it out.

 

[triton94949]

What did Jesus himself say about adultery?

You are going to run into a problem with defining adultery.

You are probably thinking that when a man whose lawfully wedded wife is in a coma or vegetative state for 15 years, and he takes another common law woman and has 2 kids by her, that this is somehow adultery. If you read the Old Testament, adultery has nothing to do with that. You need to search and look in the timeframe of Moses (1400 BCE) regarding the origin of the Hebrew term for adultery.

If you want to flash forward to Jesus's (Jehosua Nazareti) time at 33 AD, then you have the same issue of definition, since He was referring to the older law of Moses. What Jesus was really saying was to keep your thoughts pure. He was not condemning plural marriage nor remarriage. Today plural marriage is a modern taboo, however if you go to the Middle East you see Arabs still practicing it all over. It has been practiced on the Earth for thousands of years.

Also, in Jesus' time, physicians (like St. Luke in the Gospels) did not put feeding tubes into comatous or vegetative victims. In Jesus' time, your wife was usually with you, your companion, and not comatous or vegetative in a hospital bed for 15 years.

I did hear what the Roman Catholic priest of Terri Schaivo's family said on the NBC news interview. Although I must defer to him as being a professional reverend with respect to views of the modern Church with its modern doctrines, his views on Florida and Federal law do not impress me very much.