We had this debate in my GED class since yesterday. In no way do i feel the Prez has the right to decide for us. That poor woman has been dead for long time now but its her parents that refuse to let her go. While i may understand their grief, I certainly wouldnt want any of my children to just lie there as a vegetable with no chance of recovery. I say Bush should not try and get that law passed and keep his mind out of private and family buisness and run the country and not our lives. Let Terri die with dignity and grace.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Faminedynasty
Active Member
There are worse things than death, and no one would want to live like that. 15 years... 15 years... This whole effort to stop this poor woman from dying is a publicity stunt from the anti-abortion, anti-right to die religious right. They act as if life is fundamentally sacred, and yet, they are willing to electrify death row inmates to death, even if it isn't especially clear whether they are guilty. They are willing to bomb downtown baghdad, killing women and children in huge numbers. In short, their stance is incoherent, and their goal is to limit personal freedoms and to impose their religious beliefs on us, moving our nation closer to theocracy. Shame on every democrat who lacked the backbone to stand against these shameless extremeists. The fact that our government interfered in this matter calls into question their credibility--EVEN THEIR VALIDITY--as representatives of democracy. Shame on them all for exploiting this woman and her family.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Faminedynasty,
) just voicing my opinion that all life is sacred and should be cherished and protected... from conception to natural death.
Scott
Some of us respect all life and are anti-death penalty and anti-war...... I am not trying to create a theocracy (we tried that once.... it does not work
) just voicing my opinion that all life is sacred and should be cherished and protected... from conception to natural death.Scott
I just wish issues as important as this one could be resolved without demonizing anyone. I heard a talk radio host tonight claim that Terry Shiavo was being killed as part of a political conspiracy! Why do some people feel it's necessary to drag nonsense into the debate?
EnhancedSpirit
High Priestess
Terry's husband is doing what he thinks is best for his wife. Her parents think they are doing what's right for her. Neither is wrong. It is not for us to judge. We should all give thanks that we are not in this position from any angle. But I ask this, is she being allowed to live, or forced to live. What if it was her time to go a long time ago. Maybe she is suppossed to be an angel now, and she is being held prisoner in her own body. If she is meant to live, leave it up to God, not the doctors, or her family, or machines.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
We should not seek to respect or protect "life" at the cost of human dignity, justice, and basic human rights.
Death is perfectly natural for all of us. We have medical technologies that can, at times, keep our bodies going for several years after all other functions have ceased (eg, respirators and feeding tubes). These technologies are unnatural and give us a false sense that we can extend our "life" without regards to our quality of life. It is a basic human right to chose medical treatment, and a basic right to refuse treatment when the treatment is futile, does more harm than good (like treatment of extremely severe burns, extreme treatments that will not cure), or even when the treatment is too expensive.
We also have the right to die with dignity. We can write in our wills and tell our loved ones a tremendous amount of our wishes, and legally our wishes must be kept as long as we provide legal and responsible means by which our wishes can be fulfilled.
Also in this case and in our culture (and Biblically for Christians), the husband has the first responsiblity to carry out the wife's wishes, both verbal and written. He is the next of kin. Be careful who you marry.
Death is perfectly natural for all of us. We have medical technologies that can, at times, keep our bodies going for several years after all other functions have ceased (eg, respirators and feeding tubes). These technologies are unnatural and give us a false sense that we can extend our "life" without regards to our quality of life. It is a basic human right to chose medical treatment, and a basic right to refuse treatment when the treatment is futile, does more harm than good (like treatment of extremely severe burns, extreme treatments that will not cure), or even when the treatment is too expensive.
We also have the right to die with dignity. We can write in our wills and tell our loved ones a tremendous amount of our wishes, and legally our wishes must be kept as long as we provide legal and responsible means by which our wishes can be fulfilled.
Also in this case and in our culture (and Biblically for Christians), the husband has the first responsiblity to carry out the wife's wishes, both verbal and written. He is the next of kin. Be careful who you marry.
BUDDY
User of Aspercreme
I would agree with you in almost every case out there angellous, but in this case there is sufficient evidence to believe that:
1) She may not have wanted this type of death
2) She may have been misdiagnosed
3) There is a possibility of rehabilitation
4) She is not in a vegetative state
5) She can swallow (she does not drool, she swallows her own oral secressions), and with rehabilitation she may be able to learn to chew and eat
6) The initial court decision that she was in a vegetative state was made on the testimony of three doctors that are right to die supporters and therefore had biased testimony. There were no doctors to testify for the opposing view. Once the decision was made (misdiagnosis ny the court) all future cases and appeals were made with the assumption that the first decision made was the correct one and therefore, any argument made or evidence given by Terri's lawyer was thrown out. This has been a collosal collapse of the court system. This case is not your cut and dry right to die case and anyone who sees it that way really needs to take a closer look at the evidence.
1) She may not have wanted this type of death
2) She may have been misdiagnosed
3) There is a possibility of rehabilitation
4) She is not in a vegetative state
5) She can swallow (she does not drool, she swallows her own oral secressions), and with rehabilitation she may be able to learn to chew and eat
6) The initial court decision that she was in a vegetative state was made on the testimony of three doctors that are right to die supporters and therefore had biased testimony. There were no doctors to testify for the opposing view. Once the decision was made (misdiagnosis ny the court) all future cases and appeals were made with the assumption that the first decision made was the correct one and therefore, any argument made or evidence given by Terri's lawyer was thrown out. This has been a collosal collapse of the court system. This case is not your cut and dry right to die case and anyone who sees it that way really needs to take a closer look at the evidence.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
Her parents actually stated in court that had she unequivocally said to their faces,'I would not wish to live in this manner.' they would still be pursuing this fight. It comes down to what they want at this stage...Terri's wishes have been superceded by those of her parents.EnhancedSpirit said:
EnhancedSpirit
High Priestess
I would never think to tell my parents that I don't want to live like that, because I assume they will have already passed before I'd have to face something like that. This is something I would have discussed with my husband, not my parents.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
On the current affairs program I was watching last night with archive footage of Jeb Bush on it stating that Terri may have been misdiagnosed, it was then revealed that the doctor who stated this hadn't even laid eyes on Terri - nor even discussed the case with Terri's treating physician - , so she wasn't in a position to actually formulate more than a vague opinion.EEWRED said:
The osteopath that stood up and said he could rehabilitate her? Well, Terri's parents had so much faith in him and his skills that when asked to produce 2 expert witnesses, he wasn't one of them, and the two they did produce - while eminently qualified - were unable to produce clear and compelling cases, unlike the 2 expert witnesses produced by Michael Schiavo, or the independant one chosen by the court.
Terris parents have said - in court - that they realise she IS in a persistant vegitative state. They have also said that they would keep her alive at all costs - completely limbless and suffering from numerous chronic illnesses if it came down to it. While Michael Schiavo's word as to what Terri told him she would have wanted may be not good enough for some, I question the motives of people who have stated they would keep the empty shell of their child alive as long as they could regardless of her wishes, and who have not hesitated to demonize their son-in-law and accuse him of criminal acts - in the emails they are circulating and in the media - in an attempt to achieve their ends.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdfEEWRED said:
It was originally posted in the Schiavo and Political Rhetoric thread. Makes for extremely interesting reading - if as the original poster said - you scrawl through the couple of pages of legalise and get straight into the background of the case.
linwood
Well-Known Member
1) She may not have wanted this type of death
The only person in a position to know what she wanted is her husband.
Through the testimony of Mr.Shiavo numerous court decisions have stated that it was not her intention to be kept alive this way.
2) She may have been misdiagnosed
CAT scans show that the majority of her cerebral cortext has liquified.
This is irreparable damage that cannot be undone.
3) There is a possibility of rehabilitation
Not without a cerebral cortex
4) She is not in a vegetative state
This could be arguable but without a cerebral cortex it doesnt really matter what you call it.
5) She can swallow (she does not drool, she swallows her own oral secressions), and with rehabilitation she may be able to learn to chew and eat
Mr.Schiavos brother was just on CNN last night discussing how the hospice workers have been applying antibiotics to her lips due to the sores from the moisture/saliva that escapes her mouth.
She has been this way for 15 years, she can`t chew, she can`t eat.
6) The initial court decision that she was in a vegetative state was made on the testimony of three doctors that are right to die supporters and therefore had biased testimony. There were no doctors to testify for the opposing view.
There have been numerous unbiased doctors since that time years ago that have concurred with those "biased" doctors.
On the other hand the doctor that Jeb Bush just had observe her for an hour is a board member of The Center for Bioethics and Human dignity.
This org is based on Christian ethics and it`s mission promotes Christian ethics in medicine.
http://www.cbhd.org/aboutcbhd/staff/cheshire.htm
Thats biased and it will not stand, Greer will see through it.
Cheshire is also an adamant opponent of stem cell research, willing to hold science and humanity back for his religious beliefs.
The doctor is a quack.
No one has the right to deny anyone their constitutional rights.
Terrys righst have been established over and over again in State courts and federal courts by her husband and by her friends.
She is being used as a political and religious pawn by everyone from teh President to congress to my governor to the Pope.
Do you really think she`d like those images of her in such a state broadcasted worldwide for the veiwing pleasure of this sick world?
Give her some dignity.
Let her go.
The only person in a position to know what she wanted is her husband.
Through the testimony of Mr.Shiavo numerous court decisions have stated that it was not her intention to be kept alive this way.
2) She may have been misdiagnosed
CAT scans show that the majority of her cerebral cortext has liquified.
This is irreparable damage that cannot be undone.
3) There is a possibility of rehabilitation
Not without a cerebral cortex
4) She is not in a vegetative state
This could be arguable but without a cerebral cortex it doesnt really matter what you call it.
5) She can swallow (she does not drool, she swallows her own oral secressions), and with rehabilitation she may be able to learn to chew and eat
Mr.Schiavos brother was just on CNN last night discussing how the hospice workers have been applying antibiotics to her lips due to the sores from the moisture/saliva that escapes her mouth.
She has been this way for 15 years, she can`t chew, she can`t eat.
6) The initial court decision that she was in a vegetative state was made on the testimony of three doctors that are right to die supporters and therefore had biased testimony. There were no doctors to testify for the opposing view.
There have been numerous unbiased doctors since that time years ago that have concurred with those "biased" doctors.
On the other hand the doctor that Jeb Bush just had observe her for an hour is a board member of The Center for Bioethics and Human dignity.
This org is based on Christian ethics and it`s mission promotes Christian ethics in medicine.
http://www.cbhd.org/aboutcbhd/staff/cheshire.htm
Thats biased and it will not stand, Greer will see through it.
Cheshire is also an adamant opponent of stem cell research, willing to hold science and humanity back for his religious beliefs.
The doctor is a quack.
No one has the right to deny anyone their constitutional rights.
Terrys righst have been established over and over again in State courts and federal courts by her husband and by her friends.
She is being used as a political and religious pawn by everyone from teh President to congress to my governor to the Pope.
Do you really think she`d like those images of her in such a state broadcasted worldwide for the veiwing pleasure of this sick world?
Give her some dignity.
Let her go.
BUDDY
User of Aspercreme
I would be happy to let someone go when their is no hope for recovery. For every example that you give to support letting this women die, I can give equal evidence to let this women live. I understand your opinion regarding this case, but I must respectfully disagree with you. There is just to much out there that does not make sense and to many differing opions regarding her brain function for me to agree. The CAT scan that you offer as evidence shows damage to brain function, it does not show that the cerebral cortex is "liquified" as you put it. I say Hardball last night as well. Chris Matthews kept using this term and it simply is an inacurrate description. I agree that many doctors have been called in to see her, but you must agree that none of them can absolutely agree on her state of health. In this case, I think that a presumption of life is the most responsible thing to do. Now, if she were to have a cardiac arrest, and the order to not resusitate is given, that would be different. This is not a "do not resusitate" case. The state of Florida recently ruled that feeding tubes where an "extraordinary measure" in hospital care, and that is what this case is about medically.
linwood
Well-Known Member
If that is the case eewred then why do we not have a problem removing the feeding tubes of hundreds of other people with no DNR orders around this nation?
Why just this woman?
Why has everyone from congress to the president to the supremem court had a hand in deciding this womans fate when many many others don`t every day?
Why is this woman the focus of numerous unconstitutional laws to keep her alive?
Why do we not bend/break our constitution for everyone else?
Why just this woman?
Why has everyone from congress to the president to the supremem court had a hand in deciding this womans fate when many many others don`t every day?
Why is this woman the focus of numerous unconstitutional laws to keep her alive?
Why do we not bend/break our constitution for everyone else?