Schiavo case

[Aardvark]

This past week there was an interesting right-to-die case in Houston that I believe graphically illustrates the President's hypocrisy on this issue.

 

There is a LOT of hypocrisy surrounding this case.

 

People seem to be as excised by the soap opera nonsense involving the personalities of the ladies relatives as they are about her situation and there is a consistent diversion from the actual physical reality of the case. It seems a lot easier for people to slip into euphumisms about 'letting her die' or 'removing her tube' rather than face the facts that this is about killing or not killing her.

 

I am not arguing that it is necessarily wrong to kill her. But i am angry at how people are tip toeing around the issue. This case is about the lady, not her husband, not her parents, not the politican, not money.

 

If it is the best thing to kil her then let us hear that justification. If it is best to prolong her life then let us hear that justification. But no more with the soap opera. It is demeaning and sickening.

[Cadmus]

There is a LOT of hypocrisy surrounding this case.

 

If it is the best thing to kil her then let us hear that justification. If it is best to prolong her life then let us hear that justification. But no more with the soap opera. It is demeaning and sickening.

I realize that you are one for calling a spade a spade, but I do disagree with your wording in this case.

 

You talk about whether or not it is right to kill her. I consider this only partially valid. She is already dead. All that remains is a shell around a dead person. If she were not already dead, in the minds of many people, then this entire fight would take a different shift. I don't really think that she has a life to prolong, at least in the sense that life is defined legally or in my mind.

[Coral Rhedd]

This past week there was an interesting right-to-die case in Houston that I believe graphically illustrates the President's hypocrisy on this issue.

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3103113

 

In a nutshell' date=' a baby named Sun Hudson was allowed to die based on hospital decision, against the family's wishes, based on a judgement offsetting cost against quality of life. The law that allowed the hospital to make that call (again, [i']against[/i] the will of the family), was signed by then-governor George W. Bush.

 

Now this was an extreme case. I cited the above article specifically because it gives a non-partisan analysis of this poor child's miserable condition and the fact that he had zero chance to survive.

 

But it's still a perfect illustration of right-wing hypocrisy in the Schiavo case. That woman has no chance either. Zip, zero, zilcho, none. Why would you "err on the side of life" in the Schiavo case, but not in the Hudson case?

 

Where was the last-minute bill to save this child's life?

 

This was a sad case you posted Pangloss. I especially felt sorry for that poor delusional mother. But, IMO, the law was correct in this case and the best interests of the child were in fact fulfilled. Only it shouldn't have taken so long.

 

What distinguishes this case from the Schiavo case is that the child could not speak his wishes. However it has not been unusual for doctors to give care or withhold care from children contrary to their parents' wishes. The law has sided with the doctors in cases where parents wanted care withheld for religious reasons. The law has also stepped in when parents would administer medical treatment that is harmful.

 

Of course, what we must all be concerned about is that the government does not begin to make ecomonic issues a significant factor in determining when care is withheld.

[Aardvark]

You talk about whether or not it is right to kill her. I consider this only partially valid. She is already dead. All that remains is a shell around a dead person.

 

I'm not disputing that she could be characterised as being brain dead and as such not 'alive' in a certain sense. But nevertheless she still has a certain degree of biological existence, a form of life, as such ending her life would be to kill her.

 

As her brain is apparently already dead then it could be considered that it is only a matter of killing an 'empty shell', but i still think that 'killing' is an applicable word. Killing is not always wrong, but it does need to be justified.

[Pangloss]

My point is that this represents a staggeringly blatant contradiction in the President's stance. It's not possible for him to take the position he has with the Schiavo case without contradicting himself regarding that law. After all, his position was based on moral grounds, not legal ones.

 

I do agree with your analysis. I have some reservations about the law in question. But one thing I've always admired about the president is his willingness to allow issues to come to the fore and be put to the test. He's not afraid to walk the walk. But in this case, either he's completely about-faced, or he never considered the potential moral predicaments of the Texas law in the first place.

[Cadmus]

But one thing I've always admired about the president is his willingness to allow issues to come to the fore and be put to the test. He's not afraid to walk the walk.

Interesting. This is one of the things that I dislike most about him. He is quite willing to use his influence to force his bizarre set of poorly thought out moral "values" down our throats. In his state of the uniion address, he talked about spreading freedom around the world, all the while doing his best to reduce freedoms here.

[Pangloss]

I don't want to digress too far, but I don't believe that the President's purpose is to "do his best to reduce freedoms". That's the unintended effect of bad policy instituted for the wrong reasons. Most of the time he's trying to accomplish goals which are, as stated, good or at least benign.

 

Interestingly, that's not really the case here -- there's no way he could have signed that Texas law without considering the possibility of a case like the one discussed above -- that was the entire purpose of the law! So his position on Schiavo is (and can only be) hypocritical. You can't really say that about, say, the Patriot Act. The water is relatively muddy there -- it's possible for a politician to be mislead.

 

Anyway, if we want to get into this further, it should really be on the Politics board.

[blike]

Looks like Mike Schiavo will allow an autopsy.

 

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050329/2005-03-29T003404Z_01_N28677014_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-SCHIAVO-DC.html

 

Also, Fox News is carrying an interesting article: Docs: Schiavo Video Misleading

[blike]

It appears Terri Schiavo has died. I don't have a link yet, but it's on the news tickers on TV. RIP Terri

 

Edit: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152015,00.html

[jdurg]

But really, is removing the tube techincally 'killing' her? I have always believed that to 'kill' something, you need to do something to end their life. It's not like they put KCl or Cyanide into her blood stream. They just removed the feeding tube. I don't consider that 'killing'. I would classify that as 'allowing to die'. I think there's a huge difference between the two terms.

[blike]

But really, is removing the tube techincally 'killing' her? I have always believed that to 'kill' something, you need to do something to end their life...I would classify that as 'allowing to die'. I think there's a huge difference between the two terms.

There is. Allowing someone to die is the same thing as never starting treatment in the first place. Killing someone is forcing the body to die by means of direct intervention.

[Newtonian]

When someone goes on hunger strike,and nobody intervenes,that is allowing someone to die.To deny an incapacitated individual nourishment and water,is to kill them .

I have always believed that to 'kill' something, you need to do something to end their life..

Killing someone is forcing the body to die by means of direct intervention.

Im happy we finally agree on the definition.

My only hope is that an autopsy reveals massive brain damage and as stated she had no cognitive functions.I find it abhorent that in this day and age,that her passing was allowed to happen in this way.We treat pets more humanely than that.

[Pangloss]

Pets can't express to friends and loved ones that they would rather die than be kept alive in a vegetative state, unable to even swallow food or recognize them.

 

Terri Schiavo did exactly that, as two trials and countless appeals upheld.

[Mokele]

We treat pets more humanely than that.

 

Funny, I don't recall hearing about procedures to curl the troublesome antics of children by slicing off the most distal portion of their fingers, do you? Outside of organized crime, that is...

 

Mokele

[john5746]

Im happy we finally agree on the definition.

My only hope is that an autopsy reveals massive brain damage and as stated she had no cognitive functions.I find it abhorent that in this day and age' date='that her passing was allowed to happen in this way.We treat pets more humanely than that.[/quote']

 

Doctors on Fox, Congress and Rush Limbaugh will argue about the Autopsy results. They will say they know better than the ones who performed it.

 

If this had been a perfectly healthy person, I would support or even participate in unlawful acts to free that person. I think most people realize that quality of life comes into the equation and if they were in that situation, would prefer to die.