Schiavo case

[Aardvark]

Can anyone here tell me if they see a moral difference between removing her feeding tube and shooting her?

 

If a doctor was to go up to her and cut her throat rather than pulling her tube would you view it differently?

[Cadmus]

Can anyone here tell me if they see a moral difference between removing her feeding tube and shooting her?

 

If a doctor was to go up to her and cut her throat rather than pulling her tube would you view it differently?

I view you differently for posing the question is such terms.

[Aardvark]

I view you differently for posing the question is such terms.

 

We are dealing with the matter of killing someone.

 

Lets cut the crap. I hate the petty euphemisms that people invent to hide from the reality of their actions and situations.

 

If the tube is removed she will die. Do you see any moral difference between removing her tube and cutting her throat?

[Cadmus]

We are dealing with the matter of killing someone.

 

Lets cut the crap. I hate the petty euphemisms that people invent to hide from the reality of their actions and situations.

 

If the tube is removed she will die. Do you see any moral difference between removing her tube and cutting her throat?

Are you serious? Really, are you? Do you really think that all of the people in this entire country who think that husband should be allowed to let his wife die, and that all of the people on this forum who think that the husband should be allowed to let his wife die, do you really, really think that all of these people think that he might as well cut her throat because morally it is the same thing? You ask to cut the crap, yet your question smacks of it. Do you really think that people will answer that there is no moral difference?

[Coral Rhedd]

We are dealing with the matter of killing someone.

 

We define death how? By the lack of a heartbeat? You can keep someone's heartbeating indefinitely. How is that life?

 

Were I conscious but trapped by her circumstances, I would wish someone would kill me. If someone who is unable to kill herself requests that you do that for them, is that murder?

 

We distinguish between killing and murder.

[Pangloss]

It is always amusing to read your high-minded discourse Newtonian. You set an example for us all.

 

ROFL!

 

Can anyone here tell me if they see a moral difference between removing her feeding tube and shooting her?

 

She has no cognitive function. It makes no difference to me how they do it.

[Aardvark]

Do you really think that people will answer that there is no moral difference?

 

Tell me what the moral difference is then, if you can.

 

Or is it just a question of aesthetics? Killing someone by removing her feeding tube is a lot less messy than cutting her throat so therefore it is more acceptable?

 

Seriously. What is the moral difference?

[Coral Rhedd]

ROFL!

She has no cognitive function. It makes no difference to me how they do it.

 

IMO, she is already dead. When her heart stops, when her lungs stop, it is only two less functions. Without her brain functioning, little else matters.

 

But, like funerals, the formality of her "death" should be for the living. That is why cutting her throat would not do.

 

Aardvark wishes to shock us I think. It is a strategy that seems excessive.

[Aardvark]

We define death how? By the lack of a heartbeat? You can keep someone's heartbeating indefinitely. How is that life?

 

I'm not actually making a point about what degree of life she has. The point is that there is some degree of life that apparently must be ended. If we acccept that, then is there any moral difference at all between removing her tube and cutting her throat?

 

 

Were I conscious but trapped by her circumstances' date=' I would wish someone would kill me. If someone who is unable to kill herself requests that you do that for them, is that murder?

 

We distinguish between killing and murder.[/quote']

 

Then, if we accept that killing is justified in this case, can you see any moral difference between cutting her thraot and pulling her plug?

 

We need to confront the stark, deeply unpleasant reality of our actions if we are to make morally honest decisions.

[Aardvark]

 

Aardvark wishes to shock us I think. It is a strategy that seems excessive.

 

No. I'm not trying to shock. I'm trying to make people realise the reality of the situation.

 

Why is cutting a throat more shocking than depriving someone of food and water?

 

Seriously, why is that more shocking?

[Coral Rhedd]

Tell me what the moral difference is then' date=' if you can.

 

Or is it just a question of aesthetics? Killing someone by removing her feeding tube is a lot less messy than cutting her throat so therefore it is more acceptable?

 

Seriously. What is the moral difference?[/quote']

 

What is wrong with aethetics? If we believe that she is essentially already dead, there is no moral issue. The guiding principle should be to carry out the wishes the courts believe she conveyed to her husband.

 

If I say I want to be cremated after death, it shows respect to cremate me. If I prefer burial, then burial is the appropriate course.

 

The big impasse here has nothing to do with method, and nothing to do with her parents or her husband and their turmoil. It is simply that some of us believe she is actually alive and others of us do not.

[Coral Rhedd]

I'm not actually making a point about what degree of life she has. The point is that there is some degree of life that apparently must be ended. If we acccept that' date=' then is there any moral difference at all between removing her tube and cutting her throat?

 

 

 

 

Then, if we accept that killing is justified in this case, can you see any moral difference between cutting her thraot and pulling her plug?

 

We need to confront the stark, deeply unpleasant reality of our actions if we are to make morally honest decisions.[/quote']

 

Reread my words. I do not believe she is conscious in any serious sense. Her essence is gone.

[Cadmus]

Seriously. What is the moral difference?

If you do not recognize any difference at all, then I am afraid that no amount of explanation can help you understand how the bulk of the country thinks.

[Cadmus]

We need to confront the stark, deeply unpleasant reality of our actions if we are to make morally honest decisions.

Although you attempt to shock us with the stark, deeply unpleasant reality of your objections, surely you must recognize that many people, even on this forum, are willing.

[Kraft]

With the debate of active v. passive euthanasia, this is an interesting read Rachels: Euthanasia

Hope it hasn't been linked already.

[Newtonian]

IMO, she is already dead.

Thankfully other peoples right to life are not subject to your opinion.

I would respect your position more if you had formed your opinion,based on full knowledge of the facts.However you had not done this and i allowed it to annoy me.

If you/anyone else are really interested in Terri's case and not only your opinion(or bickering with me),perhaps a start should be the Terri Schindler-Schiavo foundation.

 

http://www.terrisfight.org/

[blike]

I contest that whats best for her is of the utmost importance.

You're not making much sense. You say you want personal autonomy, but then you say that it doesn't matter what she wants, what's best for her is what's most important. In other words, if a bunch of lawyers and senators decide that it's not best for her to die, then their opinion stands?

 

and there are plenty saying its seriously wrong,discounting the general opinionated populus,proffesional medical/judges are saying its wrong.

Show me. You're telling me you don't want your lifelong partner to have that right?

 

He has moved on and it doesnt mean he lacks love,his actions have proven the fact he doesnt.

I think his actions prove that he wants what Terri wanted. That is all they prove.

 

Within the year he wanted her dead. he refused to allow doctors to treat her with antibiotics to treat a serious infection, claiming that Terri would not want to live in her disabled condition a point he somehow forgot to mention to the malpractice jury.

Medical opinion changed as her brain decayed. She went from 'possibly rehabilitable' to 'unrehabilitable'. Michael actually became a respiratory therapist to care for her.

 

there is no evidence for this,if you have it id like to see this evidence you have.He says she told him is hardly evidence when considering his actions since 1993.

At that trial, Michael testified he and his wife talked about life support when Terri's grandmother was ill. "She said, 'If I ever have to be a burden to anybody, I don't want to live like that,'" he said.

 

He also testified the two watched a television documentary about people on life support. "She made the comment to me that she would never want to be like that," he said at the trial. Michael said he told Terri he felt the same way and has since written into his will instructions not to be kept on life support.

 

Michael's older brother, Scott Schiavo, and Michael's sister-in-law, Joan Schiavo, who is married to a different brother, also testified Terri made similar comments to them. Scott said he talked with Terri at a luncheon after a funeral for Scott's grandmother, who had spent weeks unconscious on a ventilator.

 

"Terri made mention at that conversation," Scott said, "that 'If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine.' Pretty much everybody at that table that was in the discussion had made the same comment."

 

which means whichever hospital/home she is at the doctors do choose!.

No, it means the courts choose. No doctor has had any say in whether she lives or dies (other than testimony).

 

And despite the clear motives of her estranged husband they have continued to fight for her life for over a decade.

What's his motive then? MONEY? Is that why he turned down 1 million and then 10 million dollars to 'walk away'? http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-10-schiavo_x.htm

 

I find it more pertinent that her family obviously can see their child/relative is still there,and in no way PVS (a dead shell).

Its seriously wrong when a stranger/court decides to end your childs life.When you know they are still there!!

So the family is now the medical professional? Please. Families see "signs of life" in PVS patients all the time. Sometimes patients do thinks that they used to do when they were alive, and it gives false hope to the family. This is simply a family that can't let go.

[blike]

I think any senator that did that would be voted out pretty quickly in the upcoming elections.

The majority support her tube being removed.

 

Am I the only one that sees this entire ordeal as a tad bit suspicious? It looks like to me that Michael never wants Terri to wake up.

She won't wake up. It's been 15 years now. He knows that if he divorces her, her wishes won't be honored.

 

Terri's parents filed for divorce on her behalf but the court ruled that because she could not speak for herself Michael would do it for her. Michael didn't want a divorce.

If she responds like her parents claim, why don't they ask Terri. Set up some sort of response system whereby one blink is yes, two blinks is no.

 

She doesn't respond, and the family knows it.

 

The very fact that the President of the USA,the Vatican and most important THE parents of Terri are fighting for her life on the basis that the parents at least believe their daughter is still ALIVE.

If everyone made decisions based on the beliefs of parents we'd be in a mess.

 

"PINELLAS PARK - Angered by the latest political developments in Washington, Michael Schiavo said Saturday that it isn't just the Florida governor who should visit his wife to learn about the case.

 

Jeb Bush's brother, President Bush, should visit Terri Schiavo, too, he said.

 

"Come down, President Bush," Schiavo said in a telephone interview. "Come talk to me. Meet my wife. Talk to my wife and see if you get an answer. Ask her to lift her arm to shake your hand. She won't do it."

 

She won't, Schiavo said, because she can't.

 

He made a similar offer to the governor last week, saying lawmakers interferring in his wife's life know nothing about the case. So far, Gov. Bush hasn't responded to the offer."

 

If we acccept that, then is there any moral difference at all between removing her tube and cutting her throat?

No moral difference really. You're right. Nonetheless, that doesn't make it wrong. Personally, I would prefer to use a morphine drip. But the people who are fighting to keep this poor woman alive are the same people who are against any "humane" way of "going out."

 

Newtonian, my comment about the video was wrong. I heard someone mention accusations of it on the news, but it seems that nothing ever became of it.

[blike]

I really got interested in the case when one of my professors, Jay Wolfson, became Terri Schiavo's guardian ad litem. He knew everything about the case inside and out and gave numerous talks on the issue. He tried to stay neutral on the subject, as that was his role,

 

Nonetheless, in case anyone didn't see the news today, federal courts upheld the decision.

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050322/D8902I400.html

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) - A federal judge on Tuesday refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, denying an emergency request from the brain-damaged woman's parents that had been debated in Congress and backed by the White House. U.S. District Judge James Whittemore said the 41-year-old woman's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial on the merits of their arguments.

 

Whittemore wrote that Schiavo's "life and liberty interests" had been protected by Florida courts. Despite "these difficult and time-strained circumstances," he wrote, "this court is constrained to apply the law to the issues before it."...

 

Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, praised the ruling: "What this judge did is protect the freedom of people to make their own end-of-life decisions without the intrusion of politicians."

 

[Pangloss]

The results of ABC News' poll showing a whopping 77% in support of removal can be found here:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=599622&page=1

 

As could be expected, the federal judge refused to order reinsertion, for the same reasons as the last 15 judges who have reviewed the TWO trials that took place.

 

The parents, of course, appealed.

[Static]

This whole thing being made a spectacle by politicians and Shiavo's family alike is utterly sick. The woman has virtually no chance for recovery, and who the hell would want to live in this condition, where you're utterly dependent on others for everything, and you cannot live without life support?

 

I agree with the husband in this case. In light of the fact that he stands to gain some money and has sired children with another woman, I have read somewhere that he was also offered millions of dollars if he allowed her to live, so that would kind of take care of the whole "he's only doing it for the money" theory.

 

The fact that she's being used by the ultra-religious as an example is absolutely repulsive. This story has definitely inspired me to get a living will.

[Lance]

and who the hell would want to live in this condition' date=' where you're utterly dependent on others for [i']everything[/i], and you cannot live without life support?

 

She isn't on life support. The "tube" is a feeding tube which gives her nutrients a few times a day.

 

Thats why its not a matter of just letting her die.

[Pangloss]

BTW, a living will isn't enough in a lot of states. The main criticism usually leveled at living wills is that they're too specific in their language. The number and variety of things that can actually happen to put you in states similar to Shiavo's is really quite large. In fact a living will can also be disputed, and one of the reasons for disputing it is a disagreement between family members about what you wanted. In short, Terry Shiavo would be in exactly this same position if she'd had a living will.

 

A better move is to sign a durable power of attorney, which basically appoints someone to make that decision for you based on all of the specific facts of your case compared with your known preferences.

 

It's worth noting that, as was proven in trial (twice), Shiavo expressed her wishes to her husband and her friends, not only in general, casual terms, but in the specific context of not one, but TWO relatives who died. The judges took all that into account when deciding that it was pretty clear what this woman wanted.

[Static]

She isn't on life support. The "tube" is a feeding tube which gives her nutrients a few times a day.

 

Thats why its not a matter of just letting her die.

 

My understanding is that anytime you require a breathing machine to breathe, or a feeding tube to eat, you're on life support.

 

As a sidenote, I think it's thoroughly barbaric that they would let her starve to death rather then euthanize her.

[Pangloss]

Oh, and you also need a DNR. That's a completely separate issue.