The Terri Case - this is ridiculous

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sold Out

New member
I don't think terribly highly of Michael Schiavo, but I do think it's time to stop postponing the inevitable.

Consider this: If this had happened to her 100 yrs ago, medical science at that time would have had no way to sustain her life and she would have died. It would have been merciful. This is a clear-cut case of the pros and cons of our modern medical science. We have the capability to keep a person alive, but why? It has caused all of us to question whether or not WE would want to be kept alive in a similar situation. Most say no they would not, so why do you think Terri would? I think her parents are being selfish by trying to keep her alive. She has no quality of life.
 

elected4ever

New member
Sold Out said:
I don't think terribly highly of Michael Schiavo, but I do think it's time to stop postponing the inevitable.

Consider this: If this had happened to her 100 yrs ago, medical science at that time would have had no way to sustain her life and she would have died. It would have been merciful. This is a clear-cut case of the pros and cons of our modern medical science. We have the capability to keep a person alive, but why? It has caused all of us to question whether or not WE would want to be kept alive in a similar situation. Most say no they would not, so why do you think Terri would? I think her parents are being selfish by trying to keep her alive. She has no quality of life.
Wromg, No one, not even myself has the right to choose to die under any condition and no one has the right to end life because of inconvenance. :madmad: ops, this is fellowship week :straight:
 

Crow

New member
Sold Out said:
I don't think terribly highly of Michael Schiavo, but I do think it's time to stop postponing the inevitable.

Consider this: If this had happened to her 100 yrs ago, medical science at that time would have had no way to sustain her life and she would have died. It would have been merciful. This is a clear-cut case of the pros and cons of our modern medical science. We have the capability to keep a person alive, but why? It has caused all of us to question whether or not WE would want to be kept alive in a similar situation. Most say no they would not, so why do you think Terri would? I think her parents are being selfish by trying to keep her alive. She has no quality of life.
!00 years ago, spinal bifida babies inevitibly died. 100 years ago, premies regularly died. 100 years ago, people did the best they could to keep those who they could save alive.

The principle is that one preserves life to the best of our capacity.

In 1920, 20% of all babies born did not survive their first year. That is not an excuse or reason to let 20% of babies die in their first year.
 

avatar382

New member
Forgetting about the Schiavo case for a moment: It seems most of you agree that refusing life support/medical treatment is the same as suicide?

Does a patient have the right to refuse medical treatment?
 

Crow

New member
avatar382 said:
Forgetting about the Schiavo case for a moment: It seems most of you agree that refusing life support/medical treatment is the same as suicide?

Does a patient have the right to refuse medical treatment?

I believe that they do in some cases. If they are terminally ill, then they are dying, and cannot be saved. All that can be done is prolong their life a few weeks, or days. That is not suicide--that is accepting that medical care will not cause them to survive an illness, and that the priority is shifted to making the remaining time they have left as pain-free as possible.

But say someone is starving themselves to death--an anorexic. There are legal means by which the court can and routinely will intervene to get treatment for that person, even against their will. Just as police will try to stop someone who is attempting to commit suicide.
 

Sold Out

New member
Crow said:
!00 years ago, spinal bifida babies inevitibly died. 100 years ago, premies regularly died. 100 years ago, people did the best they could to keep those who they could save alive.

The principle is that one preserves life to the best of our capacity.

In 1920, 20% of all babies born did not survive their first year. That is not an excuse or reason to let 20% of babies die in their first year.

We are speaking of a grown woman who has no chance of recovery, not about babies with spina bifida or preemies.

Why do people cling to this life so desperately?
 

Crow

New member
Sold Out said:
We are speaking of a grown woman who has no chance of recovery, not about babies with spina bifida or preemies.

Why do people cling to this life so desperately?

Could Terri recover to be what she was? No. Could she recover to a state better than the one she is in? We don't know. She hasn't had the therapy that was recommended early on in her affliction.

People cling to life because life is precious.
 

Imrahil

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
jeremiah said:
Your question reminded me of the death of King Saul. He wanted to die, because he had lost the battle and all hope of surviving, and ordered his armor bearer to kill him and yet he refused. Saul then fell upon his own sword! An Amalekite who was passing by, saw that Saul was not yet dead, and Saul let him know, by a verbal request, that he wanted to die now, and not suffer any more. The Amalekite obliged the King. When he told King David what he had done, David had him executed for the murder of God's annointed.
So according to 1Sam. 31 and 2Sam. 1, even if the King wants to die, and begins his own suicide, and asks someone to finish his job for him, and he does , that person is still guilty of the shedding of blood. How much less validity would a written directive from a woman who is not the annointed {KING} of God, have if one were to help her carry out her wish to commit suicide, in a condition from which she is not dying?
That would be my biblical example and answer.
Very good example. :thumb:
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Yorzhik said:
Having helped Randall Terry with a campaign and talking with him personally on a number of occasions, I can vouch for Randall's lack of character. He has a problem admitting when he is wrong. And that snowballs into much greater problems. I can say, though, that he is right on many issues, and so far has been a great spokesman for the Schindlers.
Thank you for sharing. It appears Mr. Terry may be seeking a new media venue more compatible with his present affiliation with the Charismatic Episcopal Church.

Caveat: I haven't kept up with Randall for many years and he may have repented and I don't know about it.
And if he has, does that excuse everything he's done to his family and others?:think:

So I'm not sure if Zak is a worse person than Randall.
Since you do not know me at all, other than from a few web posts, I find it amazing that you'd even consider comparing me to Terry.

Randall should know better, but makes his mistakes and then makes them worse - a bad Christian is worse than a bad non-Christian.
So even though Terry is worse than Zakath could ever be... here comes the requisite religionist double-think and anti-atheist ad hominem...

:yawn:

However, Zak is a hypocrite extrordinare for bringing up Randall's sins with no basis to say what is right or wrong in the first place.
I have a basis for judging rightness and wrongness. You mererly disagree with it. That doesn't mean such a basis doesn't exist... ;)
 

wholearmor

Member
Sold Out said:
I don't think terribly highly of Michael Schiavo, but I do think it's time to stop postponing the inevitable.

Consider this: If this had happened to her 100 yrs ago, medical science at that time would have had no way to sustain her life and she would have died. It would have been merciful. This is a clear-cut case of the pros and cons of our modern medical science. We have the capability to keep a person alive, but why? It has caused all of us to question whether or not WE would want to be kept alive in a similar situation. Most say no they would not, so why do you think Terri would? I think her parents are being selfish by trying to keep her alive. She has no quality of life.

100 years ago, you couldn't post on TOL. What's that got to do with anything? When most say they would not want to be kept alive in a similar situation, how do they know until they are there? I don't know why Terri would want to be kept alive but what if she does? Would you have wanted to live like Christopher Reeve? Should someone have starved him to death because, "they wouldn't want to live like that?" Face it, nobody would want to live like that or they'd all be falling off horses on purpose. Michael Schiavo is no husband to Terri and would not be trusted by anyone but a liberal, pro-abort, truly, pro-death, court system.
 

Crow

New member
Zakath said:
And, in the interest of full disclosure...

1. What about an accounting of the money her parents have raised using the case? Any mention of funds they've raised is omitted from the web site you listed. Add that to the fact that they're recently affiliated with morally questionable characters like Randall Terry and it makes one wonder just who is actually running this dog and pony show and for what reasons...
:think:
Zakath,

Let's take a ferinstance where Randall Terry is an A#1 bastard. And Terri's husband is a paragon of virtue, intent only on doing the very best he can for his wife.

Would this change the inherent rightness or wrongness of what is being done?

Good people align themselves with evil causes for a legion of reasons--ignorance, stupidity, being overwhelmed, and whatnot.

Good people have aligned themselves with evil ones out of desperation. Ask anyone who has had occasion to requires the services of a lawyer.

Evil people have aligned themselves with good causes to advance a plethora of ulterior motives.

Were Terri's parents to receive custody and thereby responsibility for her care, do you think that this would profit them financially? I think that it would be a huge burden.

Regardless, it is not right to starve a helpless innocent woman to death.
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Crow said:
Zakath,

Let's take a ferinstance where Randall Terry is an A#1 bastard. And Terri's husband is a paragon of virtue, intent only on doing the very best he can for his wife.

Would this change the inherent rightness or wrongness of what is being done?
My complaint was about her parents' recent association with Randall Terry. Not the overarching questions about the legitmacy of their protest. One has little to do with the other...

Good people align themselves with evil causes for a legion of reasons--ignorance, stupidity, being overwhelmed, and whatnot.

Good people have aligned themselves with evil ones out of desperation. Ask anyone who has had occasion to requires the services of a lawyer.
Not all lawyers are evil. I know quite a few "good Christians" who are laywers including men like Michael Ferris...

Evil people have aligned themselves with good causes to advance a plethora of ulterior motives.

Were Terri's parents to receive custody and thereby responsibility for her care, do you think that this would profit them financially? I think that it would be a huge burden.
Regardless of their reasons, it doesn't change the truth of the old saw, "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."

For someone like me, what little credibility they had went out the window when I read the list of their associates and see who is being chosen as their "spokesperson".

Regardless, it is not right to starve a helpless innocent woman to death.
That was not the point I was addressing.
 

Chileice

New member
jeremiah said:
Your question reminded me of the death of King Saul. He wanted to die, because he had lost the battle and all hope of surviving, and ordered his armor bearer to kill him and yet he refused. Saul then fell upon his own sword! An Amalekite who was passing by, saw that Saul was not yet dead, and Saul let him know, by a verbal request, that he wanted to die now, and not suffer any more. The Amalekite obliged the King. When he told King David what he had done, David had him executed for the murder of God's annointed.
So according to 1Sam. 31 and 2Sam. 1, even if the King wants to die, and begins his own suicide, and asks someone to finish his job for him, and he does , that person is still guilty of the shedding of blood. How much less validity would a written directive from a woman who is not the annointed {KING} of God, have if one were to help her carry out her wish to commit suicide, in a condition from which she is not dying?
That would be my biblical example and answer.

In the midst of a very sticky ethical situation, I do appreciate the attempt to correlate it to scripture.
However, I think this case points out how far we have come since scripture was written. In Saul's day or Jesus' day or even George Washington's day or your grandfather's day, these questions would not have been able to be asked. Terry would have been dead whether we like it or not. And although she may not be technically brain dead, she certainly has led a long relatively unresponsive life.

Perhaps what this case does more than anything is force us to look at our OWN lives.
1. What would I want if I were in Terry's case?
I personally would want to be dead. I would not want to be an interminable burden for my family if I was not contributing to their well-being. Now were I an invalid, but capable of communicating of actually interacting in life, I would want to live in order to fulfill a purpose in the lives of others. I would NOT want my family rather my wife, my kids or my parents to feel like they were somehow being unloving if they pulled the plug and sent me to heaven. I would expect them to make every reasonable effort to try to help me recover, but if say, after a year there was no hope of recovery, why burden them further?

2. What if I am Terry's husband?
I would want my wife to recover. I love her more than anyone on this planet. But I would also want to respect her wishes. If she had expressed that she did not want to live on only heroic life-saving technological intervention, I would try to be brave enough to respect that, even though I would be the one experiencing the great loss.

3. What if I were the parents?
I would want the best for my daughter. If I TRULY thought there was some chance of recovery for a family member, it would be almost impossible to "pull the plug". But I would also hope that I wouldn't just keep him/her hanging on ONLY for my selfish reasons.

4. What if I am the judges, etc.?
I believe I would try to release Michael from whatever financial and legal obligations he has after this length of time. As a person I despise the fact that he has just let his wife rot. In a technical sense he has abrogated his role as husband and I think forfeitted his right to speak for her by breaking his marriage vows. However, for him, she is already dead. As a judge, I must also see that it is a bit like an MIA case, where the spouse may be declared dead for legal purposes although there is no proof that death has occurred. But I would release Terry to the parents. If there is someone willing to take on the financial and physical aspects of care and there is no EXPRESS written consent to die, what harm could possibly be done releasing her to her own parents?

5. What lessons can we learn?

Write a living will for heaven's sake, for family's sake, for your own sake. Take the time to face the potential reality. Have it down and then, most likely, you will never have to deal with it anyway. But at least there will be an expression of what is wanted by the patient rather than letting families tear themselves apart trying to second-guess each other.

6. My hopes.
I hope they get the tube back in one way or the other. I hope she is released to her parents and then I either hope she dies peacefully, if there is no hope or that there is an amazing recovery once the tube goes in. Who knows? it might shock her system back into functional mode.
 

Crow

New member
Zakath said:
My complaint was about her parents' recent association with Randall Terry. Not the overarching questions about the legitmacy of their protest. One has little to do with the other...

Not all lawyers are evil. I know quite a few "good Christians" who are laywers including men like Michael Ferris...

I'll grant that there are a some decent lawyers. But I have also seen many of them defend those who are stone cold guilty, and obviously so.

Regardless of their reasons, it doesn't change the truth of the old saw, "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."

For someone like me, what little credibility they had went out the window when I read the list of their associates and see who is being chosen as their "spokesperson".

Only if said dogs have fleas. Jokes aside, think about what you might do to save your own child's life. If you knew that someone who you found personally repellent for any number or reasons could possibly do so and offerred to do so, would you accept that help? Many people would.

As for the degree of invermination of Mr. Terry, for me that has very little bearing on whether the cause he supports at a given time is a good one or a lousy (couldn't help throwing that one in) one.
 
C

cattyfan

Guest
Sold Out said:
I don't think terribly highly of Michael Schiavo, but I do think it's time to stop postponing the inevitable.

Consider this: If this had happened to her 100 yrs ago, medical science at that time would have had no way to sustain her life and she would have died. It would have been merciful. This is a clear-cut case of the pros and cons of our modern medical science. We have the capability to keep a person alive, but why? It has caused all of us to question whether or not WE would want to be kept alive in a similar situation. Most say no they would not, so why do you think Terri would? I think her parents are being selfish by trying to keep her alive. She has no quality of life.


Wow...are you callous. Mercy killings are o.k. with you.

It isn't 100 years ago...if it was, lots of people would die from all kinds of things.

Feeding someone is not taking extrordinary measures.

You can't possibly know what her quality of life is or isn't because Terri can't communicate...just as we can't possibly know what Terri would or wouldn't want.

As for her death being "inevitable," so is yours...do you want someone else to decide you should "get on with it."

So, who's next on your hit list? Whom else do you deem unworthy to live based on your perception of their "quality of life" and whether or not they're in need of a "merciful killing"?
 
C

cattyfan

Guest
avatar382 said:
Forgetting about the Schiavo case for a moment: It seems most of you agree that refusing life support/medical treatment is the same as suicide?

Does a patient have the right to refuse medical treatment?


Terri hasn't chosen anything. Her adulterous husband has chosen for her.
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Crow said:
I'll grant that there are a some decent lawyers. But I have also seen many of them defend those who are stone cold guilty, and obviously so.
Agreed. While I make as many jokes about scum-sucking lawyers as the next fellow, it's important to remember but our legal system requires that each defendant have access to legal counsel (aka, an attorney). Some lawyers, like those in public defenders' offices do not get to pick who they defend. I sometimes fell sorry for those folks...

:shocked:

I can't believe I just wrote that! ;)

Only if said dogs have fleas.
I believe, based on what I've been told, that TR and his cronies have plenty of 'em. But that's my opinion, based on the information I have...

Jokes aside, think about what you might do to save your own child's life. If you knew that someone who you found personally repellent for any number or reasons could possibly do so and offerred to do so, would you accept that help? Many people would.
That depends on the individual case... I do not think I would automatically abandon my morals to save my child...

As for the degree of invermination of Mr. Terry, for me that has very little bearing on whether the cause he supports at a given time is a good one or a lousy (couldn't help throwing that one in) one.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. :thumb:
 

avatar382

New member
cattyfan said:
Terri hasn't chosen anything. Her adulterous husband has chosen for her.

Please read before you hit the "quote" button.

Like i said,

Forgetting about the Schiavo case for a moment: It seems most of you agree that refusing life support/medical treatment is the same as suicide?

Does a patient have the right to refuse medical treatment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top