The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2008 => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on March 02, 2008, 09:43:39 PM
-
Barack Obama Would Take Back Vote Helping Terri Schiavo Avoid Euthanasia
Cleveland, OH (LifeNews.com) -- Senator Barack Obama debated his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night and said his biggest mistake was voting with a unanimous Senate to help save Terri Schiavo. Terri is the disabled Florida woman whose husband won the legal right to starve her to death.
In March 2005, just weeks before Terri died from a painful 14-day starvation and dehydration death, Congress approved legislation allowing her family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop the euthanasia from proceeding.
Terri was not on any artificial breathing apparatus and only required a feeding tube to eat and drink. Her family had filed a lawsuit against her former husband to allow them to care for her and give her proper medical and rehabilitative care.
The Senate unanimously approved a compromise bill, which the House eventually supported on a lopsided bipartisan vote and President Bush signed, to help the disabled woman.
During the Tuesday debate, Obama said he should have stood up against the life-saving legislation.
“It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped,†Obama said.
“And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better,†he added.
This isn't the first time Obama has said the biggest mistake he made as senator was voting to help try to stop Terri from being euthanized.
During an April 2007 debate, Obama said, "I think professionally the biggest mistake that I made was when I first arrived in the Senate. There was a debate about Terri Schiavo, and a lot of us, including me, left the Senate with a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn't have.â€
"And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure [Terri's parents couldn't take their case to federal court to save her life]," he explained.
Since Terri’s death, the Schindler family has established a foundation to help disabled and elderly patients obtain proper medical care and legal and other assistance when they are denied it.
Link (http://www.lifenews.com/bio2347.html)
on my list of things to do was to look up the background on a comment The BarackStar! made in one of the last debates. well, I just got around to this one.
I'm not exactly sure I was comfortable with the federal legislature getting involved in an individual's life like it did, but for heaven's sake. I realize that his senate career has been awfully brief to have acquired too many regrets, but this is his biggest regret?
-
ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.
I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
-
ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.
I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
they starved her to death.
I wasn't sure I heard it right in the first broadcast of the debate, and caught it on the rebroadcast. and it was such a bizarre thing to say, that I wanted to follow up on it. it turns out he meant it.
-
I'm not exactly sure I was comfortable with the federal legislature getting involved in an individual's life like it did, but for heaven's sake. I realize that his senate career has been awfully brief to have acquired too many regrets, but this is his biggest regret?
If it is, it tells me volumes about his lack of respect for human life. Not that Clinton is better in any way, but at least she's not dumb enough to admit it.
-
ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.
I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
Dearest, this is where we part philosophical company.
Shaivo was brain dead and every law in the USA allowed him to deal with her as her guardian. You may not have liked how he conducted himself, but the law was clear.
If I was brain dead, I would want my wife to let me go and it would not bother me if she had someone to keep her company.
That was about law. I want you to ask yourself -- if you left specific instructions about what should happen should your ability to think go away, would you want a bunch of strangers intruding?
-
ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.
I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
they starved her to death.
I wasn't sure I heard it right in the first broadcast of the debate, and caught it on the rebroadcast. and it was such a bizarre thing to say, that I wanted to follow up on it. it turns out he meant it.
They allowed her to pass. It was her wish (as it would be mine). If I was in her brain dead situation, it would PISS ME OFF that strangers would interfere with my spoken desires to my wife (let me go). The law allows the spouse to make this decision. It is a bright line rule.
But from Shaivo, we have learned to make our intent known in writing -- so it is not all bad.
-
ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.
I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
Dearest, this is where we part philosophical company.
Shaivo was brain dead and every law in the USA allowed him to deal with her as her guardian. You may not have liked how he conducted himself, but the law was clear.
If I was brain dead, I would want my wife to let me go and it would not bother me if she had someone to keep her company.
That was about law. I want you to ask yourself -- if you left specific instructions about what should happen should your ability to think go away, would you want a bunch of strangers intruding?
you presume that the florida legislature has never passed a bad law, which is demonstrably and manifestly untrue, and that her instructions were actually her instructions, which, considering the character of her husband, seems no more likely than about even money. and the brain is a bit of a mystery even to modern medical science. no one can say definitively what capacity she had remaining.
-
ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.
I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
they starved her to death.
I wasn't sure I heard it right in the first broadcast of the debate, and caught it on the rebroadcast. and it was such a bizarre thing to say, that I wanted to follow up on it. it turns out he meant it.
They allowed her to pass. It was her wish (as it would be mine). If I was in her brain dead situation, it would PISS ME OFF that strangers would interfere with my spoken desires to my wife (let me go). The law allows the spouse to make this decision. It is a bright line rule.
But from Shaivo, we have learned to make our intent known in writing -- so it is not all bad.
they starved her to death. and thankfully, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily judge the ethics or morality of a situation by hypothetically inserting themselves into it and attempting to guess what their reaction would be.
-
ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.
I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
Dearest, this is where we part philosophical company.
Shaivo was brain dead and every law in the USA allowed him to deal with her as her guardian. You may not have liked how he conducted himself, but the law was clear.
If I was brain dead, I would want my wife to let me go and it would not bother me if she had someone to keep her company.
That was about law. I want you to ask yourself -- if you left specific instructions about what should happen should your ability to think go away, would you want a bunch of strangers intruding?
She was a disabled woman. Yea the disabled people can put a crimp on the rest of us who want to get on with our lives. Life can suck that way.
When given the choice between life and death, what should we as a moral people default to?
She never left specific instructions. But, if it were me, I guarantee you I would never choose to die by dehydration. The only difference between that and a bullet to the head is about 2 weeks. I'd take the bullet.
-
you presume that the florida legislature has never passed a bad law, which is demonstrably and manifestly untrue, and that her instructions were actually her instructions, which, considering the character of her husband, seems no more likely than about even money. and the brain is a bit of a mystery even to modern medical science. no one can say definitively what capacity she had remaining.
So what law would you suggest to not have someone's closest relatives deal with their final disposition when they are brain dead? In the absence of any directives? Of you were brain dead, doesn't it make sense to make your spouse have the first say? Or is there some other guideline? I love and trust my wife. The law recognizes that and assumes (properly) that is our relationship.
You would have the law create a relationship that trumps my love and trust if I somehow get my brain damaged tonight (lets say that there was a carbon monoxide leak or something like that in my hotel). Pretend I am now medically brain dead -- you want to create a right out of whole cloth to undermine my wife's decision to let me go (which is what I have asked her to do) since you know more than she does? Even if you suspect (and that is it) that she will benefit from that decision?
The law is crystal clear. Who are you to interfere with both the law and my stated desire?
This ain't FLA law -- it is the law everywhere. And it is a good law.
-
you presume that the florida legislature has never passed a bad law, which is demonstrably and manifestly untrue, and that her instructions were actually her instructions, which, considering the character of her husband, seems no more likely than about even money. and the brain is a bit of a mystery even to modern medical science. no one can say definitively what capacity she had remaining.
So what law would you suggest to not have someone's closest relatives deal with their final disposition when they are brain dead? In the absence of any directives? Of you were brain dead, doesn't it make sense to make your spouse have the first say? Or is there some other guideline? I love and trust my wife. The law recognizes that and assumes (properly) that is our relationship.
You would have the law create a relationship that trumps my love and trust if I somehow get my brain damaged tonight (lets say that there was a carbon monoxide leak or something like that in my hotel). Pretend I am now medically brain dead -- you want to create a right out of whole cloth to undermine my wife's decision to let me go (which is what I have asked her to do) since you know more than she does? Even if you suspect (and that is it) that she will benefit from that decision?
The law is crystal clear. Who are you to interfere with both the law and my stated desire?
This ain't FLA law -- it is the law everywhere. And it is a good law.
you need to stop projecting yourself into these situations and arguing as though you were personally invloved. it's a sure fire recipe for getting yourself worked up unnecessarily.
Terri Schiavo was killed because it was inconvenient to her "husband" for her to be alive.
-
She was a disabled woman. Yea the disabled people can put a crimp on the rest of us who want to get on with our lives. Life can suck that way.
When given the choice between life and death, what should we as a moral people default to?
She never left specific instructions. But, if it were me, I guarantee you I would never choose to die by dehydration. The only difference between that and a bullet to the head is about 2 weeks. I'd take the bullet.
Well, that covers it. Had busybodies with no legal standing not intervened, Terri Shaiivo would have been able to pass without the harder death. But since she had no ability to "feel" anything it is a difference without a distinction.
Please read my upstream post. And think about it. When you get married, you legally transfer your relationship from your parents (which relationship was essentially severed from the age of majority anyway) to your spouse.
If you become incapacitated, do you want the State or a bunch of people you never met making decisions for you? Or do you want the person you chose to be your life partner to make those decisions? (yeah, I know what a shrinking violet you are -- your decisions aren't worth crap (sarcasm honey!)).
Now, stand back. Every marriage is different. Most are great -- a wonderful partnership between soulmates. Some are less than that. But, the decision to become married creates a legal relationship that creates the presumption of love and equality.
If you let The Man challenge the Shaivo marriage and the decisions therein, then you allow that same intrusion on your everyday life.
A final note: If there was evidence of abuse that led to Terri Shaivo's condition, that is a different situation. But there is no such evidence.
Last question: Who decides your fate? The person you chose as your legal live partner? Or others?
-
you need to stop projecting yourself into these situations and arguing as though you were personally invloved. it's a sure fire recipe for getting yourself worked up unnecessarily.
Terri Schiavo was killed because it was inconvenient to her "husband" for her to be alive.
My friend, there are serious issues here. If you were incapacitated, whom would you have make decisions on your behalf? Your spouse? Or someone else?
(ps: you assume facts not in evidence. Terri Shaivo was not "killed" and there is no LEGAL proof her husband found her to be "inconvenient.")
-
you need to stop projecting yourself into these situations and arguing as though you were personally invloved. it's a sure fire recipe for getting yourself worked up unnecessarily.
Terri Schiavo was killed because it was inconvenient to her "husband" for her to be alive.
My friend, there are serious issues here. If you were incapacirtated, whom would you have make decisions on your behalf? Your spouse? Or someone else?
(ps: you assume facts not in evidence. Terri Shaivo was not "killed" and there is no LEGAL proof her husband found her to be "inconvenient.")
I didn't say there weren't serious issues at play. and you have loaded the entire discussion down with "facts" that are either questionably true or ultimately unknowable, from her stated preference to never be kept alive via life support to you somehow knowing exactly how much mental capacity she had at the end.
but she was in fact starved. her feeding tube was removed, and she died. it's bizarre to try to argue that she somehow wasn't killed.
-
I didn't say there weren't serious issues at play. and you have loaded the entire discussion down with "facts" that are either questionably true or ultimately unknowable, from her stated preference to never be kept alive via life support to you somehow knowing exactly how much mental capacity she had at the end.
but she was in fact starved. her feeding tube was removed, and she died. it's bizarre to try to argue that she somehow wasn't killed.
Well, let's roll this up accordingly:
1. We don't know her final desires. But there was a legal presumption that her spouse did and that presumption is and was undeniable.
2. She was medically pronounced brain dead.
3. She was allowed to expire, which was in accordance with the legality of #1, which was a presumption of her desires
Again, I ask -- if you were incapacitated, who should LEGALLY be able to decide your fate? Your mommy and daddy or your spouse?
It is a crystal clear question.
I have already said my wife should and will decide for me. Who should decide for you?
-
f/d I am about ready to pop you one.
Terry Schiavo was not terminally ill, she was brain damaged. The fact that she hung on to her life for 2 weeks says something about her will to live. There were other options for Mr. Schiavo if he didn't want to be burdened by his wife. The point is, he wanted his non-terminally ill wife killed in a state-sanctioned murder. If he had any honor at all, he would have done the deed himself and served the time.
They don't even put dogs down in such fashion.
Ah, dear I know how much it hurts you to see someone you love as much as you love me me contradicts you.
But, mine is a LEGAL argument. It disturbs me when people get in the middle of the sanctity of the covenant of marriage. This case is about whether she was brain dead (she was) and whether her husband had the legal right to let her go (he did). He said that was her desire (and who is anyone to say otherwise?).
As I have asked upstream, would you want your husband's decision on your final wishes to be challenged? If there was "questionable circumstances" I would be the first to be there to get the bad guy. There was no such situation here.
And if anything happens to me someday, please let me go and don't let me be a goof on TV vacuously watching a balloon. That was really disgusting by the family.
-
Her husband had too mny conflicts of interest.
Michael Schiavo sued the hospital for malpractice damages with the expressed intent of paying for her indefinite care but then almost immediately went about seeking her death.
He went on to have have children with another woman. Granted he's allowed a new life but that also severs his marriage to his previous wife...because of the conflict of interests.
And she was not allowed to pass. If her body was as crippled as Michael's pro-euthanasia doctor pretends then it would not have taken days for her to die of thirst...an absolutely horrendous death.
-
Her husband had too mny conflicts of interest.
Michael Schiavo sued the hospital for malpractice damages with the expressed intent of paying for her indefinite care but then almost immediately went about seeking her death.
He went on to have have children with another woman. Granted he's allowed a new life but that also severs his marriage to his previous wife...because of the conflict of interests.
And she was not allowed to pass. If her body was as crippled as Michael's pro-euthanasia doctor pretends then it would not have taken days for her to die of thirst...an absolutely horrendous death.
But the law doesn't say "a spouse is in full control unless he/she is deemed by others to be immoral." Nor should it.
-
Ah, dear I know how much it hurts you to see someone you love as much as you love me me contradicts you.
But, mine is a LEGAL argument. It disturbs me when people get in the middle of the sanctity of the covenant of marriage. This case is about whether she was brain dead (she was) and whether her husband had the legal right to let her go (he did). He said that was her desire (and who is anyone to say otherwise?).
As I have asked upstream, would you want your husband's decision on your final wishes to be challenged? If there was "questionable circumstances" I would be the first to be there to get the bad guy. There was no such situation here.
And if anything happens to me someday, please let me go and don't let me be a goof on TV vacuously watching a balloon. That was really disgusting by the family.
I apologize for saying I was going to pop you one. :p
If you changed one thing about the circumstances in this case, I would agree with your legal argument. The problem I have with this case is that she was not allowed to expire naturally - she was actively euthanised. She was a woman who could not advocate for herself and she was sentenced to death without due process.
WE and Snuggles summed up the case specifics in a much better non-emotional argument than me. Read their posts.
-
Ah, dear I know how much it hurts you to see someone you love as much as you love me me contradicts you.
But, mine is a LEGAL argument. It disturbs me when people get in the middle of the sanctity of the covenant of marriage. This case is about whether she was brain dead (she was) and whether her husband had the legal right to let her go (he did). He said that was her desire (and who is anyone to say otherwise?).
As I have asked upstream, would you want your husband's decision on your final wishes to be challenged? If there was "questionable circumstances" I would be the first to be there to get the bad guy. There was no such situation here.
And if anything happens to me someday, please let me go and don't let me be a goof on TV vacuously watching a balloon. That was really disgusting by the family.
I apologize for saying I was going to pop you one. :p
If you changed one thing about the circumstances in this case, I would agree with your legal argument. The problem I have with this case is that she was not allowed to expire naturally - she was actively euthanised. She was a woman who could not advocate for herself and she was sentenced to death without due process.
WE and Snuggles summed up the case specifics in a much better non-emotional argument than me. Read their posts.
If I was ever to be popped one, I would prefer it be you. I understand their arguments, but we'll never know if someone who is brain dead "feels" anything. But, again legally, there is no other way to let her go except by withholding treatment. Her spirit is free and not chained to lump of flesh. It was a kindness to release her.
-
ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.
I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
Dearest, this is where we part philosophical company.
Shaivo was brain dead and every law in the USA allowed him to deal with her as her guardian. You may not have liked how he conducted himself, but the law was clear.
If I was brain dead, I would want my wife to let me go and it would not bother me if she had someone to keep her company.
That was about law. I want you to ask yourself -- if you left specific instructions about what should happen should your ability to think go away, would you want a bunch of strangers intruding?
I agree with you, and well said. IMO, the way they took out the feeding tube and made her starve sets up a good argument for euthanasia.
-
I agree with you, and well said. IMO, the way they took out the feeding tube and made her starve sets up a good argument for euthanasia.
Oh Christ...I thought this place had standards. :whatever:
-
I agree with you, and well said. IMO, the way they took out the feeding tube and made her starve sets up a good argument for euthanasia.
Oh Christ...I thought this place had standards. :whatever:
It does? NOW you tell me (think Groucho Marx).
-
ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.
I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
Dearest, this is where we part philosophical company.
Shaivo was brain dead and every law in the USA allowed him to deal with her as her guardian. You may not have liked how he conducted himself, but the law was clear.
If I was brain dead, I would want my wife to let me go and it would not bother me if she had someone to keep her company.
That was about law. I want you to ask yourself -- if you left specific instructions about what should happen should your ability to think go away, would you want a bunch of strangers intruding?
you presume that the florida legislature has never passed a bad law, which is demonstrably and manifestly untrue, and that her instructions were actually her instructions, which, considering the character of her husband, seems no more likely than about even money. and the brain is a bit of a mystery even to modern medical science. no one can say definitively what capacity she had remaining.
which is why i was never comfortable including myself in this particular debate. i dont know her wishes, or what they spoke of privately.
her parents, while an agonizing thing to watch, were not her next of kin.
the whole thing was far too political for me, but with both sides pitted against each other, it couldnt have gone any other way. the law had to step in. that it went all the way up to the Congress was a bit strange though.
-
ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.
I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
Dearest, this is where we part philosophical company.
Shaivo was brain dead and every law in the USA allowed him to deal with her as her guardian. You may not have liked how he conducted himself, but the law was clear.
If I was brain dead, I would want my wife to let me go and it would not bother me if she had someone to keep her company.
That was about law. I want you to ask yourself -- if you left specific instructions about what should happen should your ability to think go away, would you want a bunch of strangers intruding?
you presume that the florida legislature has never passed a bad law, which is demonstrably and manifestly untrue, and that her instructions were actually her instructions, which, considering the character of her husband, seems no more likely than about even money. and the brain is a bit of a mystery even to modern medical science. no one can say definitively what capacity she had remaining.
which is why i was never comfortable including myself in this particular debate. i dont know her wishes, or what they spoke of privately.
her parents, while an agonizing thing to watch, were not her next of kin.
the whole thing was far too political for me, but with both sides pitted against each other, it couldnt have gone any other way. the law had to step in. that it went all the way up to the Congress was a bit strange though.
That was singularly bizarre, I agree.
-
It does? NOW you tell me (think Groucho Marx).
LOL!
Unfortuneately even the relatively easy standards we have here are too much to hope for from the NU reject.
-
The husband wanted to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
The parents wanted to do the wrong thing for the right reason.
Since watching my Grandmother basically starve last October, I understand now. She had a living will right before she got Alzheimers, no feeding tube. A little over 2 years later, she quit eating. Just layed there and starved. I asked her to just go, and I prayed for the lord to take her. She didn't last 14 days though. Mercifully ended over the weekend,
-
The husband wanted to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
The parents wanted to do the wrong thing for the right reason.
Since watching my Grandmother basically starve last October, I understand now. She had a living will right before she got Alzheimers, no feeding tube. A little over 2 years later, she quit eating. Just layed there and starved. I asked her to just go, and I prayed for the lord to take her. She didn't last 14 days though. Mercifully ended over the weekend,
Good synopsis -- the story about your grandmother is quite tragic. You have my sympathies.
-
The husband wanted to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
The parents wanted to do the wrong thing for the right reason.
Since watching my Grandmother basically starve last October, I understand now. She had a living will right before she got Alzheimers, no feeding tube. A little over 2 years later, she quit eating. Just layed there and starved. I asked her to just go, and I prayed for the lord to take her. She didn't last 14 days though. Mercifully ended over the weekend,
Good synopsis -- the story about your grandmother is quite tragic. You have my sympathies.
It does make you loko at things differently once you've been through it. If she didn't have a living will, I don't know what we would have done. During the Schiavo case, I was all for leaving the tube in. After going through that myself, I just don't know.
-
^I think the only good thing to come out of Terry's case is that people realized the importance of making your wishes known in writing. It's never too soon to plan for the unspeakable. You never know when something may happen to you or a loved one.
My grandfather chose to end his life because he was fighting a really nasty form of cancer. He was sent home to die. It's still hard for me to deal with. In my mind, I know it was the right thing to do. He would have suffered and lingered and I still would have had to stand over his grave. It was all in the timing. So, I can understand why this case was so difficult for all involved.
-
^I think the only good thing to come out of Terry's case is that people realized the importance of making your wishes known in writing. It's never too soon to plan for the unspeakable. You never know when something may happen to you or a loved one.
My grandfather chose to end his life because he was fighting a really nasty form of cancer. He was sent home to die. It's still hard for me to deal with. In my mind, I know it was the right thing to do. He would have suffered and lingered and I still would have had to stand over his grave. It was all in the timing. So, I can understand why this case was so difficult for all involved.
Interesting how different people approach this. My wife and I had instructions filed with our lawyers years before the Schaivo case. Both of us have DNR. My brother OTOH has one that says "take any and all efforts to keep me alive no matter what."
And yes, this was sad -- but it bothered me how many so-called "Conservatives" decided they would pick and choose which laws to follow and which not to follow. It made the entire Conservative Right look pretty hypocritical and wigged out, just like trying teach Creationism and the fascination with Holloway.
-
resorting to the legalistic argument is, quite frankly, a little lazy and thoroughly discredited in highly
moral cases like this one. the fact that something is legal does not mean that it is therefore either
moral nor legitimate. abortion is legal, for example, and the parallels between the schiavo case and
the moral argument against abortion are not merely coincidence. there should be a standing legal
presumption in favor of defending innocent, defenseless human life. period.
and just to clear up a few odds and ends that have been misrepresented; it wasn't the state that
wanted to save her, nor was it a bunch of strangers. it was her mother and father. it simply isn't
that alien to hope that her direct family that wants to save her have some legal standing in a court
of law against her "alleged" spouse, who wants her dead so he can go on to the next mrs. schiavo
and save what money hasn't been "squandered" from her insurance settlement on her primary care.
and she was NOT dying. her body was healthy. she lived for 15 years after the respiratory and cardiac
arrest that caused her brain damage, and there is no reason to suspect that she wouldn't have lived a
normal lifespan if her husband hadn't gotten a court order to pull her feeding tube and kill her.
-
^I think the only good thing to come out of Terry's case is that people realized the importance of making your wishes known in writing. It's never too soon to plan for the unspeakable. You never know when something may happen to you or a loved one.
My grandfather chose to end his life because he was fighting a really nasty form of cancer. He was sent home to die. It's still hard for me to deal with. In my mind, I know it was the right thing to do. He would have suffered and lingered and I still would have had to stand over his grave. It was all in the timing. So, I can understand why this case was so difficult for all involved.
Interesting how different people approach this. My wife and I had instructions filed with our lawyers years before the Schaivo case. Both of us have DNR. My brother OTOH has one that says "take any and all efforts to keep me alive no matter what."
And yes, this was sad -- but it bothered me how many so-called "Conservatives" decided they would pick and choose which laws to follow and which not to follow. It made the entire Conservative Right look pretty hypocritical and wigged out, just like trying teach Creationism and the fascination with Holloway.
hypocrisy is a pretty slippery critter, as it turns out. and of course, anything that contradicts the fragment or two of intelligible political or moral philosophy that you can get your head around must be "wigged out". :whatever:
-
^I think the only good thing to come out of Terry's case is that people realized the importance of making your wishes known in writing. It's never too soon to plan for the unspeakable. You never know when something may happen to you or a loved one.
My grandfather chose to end his life because he was fighting a really nasty form of cancer. He was sent home to die. It's still hard for me to deal with. In my mind, I know it was the right thing to do. He would have suffered and lingered and I still would have had to stand over his grave. It was all in the timing. So, I can understand why this case was so difficult for all involved.
Interesting how different people approach this. My wife and I had instructions filed with our lawyers years before the Schaivo case. Both of us have DNR. My brother OTOH has one that says "take any and all efforts to keep me alive no matter what."
And yes, this was sad -- but it bothered me how many so-called "Conservatives" decided they would pick and choose which laws to follow and which not to follow. It made the entire Conservative Right look pretty hypocritical and wigged out, just like trying teach Creationism and the fascination with Holloway.
I think being a Conservative means believing in the sanctity of life. Some people take that to mean all life, including those convicted of murder and given the death penalty. Personally, I support the death penalty and I'm pro-life. It's a wide spectrum, obviously. I also think it's very difficult to judge from the sidelines. The Shiavo case proved this. You had people from all walks of life and from all political leanings weighing in. I'm loathe to join into the "coulda, shoulda, woulda" crowd because illness and death are so personal. If I were not the granddaughter of someone who committed suicide, I may be quicker to form an opinion. It's funny how personal experiences make you step back and re-assess all that you hold dear and believe in politically. I don't believe in Euthanasia because of the very slippery slope. But I'd be lying if I said that I didn't wish my grandfather could have gone more peacefully than his chosen method. These are not black and white issues for some people.
When the Shiavo case was being played out, I kept hoping that the husband and parents would come to some sort of agreement. It was obvious that they wanted to be in charge of her medical care and that he had moved on in his personal life. A lot of people say he was just getting rid of a loose end and a lot of people say that he was following her verbal wishes and that the parents just couldn't let go....sadly, we'll never know the truth. In these circumstances, the law is the law and years of legal battles confirmed that the husband had the right to decide. Regardless of disgusting that may have seemed to others. At the end of the day, this case was about one woman and her family. I don't think the govt should have intervened. I didn't like that precedent at all.
-
The husband wanted to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
The parents wanted to do the wrong thing for the right reason.
Since watching my Grandmother basically starve last October, I understand now. She had a living will right before she got Alzheimers, no feeding tube. A little over 2 years later, she quit eating. Just layed there and starved. I asked her to just go, and I prayed for the lord to take her. She didn't last 14 days though. Mercifully ended over the weekend,
oh that is so sad :(
my dad spent his last month in hospice care in a gorgeous facility in Dallas, and even though he had morphine patches to ease the pain, the intake of nutrition and fluids was difficult for him.
but having some family member come in and force us to try and keep him alive would have devastated him and us.. i cannot second judge a family, both sides had their reasons and i could easily identify with either of them.
-
I don't want to sound like I don't have any compassion for the terminally ill and the families who watch them suffer, because I do.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Terry Schiavo was not dying of a terminal illness, she was a disabled woman. I feel that is what distinguishes this case from others that involve a terminally ill family member.
-
I don't want to sound like I don't have any compassion for the terminally ill and the families who watch them suffer, because I do.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Terry Schiavo was not dying of a terminal illness, she was a disabled woman. I feel that is what distinguishes this case from others that involve a terminally ill family member.
You don't have to explain yourself, Schade. We know you don't want anyone to suffer. I agree that she was in no pain and not dying. This is one topic where I do kinda straddle the fence. It would be alot easier for me to make a decision on it if I thought the husband actually gave a damn about her.
-
^no apologies needed shadie.
An autopsy revealed that Terry was severely brain damaged with no hope of recovery. I wouldn't want to linger in that state and apparently her husband thought she felt the same way. (His motivations, subsequent actions, and conflict with the parents aside.)
Yes, I realize there is a difference between "terminal" and "disabled". But in this case I think we all have differing opinions on the proper outcome. Obviously our personal experiences come into play. It's easy to say what should be done, until it's happening to you. In my family's case, we knew my grandfather was going to die. It was just a question of how long and how painful it would be. He was able to make his choice. Huge difference between the two cases. But it certainly made me think about Terry's case in a different light. But for the grace of God and all that......
It really can't be stressed enough: TELL YOUR LOVED ONES WHAT YOU WANT. PUT IT IN WRITING. MAKE IT LEGAL.
-
I don't want to sound like I don't have any compassion for the terminally ill and the families who watch them suffer, because I do.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Terry Schiavo was not dying of a terminal illness, she was a disabled woman. I feel that is what distinguishes this case from others that involve a terminally ill family member.
that's true, but a really crucial point here is that nobody knows what she told her husband. most of us have had those conversations; "honey, just let me go.. I dont want to be a vegetable" ..
since we cant ever know what they discussed, or didnt discuss, it really is up to him, as her next of kin, to make the decisions.
if she was about to divorce the guy and people around her knew it, they should have spoken up and fought his role in her care.
it seems to me the parents, with their good intentions, made a really sad case, pretty ugly.
Terri was not going to get better or become independant again and I can only assume the husband knew that after ten years.. maybe he thought she had suffered enough?
i really have no clue.. but Congress getting involved in a private family matter was scary to me. I dont want them doing that on such an intimate level with Americans.
-
I really think we wind up losing focus when we attempt to use our personal experiences in
difficult and tragic circumstances such as these (and yes, I have had mine, as well) in an
attempt to gain an understanding.
ultimately, I don't think anyone is "qualified" to decide how much quality of life is enough life, and
who should live, and who should not. and I honestly don't give a damn if there is a law someplace
that says that I can do so legally, and I am not sure if I give a damn if I have some document that
says that at some point in the past, my loved one in the coma said that he or she once thought
that they wouldn't want to exist like that.
the issue itself is morally complicated beyond measure, and if we insist on dwelling on what is legal,
then we are missing the point entirely.
-
I really think we wind up losing focus when we attempt to use our personal experiences in
difficult and tragic circumstances such as these (and yes, I have had mine, as well) in an
attempt to gain an understanding.
ultimately, I don't think anyone is "qualified" to decide how much quality of life is enough life, and
who should live, and who should not. and I honestly don't give a damn if there is a law someplace
that says that I can do so legally, and I am not sure if I give a damn if I have some document that
says that at some point in the past, my loved one in the coma said that he or she once thought
that they wouldn't want to exist like that.
the issue itself is morally complicated beyond measure, and if we insist on dwelling on what is legal,
then we are missing the point entirely.
I don't think it was a coincidence that alot of the strongest arguments for pulling the tube came from the same people who give the strongest arguments for abortion, if I remember correctly.
-
I really think we wind up losing focus when we attempt to use our personal experiences in
difficult and tragic circumstances such as these (and yes, I have had mine, as well) in an
attempt to gain an understanding.
ultimately, I don't think anyone is "qualified" to decide how much quality of life is enough life, and
who should live, and who should not. and I honestly don't give a damn if there is a law someplace
that says that I can do so legally, and I am not sure if I give a damn if I have some document that
says that at some point in the past, my loved one in the coma said that he or she once thought
that they wouldn't want to exist like that.
the issue itself is morally complicated beyond measure, and if we insist on dwelling on what is legal,
then we are missing the point entirely.
I don't think it was a coincidence that alot of the strongest arguments for pulling the tube came from the same people who give the strongest arguments for abortion, if I remember correctly.
I wouldn't put it precisely that way, but it did tend to be the usual crowd of suspects, yes.
-
I really think we wind up losing focus when we attempt to use our personal experiences in
difficult and tragic circumstances such as these (and yes, I have had mine, as well) in an
attempt to gain an understanding.
ultimately, I don't think anyone is "qualified" to decide how much quality of life is enough life, and
who should live, and who should not. and I honestly don't give a damn if there is a law someplace
that says that I can do so legally, and I am not sure if I give a damn if I have some document that
says that at some point in the past, my loved one in the coma said that he or she once thought
that they wouldn't want to exist like that.
the issue itself is morally complicated beyond measure, and if we insist on dwelling on what is legal,
then we are missing the point entirely.
I don't think it was a coincidence that alot of the strongest arguments for pulling the tube came from the same people who give the strongest arguments for abortion, if I remember correctly.
I wouldn't put it precisely that way, but it did tend to be the usual crowd of suspects, yes.
Let's just kill all the helpless. :evillaugh:
-
I really think we wind up losing focus when we attempt to use our personal experiences in
difficult and tragic circumstances such as these (and yes, I have had mine, as well) in an
attempt to gain an understanding.
ultimately, I don't think anyone is "qualified" to decide how much quality of life is enough life, and
who should live, and who should not. and I honestly don't give a damn if there is a law someplace
that says that I can do so legally, and I am not sure if I give a damn if I have some document that
says that at some point in the past, my loved one in the coma said that he or she once thought
that they wouldn't want to exist like that.
the issue itself is morally complicated beyond measure, and if we insist on dwelling on what is legal,
then we are missing the point entirely.
well, while i agree with you in theory (that preventing the sick and the weak from mistreatment ought to be our primary focus) ... our country is one of laws.
and if we leave instructions to our spouses about our wishes, and the law allowes us the latitude to make those decisions, i'm not sure what else can be said.
-
I really think we wind up losing focus when we attempt to use our personal experiences in
difficult and tragic circumstances such as these (and yes, I have had mine, as well) in an
attempt to gain an understanding.
ultimately, I don't think anyone is "qualified" to decide how much quality of life is enough life, and
who should live, and who should not. and I honestly don't give a damn if there is a law someplace
that says that I can do so legally, and I am not sure if I give a damn if I have some document that
says that at some point in the past, my loved one in the coma said that he or she once thought
that they wouldn't want to exist like that.
the issue itself is morally complicated beyond measure, and if we insist on dwelling on what is legal,
then we are missing the point entirely.
I don't think it was a coincidence that alot of the strongest arguments for pulling the tube came from the same people who give the strongest arguments for abortion, if I remember correctly.
I wouldn't put it precisely that way, but it did tend to be the usual crowd of suspects, yes.
Let's just kill all the helpless. :evillaugh:
that certainly isnt anyone's attitude here.
this husband was lawfully allowed to make the decisions about his wife's care.
the lawyers and courts and Congress decided he also had that ability. unless you want to undo the spouse as the next of kin, then what else can the public do about this?
-
I really think we wind up losing focus when we attempt to use our personal experiences in
difficult and tragic circumstances such as these (and yes, I have had mine, as well) in an
attempt to gain an understanding.
ultimately, I don't think anyone is "qualified" to decide how much quality of life is enough life, and
who should live, and who should not. and I honestly don't give a damn if there is a law someplace
that says that I can do so legally, and I am not sure if I give a damn if I have some document that
says that at some point in the past, my loved one in the coma said that he or she once thought
that they wouldn't want to exist like that.
the issue itself is morally complicated beyond measure, and if we insist on dwelling on what is legal,
then we are missing the point entirely.
I don't think it was a coincidence that alot of the strongest arguments for pulling the tube came from the same people who give the strongest arguments for abortion, if I remember correctly.
I wouldn't put it precisely that way, but it did tend to be the usual crowd of suspects, yes.
Let's just kill all the helpless. :evillaugh:
that certainly isnt anyone's attitude here.
this husband was lawfully allowed to make the decisions about his wife's care.
the lawyers and courts and Congress decided he also had that ability. unless you want to undo the spouse as the next of kin, then what else can the public do about this?
I wasn't talking about anyone here. As I stated earlier, I firmly straddle the fence on this one. I'm talking about the liberal moonbats who didn't give a :censored: about the woman or her family. The ones who use any excuse to lessen the value of life, just to further their own cause.
-
I really think we wind up losing focus when we attempt to use our personal experiences in
difficult and tragic circumstances such as these (and yes, I have had mine, as well) in an
attempt to gain an understanding.
ultimately, I don't think anyone is "qualified" to decide how much quality of life is enough life, and
who should live, and who should not. and I honestly don't give a damn if there is a law someplace
that says that I can do so legally, and I am not sure if I give a damn if I have some document that
says that at some point in the past, my loved one in the coma said that he or she once thought
that they wouldn't want to exist like that.
the issue itself is morally complicated beyond measure, and if we insist on dwelling on what is legal,
then we are missing the point entirely.
well, while i agree with you in theory (that preventing the sick and the weak from mistreatment ought to be our primary focus) ... our country is one of laws.
and if we leave instructions to our spouses about our wishes, and the law allowes us the latitude to make those decisions, i'm not sure what else can be said.
it is more than theory, and you're skirting the actual question :wink:. what I am referring to here, is the philosophical antecedent to these laws. something gave rise to the law; it has a foundation beyond the mere fact that our elected representatives were the ones that happened to create it.
-
I don't want to sound like I don't have any compassion for the terminally ill and the families who watch them suffer, because I do.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Terry Schiavo was not dying of a terminal illness, she was a disabled woman. I feel that is what distinguishes this case from others that involve a terminally ill family member.
that's true, but a really crucial point here is that nobody knows what she told her husband. most of us have had those conversations; "honey, just let me go.. I dont want to be a vegetable" ..
since we cant ever know what they discussed, or didnt discuss, it really is up to him, as her next of kin, to make the decisions.
if she was about to divorce the guy and people around her knew it, they should have spoken up and fought his role in her care.
it seems to me the parents, with their good intentions, made a really sad case, pretty ugly.
Terri was not going to get better or become independant again and I can only assume the husband knew that after ten years.. maybe he thought she had suffered enough?
i really have no clue.. but Congress getting involved in a private family matter was scary to me. I dont want them doing that on such an intimate level with Americans.
I hate to be walking in on this discussion late...
Laurie, that sums up about how I felt about the Schiavo ordeal when it was going on. I felt for all parties involved but ultimately didn't feel it was right for the federal government to be involved.
-
I don't want to sound like I don't have any compassion for the terminally ill and the families who watch them suffer, because I do.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Terry Schiavo was not dying of a terminal illness, she was a disabled woman. I feel that is what distinguishes this case from others that involve a terminally ill family member.
that's true, but a really crucial point here is that nobody knows what she told her husband. most of us have had those conversations; "honey, just let me go.. I dont want to be a vegetable" ..
since we cant ever know what they discussed, or didnt discuss, it really is up to him, as her next of kin, to make the decisions.
if she was about to divorce the guy and people around her knew it, they should have spoken up and fought his role in her care.
it seems to me the parents, with their good intentions, made a really sad case, pretty ugly.
Terri was not going to get better or become independant again and I can only assume the husband knew that after ten years.. maybe he thought she had suffered enough?
i really have no clue.. but Congress getting involved in a private family matter was scary to me. I dont want them doing that on such an intimate level with Americans.
I hate to be walking in on this discussion late...
Laurie, that sums up about how I felt about the Schiavo ordeal when it was going on. I felt for all parties involved but ultimately didn't feel it was right for the federal government to be involved.
I refuse to feel about this issue. feeling about situations of this nature won't help you understand them.
-
I refuse to feel about this issue. feeling about situations of this nature won't help you understand them.
Well, mine was a pretty complete analysis. The spouse had the legal and moral right to make the decision he did. He said that Terri told him what her final wishes were and there is no one to say otherwise. The fact people didn't like him or his actions doesn't trump the fundamental underlying standards.
I am not really going to come back to this (unless someone PMs me and requests it). It is clearly going in circles and nothing said has undermined my arguments.
-
I refuse to feel about this issue. feeling about situations of this nature won't help you understand them.
Well, mine was a pretty complete analysis. The spouse had the legal and moral right to make the decision he did. He said that Terri told him what her final wishes were and there is no one to say otherwise. The fact people didn't like him or his actions doesn't trump the fundamental underlying standards.
I am not really going to come back to this (unless someone PMs me and requests it). It is clearly going in circles and nothing said has undermined my arguments.
it was pointless; the legality is plain to everyone that can read. it simply isn't where the heart of this question, and the only issue actually worth discussing, is to be found.
but yes, we are all aware that you are very proud of your argument, and your participation in this discussion. we will see if someone is unable to endure your absence from it, and is compelled to "request" you via PM.
-
I don't want to sound like I don't have any compassion for the terminally ill and the families who watch them suffer, because I do.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Terry Schiavo was not dying of a terminal illness, she was a disabled woman. I feel that is what distinguishes this case from others that involve a terminally ill family member.
that's true, but a really crucial point here is that nobody knows what she told her husband. most of us have had those conversations; "honey, just let me go.. I dont want to be a vegetable" ..
since we cant ever know what they discussed, or didnt discuss, it really is up to him, as her next of kin, to make the decisions.
if she was about to divorce the guy and people around her knew it, they should have spoken up and fought his role in her care.
it seems to me the parents, with their good intentions, made a really sad case, pretty ugly.
Terri was not going to get better or become independant again and I can only assume the husband knew that after ten years.. maybe he thought she had suffered enough?
i really have no clue.. but Congress getting involved in a private family matter was scary to me. I dont want them doing that on such an intimate level with Americans.
I hate to be walking in on this discussion late...
Laurie, that sums up about how I felt about the Schiavo ordeal when it was going on. I felt for all parties involved but ultimately didn't feel it was right for the federal government to be involved.
I refuse to feel about this issue. feeling about situations of this nature won't help you understand them.
well, i cant help you there... in matters such as this, emotions run high and our feelings supercede what the laws say is ok.
if my loved one is lying in a vegetative state, to me that means as a family you have a decision to make. let them go, or continue the vigil for the rest of their unnatural lives.
i dont believe God wants us to lay in a bed for 30 or 40 years with no will of our own to direct our lives. she was a pretty young woman who could have easily outlived her parents. then what?
-
ARRRRGGFGGGGghhhhhh!!1!!!! She was a disabled woman and her husband wanted to kill her! She was not terminally ill.
I swear I am going to have a stroke WE. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
they starved her to death.
I wasn't sure I heard it right in the first broadcast of the debate, and caught it on the rebroadcast. and it was such a bizarre thing to say, that I wanted to follow up on it. it turns out he meant it.
They allowed her to pass. It was her wish (as it would be mine). If I was in her brain dead situation, it would PISS ME OFF that strangers would interfere with my spoken desires to my wife (let me go). The law allows the spouse to make this decision. It is a bright line rule.
But from Shaivo, we have learned to make our intent known in writing -- so it is not all bad.
You presume that was her wish. The only person who's word we have to go on is her husband's who may have been the one who put her into that state.
And people have come back from persistent vegetative states before. Her family was willing to take care of her. He won a huge cash settlement by claiming he would use the money to take care of her.