Terri Schiavo

[CalvinOwen]

Should our judges have the right to kill an innocent person, even if someone wants a judge to kill them?

 

[frumanchu]

First of all, keep in mind that there is a difference between a judge ordering that Terry's feeding tube be removed and a judge ordering that Michael Schiavo's order for Terry's feeding tube being removed to be carried out.

Either way, the judge is not right in making the determination he has. This boils down to a euthanasia issue, despite whatever claims Michael Schiavo may make about his wife's verbally stated wishes 15 years ago. Terry is not on life support. She is NOT in a persistent vegitative state. It is unbelievable that the court actually accept testimony to the contrary, but given who Michael Schiavo's lawyer is it's hardly suprising.

The issue is this: Does an individual or their legal guardian have the right under law to terminate the life of that individual based on subjective quality of life?

Michael claims Terry would not want to live this way, and he is therefore acting upon her wishes. If this is indeed her wish (highly debatable), then this is assisted suicide. If this is not her wish, then this is euthanasia.

Either way, there is no moral or legal justification for this.

Yet...

 

[Imblessed]

Hard, hard issue. Makes me want to go out and get a living will, and be very specific about what I would and would not expect if anything like that happens to me, because I sure wouldn't want my husband to have to deal with it.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

Apparently certain people have not recently read the Declaration of Independence. In the second paragraph, it reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Apparently, this does not apply to anyone deemed "unfit to live."

 

[~Heavens_Bride~]

My wish if anything like this were to happen to me, "Let God take me when my room is prepared!"

The LORD giveth and the LORD taketh away.

 

[Knight]

The whole thing is appaling.

Taking someone off life support is one thing. Letting them starve to death is something else entirely.

Here's a good question. If she did tell her husband that this is what she wanted then why did they not write it down?

Here's another. How can he be believed to have her best interests at heart when he's living with another woman and has children with her?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i found a few interesting blog entries today on the topic:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/level_head/172402.html
a link he refers to: http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm
another blog entry: http://www.livejournal.com/community/christianity/1875983.html
and another: http://www.livejournal.com/community/libertarianism/1015423.html

the miami.edu has lots of helpful links.

post edit
level_head added a couple more excellent links.
worth the time to work through if you are thinking about the issue.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001245.html

Evangelical Outpost has a few good ones as well.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2005/03/michael_schiavo.html

Here is the best post I have seen on this matter yet. It convicted me of looking at Michael, the courts, and the whole thing through a lens that was not based on the gospel or the cross, and uses Paul as an excellent example. This is a must-read!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

has any one seen an outline of the topic and an organized link list?
it has reached a point that i can't see the forest through the trees.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

http://www.terrisfight.net

Here is the most authoritive site about it, though it doesn't have a complete reading list. Sadly, the best reading will probably be found after it is all over.

 

[Knight]

Take a look at www.family.org

Thay have some good information as well.

 

[Elderone]

Apparently certain people have not recently read the Declaration of Independence. In the second paragraph, it reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Apparently, this does not apply to anyone deemed "unfit to live."

There is a book out, which I haven't yet read but is recommended by our Minister entitled: "Men In Black". It is about the Supreme Court and how they are taking away our liberties and rights. This most probably could apply to many other judges also.

 

[Caprice]

Here's a good question. If she did tell her husband that this is what she wanted then why did they not write it down?

Even more importantly, in my opinion, why didn't they carry her wishes out 10 or so years ago rather than waiting this long?

And I still don't see what right he thinks he has if he is obviously not being faithful to his wife. I don't care what the law says, at some point that is just wrong.

 

[Ryft]

There are so many things that bother me about this case, I can scarcely find a place where to begin.

One of the first things that bothers me is a prevailing opinion, originating with Michael Schiavo and affirmed by sympathizers of his view, that Terri should be "allowed to die," and I will tell you why this bothers me—Terri is not dying. By that I mean to say that she is not suffering from a terminal illness. She is not even on any sort of life support system—at least, not any "life support system" that differs from what any other human being is on, that is, food and water. Like some victims of Huntington's Disease, Terri cannot properly swallow. During my early twenties, I had the privelege of working in care homes for physically and mentally disabled adults and experienced, first-hand, people with this sort of problem. Yet not once did it ever occur to me nor did I ever hear anyone suggest that such people should be "allowed to die," and for good reason—they weren't dying. They suffered from neurologic conditions that impaired swallowing, but they had otherwise an intact, functional gastrointestinal tract. Like Terri. And like Terri, they too were not on any form of life support—their heart, like Terri's, beat on its own, their lungs functioned on their own, like Terri's. No one ever suggested that these people should be "allowed to die" because, like Terri, they were not dying. They were physically and mentally disabled, like Terri, one of them quite severly (the other workers always volunteered me to change his diapers; what fun), and certainly a great many of us able-bodied individuals are sure that we could not bear to live like that, but the point will be stressed once more here: neither they, nor others like them, nor Terri, are considered to be "dying." If Terri is not dying, it makes no sense to say that she should be "allowed to die."

Another thing that bothers me is the persistent expression of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) as "life support." It simply is not. This evening I had a nice pasta dish dressed in a cheese sauce with seasoned beef—all right, it was Kraft Dinner with ground beef stirred in—and a glass of milk. In a forensic sense, perhaps one could call this life support, for surely food and water go to support life. But who in their right mind would sincerely call meals a "life support system"? It is simply absurd, if you ask me. And yet the only difference between myself and Terri is that I swallowed my nutrients and hydration. Is that what makes the difference for these people? If you can swallow, it's food; if you cannot swallow, it's life support? What kind of logic is this? I encourage them, or anyone else, to inquire after the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, or any other physicians and surgeons with expertise in gastroenterology, and ask them, "Is a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy considered to be a life support system?"

I am also bothered by Michael's allegation, propagated by his sympathizers, that Terri expressed a desire to die, and that the removal of the PEG is nothing more than Michael deferring to Terri's wishes. This is not a tangential issue; it is, in fact, one of the very hubs of the entire controversy, as seen throughout most of the judicial proceedings. Had Terri never uttered a word about it, in any context or form, it seems quite likely that court rulings would have turned out very differently. Given that this question is so central to the entire issue, why has it been given the weight it has when it is established by nothing more compelling than hearsay? Did Terri say that, if she was ever in a situation were she would require a PEG, she would rather be allowed to just die? Pay very careful attention to this answer: "No." In fact, I'm fairly confident (and both her parents and Michael could affirm or deny this) that during the first 26 years of Terri's life, she never even heard of a PEG. Let me tell you what happened, according to the materials I've gone over. Michael alleges that Terri made a comment, after watching a movie (about Karen Quinlan), about how she wouldn't want to be on a life support system like that. Four things I want to say about this. First, it was a comment made after watching a movie! The idea that comments you make after watching a movie could one day decide whether you live or die would sure make you think more carefully about what you say when the credits roll, hmm? Second, Karen Quinlan was on a respirator; Terri is not. Third, Terri is not on any life support system at all, other than that which every one of us is on—food. Fourth, Karen was in a coma; Terri is not.

Related to this, I am bothered by Judge Greer's incompetent handling of this issue. When Diane Meyer, a friend of Terri's, testified in court about the 1982 comment Terri made after the movie, Greer said he thought Meyer's testimony was not credible because she described the conversation in the present tense. Pardon me? You are basing the decision whether to end someone's life on your confusion over verb tense? "The court is mystified as to how these present tense verbs would have been used some six years after the death of Karen Ann Quinlin [sic]," he wrote. First of all, it is not agreed that Michael's hearsay constitutes "clear and convincing evidence." Second of all, Greer's confusion over verb tense is not a justifiable basis to end Terri's life. Third, Greer's mystification over present tense verbs notwithstanding, it was highly appropriate for that conversation to have occurred in the present tense since Quinlan didn't die when they pulled the plug on her in 1976—she didn't die until 1985, three years after their conversation in 1982! And Greer has been informed of this. It is one of the many reasons Terri's parents want him to void his 2000 ruling. Even though that conversation did not occur "six years after" Quinlan's death but, rather, three years prior to it, Greer denied the motion. Furthermore, Michael's lead attorney, George Felos, told the Springfield Times that this point was insignificant and not worthy of revisiting. Excuse me? We are talking about starving Terri to death here, based on a 'comment she made after watching a movie; this makes Diane Meyer's testimony eminently significant!

One thing that perhaps bothers me most of all is the fact that Michael Schiavo, during the 1992 malpractice suit (in which he was awarded nearly $2 million, $1.4 million dollars to Terri for her care and rehabilitation and $630,000 to him for his loss), not only did he make no mention whatsoever of Terri's alleged "wish" to be allowed to die, but begged the court for the chance to personally take care of his wife at home for the rest of his life. He had sought for $20 million, to cover the cost of her future medical and neurological care (estimating her life expectancy was 50 years.) He also informed the court that he would use the award to study nursing, so as to be equipped to care for Terri (which he did study). He also emphatically stated, "I believe in the vows I took with my wife—through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that." Let this be understood, don't miss this point: From Terri's initial collapse in 1990, throughout the next two years, and especially during the malpractice suit, Michael did not once ever mention a word about Terri's alleged "wish" to be allowed to die. His entire malpractice suit and the award he was seeking was predicated on Terri remaining alive! But not long after the award was granted, Michael was pursuing ways in which to have Terri die (starting with trying to prevent hospital staff from treating a life-threatening infection, which they overruled and administered anyway). It goes on and on.

Read here to find out how Michael has been spending Terri's malpractice suit award. Read here for an eye-opening account of what has been happening throughout the years, information the larger media is disinclined to report.

 

[Imblessed]

Ryft,

I've come to many of the same conclusions as you in this case. You put it so much better than I though!!

I just pray that God is making it easy on Terri as she passes.
And that He helps Terri's parents through this horrifying time.

 

[rnmomof7]

My wish if anything like this were to happen to me, "Let God take me when my room is prepared!"

The LORD giveth and the LORD taketh away.

We can be sure our room is waiting and the bed linen turned down.. not a bird falls from the sky without it being ordained.

Now that does not absolve those that act taking that life from the eternal consequences.

The Irish have a wonderful toast..

"May you be in heaven an hour before Satan knows your dead"

I too pray to go to sleep one night and wake in His arms

I pray that someone has whispered the gospel in her ear..

 

[Macrina]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/brain_damaged_woman

She is gone now. May the Lord shed peace on her family, and may her rest be blessed.

 

[Foundthelight]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/brain_damaged_woman

She is gone now. May the Lord shed peace on her family, and may her rest be blessed.

Amen.

 

[rnmomof7]

I pray that God sent the gospel to her before her death.

God who is sovereign could open her understanding and softened her heart to repent and come.

I pray that she went from this life into His arms and is held and comforted by Him as I type.

To the culture of death I say this, you heart is now manifest..

Mar 4:22
For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.
Mar 4:23
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Mar 4:24
And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.