Schiavo: Kill or let live?

Statikk HDM · #1 03-20-2005, 06:06 AM

Recently the U.S. government was going absolutely bonkers over this thing called the Terry Shiavo case. Essentially there is this woman who has been in a deep coma for about 14, 15 years. He body is ravaged by this, totally atrophied and she only has about half of her brain undamaged from the injury and the life support. Hey, no big deal, right? This happens every day, right? Nobody cares, right? Wrong. The fam wants her on life support(why, kill her and move on!!!) but the husband wants to kill her. Now, the Right is using this as a total political football. They get to look like knights in shining armor. If they do save Terry's "life" they look like freaking paladins, nobles, questors for all that is right and true. And if they fail? A well, they gave it the good old college try and to some people they look like heroes. Problem is, the public isn't buying it. In polls numbers show time and time again that more than 60 percent think that the spouse should decide medical things like this if the spouse is incapacitated. Thing is, I've always thought that God's will be done. In any other time period in history this woman would be dead. God, in his infinite wisdom has chosen to not let this woman recover. She didn't recover today, nor will she recover tomorrow. 14 years she hasn't recover, i don't think she ever will. Who are we to get in the way of God's divine plan on this?

Agent-Sarah · #2 03-20-2005, 09:05 AM

I agree with you on this. End this poor woman's misery.

AquaticAmbi · #3 03-20-2005, 09:16 AM

Hmm... Not quite sure how I feel about this. I think that if there isn't an agreement on taking her off life support from both her husband and her immediate family, then it shouldn't be done. I think they both have a say in it. I do feel sorry for the husband though. He's not the bad, heartless guy the media has made him out to be. He's accepted that his wife more than likely will never recover, and he's ready to move on. I think there should be some sort of way for his marriage to her to be no longer valid or something so he can re-marry someday if he wants that option.

"In any other time this period in history this woman would be dead."
I think that's slightly flawed because can't that apply to almost every sort of disease, injury, etc. that can now be treated easily because of new technology? As for the religious stuffs, who's to say what God's divine plan thing is? I'm sure the family and the husband believe they are each on God's side of the issue.

Disgruntled Intern · #4 03-20-2005, 11:10 AM

Shoot the miserable bitch right in between the eyes.

Statikk HDM · #5 03-20-2005, 11:18 AM

How many effing neurosurgeons have to look at this lady and tell people that she is so far gone that even if she would regain consciousness and mobility she'd still be a vegetable, a zombie. Well, the tube was pulled recently. God, what a grotesque way to die!. If this happens to me that whole "pull the plug and let him starve and dehydrate" b.s. wouldn't even be on the table. Swab me up and give me a lethal injection. Hell, blow me away with a boomstick. Any quick, relatively painless death is preferable to starvation.

sligster · #6 03-20-2005, 12:34 PM

Kill her. Take her off life support, and end her miserey.

Keeping her alive costs the hospital bundles, anyway.

TheRaisin · #7 03-20-2005, 01:04 PM

She was unconscious when they pulled the plug. I doubt she felt anything. I'm glad they decided to take her off life support. There's no reason to keep a person alive like that. That's not living. A living body is not the same as a living person.

Agent-Sarah · #8 03-20-2005, 02:18 PM

She say to her husband that she wants to be dead, not plugged up in a mechine.

And her husband got re-married and now has kids.

Jacob · #9 03-20-2005, 02:24 PM

Kill her and then harvest her organs. This should be done with many-a-disabled person and/or comatosed person. At least that way they're giving something back.

Statikk HDM · #10 03-20-2005, 03:08 PM

Sligster raises a good point. This was what judges decided many times to be the case, that Terri wanted to be killed if she was ever in this state. The husband just wants to do want Terri wanted. And just because he has gotten into a commonlaw marriage doesn't mean he doesn't care about her anymore. He's paying the hospital bills for God's sakes!
And how dare the ****ing government step into a personal thing such as this. I believe Terri would want to be killed in this situation but I don't think her dying wish was to be turned into a political football and have every steamy facet of her life paraded by the media.

Dino · #11 03-20-2005, 04:49 PM

That is to assume that God exists. Not everyone believes in God, and everyone has a right to freely choose their religion without having any one religion be imposed upon them. In short, human rights issues are not and should not be affected by any religion. Opinions on Euthenasia are only ever heard from Christianity, never any of the other religions, and this is because Christians tend to believe that everyone should just accept their religion as fact, and that any act that isn't Christian should be outlawed.

Nobody is to say that God is the one who decided to make her not recover, and therefore make it wrong to keep her alive and defy God. I'm not quite sure how to articulate this, but what I'm generally trying to say is, that religions shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether she lives or dies. Why should christianity be the deciding religion? Why not some strange tribal religion from deep within a jungle settlement somewhere?

No religion is accepted fact. In essence, religion is all partisan screed - as meaningful and relevant as it is to the individual, it's worthless and useless, and in cases like this unhelpful, to others who do not believe in or agree with it. If the woman is Christian, then she should be treated as her religion requires, but if she isn't then for the sake of sanity, stop trying to impose your beliefs and essentially take someone's life in the name of your God. It's not right.

Al the Glukkon · #12 03-20-2005, 04:54 PM

I agree with DI and Jacob.

AquaticAmbi · #13 03-20-2005, 05:06 PM

:

stop trying to impose your beliefs and essentially take someone's life in the name of your God.

That line was excellent.

Anyway, how can any of you say you don't believe this woman would want this or that? You don't know her, so that's such a pointless thing to debate.

Regarding the starvation method of killing, I read an article stating that the doctors say she cannot feel hunger or anything like that, so she'll just drift away. However, that method seems like it would be emotionally painful for the family to watch. They should use some faster way like lethal injection in my oppinion. Or even better, do something that could leave her organs able to be donated like Jacob suggested.

Statikk HDM · #14 03-20-2005, 05:08 PM

I was just trying to make a different point, that by saving this "person" we could in essence be violating the will of God. And did I say Christian God? No I didn't, I meant God as a concept.
So, Dino, you want Terri to live? You want to go against laws, the rulings of judges, and Shiavo's expressed wishes? I'm not grokking your post.

Dino · #15 03-20-2005, 06:14 PM

:

I was just trying to make a different point, that by saving this "person" we could in essence be violating the will of God. And did I say Christian God? No I didn't, I meant God as a concept.
So, Dino, you want Terri to live? You want to go against laws, the rulings of judges, and Shiavo's expressed wishes? I'm not grokking your post.

I don't know why you're asking me if I want to go against Shiavo's wishes. Seems like a bit of a stupid question me. I don't see how having my own opinion, "goes against" someone... Nor do I see how I would be going against any laws. I'm not proposing that I want to personally stop everyone from killing her simply by telling you that all this God stuff is out of place in this argument.

Also, I never said I want Terri to live. You're quite the stereotype to imply taht you've made that assumption with your "you want Terri to live?" question. On the contrary I believe that she should've died 14 years ago, and that the sooner she dies, the better.

"We" COULD be violating the will of a God, possibly, but "we" have no way of proving that so it's a moot point, and one that is irrellevant to the argument. This woman and her family don't care about how the euthenasia of Terri affects your religious beliefs, and rightly so too.

To be honest, saying that keeping her alive could be violating the will of God is like saying you could be violating the will of the invisible fairies by walking using only two limbs. You COULD potentially be violating the will of the invisible fairies by not walking on all fours, but there is no real way of proving it, nor any point in trying/arguing for/against it. The fact that you believe that the will of the fairies has been violated is not reason enough to start forcing random people in the street to walk on all fours merely to meet your religious standards. In fact, that would be an incredibly selfish thing to do.

Unless you can truely prove the existance of the fairies, you have no real legitimate argument for making people walk on all fours, therefore they shouldn't be expected to, and your opinion should not be a factor in someone elses chosen method of travel.

I'm not "grokking" your post either, I'm simply arguing my case and offering my opinions.

Voodoo Hand · #16 03-21-2005, 04:51 AM

Look`s like this is not over yet. This is the latest Govt. move to take control of the situation.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._damaged_woman

soulstice · #17 03-21-2005, 07:18 AM

We had a case like this here too. A woman called Diane Pretty had MotoNeuron disease. Basically she couldn't do anything. It had completely made her basic functions deteriorate. She appealed for a 'right to die' law, but unfortunately it didn't pass in Parliament. So I think she went to Switzerland where there is a law that allows Euthanasia in extreme situations. It was very sad. I think they should allow Terri Schiavo to die if her quality of life is that low. I saw her on BBC News and I'm sure she wouldn't have wanted her life to be like this. If she wants to be released through death, then it really should be her choice and not the choice of Political Bigwigs.

Jacob · #18 03-21-2005, 07:47 AM

I heard that Pro-life campaigners are outside her bedroom window.

Why? For f*cks sake, why? Did God go to them and say -

"Hey there, peeps! How're you all? That's good. And you Mavis, how's your hip? Good. Well, i need a favour gang! Yeh, there's this woman...and she's a bit of a Veggie...been like this for a good decade now, give or take, i don't know, didn't really pay much attention, anytoast, her hubby wants to end her life. And her family want to keep her alive. Saying that she's not a Veggie and all...but she is. Trust me. So, i need you, The Godsquad, to go down to the Hospital, stand outside her bedroom window, and make COMPLETE and utter f*ckwads of yourselves in my name. Just be a total nuisance. A complete set of c*cks. Go. Now. To the God mobile!"

I agree with Amber though, they should give her some kind of injection. Starving her to death does seem a bit too...ick, to me.

On the odd occassion we have the reverse situation over here. There's been the parents of a disabled child saying they want to keep that child alive, but the Doctors have been wanting to end it's life, saying it's for the best for the child, as it's in constant pain. Though, it's the parents wishes, in my opinion, and the Doctors should just leave well alone.

EDIT - Oh, and another thing, the Bible says sod all about Euthanasia and Abortion, so why do c*ck packers like this lot feel the need to preach this is what their God wants?! If it's not wrote down, people, then it's not his opinion. Remember...he's a God! He'd've known all of these shenanigans were coming, so surely he would've put an advanced note in such as "Oh, and don't kill babies when they're Foetuses...oh, and killing somebody in extreme pain, even though they want to be killed, is also bad. Yes. None of this. Thankyou."

Statikk HDM · #19 03-21-2005, 08:40 AM

Nobody gets it. This is more than just what the family wants or what the spouse wants.
"Michael Schiavo—the husband of Terry, who is also her court-appointed guardian—claims that Terry, when competent, indicated that she would never wish to be kept alive in a situation such as the one in which she presently finds herself. In other words, the husband claims that Terry, like many people who give the issue a passing thought, made a statement such as, “if I were ever a vegetable, just let me die.”
Furthermore, the law passed to allow Terri to live and let this become a national issue is clearly unconstitutional and just recently the courts struck it down. So what we have here is a jack-booted fascist(Jeb Bush) creating an unconstitutional law to take the heat off of his friends before the ethics board, drum up support in the frothing-at-the-mouth fundamentalist base and make liberals and moderates look like viscous monsters.
Furthermore, the Florida court ruled that as the legal guardian of Terri he could have the tube removed. And who is bitching about that decision of the state? Thats right, the Republicans who control every branch of the federal government. So, to the dominant political party, the one that always whines about states right, states rights only apply when there isn't a nice big juicy issue on the table. What a load of bs. The right-to lifers, who are pro-war and pro-death penalty are once again displaying their unsurpassed hypocrisy.

Havoc · #20 03-21-2005, 09:42 AM

"As from now on its illigal to let someone die even if they will be a vegetable for the rest of their lives!"

Oh yea... I can see that happening now... That would be a typical Bush action. What the **** is up with America these days! Apparently no one thinks about what this woman would have actualy wanted. Its all about me me me and I don't give a shit about you... pathetic americans...

AquaticAmbi · #21 03-21-2005, 09:43 AM

:

"Michael Schiavo—the husband of Terry, who is also her court-appointed guardian—claims that Terry, when competent, indicated that she would never wish to be kept alive in a situation such as the one in which she presently finds herself. In other words, the husband claims that Terry, like many people who give the issue a passing thought, made a statement such as, “if I were ever a vegetable, just let me die.”

Whoah, I never read anything that stated she had talked about this situation with her husband before it happened. That rules out the prospectives I was throwing out there before I knew she had actually addressed the issue herself. My vote is now let her wishes be fulfilled. But not through starvation... Blah.

Voodoo Hand · #22 03-21-2005, 11:23 AM

:

. However, that method seems like it would be emotionally painful for the family to watch. They should use some faster way like lethal injection in my oppinion.
.

i know that this makes little sense, but to the legal and medical professions the line between starvation and injection is very clear, even though the end result is the same. Food , water, oxygen, are considered maintenance items. Every thing else is medical intervention, the boogie man to lawyers because of the inplication to homicide, and to doctors because of (the widely interpreted)
Hippocratic Oath thing. ( remember Dr. Jack Kevorkian, he is still up on accessory to murder chargers.)
Itseems that the courts feel starvation is a " Natural course" and OK in this case.
However if you lock your little brother in the basement for six weeks with no food or water, i`am sure you will be charged big time...... Go figure.

Also i have read articals that say Terry did discuss this situation with her husband, but he has no admissible evidence to prove this ever happend, just his word. Don`t think the local Nazies are going to accept his word, when they already know " What God Wants"

TheRaisin · #23 03-21-2005, 02:33 PM

Things get so bass-ackwards. I find it sickening that it is a safer legal move to allow a woman to slowly STARVE TO DEATH than to give her a quick injection and let it all be over. Really ****ing great job.

MojoMan220 · #24 03-21-2005, 03:57 PM

It's funny, Tom DeLay, the house majority leader, said that she was just as alive as you or me. I think that might be exaggerating things just a little bit... I just can't believe people who had no part in the women's life are trying to keep her alive against her will. I'm alright if the parents want to keep her from dying, but when some guy who just recently heard of the story tries to turn the public against her wishes, that really pisses me off.

Billy Cripner · #25 03-21-2005, 09:21 PM

They're now starting to think that her husband may have tried to kill her

WineDarkSea · #26 03-22-2005, 03:23 AM

A perfect example of why you should have a living will.

Esus · #27 03-22-2005, 08:57 AM

There was a case somewhat similar to this that I heard about a while ago. The patient wasn't on life support, but they couldn't move and had to be fed food and water. The patient wanted to die (euthanasia, etc). Essentially, it came down to a coutroom battle - should the doctors kill the person or not? Of course they couldn't. Euth' is illegal and doing it would make loads of people want to die. So what they did was to categorise food and water as 'medical treatment'. A doctor is within the law to withdraw medical treatment from a patient, and so that's what the doctors did. The patient starved to death.

Anyway, that's not really related.