• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

right to life - right to die

Ah yes. I knew it would come down to red states and blue states. And I knew you would eventually mention that much-mentioned-by-liberals article about President Bush's 1999 bill. The differences in those cases and this one are like night and day.

And it's not that we "right-wingers" find ways to blame everything on President Clinton. It's not hard to locate something that's right in front of your face. Unless, of course, you've got on those funky liberal glasses that allow you to see everything in millions of shades of gray.
 
Wow, this thread is getting hot!

I still want to caution people about defining quality of life. Look at Christopher Reeve. How many people said, "Man, I couldn't live like that!" when everything happened to him. I'm sure his quality of life was low in people's eyes. And yet he lived and he loved and he was an inspiration to a lot of people. I know his and Terri's situation are two different things, but you start defining one person's quality of life as worthless and where does it end?

Videos have shown Terri smiling, laughing, responding to people. Some reports have mentioned that with therapy, her life could have improved, but it was denied to her. Heck, why couldn't they even brush her teeth or let her go outside once in a while? I don't want to lash the blame on Michael Schiavo and automatically say he's a rat because I don't know what he must be experiencing through all this. For all I know, he could be filled with grief. But if there is any hint of a suspicion against him, I also think it bears investigation. It'd be a shame down the road if it came out that all these people had assisted a husband in killing his wife. I'm not saying he did. I'm saying it should probably be investigated. I'm trying to be as objective as possible with all this.

Death by starvation...some experts say there will be no suffering involved while others claim there will be. Who do you believe? What I observe from most people is that they believe what they want. People already have a preconceived notion of the way things are and nothing will change their mind about it. I see this on both sides of the issue.

As for the red-state/blue-state blame game, I believe both sides have done their fair share of finger-pointing. Why let this thread descend to even more? *shakes head* Why does everything seem to become a red-state/blue-state issue?
 
"Ah yes. I knew it would come down to red states and blue states."

It came down to that because that's where you brought it sweetsymphony. That's where I chose to stand down. This is not a matter of government or politics. This is a family matter, not a government matter.

I've never voted for a republican or a democrat in a presidential election in my life. I think at that level of politics there's not an honest man amoung them in either party. To me, the Republican's and the Democrats have quickly become the embarassment of the entire United States. There's no honesty and integrity on that level from any of them. It's all about the almighty dollar and the party. And their both entangled in each other to a disgusting degree.

You brought the debate to that level and I'm not interested in continuing this thread in that direction.
 
You know, I'd really rather keep politics out of it, too. But you cannot take it out of the equation in this debate. I'm sorry that pointing out facts bothers you. Perhaps a lot of my argument has been shaded by my personal feelings. But the fact cannot be ignored that President Clinton appointed the majority of judges that have ruled in this case. That isn't just a coincidence, and we'd be ignorant if we chose to ignore it.

I don't blame everything on President Clinton. I just realize that there are some things that he was involved in, and we can't erase that now. I have disagreements with President Bush on several things, and I won't deny that now or ever. Nobody is perfect.

What I'm trying to say here is that we can't honestly discuss this issue without bringing up the facts. You can debate the "what-ifs" all day long, if you want. But I refuse to discuss it with anyone who won't include or accept reality.
 
novella said:
sweetsymphony, the fact is that whether you like it or not it's completely legal to remove life support systems in this country. That's been established for almost 40 years. Any family can do it any time they wish to. The difference in this case is that the family can't agree. The argument is not about whether it is right or wrong to remove life support, but about who in this case has the right to decide.
Click to expand...


I'm quoting myself here, because I think the two of you--Moto and ss--are missing the legal point here. The legal precedent that these judges are basing decisions on is well established. It's NOT open to conservative/liberal interpretation at this point. Everyone involved knows that. Right to die laws and euthanasia laws are irrelevant. It's not about quality of life. The issue is WHO HAS THE RIGHT IN THIS CASE TO DECIDE.
 
I'm aware of this novella.

I was enjoying the debate regardless of the actual issue at hand. Nobody but sweetsymphony and myself was chiming in so what they hell....debate on was my thought...until the degradation into "blame Clinton for all of societies woes" part I was having fun with a difficult subject in a tit-for-tat conversation.

Now it's just a few follow-ups for those who may be interested. And one post to back myself up that this is not solely because of any one particular president or political party.
 
sweetsymphony said:
I find it very telling how my last post was totally ignored.
Click to expand...
What it's telling you is that people don't want to turn this into a political debate. Much as I hate to, I'm putting on my moderator's hat and reminding you that our membership agreement prohibits political discussions. Them's the rules. When discussions degrade into political mud-slinging, we will lock a thread. Not something I or the other mods like to do.
 
------------------------
Was going to continue re Moto's last, but have deleted in deference to Ell's judgment. :)
 
What it's telling you is that people don't want to turn this into a political debate. Much as I hate to, I'm putting on my moderator's hat and reminding you that our membership agreement prohibits political discussions. Them's the rules. When discussions degrade into political mud-slinging, we will lock a thread. Not something I or the other mods like to do.
Click to expand...
If that was the truth, this thread would have been deleted or locked on page 1. This issue, by nature, has obvious political and religious overtones.

What really gets me is the fact that "political mud-slinging" occurred quite a few posts before Motokid and I got into the debate. Please allow me to quote:

Interesting that he believes it's ok to "kill" somebody regardless of their wishes based on financial abilities to pay for people in Texas, but in this case, in Florida, he wants to error on the side of life. (Motokid)

For Congress and Bush to legislate--as if they have some higher wisdom to contribute (ha!)-- at this point is just obvious pandering to the right-to-life crowd. Their unanimity on this just shows what a bunch of cowardly unprincipled sychophants they all are. (Novella)
Click to expand...
Try to keep a straight face and tell me those comments aren't political.

Yet, in a quite revealing turn of events, once a conservative speaks up 3 days after the above-quoted comments, she gets her hand slapped!

I never cease to be amazed at actions like this. I should demand an apology, but I'm to the point now that I just don't give a damn.
 
I think you should calm down Sweet :)

Ell was meaning no offence. She just saw things getting really heated and was trying to calm things down. We sometimes let things slide a little here. Ell had to step in because things were getting heated! Ell has nothing against you, so please don't take it that way. Your contrabutions are vauled.

So please don't take it personal, ok? :)
 
Living off of a G-Tube (what the feeding tube is called) is NO way to live. The removal of a G-Tube is a fairly common practice, yet George and Jeb don't seem to care all that much about the other patients whose tubes get removed. In my opinion, it's not all that different than "pulling the plug on life support". Instead of not having nutrition or water, those people suffocate. Yet, I don't see the president, his brother and half the population of this country jumping to stop it from happening.

Honestly, I've seen the conditions that people like this live in and I am strongly in favor of G-Tube removal and discontinuation of life support for those with irreversable brain injuries. I'm sure that Teri is being medicated for pain she won't even feel and will go quietly and hummanely.
 
Thanks, Wabbit.

Sweetsymphony, we try not to be too heavy-handed with the rules, despite what some may think. Therefore, as Wabbit mentioned, we do let threads slide to a certain extent and let members self-edit whenever possible. I took Moto's response to turn away from the political side of this issue and non-response to your post as an attempt to do so.

I was not singling you out. Your particular post just seemed an appropriate spot to intervene.
 
What is it about some cases that get so much press and others don't. This Schiavo senario is happening all over the world, yet this one case gets the publicity? Huge portions of the population do not have written, living wills, and many are facing the same decisions about their loved ones. Why is this "one" case so prominant in the media?

If this this was a welfare family of black people in Detroit, Michigan would anybody be talking about it? Would Congress be making decisions and the Supreme Court be involved at all?

Reminds me of some of the highly publicized cases of missing people like Lacy Peterson, or the little girl in Florida just recently. All over the news. Yet people from all walks of life and of various colors go missing everyday and we are not hearing about them like we hear about these select few.

What is it the media siezes on that makes something like this so big?
 
I think cases like this make you step back and just think, you know? Makes you think about society in general, about ethical grey areas, about our own humanity. What intrigues me so much about this case is lately, all the affidavits and suggestions that there might have been some form of abuse/neglect from the husband. Is he truly a grieving husband or someone trying to cover up something more sinister? Why is he so insistent on cremating the body as soon as she's dead, not allowing for an autopsy? Perhaps that's the mystery/thriller lover in me coming out. But also, too, there are so many conflicting statements about this whole thing. Yes, therapy could help her. No, therapy couldn't do a thing for her. She's in a permanent vegetative state. No she's not. She's incredibly responsive. She'll feel pain while starving to death. She won't feel a thing. Who do you believe? Which "expert" do you listen to?

One nurse has even issued an affidavit claiming she was able to feed her ice water and jello without the feeding tube and she never gagged, suggesting she could possibly do ok on her own. And then I hear that there are people in the room that make sure that her family doesn't try to give her water because she might choke to death on it. lol. Makes no sense!

Call me naive or an idealist, but I don't think race or socio-economic status has anything to do with it. Yes, this kind of stuff probably happens every day all over the world and who knows why certain cases go into the spotlight and others, we never hear about. The ones we do hear about, though, really affect people in different ways. Look at the responses to this own thread. It has made the people here on this forum analyze the situation and make their own decisions based on which sources they trust for correct information, the way they were brought up, and their own personal feelings on if they were personally involved in ths situation.

While these cases make me wonder if society as a whole has completely lost all humanity, the very fact that so many people have raised their head and looked outside their own little bubble makes me hope that it hasn't.
 
I am standing by sweetsymphony on this-heres why:
My friend has a son who was in a car hit by a drunk moron. Her son was six weeks old. Half his brain was crushed. He has no motor skills, no speech, cant see more than a few feet away, is constantly ill, often cannot breathe on his own, regularly hospitalized, and has been on a feeding tube for I believe the last 2 years now. When I saw Terri's pictures on TV, it struck me that she was just like Jay. He blinks and moves his eyes and sometimes smiles. Who knows whats going on in there, but THERE IS SOMEONE IN THERE!!! And until a higher power than us decides to take him, he'll be fed and clean and warm and loved. Anyone deserves at least that. His mother would never let him starve to death. Its just sick and inhumane. Who are any of us on the outside to decide what's going on in there?

I also agree that starving to death does not sound pleasant at all! I feel awful for Terri and her family! Try to think of one of your children laying in a bed, starving-ITS HORRIBLE!
 
This is a very touchy subject. It's probably not meant for a book forum but more in a philosophy forum but it's nice to discuss it anyway. I think the issue that alot of people have is that we are letting someone die when they could very well live for another 20 or 30 years. Personally, I certainly would not want to live the way Terri Schiavo is living and I've told this to my family now because of this.

She's been in this vegetative state for 15 years, so it's a little difficult to know what she would want at this point. So it then falls down to her guardian to decide her fate. Her husband says that she would not want to live like this. There's no real reason not to believe him, he's actually been offered money to just walk away. (I think I saw this in this Thread). Her parents say that they don't want her to die. Not really a mention of what they believe she would want, but rather that they don't want to see her die.
I can certainly sympathise with them. Being a parent the last thing I would want is to see my child die of starvation.

Wow, is this ever a tough one. If I put myself in Terri's position, what would I want? I think we just have to let her guardian decide. I know this is very passive answer, especially when there's a human life at stake. But, wouldn't you want someone to fight for your wishes the way her husband is fighting for hers now? Everybody is saying that he wants her dead for a reason. What if it's because this is what she wants? Wouldn't that warrant the fight that he's putting up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top