The Terri Schiavo PAC

[sgtmac_46]

The people fighting to pro-long the forced feeding of Ms. Schaivo tended to be religious fundamentalists. As this is the defense camp, I used the idea from their framework to a) strengthen my position and b) point out their hypocrisy.

So basically it was a backhanded ad hominem based on what you 'think' was the mind set of those who disagreed with the decision to end Shaivo's life. Since I, for one, am NOT a religioius fundamentalist, I can assure you that it certainly isn't an argument that impresses me any.

The bible is, in many cases, an excellent guidepost for living in community. Our country is a nation of laws (some of the time anyway), so we do not use scripture as the legal framework, even if we sometimes take our cues from it.

And sometimes not, depending on whether it supports our particular position.

How much I would refute the use of the bible would depend on the nature of the argument.

It depends on whether or not the bible would support your assertion. Of course, that's usually the case with most debates and debators, so I don't hold that against you.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I still haven't heard one compelling argument supporting the decision to end this woman's life by starvation, when ending virtually any other life by starvation would invite charges of a heinous crime against humanity.

There'd be calls for over throwing the government if it had endorsed, for example, ending Tookie Williams life by starvation. If a humane society solved it's overcrowding problem through Euthenasia, and the decided starvation was the prescribed means, there'd be an outcry across the planet. I guess, however, starvation is perfectly acceptable if it's in 'mercy'.

That it was the only method the law would allow seems an extremely poor excuse, regardless of her alleged mental state. We wouldn't end an animals life through starvation.

 

[Marginal]

I still haven't heard one compelling argument supporting the decision to end this woman's life by starvation, when ending virtually any other life by starvation would invite charges of a heinous crime against humanity.

Mainly because she was so far gone, she was not aware she was starving. As euthnasia is not allowed in most states, I'm not sure how else they'd accomplish this. Katana?

That it was the only method the law would allow seems an extremely poor excuse, regardless of her alleged mental state. We wouldn't end an animals life through starvation.

I doubt you'd feel any better if they terminated her life with an electric current introduced via the anus.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Mainly because she was so far gone, she was not aware she was starving. As euthnasia is not allowed in most states, I'm not sure how else they'd accomplish this. Katana?

Again, hardly an excuse for a method of death we would charge someone with a felony for performing on a dog. This, despite the fact, that it's not illegal to euthanize a dog...but it's illegal to starve one to death.

I doubt you'd feel any better if they terminated her life with an electric current introduced via the anus.

I'd feel better doing that, than starving her to death. Why didn't we just sit her outside in the elements while we're at it? If we heard about a country starving violent inmates to death, we'd be outraged. However, it's ok if they've got brain damage.

 

[green meanie]

Selective uses of the bible...interesting. I'm sure in another debate you'd refute that the bible parallels the legal system, but that's another issue.


Personally, it wasn't the fact that it had been decided to let Terry Shiavo die, it was the tool of death. If we executed an inmate by starvation, or an animal for that matter, we'd hear all kinds of accusations of crimes against humanity echoing all over the world. Yet, starve a brain-damaged woman, and it's perfectly acceptable...that's an interesting dichotomy. We can torture in mercy, but not as punishment? I guess it isn't what you do, it's what your intent is. :shrug:

There's not much left for me to add to this. I agree 100%.

 

[michaeledward]

I still haven't heard one compelling argument . . .

That's a phrase I've heard a couple of times now.

I wonder if it is the lack of arguments, or the lack of listening that is being demonstrated?

 

[sgtmac_46]

That's a phrase I've heard a couple of times now.

I wonder if it is the lack of arguments, or the lack of listening that is being demonstrated?

Or it could be the fact that you've chosen to ignore the question I posed several times and, chosen, instead, to focus on triviality as an argument.

That being, why is it permissible to starve a brain-damaged woman to death, when we'd put someone in prison for ending a dogs life in the same manner?

Focusing on what I may or may not have meant by using that phrase 'a couple times now' really isn't pertinent, it's more of a distraction. It's really not surprising why you chose to focus on that triviality, however, rather than defend the position stated...I wouldn't want to have to defend starving a woman to death either, especially when the best arguments are 'It was merciful' and 'it's the only method allowed by law'. Attacking those who disagree is easier than defending that position.

Again, it doesn't wash. Why is it a ghastly CRIME when done to even the most heinous criminal or even an animal, but ok if someone has brain damage? Answer that question, if you can. Try something other than 'Well, she (probably) couldn't feel it'.

What's more, simply saying that her husband had the right to decide is not an argument either. I have the right to determine what happens to my dog, to include, even, euthanizing him if I feel it is necessary. I do NOT have the right to starve him to death, however. That is a felony where I come from. It is considered cruel and inhumane in the extreme. I doubt a court would listen to my argument that my dog was sick, and I decided it was cruel to keep him alive any longer. In fact, the very argument that starving him to death was somehow a mercy, would probably get me a longer sentence.

So, am I missing something. Has death by starvation suddenly become perfectly acceptable when it comes to those we deem 'mentally defective'? I guess it becomes perfectly acceptable if a court orders it. 'I was just following orders'.

My intent isn't to attack anyone on the highly politicize decision to allow Terry Shiavo to die. I'm just looking for some consistency of rationale on starvation as an acceptable method of death.

Starving animals to death = Bad!
Starving inmates to death = Bad!
Starving helpless patients to death = Good?

I guess I don't get it. Maybe someone will come along with the intellectual courage to actually defend starvation as an acceptable method of ending the life of a patient who was determined by the court to

 

[michaeledward]

sgtmac_46

Who is arguing for starving someone to death?

Go read the original thread.

 

[sgtmac_46]

sgtmac_46

Who is arguing for starving someone to death?

Go read the original thread.

Terri Schiavo was starved to death. Terri Schiavo is the topic of this thread. Those who argue that the state had the right to enforce the removal of a feeding tube from Schiavo are arguing that starvation is a perfectly acceptable and humane method of ending a persons life.

Those who try to nuance their position by saying 'all the judge did was confirm Michael's right to do so' are hiding behind a bizarre abstraction. In essence they are attempting to disavow themselves of the final results.

You either believe that her husband had the right to have Schiavo starved to death or you do not. If you claim that you cannot in good conscience condone starvation as a instrument of death, then you cannot in good conscience state that you supported Schiavo's husband's right to do so to end Terri Schiavo's life.

What happened is fairly simple, regardless of the rightness or good motives. Terri Schiavo was allowed to starve to death. That she POSSIBLY might not have suffered as much as any animal would suffer under equal circumstances is a poor defense at best.

And for the record, michael, I don't recall 'the book' saying that a husband has a right to starve his wife to death. I would be more sympathetic if he smoothered her with a pillow....at least then her death would have been humane. Starvation is a cruel and inhuman method of death.

I do note your desire to avoid being put in to a position to defend the undefendable...i.e. starvation as 'humane death'. It makes me extremely uncomfortable too.

 

[michaeledward]

Terri Schiavo was starved to death. Terri Schiavo is the topic of this thread.

The Terri Schiavo PAC is the topic of this thread.

Those who argue that the state had the right to enforce the removal of a feeding tube from Schiavo are arguing that starvation is a perfectly acceptable and humane method of ending a persons life.

Inaccurate ... The State did not enforce anything. The State confirmed the decision belonged to the husband.

Non-Sequitur ... That the husband has the right to make end of life decisions does not mean that starvation is perfectly acceptable.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Inaccurate ... The State did not enforce anything. The State confirmed the decision belonged to the husband.

Do you truly believe anything but the most abstract distinction exists between those two points? Again, that the state only 'upheld his right' to do it, is in no way a defense of anything.

Non-Sequitur ... That the husband has the right to make end of life decisions does not mean that starvation is perfectly acceptable.

Not 'Perfectly acceptable'? Does that mean you acknowledge that starvation is a barbaric mechanism of death?

I think you've probably given a lot of thought to how one would defend starvation as a way of ending someone's life in this circumstance. I also think that you came to the conclusion that starvation as a mechanims of death is indefensible....as any reasonable and intelligent human being would, if they considered the ramifications.

The bottom line, the state, the doctor's and Mr. Schiavo, utilized starvation as it allowed no one person to have responsibility for the death of Terri Schiavo. They did not 'kill her' they 'allowed her to die'. But, are we so dishonest with ourselves as to believe that there is any actual distinction between the two EXCEPT that a directly administered death would be infinitely MORE merciful?

In fact, it makes death by starvation doubly worse, as it was a result of moral and ethical cowardice, that no one wanted the responsibility of this woman's death directly on themselves, so they allowed her to die in what any reasonable person would consider a horrific manner not fit for animal or the most vile villain. They could have ended Schiavo's life, if they wanted, in a painless way, but instead, they chose the most politically expedient, AND the most morally cowardly way, that allowed no person to take ANY moral responsibility for the decision. I find that sad.

 

[Marginal]

I think you've probably given a lot of thought to how one would defend starvation as a way of ending someone's life in this circumstance. I also think that you came to the conclusion that starvation as a mechanims of death is indefensible....as any reasonable and intelligent human being would, if they considered the ramifications.

If they did that, then they're realize a vegetable doesn't know they're being starved regardless, and that they're better off not being kept alive through extraordinary means. 'Cause they're a vegetable.

They did not 'kill her' they 'allowed her to die'. But, are we so dishonest with ourselves as to believe that there is any actual distinction between the two EXCEPT that a directly administered death would be infinitely MORE merciful?

If only there was actually some suffering involved in this case.

They could have ended Schiavo's life, if they wanted, in a painless way,

Nope. It's illegal. Hurrah for the "culture of life".

 

[sgtmac_46]

If they did that, then they're realize a vegetable doesn't know they're being starved regardless, and that they're better off not being kept alive through extraordinary means. 'Cause they're a vegetable.

So you're willing to just assume that she was a vegetable and capable of feeling no pain? Certainly, she had lost most of her faculties, but she certainly wasn't comatose. She had responses. Lets assume that her level of faculties were that of an animal, say, a low-end mammal, and that all she had were some more primitive functions. Are suggesting it's ok to starve an animal to death?

If only there was actually some suffering involved in this case.

I should hope you're right. Also, that's what i'd say too, if I were trying to take the unenviable position of trying to defend this. 'She didn't suffer any....and, if she did, nobody'll be able to prove it, so who cares.'

I once had a dog who was very old. He was blind, his kindey's were failing, and he was suffering terribly. Should I have starved him, instead of ensuring that his death was relatively quick and painless? If I did decide to starve him to death, would that have been a crime? Most assuredly, it would be a felony in most states.

Nope. It's illegal. Hurrah for the "culture of life".

So the choice is 'culture of life' or 'starvation'?


Starvation as a form of Euthanasia is what we are talking about, so we're clear. This just goes to prove the old internet truism, that for every position, no matter how ludicrous or distasteful, there is someone willing to defend it.

 

[shesulsa]

They could have ended Schiavo's life, if they wanted, in a painless way ...

The most media-sensitive man to attempt to bring this kind of end-of-life options to people is currently in prison for killing his patients, Dr. Jack Kervorkian.

 

[Marginal]

So you're willing to just assume that she was a vegetable and capable of feeling no pain? Certainly, she had lost most of her faculties, but she certainly wasn't comatose. She had responses.

She had random outbursts and movements. She had no cognitive function. The doctors said this, and the autopsy proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. She was not responsive.

Lets assume that her level of faculties were that of an animal, say, a low-end mammal,

They weren't, (a low end mammal's still aware of pain, Terri was not) so any conclusions based on such a premise are tossable.

I once had a dog who was very old. He was blind, his kindey's were failing, and he was suffering terribly. Should I have starved him, instead of ensuring that his death was relatively quick and painless?

Nope. You should've extended that life as long as possible regardless of how much pain the dog was in. If it wasn't on a dialysis machine, you failed that dog. Anything else would be immoral and cruel. Haven't you been listening to Santorum?

So the choice is 'culture of life' or 'starvation'?

The 'culture of life' insistance on the sanctity of human life regardless of the quality of the so called life led to euthanasia not being an option.

Starvation as a form of Euthanasia is what we are talking about, so we're clear.

No moreso than terminating life support is a form of euthanasia. We're talking about the only option left thanks to the 'culture of life' folks.

 

[Phoenix44]

Just out of curiosity, would you have preferred she be given a huge dose of morphine?

 

[michaeledward]

Pentobarbitol is used for euthanizing pets.

"a combination of chemicals whose intent is to effect a quick and painless termination of nerve transmission and to effect complete muscle relaxation. When nerve impulses are not conducted there is no thought, no sensation, no movement."

 

[sgtmac_46]

Just out of curiosity, would you have preferred she be given a huge dose of morphine?

Preferable to starvation? Most definitely. A pillow in the night would be preferrable to starvation.

You folks seem to think i'm supporting the side that were for keeping Schiavo alive. I'm most definitely not. I'm merely attacking the moral and ethical cowardice of using starvation as a tool of euthanasia....it's designed to diffuse responsibility, and it rationalizes itself by saying 'We can assure you we (hopefully) know she didn't feel any pain.' Again, if you're going to do a thing, then do it. Lets not cause additional pain, for purposes of hiding behind euphemism to avoid responsibility.

If we can allow this woman to die by removing the feeding tube and allowing her to STARVE to death (which i've of course been assured caused her no suffering....not that they'd claim otherwise), we can most assuredly euthanize her quickly. There's no legal difference between the two, ultimately, except that allowing her to starve allows no single person to be responsible.

So, as a result of the cowardice of everyone involved, we allow her to starve to death. Then we rationalize any remaining guilt those involved should have by assuring ourselves she didn't suffer. You'll excuse me if i'm more than just a little skeptical.

 

[Marginal]

Preferable to starvation? Most definitely. A pillow in the night would be preferrable to starvation.

You folks seem to think i'm supporting the side that were for keeping Schiavo alive. I'm most definitely not. I'm merely attacking the moral and ethical cowardice of using starvation as a tool of euthanasia....

Doesn't change who introduced the current legal climate which reduced the options to simply terminating life support vs respecting a person's dignity or potential suffering.

 

[evenflow1121]

I think Judge Greer did the best with what he had. I mean its a no win situation but I for one would not want my parents buttin into any decisions I make now much less if I ever get married. No matter how well intentioned the Schindler family was and they seem to be a great family I think the judge after ever so many appeals ordered the right decision. BTW George Felos is a power house of a lawyer when you are going up against a guy like that you need his equivalent, that in my opinion the Schindlers lacked. If anything and you live in Florida no matter how young you are get a will, you can even get the software for one at places like office depot and what not.