« the beauty of aging gracefully | Main | job and dance news »
March 30, 2005
more on the Schiavo case
I found this article on the Terri Schiavo case to be very interesting. Thanks to billy for posting it. I know we are all sick of hearing about this, but I am seeing opinions elsewhere that I have a hard time agreeing with.
What scares me most is the precedent that the government can intercede in the case of an individual. I know they say it won't be able to be used as precedence, but I don't trust that. I hope it would not happen again, but there will now be something to judge against, that the federal government can step in to change the law for one person.
Please tell me I am misunderstanding what is happening and that isn't a true concern. Yes, I care about the individual that is Terri Schiavo. And not to sound harsh, but people die in war all the time for the better of the country. Isn't that how we revere those we have lost recently? So why does this one person get to turn federal law on its head to save her life? A life which I am not sure anyone would want, and which she has apparently told people besides her husband she wouldn't want either?
*sits back and watches the nutjobs come out of the woodwork to holler at me*
Current Affairs 12:20 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834204a9153ef00d83445599953ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference more on the Schiavo case:
Comments
I think you have a good grip on what's happening, and a right, as do we all, to consider what the Shiavo case (as quite frankly, her parents have turned her into)means to us individually and as a society once laws are enacted. As far as Terri herself is concerned, that's something that only should be decided by (wishfully, her)her spouse. Even though I respect her parents' grief and hope, they have to face facts--it's been fifteen years.
Posted by: susan at Mar 30, 2005 5:28:01 AM
There are an awful lot of facts that aren't getting out to the general public about the case. There are major questions as to whether or not she is in a persistive vegetative state, the denial of treatment and rehabilitation, judicial conflicts of interest, ignoring of evidence, etc.
Here's something I posted on my blog about the situation. Feel free to take a look.
http://hiddenblog1.blogspot.com/2005/03/more-on-schiavo-case.htm
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Mar 30, 2005 8:18:42 AM
I have a hard time getting to that specific entry with that link, NH. I went there directly and copied the link to paste here and it is the same.
For those of you who are interested in reading some more facts on the case, check out The Unseen Blogger in my blogroll and scroll down to "more on Schiavo case." NH gives some good information about the other side of the story.
Posted by: Alicia at Mar 30, 2005 8:42:35 AM
Thanks for the link thru to my humble views on the tragic Sciavo case...as i said, I am just an individual far removed from the awful situation that Terri her husband, her parents, and the independent qualified individuals appointed by the judicial amd medical systems have found themselves in.
My comments were made after long consideration and reading of the material on the public record. I too listened to the politicians making hay out of this mess, the screamin heads on television, and the christian fascists that spewed forth hate and bile. I tried to take it all in - the good the bad, the considered and the emotional, only then did i try to come to a personal view.
It concerns me that some one like Unseen Blogger can simply regurgitate some of the nonsense that has been spewed forth with no substantiation and no evidence. Simply giving this tripe air play with no questioning is simply lazy, wrong, baised or un ethical - or all of the above.
Posted by: neil at Mar 30, 2005 1:28:22 PM
"and the christian fascists that spewed forth hate and bile"
Uh huh. No bias there, Neil. Just as I'm so sure you showed no bias in your evaluation of all the "facts."
It concerns me that some people out there may actually take you seriously.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Mar 30, 2005 2:04:14 PM
As I see it, both of your blog entries list sources, which is the important thing. How you interpret those sources is perhaps secondary to the fact that both of you bothered to look beyond what is posted on MSNBC or the local paper. This is a highly emotionally charged issue and I don't expect people to agree. Especially since I find that facts on the internet are dubious anyway. For both sides.
I don't care what people say here as long as they don't attack others rudely.
That said, a few points. Neil, the transcript does show that more people than Michael heard Terri mention she wouldn't want to live in this state. Some of those, however, are discounted by the court because they were heard when Terri was 12. NH, more than just Michael heard Terri make comments that she wouldn't want to live like she is living.
What I don't understand is....if she can swallow, why does she need a feeding tube? Why doesn't a nurse or her parents since they are so concerned feed her and let her drink? And why does the federal govt removing her feeding tube mean that people can't feed her by mouth? I heard that several people were turned away by the police when they tried to do just that. Now, I understand that these folks were total strangers, but her parents should be able to feed her, or a nurse should be able to. Other people in hospitals have food and water brought to them and someone could feed the girl. I just don't understand.
And if she were to have the feeding tube reinserted, how long would it go on? Till insurance stops paying? Till the family runs out of money? Is it really the public's responsibility to pay for this girl to be kept alive after the personal money runs out? Where is the line drawn? Eventually the money will run out. She's young yet, I bet it would happen before her eventual "natural" death after years on a feeding tube.
I just don't know what to think about this.
Posted by: Alicia at Mar 30, 2005 6:14:31 PM
If she is in a PVS beyond a shadow of a doubt, she should be allowed to die, IMO. But with Michaels doctor being a pro-right-to-die activist and 33 other healthcare professionals saying she needs to be re-evaluated, that is enough for me to believe she needs to be re-evaluated. If a couple of doctors who are agreed upon by the family and the husband all say she is in a PVS, then let nature take its course. To keep a body alive without a brain is pointless.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Mar 30, 2005 6:25:45 PM
I think an interestingconsideration is the fact of why we keep people in such states alive to begin with. It's been fifteen years and Terri has received constant medical attention, great rehabilitation for the first five years, her husband even became a nurse so he could better serve her needs in those trying first years. But it has been fifteen years now, she is obviously not going to be a self-sufficient human being, so I ask again why it isn't considered cruel or even interfering with God to -not- let her die?
Humanity is not meant to be immortal. I wonder how many Christians would have wanted Christ to have a feeding tube and oxygen while on the cross, thus negating the entire purpose of his place on earth. If we believe in God we have to ask ourselves, did God ever intend for manmade intervention in so many aspects of life? He gave Terri a heart attack that left her unable to care for herself and she would have died had she not been taken in by a hospital. Was that His intention or not? You have to eventually look at the serious possibility that we, as humanity, have totally screwed up everything in a fight caring more for our own pride and desire to live (and fear of death), and forgotten just how naturally God works in the world.
Posted by: David at Mar 31, 2005 8:27:19 AM
I think the points you make are very, very important, David. Life and death are mysteries, period. We have belief systems but no real answers. Each person makes their own way through life grappling with this.
The U.S. judicial system exists because we have freedom of worship in America so there must necessarily be a separation of religion and state. We just do not all agree on things, nor should we, as long as there are questions. What has been interesting about the Schiavo case is that it has made it clear that people have very personal responses to the right-to-life/right-to-die issues -- we don't divide tidily on political lines (ie. "red" or "blue") or even within religious ones, as David points out.
Posted by: Nasreena at Mar 31, 2005 12:37:43 PM
The person known as Terry is dead. :(
http://www.terrisfight.org/index2.html
Watch the videos.
Posted by: Ali at Mar 31, 2005 1:18:51 PM
Those videos are very compelling. She certainly looked as though she had some awareness.
Posted by: Tvindy at Apr 4, 2005 6:04:46 AM
so no comment on the autopsy report today that showed poor terri not only had 50% of a normal brain left, she had no chance of recovery and was also blind....so much for all the concerned people here, including "hidden name", that belittled me and all the others that just wanted this woman to pass in peace
Posted by: neil at Jun 15, 2005 9:59:31 PM
Personally, I'm glad the doctors happened to be right about her. When I heard the results of the autopsy, I gave a sigh of relief. As I said, if she was PVS, she deserved to be allowed to die peacefully. It turns out she was, as another independent examination would have shown. I for one just wanted to be sure given the number of questions in the case. I'm glad that the doctors who examined her originally happened to be correct.
Too bad you consider a disagreement as "belittling", neil. Maybe you should grow up a bit and get thicker skin before entering into the fray on the off chance that someone may hurt your feelings by having a differing opinion.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Jun 30, 2005 2:46:37 PM
Personally, I'm glad the doctors happened to be right about her. When I heard the results of the autopsy, I gave a sigh of relief. As I said, if she was PVS, she deserved to be allowed to die peacefully. It turns out she was, as another independent examination would have shown. I for one just wanted to be sure given the number of questions in the case. I'm glad that the doctors who examined her originally happened to be correct.
Too bad you consider a disagreement as "belittling", neil. Maybe you should grow up a bit and get thicker skin before entering into the fray on the off chance that someone may hurt your feelings by having a differing opinion.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Jun 30, 2005 2:47:18 PM
