||[Mar. 18th, 2005|08:37 am]
I don't know who has been keping track of the Terri Shiavo case, but I would like to know everbodies opinions on it.|
Basic Run Down: Terri Shiavo fell and received major brain damage in 1990. She has been bed-ridden ever since. Her husband wants the hospital to remove her feeding tube and allow her to starve to death. her family insists that she is not in a vegatative state and beleives that removing the tube will result in unknown pain and torture.
Her husband has since taken a new girlfriend and has had two children with her. He claims that Terri told him that she would rather be put to death instead of living this kind of life. There is no proof of that statement. He is also listed as the benefactor in her life insurance plan, so money is also a factor in this.
Her family beleives that Terri is not in a vegatative state and responds to them, even though some docotrs tell them that it is pure reflex. However, Terri does breath and use slep cycles. Her family has ignored all doctoral advice regarding her condition, and still beleive that there is hope for her.
My Opinions: I beleive that if the doctors insist that she is, and has been, in a vegatative state, then she is. However, if they wanted to kill her, removing her feeding tube would be the worst way to die (starvation). What if she is lucid somewhere within her mind, and realizes that she is starving to death? Wouldn't that be horrible? I think that, until all options are extinguished, she should remain alive. If all options are extinquished, I think a less painful route should be used, such as the way vets put animals to sleep. Maybe they could use a mix of sleping tablets and alcohol to put her down, if there is no other way. She would fall peacefully to sleep and never wake up.
Anybody else have a valid opinion on this matter?
FYI: yesterday, the court deemed it illegal to remove her feeding tube as a form of death.
As you probably well know, she is already dead.
BUT she stayed alive (with NO food or water) for thirteen days after the tube was removed.
I personally think that the Husband should be charged with accessory to murder, as well as the judge that ordered it. (but that is my opinion - it might be a bit harsh)
Food was the only life support she was on, (like any other human being) because she did not have the ability to raise a spoon to her mouth, so basically if a person is unable to feed themselves, they can be put to death.
I believe that Money WAS a major factor in the decision of the husband, I mean if he wanted to just be with his girlfriend, he could have divorced terri, and let Terri's parents take care of her. (as they were WILLING to do) But he wanted her gone.
Moreover, the first time they pulled out the tube, she lived for five days, doctors were astonished, this was almost proof enough she was better off than the husband and the court believed. when the tube was removed again, (the last time) she survived with nothing except the tiny droplet of communion wine placed on her bottom lip when it was done.
Again every day doctors were baffled at the length she was able to go.
I believe that she COULD feel the starvation, and knew full well what was going on.
Anyway that is my feelings on it.
I will say this, If I was her father, it would take the hand of God to stop me from killing her husband. (maybe that is a bit too harsh too)
Well as it says in Romans 12:19-21
"Bretheren do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath. For it is written, 'vengence is mine' saith the lord, 'I shall repay.' Therefore if your enemy hungers, feed him, if he thirst, give him drink. For in so doing you shall heap coals of fire upon his head. do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (I live by that verse -- such a great one)
~ Thigh of Justice
The answer is quite simple: are her parents (or any person?) willing to pay for her continued existence? If so then she provides some use to them and is therefor a useful thing. If no one is willing to pay for her then she is useless (for the cost of her survival would be greater than the benefit of it) and good riddance.
She is already dead so I really don't care anymore (not that I cared initially), but the manner in which 'she' died is totally irrelevant. Too many apples cling to the branches far too long out of cowardice and fear. Would that a strong wind would come and tear them from the tree.
Only on the point that her parents WERE willing to support her. And they should have had the final say.
What is with putting 'she' in quotations?
Are you trying to say that since she was in that state she was no longer a human being?
And what do you mean that the manner in which she died is irrelevant?
I for one would at least have felt better if they had drugged her and had her fall asleep and never wake up (a peaceful death) rather than starve to death, and go through that agony
'Are you trying to say that since she was in that state she was no longer a human being?' Possibly, at least in any manner that matters.
Really I think people in that state should welcome death.
Pain is not bad, and pleasure is not good. These sensations are just manifestations of our animal will. One must regard them both as tools - means, and not ends.