What I'm Seeing about the Schiavo case

[Dreamweaver]

Ok, what is taking in food "in a natural manner?" When I worked at a nursing home, some people had different diets. There would be soft or pureed foods for people who had difficulties chewing. There were also thicker drinks for people who had difficulty swallowing (often as a result of a stroke).

Would getting your hydration from thickened drinks be considered "unnatural"? I bet Terri Schaivo could consume food and drink that has been thickened and pureed. She can swallow her saliva. Its just that she's never gotten any tests or therapy to even diagnose that she's in a "persistent vegetative state".

[MC Just]

[quote name='StPiusVPrayForUs' date='Mar 26 2005, 04:54 PM'] Am I the only one who sees the irony of left wingers trying to stop world hunger, yet they can't step up for an innocent woman who is about to starve to death? [/quote]
Left Wingers dont really care about world hunger. They used too, now all that concerns them is ridding the world of Catholicism.

[Donna]

[color=red][b]REALITY CHECK:[/b][/color]


[color=green]I was hungry - and you did not give me to eat.
I was thirsty - and you did not give me to drink.

...Therefore, go away from me, you accursed, into the fire...

Lord, when did we see thee hungry and not feed thee? Thirsty and did not give thee to drink?

Amen, amen, I say to you, that as you did it to the least of these, my brethren, you did it to me. [/color]

[Donna]

[b]The substance remains the same whatever stage it is in -Aquinas[/b].


First, in light of Catholicism it matters not what her wishes were as regards food and water. If she were to refuse food and water (there may be exceptions to this...but I don't think so) then it's suicide instead of murder. The fifth Commandment forbids both, and a civil society should as well.

Even secular society's health professionals treat it as an illness if someone starves themselves.

Second,

[b][QUOTE][/b]A woman who has said 'don't let me live that way', has no cognitive function, and cannot take food in a natural manner should be allowed to die as she wished instead of being kept artifically alive. The fact that she will have no knowledge of her hunger or thirst first because she can't recognize it as such and second because she is heavily medicated should remove any charge of cruelty[b].[QUOTE][/b]


Which is it? No knowledge of hunger or thirst, or the morphine "needed" which has been given Terri?


Thirdly,

The substance remains the same whatever stage it is in (Aquinas). One cannot (speaking of the preborn) "become" human at some point, they were already.

So vice versa: [color=red]one cannot "unbecome" a human being.[/color]

In [i]Ioata Unum[/i], Roman Amerio author discusses an Italian law re: abortion (this was written in 1996): "While recognizing the foetus as a subject having rights, the Constitutional Court holds that it is not a person because it is [b]not at present conscious, or exercising a will,[/b] and the court therby [b]identifies the existence of a person with the present exercise of personal activities. This is a fallacy: at that rate comatose or sleeping people would not be persons, but they are universally recognized as such.[/b]

"...[b]A man remains a man even when he is not exercising certain human activities[/b], just as a doctor remains a doctor when not acting as such, for example when he is asleep...

"17th century casuists...were able to hold that abortion could be legitimate, and in some cases even a duty, because the natural science of that time said that the foetus received the rational form, that made it human, only in its third month."

(and so, I guess the logic applied is, the shrinking of the Alzheimer brain or absence of cortex is like the fetus' development in reverse. The comatose or brain dead used to be a person, but are no longer? What are they, then, an anti-person?)


"[These theories} contain a hidden denial of the essence of things, and also the vice of subjectionism. The infant [foetus in the womb] is alleged to have no essential nature unless it is accepted , that is, given a nature by a subjective act of will on the part of the parents, when in fact the reverse is true;
the fact of its acceptance is called forth by the ontological worth of the already existing infant. Since the baby exists, it has the right to be wanted as an existing thing, and its right to be wanted is rooted not in the fact of being wanted but in the fact of simply being there. This mistaken anthropology is derived from Marxism, and, like it, makes the person a relation. The human person certainly is in a relation with things and other persons, but it is not itself a relation: it is constituted as a being before (and after, if it loses exercising of the will, consciousness, we wonders?) entering into relations that conform with its nature."


- [i]taken from "Ioata Unum", Romano Amerio, pp 417-22.[/i]


Forthly: What is a misogynist?

A little boy pretending to be a trad.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Dreamweaver' date='Mar 28 2005, 11:19 PM'] Its just that she's never gotten any tests or therapy to even diagnose that she's in a "persistent vegetative state". [/quote]
So the 4 or more nuerologist that saw her and did numerous tests on her did not know how to do their jobs? CAT scans show that her cerebral cortex is a puddle of spinal fluid. One thing is to say that it was wrong for her to be killed. I'm not a big Michael Shiavo fan. But to deny she was a vegetable basicly says you know more than all the doctors that saw her, and frankly I doubt that. She wasn't comming back no matter what. But to have her starve to death, is a completely different matter. I dont agree with.

Edited March 31, 2005 by Melchisedec

[aloha918]

it sickens me how ill our country looks at suffering.......

[megrc]

She has had right to life, but it's been 15 years and nothing has gotten better with her, shouldn't her soul be alowed to be in peace. I don't agree with the way this whole thing has happened, but after 15 years and no hope of any kind of recovery, I think her husband had every right to make his request.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 31 2005, 03:20 AM'] First, in light of Catholicism it matters not what her wishes were as regards food and water. If she were to refuse food and water (there may be exceptions to this...but I don't think so) then it's suicide instead of murder. The fifth Commandment forbids both, and a civil society should as well.

Even secular society's health professionals treat it as an illness if someone starves themselves.

[/quote]
The fifth commandment also forbids the death penalty, war and killing in self defense. That doesn't matter to most.

[QUOTE]Second,

[b][QUOTE][/b]A woman who has said 'don't let me live that way', has no cognitive function, and cannot take food in a natural manner should be allowed to die as she wished instead of being kept artifically alive. The fact that she will have no knowledge of her hunger or thirst first because she can't recognize it as such and second because she is heavily medicated should remove any charge of cruelty[b].[QUOTE][/b]

Which is it? No knowledge of hunger or thirst, or the morphine "needed" which has been given Terri? [/QUOTE]

Morphine is given as standard practice. She would have no knowledge first because of one and second because of the other.

[QUOTE]Forthly: What is a misogynist?

A little boy pretending to be a trad.[/QUOTE]

What? And what does this have to do with anything?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='megrc' date='Mar 31 2005, 04:45 PM'] She has had right to life, but it's been 15 years and nothing has gotten better with her, shouldn't her soul be alowed to be in peace. I don't agree with the way this whole thing has happened, but after 15 years and no hope of any kind of recovery, I think her husband had every right to make his request. [/quote]
So you think length of time should decide its ok to murder someone?

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 31 2005, 03:54 PM'] So you think length of time should decide its ok to murder someone? [/quote]
I think they are saying that she was basicly dead already, and that releasing her soul was humane.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote] The fifth commandment also forbids the death penalty, war and killing in self defense. That doesn't matter to most.[/quote]

The 5th commandment forbids murder. The word kill is meant for murder. As you know, the bible must also be taken in context. The verse would seem a direct contradiction to any Jew who happened to know of the laws perserved in Dueteronomy and Leviticus. Indeed, the passage in Exodus would make no sense in the Pentateuch, which would mean that for at least 6000 years Jews didn't know what the killing part meant, as the Pentateuch was always used by Jews (who had it available to them) and sometimes was all that was used (Sadducees(sp?)).


[quote]  She has had right to life, but it's been 15 years and nothing has gotten better with her, shouldn't her soul be alowed to be in peace. I don't agree with the way this whole thing has happened, but after 15 years and no hope of any kind of recovery, I think her husband had every right to make his request.[/quote]

She HAD the right to life? When does a person lose that right? A person can forfeit that right, but when do they lose it?

When does starvation equate to peace? Would you say someone who isn't allowed food because none is afforded and dies from such has died in a peaceful state?

If no therapy is allowed, there can be no hope for recovery, this is true. X+0=X. Nothing can do more than it can do on its own without outside aid.

When does a husband have the right to kill his spouse? Would a husband who has slept with another woman and had two children by her constitute a loving husband who does things because he cares for her? When is it right to dispose of someone? Why 15 years even, why not 2 days, why not half a second?

If this line of logic were to be followed, we would all be rightfully dead.

[quote] I think they are saying that she was basicly dead already, and that releasing her soul was humane.[/quote]

Killing someone isn't humane. I didn't think you supported euthanasia, so if you don't mind me asking, do you?

God bless,
Mikey

Edited March 31, 2005 by MichaelFilo

[megrc]

The point is that now her soul is at rest and that's the way it should be. I don't think it was right for them to go against what her husband said was her wishes. If she had a living will none of this would be happening. The doctors would have followed it and she never would have been given the feeding tube in the first place, this never would have come out in the news, and we wouldn't be talking about it now.

I guess you guys don't understand my point of view, I've been through this kinda of thing with my dad. I know how hard it is on the family and I just wish that the news media would stop plastering this story all over their broadcasts and let the family deal with this in peace.

I've also discussed this with my mom and her wishes are that she not be put on any kind of life support, including a feeding tube. Is that murder if I tell the doctors that she doesn't want it? (she's not in the hospital now, but if this kind of thing was to ever happen to her, I know what she would want)

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Mar 31 2005, 04:10 PM'] The 5th commandment forbids murder. The word kill is meant for murder. As you know, the bible must also be taken in context. The verse would seem a direct contradiction to any Jew who happened to know of the laws perserved in Dueteronomy and Leviticus. Indeed, the passage in Exodus would make no sense in the Pentateuch, which would mean that for at least 6000 years Jews didn't know what the killing part meant, as the Pentateuch was always used by Jews (who had it available to them) and sometimes was all that was used (Sadducees(sp?)). [/quote]
Woo for rhetoric that allows you to change the meaning of the word kill, eh?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='megrc' date='Apr 1 2005, 11:55 AM'] The point is that now her soul is at rest and that's the way it should be. I don't think it was right for them to go against what her husband said was her wishes. If she had a living will none of this would be happening. The doctors would have followed it and she never would have been given the feeding tube in the first place, this never would have come out in the news, and we wouldn't be talking about it now.

I guess you guys don't understand my point of view, I've been through this kinda of thing with my dad. I know how hard it is on the family and I just wish that the news media would stop plastering this story all over their broadcasts and let the family deal with this in peace.

I've also discussed this with my mom and her wishes are that she not be put on any kind of life support, including a feeding tube. Is that murder if I tell the doctors that she doesn't want it? (she's not in the hospital now, but if this kind of thing was to ever happen to her, I know what she would want) [/quote]
I think it would only count as murder (to them) if she were put on a feeding tube before the doctors knew of her wishes and then the feeding tube was removed.

[megrc]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Apr 1 2005, 12:05 PM'] I think it would only count as murder (to them) if she were put on a feeding tube before the doctors knew of her wishes and then the feeding tube was removed. [/quote]
Ok, that's my point. Terri never should have been put on that feeding tube in the first place. As her husband, Michael has power of attorney, which means that he makes decisions for her. The past 15 years she has been brain dead and has not been able to do any daily functions on her own. I don't see how her "quality of life" was made ony better by being kept on that feeding tube so long.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='megrc' date='Apr 1 2005, 12:20 PM'] Ok, that's my point. Terri never should have been put on that feeding tube in the first place. As her husband, Michael has power of attorney, which means that he makes decisions for her. The past 15 years she has been brain dead and has not been able to do any daily functions on her own. I don't see how her "quality of life" was made ony better by being kept on that feeding tube so long. [/quote]
Oh they don't care about her quality of life in any way.

[Carrie]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Apr 1 2005, 05:02 PM'] Oh they don't care about her quality of life in any way. [/quote]
It has nothing to do with us not caring about the quality of life.

It has to do with us saying that we do not have the right to judge who should live or die, period.

We have no right to say that someone should die because their quality of life does not meet our standards. We are not to play God.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Apr 1 2005, 03:27 PM'] It has nothing to do with us not caring about the quality of life.

It has to do with us saying that we do not have the right to judge who should live or die, period.

We have no right to say that someone should die because their quality of life does not meet our standards. We are not to play God. [/quote]
Meh, it seems in this case one would be playing god either way. Either a person is kept artificially alive or a person dies of starvation because of non-intervention. That's why I defer to the wishes of the person in question and when they aren't completely obvious that person's guardian. My SO is my health proxy and knows my wishes should I ever enter a PVS. I fully expect them to be carried out even if I haven't written them down. Hopefully I would never be put on a feeding tube, but if I was I would expect it to be promptly removed.

And, frankly, your last paragraph indicates that I was right. Quality of life doesn't matter in the slightest to you. Each person gets to decide what quality of life is acceptable for zirself and for some that means living only because zie is hooked to machines is unacceptable. You don't have to make that decision and you don't have to be health proxy for anyone who makes that decision. Just don't try to take it away from others.

[Aloysius]

by your definition, I play God by eating dinner every day.

when there are machines taking the place of major organs of the body without which a person cannot stay alive, then your point is okay that it's like playing God. Those things are not morally obligatory, they're extra-ordinary means of staying alive, and there is a point when one does not need to stay alive that way. Here we had food and hydration being given to terri throug h a passage other than the mouth. how do you label this "playing God"? it is giving her food and water. Everything else worked to keep her alive without anything sustaining her. nothing was sustaining her brain, her brain kept the body's functions and to a certain extent a small thought process, her heart and her stomach and her lungs and everything worked.

[reelguy227]

What I say is that if you possess a living will than starving you is fine ,but if not than thats a different story. No living will ,no starvation in my eyes.

God Bless,
Ricky