What I'm Seeing about the Schiavo case

[Aloysius]

three words: DOCTOR ASSISTED SUICIDE

Consent of the patient isn't the issue, the patient cannot decide to be starved to death. With a living will saying they should be starved the person is actually committing suicide.

food and hydration are ordinary means of keeping a person alive. if it is an extraordinary means, like a respirator, in which a major organ is only being sustained by a machine, that is extraordinary and it is okay to pull the plug. you can never ever in your life say "stop feeding me", not even if you get to the point where you can't get the food through your mouth.

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Apr 1 2005, 07:52 PM'] three words: DOCTOR ASSISTED SUICIDE

Consent of the patient isn't the issue, the patient cannot decide to be starved to death. With a living will saying they should be starved the person is actually committing suicide.

food and hydration are ordinary means of keeping a person alive. if it is an extraordinary means, like a respirator, in which a major organ is only being sustained by a machine, that is extraordinary and it is okay to pull the plug. you can never ever in your life say "stop feeding me", not even if you get to the point where you can't get the food through your mouth. [/quote]
Ya I guess.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Apr 1 2005, 01:04 PM'] Woo for rhetoric that allows you to change the meaning of the word kill, eh? [/quote]
I'm sure this could be much better shown through the use of the Greek, although I don't know any.

However, the Latin that I know (and it is little) may shed a little light on it.

Exodus 20:13

[quote]non occides[/quote]

Translated, "Thou shall not kill".

However, the defenition of the word is lost in simply the word "kill". Occides is more properly defined :
[quote]to strike down , beat to the ground; to kill, slay; to plague to death, torment].[/quote]

A more appropriate word for your defenition of kill would be "interficio". Occido is more appropriatly used to mean "murder". The death penealty isn't a beating to the ground, it is a punishment. War isn't exactly murder (depending on how the war is being fought) either. Aside from that, my "rhetoric" is actually sound, dismissing it as rhetoric doesn't make it any less sound.

God bless,
Mikey

[Carrie]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Apr 1 2005, 07:13 PM'] 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. [/quote]
My last paragraph does not indicate that quality of life does not matter to me. What my last paragraph is saying is that I have no right to say someone should die just because they are not living the same way as you or I. Just because their quality of life is different from mine does not mean that I have the right to determine whether or not that person should continue living. That in no way indicates that I don't care about quality of life. For all I know, the quality of the life she was living and the impact she made is probably more than mine will ever be.

[Donna]

Meg, yes, to not allow another to be given food and water is either murder (w/out the ill person's permission) or suicide (with their permission). What does it matter if they need a tube to be fed? Someone w/ broken arms, or a little baby or an old ill person may need to be fed by spoon.

Burnsy, the 5th does not forbid the death penalty and neither does the Church.

The standard of morphine being given only reveals more guilt upon those who insist she feels nothing, has no awarenss, brain only liquid, etc;

Misogynists do have something to do w/ this when they foul up the debating air.

The husband-has-sole-power-no-matter-what is not the sacrament of marriage, but an anti-sacrament. This Jansenistic rot has been seen in some trads.

Crack a catechism. Even the child must, and rightly, disobey parents if the latter induce the child to sin.

[ardillacid]

Was it just me or was this story totally misrepresented in the media? Was it just coincidence that Mr. Shiavo "remembered" his wife's wish to die around seven years later? How come he would not let music be played in her room, not let her receive the sacraments, allow hardly any visitors, hell, she hadn't even gotten her teeth cleaned in years! As for the "persistent vegetative state," a doctor from Mayo clinic in Rochestor, MN, where people come from around the world to be cared for, said it appeared to him that she was NOT in a PVS? But you would not hear this on mainstream news, would you?

[MichaelFilo]

I think you said something that is quite true.

God bless,
Mikey

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Apr 11 2005, 10:18 PM'] Was it just me or was this story totally misrepresented in the media? Was it just coincidence that Mr. Shiavo "remembered" his wife's wish to die around seven years later? How come he would not let music be played in her room, not let her receive the sacraments, allow hardly any visitors, hell, she hadn't even gotten her teeth cleaned in years! As for the "persistent vegetative state," a doctor from Mayo clinic in Rochestor, MN, where people come from around the world to be cared for, said it appeared to him that she was NOT in a PVS? But you would not hear this on mainstream news, would you? [/quote]
If that's what you got from the media then I'm going to go with 'yes, it has been misrepresented'.

For the last time: The [b]court appointed[/b] doctors found that she was in a PVS. Doctors hired by her parents can't be considered more objective than court appointed ones.

[megrc]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 23 2005, 10:39 AM'] I think they're allowing her husband the choice of whether or not to let her stay on support or be taken off. Her husband decided after fifteen or so years not to extend her support any longer. [/quote]
You are right, he has the right to choose what his wife would have wanted. The point here is that we don't know anything for sure, except what the media has been telling us. I don't think anyone here has any personal( and by that I mean family) connections with the Schivo family.

Yes, I agree killing someone is wrong, but her quality of life wasn't that good. I would rather she be in peace now then still hooked up to those machines. I will however continue to pray for Michael, that he made the right choice and that he doesn't start to regret the choice. That's all that anyone can do now.

[Quietfire]

For the last time.
This has been going on in the courts for years.
Every doctor that Michael Shiavo has bought in has testified that his wife was in a PVS.
On the other hand, every other doctor who has tested her has stated against that. They have stated that she is lucid and recognizes specific people. They have also stated that she tenses up when her husband would show up.

Lets face reality. He wanted to move on. He just didnt want her (Terri)around. It interferred with his adulterous relationship that produced children out of wedlock.
He refused to divorce her not because he was Catholic, but because it would result in a loss of money on his part. So he used the fact that he and her both were Catholic as an excuse to not divorce her, but I guess starving her to death was acceptable.
So in essence...he used the fact that he was Catholic to murder his wife.

When we deny ANYONE food and water, under any circumstances, then
we are slowly starving them to death. You just cant argue around that point, no matter how many doctors you bring in otherwise.

Providing water and food is NOT ARTIFICIAL, no matter how it is taken.
Whether I consume through my mouth or through a tube, there is nothing artificial about it. Infants cannot feed themselves without assistance, does that make them less human? Or not human at all?

Using a machine to keep my lungs inhaling and exhaling oxygen when they can not do it themselves, or a machine to pump blood through my arteries because my heart cannot do that task IS a form of artificial assistance.

There is a vast difference.

Edited April 12, 2005 by Quietfire

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Apr 12 2005, 05:38 PM'] For the last time.
This has been going on in the courts for years.
Every doctor that Michael Shiavo has bought in has testified that his wife was in a PVS.
On the other hand, every other doctor who has tested her has stated against that. They have stated that she is lucid and recognizes specific people. They have also stated that she tenses up when her husband would show up. [/quote]
Wrong. The doctors were court appointed (somehow I thought putting that in bold would help you notice it) not brought in by Mr. Schiavo. There's an important and significant difference.

[Quietfire]

Oh, I read that. But its amusing that Michael always made sure he was there to give the nudge.

I wonder if you've ever seen the movie "awakening".

Who decides if a person is cognitive or not?
Who decides if a person is viable or not?

Keep in mind, the key word is person.