The Schiavo Battle II

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Ruadh nan Cath: Duuude man, read the arguments. Shit. Religion came up in the convo, so it gets discussed. Chill yo. [/QB]

Illumina's warning to read the ToS, is appropriate and I'll direct you to the sticky thread at the top of the Current Events Forum (whick I linked in my post above), indicating that religion is an off-limits topic on the board for now.

I would also suggest you watch your language as I've seen a tendency to cuss a bit too freely that might get you in some hot water as per the ToS mentioned above. Please read it, if you haven't already. Otherwise, welcome to Ironworks. We hope you can enjoy your time here within the general framework of the ToS. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Cerek: I do have many shortcomings as a Christian, and make no denial of that fact. As I've pointed out, you seem to have misinterpreted my position somewhat. I have no problem with you questioning my stance from a Christian perspective, but I am comfortable with my position on this issue.

I am glad you have that confidence, as you should as a son of the King.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: JD, you say that pulling the plug would be killing this woman. Surely this is about whether there comes a point when you are no longer human - simply a shell. To all intents and purposes, the headless chicken analogy is a good one - her body was just a shell that was acting purely involuntarily - there is no 'human' left in her, just her body going through the motions. It's highly unlikely that Terri after her accident even qualified under these most basic of criteria for animal life. If we extend our criteria to include sentience then it becomes even more clear: Do you really think Terri satisfied any of these conditions?

It is irrealivant(sp?) if she satisfied those man made conditions, just as it is irrealivant as to wiether she satisfied my man made conditions.

One thing I can't understand about American Christians is the obsession with a person's mortal shell. Both my mother and sister are very devout Christians yet their opinions are completely at odds with the pro-lifers in America. Their view is that (i) Because Terri could not keep herself alive, God had clearly chosen the time for her to die

If God had clearly chosen it was her time to die NO feeding tube of heart lung machine could have keep her alive, nothing man could have done would have even been enough to overcome the will of God.

(ii) Keeping her alive when she would die otherwise and would never get better is therefore acting against God's will

does that also hold true for let's say a heart attack victim? or maybe somebody that has been snake bit, for they would surely die if not given medical treatment.

(iii) Once a person dies, assuming they had a good life they'll spend eternity in heaven with the Lord - why is this something to be afraid of? It's a wonderful transition for her! And certainly much better than the pathetic existence she was being held into.

The first part is true. Now somebody has finialy hit the nail on the head. The last part is the entire crux of the matter. Pathetic by who's standards? If being blind was pathetic by my standards would not that be as valid a reason to kill the blind? Terri it is claimed didn't wish to live this way, by a man that alowed her to live that way, and languish in the very condition he says she didn't want to be in for by some accounts for 8 YEARS before he stood up and tried to fulfil her wishes. I'll say that again 8 YEARS of languishing in the very condititon she didn't want to be in. The time for the choice was 15 years ago when if first happened.
Terri was either dead or alive at the time this discussion started.
1) If dead then her wishes are null and void because she is no longer alive, any fulfilling of her wishes is strickly for the family's sake for their peace of mind, she (Terri) has no more peace of mind she is dead, moved on by the religious point of view, and by the non religious point of view she has ceased to exsist, is nothing more then worm food.
2)If alive then any action taken to end her life is killing her. Noway around that, a person is either alive or dead they can't be both, or even partly both. the two are mutually exclusive. If alive then there were people willing to take on the responseability of taking care of her, keep her alive.

(iv) The Bible tells us that the body is just a temple for the spirit - it's the spirit that is the important part, not the body. (v) The Bible also tells us that at the end of time, her body shall be resurrected anyway.

correct, but that has nothing to do with killing her or not.

How long would you keep Terri on that machine then JD? Another 10 years? 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years? At what point does pulling the plug on this shell of a human being become 'not immoral'?

If she is just a shell of a human not alive there is no point that it becomes immoral, because it is merely a body, a shell. Not Terri and certainly not what really matters which is her soul. If Terri is just a shell then what is her former humam body is nothing more then a mass of cells, what does it matter how long a mass of cells is kept alive, for they are nothing more then cells. Side note she was not keep on a machine, she was being given food and water inorder to live. Now if the position is that we should not give food and water(or any other matterial things) to humans that are unable to take care of themselves and would surely die without food and water, then why does there exsist orginizations for feeding the poor? The poor that would surely die if not given food and water. After all the standard is not to give food and water to those that would surely die if not given food and water. So allowing millions to die in a famine is ok then I take it? Because they would die anyway without help, and that is the standard being applied here, so let's apply the same standard the world over.

Now I admit I have complete disgust for Mikey, he claims to be following her wishes that she didn't want to live that way. BUT nowhere in the record does it say her wishes were to languish for 8 years in that condition, then her wishes are to die. Mikey says she didn't want to live that way, but he didn't have any problem letting her live that way for 8 YEARS! Now he's hearring some other woman cry out his name in passion and we are supposed to forget that He made a commitment to Terri at the time of their marriage. We are also supposed to forget that he let her languish in the very condition he claims she didn't want to be in for 8 year before he got off his rear end and did something about it.
Now if anyone wishes to hold Mikey up as a bastion of innoceince(sp?) and virture be my guest, but remember that with friends and lovers like Mikey who the "Hale" needs enemies.

I have a simular disgust for her dad, this man is at the end of his time on this earth, he's and old man, his daughter is going to be killed he knows it. yet he doesn't take care of the problem, a double tap behind the ear and it would be out of the courts hands, and his wife would be the closest living relative.

Edit: I have NO PROBLEM with a Mercy Killing, that is putting Terri out of her missery(sp?). I do have a problem with putting her out of other people's precieved missery. In order for Terri to be in missery she would have to be aware of her curcumstanes(sp?), but that canot be because the cornerstone of the kill Terri arugement is that she is not aware nad is merely a shell exsisting artificaly. If she is a shell and has moved on then there can be NO mercy given it is to late.

[ 05-06-2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Aragorn1]

YPu're assertion that someone cannot be alive and dead at the same time could be challanged. The definition of these terms has changed with medical science. Dead used to mean when the heart stopped, which is now not the case due to treatment, i beleive the current definition of dead is when there is no activity in the brain stem. But whose to say that this will not change? Death is no longer the absolute concept it once was. In fact in certain cases of resucitation [sic?] people have lived who have in fact satisfied the modern medical criteia for death. This would indicate that one must decide is a person is no longer self-sufficiently 'alive enough' to be termed alive.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: How long would you keep Terri on that machine then JD? Another 10 years? 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years? At what point does pulling the plug on this shell of a human being become 'not immoral'?

If she is just a shell of a human not alive there is no point that it becomes immoral, because it is merely a body, a shell. Not Terri and certainly not what really matters which is her soul. If Terri is just a shell then what is her former humam body is nothing more then a mass of cells, what does it matter how long a mass of cells is kept alive, for they are nothing more then cells. Side note she was not keep on a machine, she was being given food and water inorder to live. Now if the position is that we should not give food and water(or any other matterial things) to humans that are unable to take care of themselves and would surely die without food and water, then why does there exsist orginizations for feeding the poor? The poor that would surely die if not given food and water. After all the standard is not to give food and water to those that would surely die if not given food and water. So allowing millions to die in a famine is ok then I take it? Because they would die anyway without help, and that is the standard being applied here, so let's apply the same standard the world over.

Now I admit I have complete disgust for Mikey, he claims to be following her wishes that she didn't want to live that way. BUT nowhere in the record does it say her wishes were to languish for 8 years in that condition, then her wishes are to die. Mikey says she didn't want to live that way, but he didn't have any problem letting her live that way for 8 YEARS! Now he's hearring some other woman cry out his name in passion and we are supposed to forget that He made a commitment to Terri at the time of their marriage. We are also supposed to forget that he let her languish in the very condition he claims she didn't want to be in for 8 year before he got off his rear end and did something about it.
Now if anyone wishes to hold Mikey up as a bastion of innoceince(sp?) and virture be my guest, but remember that with friends and lovers like Mikey who the "Hale" needs enemies.

I have a simular disgust for her dad, this man is at the end of his time on this earth, he's and old man, his daughter is going to be killed he knows it. yet he doesn't take care of the problem, a double tap behind the ear and it would be out of the courts hands, and his wife would be the closest living relative.

Edit: I have NO PROBLEM with a Mercy Killing, that is putting Terri out of her missery(sp?). I do have a problem with putting her out of other people's precieved missery. In order for Terri to be in missery she would have to be aware of her curcumstanes(sp?), but that canot be because the cornerstone of the kill Terri arugement is that she is not aware nad is merely a shell exsisting artificaly. If she is a shell and has moved on then there can be NO mercy given it is to late.[/QUOTE]John - You raise several points I want to address.

1) Michael Schiavo claims Terri did not want to live in a permanent vegetative state, yet he allowed her to "languish" in just such a state for 8 years before seeking to have her wishes enforced. Uhm....not exactly. Yes, Terri was in a vegetative state, but Michael wasn't sure if this condition was permanent or not...and her parents were certainly convinced that it was not. So he spent 8 years trying whatever rehab methods were available. It is understandable that they would NOT pull her feeding tube out right away. Terri was a relatively healthy and vivacious person before her accident and it is logical they would want to believe there was some way to reverse or repair the damage that was done. But Michael finally realized there was no legitimate hope of her recovering from her condition. Keep in mind that he became a Registered Nurse after Terri's accident in order to understand her condition and necessary treatments better. He also had the parents refusing to let Terri go. So he tried everything that was medically possible to help her recover. But in the end, he realize that nothing would help. The Schindlers have never accepted that, but they also don't have any formal medical training. I think it is safe to say that Michael and the other caregivers had a more realistic view of Terri's chances of recovery. Once he realized her vegetative state WAS permanent, that is when he went to the courts and asked them to examine the evidence of what her wishes would be in this situation. It was the courts who determined (from evidence presented by both sides) that Terri would NOT have wanted to remain alive in a permanent vegetative state.

2) Terri wasn't being kept alive by a machine. She was just being given food and water through a tube. Not technically correct, but close enough for a laymen comparison. You are correct that she wasn't being kept alive by a machine. She was just being supplied the necessary nutrition and hydration (through a specially formulated product) to keep her body functioning. You are correct that this is NOT the same as a ventilator actually "breathing" for someone, but the principle is just the same. Removing the feeding tube did technically cause Terri to "starve" to death. However, removing someone from a ventilator causes them to suffocate to death. BOTH could technically be considered murder, if you really want to push the issue. The relevant point here is that - under both of these circumstances - the person is being kept alive through medical-induced treatments...and every person has a right to refuse such medical treatments, even if it may lead to their death. The crux of the issue is that Michael claimed Terri would not want to remain alive in a permanent vegetative state. Once he felt all possible medical rehabs had been exhausted, he felt that her condition WAS permanent, so he petitioned the courts to examine the case and give THEIR interpretation. He agreed to abide by their decision. The courts could have decided that (a) there wasn't enough evidence to support the claim that Terri didn't want to live in this condition, or (b) Michael's assumption that her condition was permanent was in wrong. In 22 seperate trials and appeals, the courts found every single time that Terri's condition WAS permanent and that she would NOT have wanted to continue living that way. Yes, this could technically be considered "killing" Terri. Or it could be considered "honoring her final wishes".

3) It was easy for Michael to decide to "let Terri go" since he now has another woman screaming his name in passion. This is just petty, even for you. Yes, Michael has entered another relation - one that IS adulterous. But to claim the only depth of that relationship is hearing his named screamed in passion is just ridiculous. He has two children by this woman. Their relationship is obviously much deeper than just the pleasure of having hot monkey sex (as your comments constantly imply). Your disgust of Michael seems to be centered primarily on this extra-marital affair. That's fair enough, I suppose. I don't agree with his choice in that matter either. But I can certainly understand how and why that relationship developed, so I don't condemn him for his actions.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: YPu're assertion that someone cannot be alive and dead at the same time could be challanged. The definition of these terms has changed with medical science. Dead used to mean when the heart stopped, which is now not the case due to treatment, i beleive the current definition of dead is when there is no activity in the brain stem. But whose to say that this will not change? Death is no longer the absolute concept it once was. In fact in certain cases of resucitation [sic?] people have lived who have in fact satisfied the modern medical criteia for death. This would indicate that one must decide is a person is no longer self-sufficiently 'alive enough' to be termed alive.

The example you have given are of the preception of death/life. I have as well as every other person on this board, have had family and friends die. I can tell you for sure they ain't coming back in this life. We are either dead or we are alive there is no in between, no such animal as being dead for 23.5 hours a day then alive for .5 hours, or any combination imaginable by humans. They are dead or they are alive.

[Timber Loftis]

For those who keep referring to Michael's adulterous relationship, give it a rest, will ya? He's been with this other woman for TWICE as long as he and Terri were together. Terri was only his wife for 4 years when she went all "plant life" on him -- sheeesh, he tried, he had some patience, but how much do you demand his life be ruined because hers is ruined? Aren't people allowed to move on?

I love my wife dearly, but if suddenly tomorrow the only thing she could do is drool in my general direction, I think I'd only be able to mourn and hold on for so long. 3 or 4 years and it'd be time to move on. To me, it's offensive to demand that one life in stasis become 2 lives in stasis.

[John D Harris]

Cerek,
1) 8 years is not permanent, 15 years is not permanent, forever is permanent. Terri's state may every well have been permanent, it's out of any human's hands to know now, since her current condidtion is permanent, in the phsyical sense. I'm glad Mikey became a RN, it's good to see somebody make something of themselves. That doesn't change the fact that it was 8 years before he carried out her last wishes. As I wrote "with friends and lovers like that who the HALE needs enemies". As for the courts so what. How many trials and appeals were needed for that bastion of judical briliance known as the "Dread Scott" decession(sp?)?
Legal and right are not the same thing.
2)There is a vast differance between giving nutrition to a person that can breath and pump their own blood and a machine breathing/pumping for them. Let's go back to the chicken with it's head cut off (No, I didn't misinterpt your point.) If you were to give that chicken nutrition how long do you thunk it would last? If you were to hook the chicken up to a heart/lung machine how long do you thunk it would last? I'm willing to bet a lot longer then if it was given just nutrition.
3)Never said it was easy for Mikey, I wrote Mikey broke his vows, and took his sweet time fullfilling her last wishes. I never condenmed Mikey either, no where have I passed judgement on his final resting place. I will call a spade a spade (phrase used correctly as originally used and not the modern PC version.) and cut through the Bovine rectal expeled intestinal waste. Mikey made his choice, he'll face the same Judge we all will, that Judge will make the final decesion, murder is murder, adultry is adultry, stealing is stealing, and lying is lying. It's up to the Judge to decide if Mikey goes to the right or the left.

On one hand I got Mikey and his baggage telling one side, on the other hand I got two people willing to take care of Terri on the other. Remember the story of the two women, who brought the one live baby to Solomon? "Thar be a big ole mess" of wisdom in that. One willing to do what it took to kept their loved one alive, the other willing to kill them.

Edit: NO Cerek I implied Nothing, you infered, I came straight out and wrote what I wrote about Mikey's love for Terri, and his hearing another woman cry his name out in passion. I can understand why many things happen, anybody's understanding of why they happen, is irrelivant as to them being right or wrong.

[ 05-09-2005, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Cerek, 1) 8 years is not permanent, 15 years is not permanent, forever is permanent. Terri's state may every well have been permanent, it's out of any human's hands to know now, since her current condidtion is permanent, in the phsyical sense. I'm glad Mikey became a RN, it's good to see somebody make something of themselves. That doesn't change the fact that it was 8 years before he carried out her last wishes.~snip~

You seem to neglect it was 8 years of tests to see if she would recover before he put it in the hands of the courts. It was determined, not by one, or two neurologists but every one that examined her in detail that said she would not recover, and the original judge agreed that her wishes were to not be kept "alive" in that state.

Legal and right are not the same thing. 2)There is a vast differance between giving nutrition to a person that can breath and pump their own blood and a machine breathing/pumping for them. Let's go back to the chicken with it's head cut off (No, I didn't misinterpt your point.) If you were to give that chicken nutrition how long do you thunk it would last? If you were to hook the chicken up to a heart/lung machine how long do you thunk it would last? I'm willing to bet a lot longer then if it was given just nutrition.

Interesting story to go with that analogy, Mike the Headless Chicken is a story that was fairly big around where my wife grew up, A chicken who had had his head cut off, but because of the way the axe hit when it took his head he was still alive and functioned as a normal rooster, his owners fed him through an eyedropper down his throat-hole. He lived for 18 months after losing his head. I'm sure the whole story is on google if you're interested.

[Timber Loftis]

I've been having fanciful dreams lately involving the various and sundry neat ways that Terri could have been killed -- from simple suffocation to a some much more, um, creative means..... involving chainsaws. I'm so sick of hearing about her at this point, I wish we could bring her back just to kill her again.

[Aragorn1]

John, you saw what is legal is not always right, it is true. But what is right to one is not right to another. There must be something to make cogent decisions on soceities part. The upshot of your statement is that all decsisions should be made according to a personal moral code. If this were true, Michael could have walked in and flicked the switch, as he beleived that to be right. You can argu that you so not think something right, but that does not make it wrong.