|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/23/2005 11:13:48 AM · #176 |
From Deuteronomy 17:
Verses 8-13
8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; 9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: 10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: 11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.
So I ask you, Ron, why does the religious right persist in trying to deny the husband what 6 courts have already decided in his favor? Wouldn't this go against what the above passages declare? Are the legislators not acting presumtuously?
What is YOUR opinion about this case? Do you not think this is for the private parties to decide and not for the legislators to intervene? |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 01:21:56 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...what 6 courts have already decided in his favor? |
Actually I think it's 8 now :)
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 02:26:39 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by louddog:
God has taken her life. Man and machine keep her alive.
Can she feed herself? Can she chew if you put food in her mounth, or would she choke on it? Could she swallow if you poured water in her mouth, or would she drown? |
you can also apply this to a newborn human |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 02:32:44 PM · #179 |
DavidEy,
Do you honestly not see the difference between the tragic situation we're discussing here and the erroneous analogy you're trying to draw?
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 02:37:43 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
From Deuteronomy 17:
Verses 8-13
8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; 9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: 10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: 11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.
So I ask you, Ron, why does the religious right persist in trying to deny the husband what 6 courts have already decided in his favor? Wouldn't this go against what the above passages declare? Are the legislators not acting presumtuously?
What is YOUR opinion about this case? Do you not think this is for the private parties to decide and not for the legislators to intervene? |
1) OUR courts are not the "place which the LORD thy God shall choose". Rather, they are places appointed by MEN.
2) OUR judges are neither priests, nor Levites, nor appointed by God through the priests or Levites. Rather, they are judges and juries chosen by MEN - the majority of whom are laymen, not clergy.
3) OUR judges do not judge according to the laws of GOD. They judge accroding to the laws of MEN.
4) As I have pointed out in my prior post, such lay judges and juries have made many great errors before in adjudicating the death penalty, albeit not by intent. Death is a huge, and irreversable price to pay for such errors.
So, NO, keeping Terri alive would NOT go against the above passages
The legislators are using the only methods available to them to prevent ( or attempt to prevent ) a mistake by the judiciary from ending the life of someone whose wishes are not factually "known" but only testified to by someone whose motives are questionable.
The religious right recognizes the sanctity of life - and the benefits of sacrifice.
Wiliam keeps trying to make this a discussion of euthanasia - but it isn't euthanasia. Euthanasia, according to my dictionary is the "act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment".
Certainly Terri was not suffering from a terminal illness - other than getting older, before her feeding tube was removed. Now, of course, she IS suffering from a terminal illness - forced dehydration and starvation.
So we are left with the term "incurable condition". As a medical professional you know quite well that some folks would die without dialysis because they suffer from an "incurable condition". Yet, I wouldn't attempt to deny them their access to dialysis. So I don't buy that reasoning as a justification for euthanasia. So we are left with absolutely NO rationale for calling it "euthanasia".
Further, there are two methods suggested - "lethal injection", which kills ( some would call it "murder" ), and the "suspension of extraordinary medical treatment". It's too politically incorrect to actually give Terri a lethal injection because everyone recognizes that that would be murder.
That leaves us with only one method - the "suspension of extraordinary medical treatment". But a feeding tube is not "extraordinary medical treatment". It's certainly no more extraordinary than dialysis. In fact, I have a close friend who is currently undergoing radiation and chemo-therapy for throat cancer - and requires a feeding tube. I certainly wouldn't let him die because he can't eat. Would you?
So, it's not euthanasia. It's murder, pure and simple. Court decreed, and court condoned murder - not euthanasia.
I also am of the opinion that it isn't about what Terri would have wanted. If Terri wanted to be "let go" under some type of a living will, as Michael insists, then she could have done so for two reasons - 1) she didn't want to "suffer" herself for a prolonged time in a state of incapacity, or 2) she didn't want her family to "suffer" having to care for her in that kind of state. Without a written directive, we don't know which reason, if either, she intended, or even if she intended at all. But I reason it out this way, assuming that she DID indicate her wishes to Michael: If number 1, then the courts should not consider it as relevant since, according to the doctors, she is not "suffering" - in fact, according to the court's appointed doctors she is incapable of "suffering". On the other hand, if it's reason number 2, then we have a dilemma, since there are opposing views by her families. Michael, her husband, wants her to be "let go" ( a euphemism for forced death by dehydration ) - but it can't be for reason number 1, since, as the doctors have pointed out, she is incapable of "suffering". So, it must be for reason number 2 - that is because HE is "suffering".
Well, I'm sorry, but to me, that reasoning seems rather selfish, not to mention being a violation of his marriage vows. On the other hand, her parents want to relieve Michael from any obligation and take complete responsibility for her care. To me, that seems to be an act of sacrificial love. In fact, I have known many people who have provided that kind of care to incapacitated loved ones, with little, if any, rational response. They did so selflessly, sacrificially - and counted it as a blessing that they were able to do so.
It's interesting that her parents "suffering" is directly opposite of that of Michael. They "suffer" her dying but not in providing continued care to her in her current state. Love is like that. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 02:38:48 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by louddog:
God has taken her life. Man and machine keep her alive.
Can she feed herself? Can she chew if you put food in her mounth, or would she choke on it? Could she swallow if you poured water in her mouth, or would she drown? |
you can also apply this to a newborn human |
Sure. But by the time they are 15, the amount of time she has been in this state, they have learned such things as chewing and swallowing, no? |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 02:47:41 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by louddog:
God has taken her life. Man and machine keep her alive. |
she breaths on her own...to take someone off life support would be to pull the plug literally. She isn't plugged into anything to unplug. Except the feeding tube and hydration tube, which is totally different. If her parents WANT to care for her then I can't imagine denying them that right if Terri isn't suffering. Personally.
Message edited by author 2005-03-23 14:48:14. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 02:48:20 PM · #183 |
Seeing that this thread may be coming to its natural conclusion (though I could be wrong), I think I need to make a post regarding this case and its effects around the country. On the radio this morning I heard the DJ say the decision by the appellate court ought make some people "very happy" and some people "very sad." I have to say that I know of no one, who holds similar views on this case as I do, is happy that Terri Shiavo will be dieing in the next two weeks (barring the unlikely intervention of the US Supreme Court), but we see it as the correct application of current U.S. law and the lesser of two evils.
I'm not addressing this next comment to any particular person on this website, but am referring to the general level of discourse throughout the country over the last few days. To suggest by my position that I'm in favor of the mass euthanizing of the mentally and physically handicapped and the elderly currently living in our mental institutions, hospitals and retirement homes is not only ludicrous, it's insulting. It's a knee-jerk reaction to a complicated and sad case and did nothing to further our understanding of the current situation.
Thank you for your time.
Edited to add: Wow ... posted too soon. A lot happened while I was composing this response.
Message edited by author 2005-03-23 14:51:07. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:08:27 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The legislators are using the only methods available to them to prevent ( or attempt to prevent ) a mistake by the judiciary from ending the life of someone whose wishes are not factually "known" but only testified to by someone whose motives are questionable.
The religious right recognizes the sanctity of life - and the benefits of sacrifice.
Wiliam keeps trying to make this a discussion of euthanasia - but it isn't euthanasia. Euthanasia, according to my dictionary is the "act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment".
Certainly Terri was not suffering from a terminal illness - other than getting older, before her feeding tube was removed. Now, of course, she IS suffering from a terminal illness - forced dehydration and starvation.
So we are left with the term "incurable condition". As a medical professional you know quite well that some folks would die without dialysis because they suffer from an "incurable condition". Yet, I wouldn't attempt to deny them their access to dialysis. So I don't buy that reasoning as a justification for euthanasia. So we are left with absolutely NO rationale for calling it "euthanasia".
Further, there are two methods suggested - "lethal injection", which kills ( some would call it "murder" ), and the "suspension of extraordinary medical treatment". It's too politically incorrect to actually give Terri a lethal injection because everyone recognizes that that would be murder.
That leaves us with only one method - the "suspension of extraordinary medical treatment". But a feeding tube is not "extraordinary medical treatment". It's certainly no more extraordinary than dialysis. In fact, I have a close friend who is currently undergoing radiation and chemo-therapy for throat cancer - and requires a feeding tube. I certainly wouldn't let him die because he can't eat. Would you?
So, it's not euthanasia. It's murder, pure and simple. Court decreed, and court condoned murder - not euthanasia.
I also am of the opinion that it isn't about what Terri would have wanted. If Terri wanted to be "let go" under some type of a living will, as Michael insists, then she could have done so for two reasons - 1) she didn't want to "suffer" herself for a prolonged time in a state of incapacity, or 2) she didn't want her family to "suffer" having to care for her in that kind of state. Without a written directive, we don't know which reason, if either, she intended, or even if she intended at all. But I reason it out this way, assuming that she DID indicate her wishes to Michael: If number 1, then the courts should not consider it as relevant since, according to the doctors, she is not "suffering" - in fact, according to the court's appointed doctors she is incapable of "suffering". On the other hand, if it's reason number 2, then we have a dilemma, since there are opposing views by her families. Michael, her husband, wants her to be "let go" ( a euphemism for forced death by dehydration ) - but it can't be for reason number 1, since, as the doctors have pointed out, she is incapable of "suffering". So, it must be for reason number 2 - that is because HE is "suffering".
Well, I'm sorry, but to me, that reasoning seems rather selfish, not to mention being a violation of his marriage vows. On the other hand, her parents want to relieve Michael from any obligation and take complete responsibility for her care. To me, that seems to be an act of sacrificial love. In fact, I have known many people who have provided that kind of care to incapacitated loved ones, with little, if any, rational response. They did so selflessly, sacrificially - and counted it as a blessing that they were able to do so.
It's interesting that her parents "suffering" is directly opposite of that of Michael. They "suffer" her dying but not in providing continued care to her in her current state. Love is like that. |
Why, then, if Michael is suffering under this burden, does he not just hand over guardianship to Terri's parents and be done with it? I can make just as reasonable an argument that it's the parents who are acting selfishly in keeping her alive when she would not wish to be and that it's Michael who is acting selflessly in carrying out her wishes, especially in the face of the vicious attacks he has had to endure in so doing. The fact is that neither you nor I know what the truth is, so it is left to the courts to decide, and they have decided many, many times that there is insufficient reason to remove him as guardian and have concluded that he is carrying out Terri's wishes. By the way, had the courts concluded that there was sufficient reason to remove Michael as guardian, I'd support that decision as well.
And your reasoning around whether she is "suffering" and how that might have affected her decision ignores at least one other possibility, that she might not have wanted to exist in her present condition regardless of her state of awareness. The responses by ordinary people to recent polls on this subject suggest that existing in a similar condition would be intolerable for most of us. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:11:48 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
....The responses by ordinary people to recent polls on this subject suggest that existing in a similar condition would be intolerable for most of us. |
...so would dying by starvation and thirst. If it is finally decided that she should die, then have her die fast and painlessly instead of a long protracted death by dehydration.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:12:05 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by louddog:
God has taken her life. Man and machine keep her alive.
Can she feed herself? Can she chew if you put food in her mounth, or would she choke on it? Could she swallow if you poured water in her mouth, or would she drown? |
you can also apply this to a newborn human |
A new born human can suck a nipple and swallow just fine.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:22:18 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by louddog:
A new born human can suck a nipple and swallow just fine. |
I might have missed something along the way in this convo but there are a lot of newborn humans that definetly can't suck a nipple or swallor on their own. My two cousins for instance. Premies..spent nearly a year on what was essentially life support. They're fine now :-) |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:24:52 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by louddog:
God has taken her life. Man and machine keep her alive. |
she breaths on her own...to take someone off life support would be to pull the plug literally. She isn't plugged into anything to unplug. Except the feeding tube and hydration tube, which is totally different. If her parents WANT to care for her then I can't imagine denying them that right if Terri isn't suffering. Personally. |
Would you want to live like that? To me living like that is suffering.
Would you want your husband to live like that?
Would you stay by your husbands side for 15 years if he was like that?
If you chose not to stay by your husbands side when he was like that, would you divorce him?
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:35:37 PM · #189 |
That's really not relevent to anything I was saying. lol My biggest issue is that the law has taken any rights from her parents which I feel is just nuts. Someone telling you you can't care for your child is ridiculous.
I don't know what exactly I would do. I would give it much prayer and thought. Maybe 15 years worth, I dunno, I'd do what God wanted me to. And that's different for everyone. So relax, I'm not judging her husband or anyone. Or you for that matter. lol |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:44:17 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
That's really not relevent to anything I was saying. lol My biggest issue is that the law has taken any rights from her parents which I feel is just nuts. Someone telling you you can't care for your child is ridiculous.
I don't know what exactly I would do. I would give it much prayer and thought. Maybe 15 years worth, I dunno, I'd do what God wanted me to. And that's different for everyone. So relax, I'm not judging her husband or anyone. Or you for that matter. lol |
Goldberry, what you "feel" is inconsequential. The law gives the right for decisions regarding medical care of adults to the spouse first, adult children second, and parents third. The courts found no legitimate reason to remove Terri Shiavo's husband as the primary medical decisionmaker regardless of how you think he should have behaved or the actions you think he should have taken. Eight decisions have now backed up this position. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:48:28 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Goldberry, what you "feel" is inconsequential. |
Thanks, but I was specifically asked how I felt. And no matter what the court says (we tend to disagree on a lot as a matter of fact, lol) a husband who has long ago disengaged from the relationship should not be given full power. The law is not known for being a big upholder of common sense.
Message edited by author 2005-03-23 15:50:11. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:58:44 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
That's really not relevent to anything I was saying. lol My biggest issue is that the law has taken any rights from her parents which I feel is just nuts. Someone telling you you can't care for your child is ridiculous.
I don't know what exactly I would do. I would give it much prayer and thought. Maybe 15 years worth, I dunno, I'd do what God wanted me to. And that's different for everyone. So relax, I'm not judging her husband or anyone. Or you for that matter. lol |
Goldberry, what you "feel" is inconsequential. The law gives the right for decisions regarding medical care of adults to the spouse first, adult children second, and parents third. The courts found no legitimate reason to remove Terri Shiavo's husband as the primary medical decisionmaker regardless of how you think he should have behaved or the actions you think he should have taken. Eight decisions have now backed up this position. |
And, as I have pointed out earlier, the courts have been wrong on at least 119 death penalty convictions. The courts could be wrong in this case, too. The difference is that the 119 were kept alive until the court's errors were revealed. Terri probably won't be. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 04:04:48 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And, as I have pointed out earlier, the courts have been wrong on at least 119 death penalty convictions. The courts could be wrong in this case, too. The difference is that the 119 were kept alive until the court's errors were revealed. Terri probably won't be. |
I was unaware this was a criminal case. I thought this was a right of guardianship/medical treatment decisionmaker case. Surely you can see the difference between the two? |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 04:09:08 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Goldberry, what you "feel" is inconsequential. |
Thanks, but I was specifically asked how I felt. And no matter what the court says (we tend to disagree on a lot as a matter of fact, lol) a husband who has long ago disengaged from the relationship should not be given full power. The law is not known for being a big upholder of common sense. |
While I can appreciate and respect your views Goldberry... the fact remains that what you "feel" have no bearing on the laws as they currently exist. You opine that the law is not a big upholder of common sense... but have you considered that the majority of laws are indeed reflective of the mores and morals of society as a whole.
Your comments regarding a husband long ago disengaged from his relationship leave me baffled.... What relationship. It is quite conceivable that this man cares a great deal about his wife and has a very strong emotional tie with her.... but a relationship... not in any sense of the word.
All I can say is that I am ever so glad that I have a living will... I would not want to visit this scenario on my family members.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 04:12:23 PM · #195 |
Wording aside, like you said there's no "relationship" anymore. Hence, he should not be involved in what happens to her. Or so I would think...that sounds like common sense to this gal!
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 04:13:26 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Goldberry, what you "feel" is inconsequential. |
Thanks, but I was specifically asked how I felt. And no matter what the court says (we tend to disagree on a lot as a matter of fact, lol) a husband who has long ago disengaged from the relationship should not be given full power. The law is not known for being a big upholder of common sense. |
Since you seem to think he should have stuck by her for 15 years and given up any dreams he ever had of having a family, I think it is very fair to ask you if you would stick by someone in that condition for that amount of time. Or reverse situation, would you expect your husband to stick by you. Is this something you just expect others to do, or would you really do that?
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 04:18:29 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And, as I have pointed out earlier, the courts have been wrong on at least 119 death penalty convictions. The courts could be wrong in this case, too. The difference is that the 119 were kept alive until the court's errors were revealed. Terri probably won't be. |
The other difference is that those criminal cases were decided by juries who misinterpreted the "evidence" (assuming it was honestly presented in the first place), not errors of legal interpretation by trained jurists.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the parents' position -- if the courts had consistently ruled that the law was otherwise I'd probably be OK with that too -- since I personally don't know what Terri's wishes would have been. What I object to is the massive injection of political gamesmanship and "waste" of taxpayers money -- the legislatures have no business interfering in people's personal affairs. They set up laws and courts to deal with these issues, and they -- like us -- must agree to abide by those decisions, even when they are not favorable.
Right now, it seems as though some people are searching out an "activist judge" who will reinterpret the law differently than at least 8 other courts have. If the legislatures think the laws regarding guardianship should be different, then let them effect that change by statute through the "proper" channels. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 04:21:33 PM · #198 |
I never said he should stick by her through 15 years of this, I did say it would make much more sense to divorce her. If that's still unclear, PM me, and I can send you pictures of me beating a dead horse.
:-) |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 04:27:50 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by louddog:
God has taken her life. Man and machine keep her alive. |
she breaths on her own...to take someone off life support would be to pull the plug literally. She isn't plugged into anything to unplug. Except the feeding tube and hydration tube, which is totally different. If her parents WANT to care for her then I can't imagine denying them that right if Terri isn't suffering. Personally. |
Would you want to live like that? To me living like that is suffering.
Would you want your husband to live like that?
Would you stay by your husbands side for 15 years if he was like that?
If you chose not to stay by your husbands side when he was like that, would you divorce him? |
You didn't ask ME personally, but I'll answer anyway.
Would I want to live like that?
I can't answer since I don't know what "that" is. I heard a woman a couple of days ago who had suffered a stroke and was deemed by doctors to be "vegatative", though able to breathe on her own. She was in that state for about three months. She says that during that time she could hear and see, but was totally paralyzed and unable to make any voluntary movements or to communicate in any fashion. She heard people talking about her "condition" and "pulling the plug" on her and heard her husband fighting against it. Even though she was "vegetative", her husband insisted on providing her with physical therapy. She eventually recovered slightly, and once that happened, she was given more intensive therapies, both physical and speech. That was several years ago. She is fully recovered now. So, since I don't know what lies behind the eyes of Terri, I can't say with certainty whether I would want to live like "that" or not. But, to be honest, if there was "nothing" behind the eyes, then it would not matter to me whether I "lived" or not - I would have no cognition one way or the other.
Would I want my wife to live like that?
Again, I don't know what "that" is. Assuming that there is a way of determining with certainty that there was "nothing" behind the eyes, then yes - I would want her to live like that. It wouldn't make a whit of difference to her, but I vowed to take care of her in sickness and in health. I don't recall saying anything about IF or UNLESS.
On the other hand, if there was no way to determine whether there was something behind her eyes, then I would always err on the side of keeping her alive - knowing that there was a possibility that she would know how much I loved her on a daily basis, even though she was prevented from acknowledging such.
Would I stay by my wife's side for 15 years if she was like that?
Absolutely. I'd stay until one of us died.
If I chose not to stay by my wife's side when she was like that, would you divorce her?
Unthinkable. I would never make the choice not to stay by her side.
For those who care, I would recommend a book called The Five Silent Years of Corrie Ten Boom. It is an amazing book about dealing with people who are severely incapacitated. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 04:35:33 PM · #200 |
That's beautiful Ron! Me not having a relationship like that I can't answer Louddog in a specific way but I'd like to think I'd feel the same as you - I'd never want to leave. Here's to hoping!
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 03:59:02 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 03:59:02 AM EDT.
|
