Civil Disobedience and Terry Schaivo

[SmarterThanYou]

When are you lefties going to understand that murder will never be approved?

but long term vegetativeness is quite alright?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Because us right wingers refuse to believe that humans are no better than animals.

relieving suffering is making a human an animal?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

One is reminded today of the Nazi extermination of mentally ill people and the T4 program. Today we have the liberal government in Florida ruling for the death of a mentally ill person without any solid proof that she would want to die, just the word of her suspect husband while her parents, siblings, and the rest of her family are screaming for her life. There are doctors who think she can improve. Instead of being placed in a gas chamber by the government she is being forced to dehydrate and starve.

Are not the liberal bioethicists terrorizing the disabled of our society? Who is going to be next? And for what flimsy reason? Does this not resemble Adolf Hiter who also proclaimed that the disabled are "better off dead"? Are the liberals succeeding in fostering Nazism in our country?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/mental_disabilities.html

Letter from Dr. Wurm, of the Wuerttemberg Evangelical Provincial Church, to Reich Minister of interior Dr. Frick, September 5, 1940 ( Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1946, Supp. A, p. 1223).

Dear Reich Minister,
On July 19th I sent you a letter about the systematic extermination of lunatics, feeble-minded and epileptic persons. Since then this practice has reached tremendous proportions: recently the inmates of old-age homes have also been included. The basis for this practice seems to be that in an efficient nation there should be no room for weak and frail people. It is evident from the many reports which we are receiving that the people's feelings are being badly hurt by the measures ordered and that the feeling of legal insecurity is spreading which is regrettable from the point of view of national and state interest.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/t4.html

Of the number of people killed in the T4 and the 14f13 projects, the following statistics are usually given: adult mental patients from institutions, 80,000 to 100,000; children in institutions, 5,000; special action against Jews in institutions, 1,000; concentration camp inmates transported to killing centers (14f13), 20,000 (Klee estimated that at the end of 1941, some 93,521 `beds' had been emptied for other uses [70,000 patients gassed, plus over 20,000 dead through starvation and medication] - in other words approximately one-third of the places for the mentally ill.) But these figures may well be too low; twice these numbers of people may have perished. The fact is that we do not know and shall probably never know. Elements of deception, imposed chaos, and the destruction of many records make anything like an accurate estimate impossible.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

One is reminded today of the Nazi extermination of mentally ill people and the T4 program. Today we have the liberal government in Florida ruling for the death of a mentally ill person without any solid proof that she would want to die, just the word of her suspect husband while her parents, siblings, and the rest of her family are screaming for her life. There are doctors who think she can improve. Instead of being placed in a gas chamber by the government she is being forced to dehydrate and starve.

Are not the liberal bioethicists terrorizing the disabled of our society? Who is going to be next? And for what flimsy reason? Does this not resemble Adolf Hiter who also proclaimed that the disabled are "better off dead"? Are the liberals succeeding in fostering Nazism in our country?

what an absolutely ridiculous argument. Assisted suicide was made illegal. On top of that, this stupid nazi crap that was vehemently denounced when used by liberals is now being used by some conservatives smacks of hypocrisy.

Terri is NOT a disabled person like someone with downs syndrome or missing a let. She has a brain that is 80% non-functional. Also, a living will is not a mandate. Out of the mouths of lawyers they have said so, its only guidance and CAN be contested so living wills will NOT stop what we are going through today.

When does it end? Do we 'err on the side of life' for everything? Do we force the terminally ill cancer patient waste away in hopes of a miracle or the reverence of life? Shall we all force people to die painfully through months of agony because its better to err on the side of life?

we'll also just change centuries of legal precedent and tradition of spousal responsibility and go with the 'living will' because a bunch of people don't feel comfortable about something. Giving the lawyers more damn money is all you'll be doing, great F'ng job. And like I said, living wills are NOT a mandate and are as easily contestable. This solves nothing. What a bunch of crap.

 

[Merlin1047]

Seems like most folks in this discussion are getting bogged down in the ancillary issues and that is unfortunate. People who profess a conservative philosophy now applaud the fact that the federal government has insinuated itself into this matter through cheap parliamentary parlor tricks. Somehow the fact that once again the feds are trampling state's rights seems to be a moot point in the pursuit of what some people feel is "justice" and protection for Terri Schiavo.

But let's get back to the fundamental issue. It's simple really, and that issue is - what did Terri want? She has an absolute right to determine her own fate in this matter and neither the state and especially not the federal government have any right to interfere.

So as I see it, the only issue worth discussing is - has there been sufficient proof presented in court that proves what Terri Schiavo's intentions would be if she could express them herself. NOTHING else is pertinent.

If you want to argue that there is insufficient evidence of Terri's intentions and that the judge ruled in error, then that argument in pertinent. But if you want to argue that the husband's conduct is questionable or that his motives are suspect - that is completely beside the point. If you want to argue that her parents should be allowed to keep whatever is left of Terri Schiavo alive, that too is an irrelevant argument. The parents have no rights in this matter. Only Terri's wishes count here and only an argument over whether SHE desires death or continued existence is legitimate.

For those who support the interference of the fed in this matter, I would caution you with the old saw of Greeks bearing gifts. The same is certainly true of politicians who want to "help". Every time some politician sticks his grandstanding face into the process, we lose a little more of our rights.

Let's try to keep the central issue first and foremost and forget the politics and the ideology. What would Terri want?

 

[Annie]

Seems like most folks in this discussion are getting bogged down in the ancillary issues and that is unfortunate. People who profess a conservative philosophy now applaud the fact that the federal government has insinuated itself into this matter through cheap parliamentary parlor tricks. Somehow the fact that once again the feds are trampling state's rights seems to be a moot point in the pursuit of what some people feel is "justice" and protection for Terri Schiavo.

But let's get back to the fundamental issue. It's simple really, and that issue is - what did Terri want? She has an absolute right to determine her own fate in this matter and neither the state and especially not the federal government have any right to interfere.

So as I see it, the only issue worth discussing is - has there been sufficient proof presented in court that proves what Terri Schiavo's intentions would be if she could express them herself. NOTHING else is pertinent.

If you want to argue that there is insufficient evidence of Terri's intentions and that the judge ruled in error, then that argument in pertinent. But if you want to argue that the husband's conduct is questionable or that his motives are suspect - that is completely beside the point. If you want to argue that her parents should be allowed to keep whatever is left of Terri Schiavo alive, that too is an irrelevant argument. The parents have no rights in this matter. Only Terri's wishes count here and only an argument over whether SHE desires death or continued existence is legitimate.

For those who support the interference of the fed in this matter, I would caution you with the old saw of Greeks bearing gifts. The same is certainly true of politicians who want to "help". Every time some politician sticks his grandstanding face into the process, we lose a little more of our rights.

Let's try to keep the central issue first and foremost and forget the politics and the ideology. What would Terri want?

I've yet to see anything that substantiates that she had thought out all the ramifications for what has befallen her. Not unusual for one so young. My posts about my mom/dad, one alive, one dead, were reached at the stage of life that could ascertain their wishes.

 

[Merlin1047]

Are not the liberal bioethicists terrorizing the disabled of our society? Who is going to be next? And for what flimsy reason? Does this not resemble Adolf Hiter who also proclaimed that the disabled are "better off dead"? Are the liberals succeeding in fostering Nazism in our country?

Let me turn your argument back on you Eagle. You claim that this smacks of Nazi concentration camp extermination programs.

Okay, let's say for the moment that you're right. So would you rather have the federal government establish "storage facilities" for those in Schiavo's condition? Would it make you happy if no one were allowed to choose the level of supportive care in such a situation and instead the feds sent you to a facility which kept your body functioning as long as possible?

Concentration camps in reverse? Silly concept, isn't it? But if we're keeping a person's body alive against his or her wishes, isn't that exactly what we're doing? But we get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside because we're being noble. Never mind the fact that we are forcing an unbearably degrading existence on an unwilling and helpless human being.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I've yet to see anything that substantiates that she had thought out all the ramifications for what has befallen her. Not unusual for one so young. My posts about my mom/dad, one alive, one dead, were reached at the stage of life that could ascertain their wishes.

no offense K, but whats the difference between a 22 year old and a 70 year old when it comes to determining whether they want to be kept alive artificially or not?

 

[Annie]

no offense K, but whats the difference between a 22 year old and a 70 year old when it comes to determining whether they want to be kept alive artificially or not?

No offense taken. Quite a lot. For my folks, they knew they were at the end of the road, give or take 1-20 years. Now if a 20 year old says, "If I have to live with daily injections of insulin, life is not worth living," few would deem that reason to off them. Now a step further. I see a tv program with someone in coma, I say to the person watching with me, "I wouldn't want to live like that, if in that circumstance," but I haven't really thought through that IT could happen to me...

 

[SmarterThanYou]

No offense taken. Quite a lot. For my folks, they knew they were at the end of the road, give or take 1-20 years. Now if a 20 year old says, "If I have to live with daily injections of insulin, life is not worth living," few would deem that reason to off them. Now a step further. I see a tv program with someone in coma, I say to the person watching with me, "I wouldn't want to live like that, if in that circumstance," but I haven't really thought through that IT could happen to me...

ok, being a diabetic wouldn't be something that should prompt a person to consider using a 'right to die' defense. If a person in that situation is considering that, some professional help would obviously be needed. A coma might be closer, but not necessarily a hopeless case. severe brain damage is another issue entirely.

 

[Annie]

ok, being a diabetic wouldn't be something that should prompt a person to consider using a 'right to die' defense. If a person in that situation is considering that, some professional help would obviously be needed. A coma might be closer, but not necessarily a hopeless case. severe brain damage is another issue entirely.

Then you haven't known a 12 year old with juvenile diabetes. They often think they want to off themselves. Why not?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Then you haven't known a 12 year old with juvenile diabetes. They often think they want to off themselves. Why not?

pre-teens and teens are over emotional, probably because of hormones, so i'm certainly not promoting that they be allowed to. Again, professional help and counseling needs to be utilized to let them know that being diabetic is not a death sentence.

 

[Annie]

pre-teens and teens are over emotional, probably because of hormones, so i'm certainly not promoting that they be allowed to. Again, professional help and counseling needs to be utilized to let them know that being diabetic is not a death sentence.

Ok, I more than agree with that. Now someone 6-12 years beyond that? You want to equate them with someone 60 years their senior? Sorry, I disagree.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Ok, I more than agree with that. Now someone 6-12 years beyond that? You want to equate them with someone 60 years their senior? Sorry, I disagree.

a person is a legal adult at 18, right? we let them vote, live on their own, join the military, etc..... We're starting to hold juveniles responsible for their choices if they commit crimes as if they are in their right mind, are we not? but we want to prevent them from making other decisions? sort of a double standard there it sounds like.

 

[Annie]

a person is a legal adult at 18, right? we let them vote, live on their own, join the military, etc..... We're starting to hold juveniles responsible for their choices if they commit crimes as if they are in their right mind, are we not? but we want to prevent them from making other decisions? sort of a double standard there it sounds like.

Hmm, how old is your oldest? Mine is 23, and I think her a child. Lord knows, she way too often acts like one. Of course she is still in school, so it's to be expected. 5 years past 18. Wait. Your time is coming.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Hmm, how old is your oldest? Mine is 23, and I think her a child. Lord knows, she way too often acts like one. Of course she is still in school, so it's to be expected. 5 years past 18. Wait. Your time is coming.

my stepdaughter is 15. I have no children of my very own, however, I would do what I could to ensure that all current technologies and medical opinions told me that there was no hope for recovery. Then again, if she's married, I don't have the right to make that decision alone, do I.

 

[Annie]

my stepdaughter is 15. I have no children of my very own, however, I would do what I could to ensure that all current technologies and medical opinions told me that there was no hope for recovery. Then again, if she's married, I don't have the right to make that decision alone, do I.

Actually if she marries at 18, via what you have posted, you have no rights at all. The law will back that up. So if she makes a bad choice, too bad. Her husband could have beaten her or poisoned her, but since she has no voice, he will speak for her. You seem comfortable with that.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Actually if she marries at 18, via what you have posted, you have no rights at all. The law will back that up. So if she makes a bad choice, too bad. Her husband could have beaten her or poisoned her, but since she has no voice, he will speak for her. You seem comfortable with that.

if he beat her or poisoned her then there would be evidence of a crime. He would then lose that very right and it would fall back to the parents. I am comfortable with that.

 

[Annie]

if he beat her or poisoned her then there would be evidence of a crime. He would then lose that very right and it would fall back to the parents. I am comfortable with that.

Not necessarily. Read all.

 

[Merlin1047]

I've yet to see anything that substantiates that she had thought out all the ramifications for what has befallen her. Not unusual for one so young. My posts about my mom/dad, one alive, one dead, were reached at the stage of life that could ascertain their wishes.

Again, the quality of her thought process is not for us to decide. The ONLY issue is whether or not she expressed any desires one way or another.