How much is a life worth?

[ReillyT]

This cite should take you to a pdf. of the court order which determined that she was in a persistent vegetative state and that clear and convincing evidence establishes her desire not to exist in this state.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

Note in the opinion that this standard was met by other evidence than just Michael Schiavo's word.

 

[ReillyT]

If you go to this cite, which provides an unbiased examination of the Schiavo case, there are additional links to numerous court orders and decisions dealing with this case.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Depends on the situation, It would be easy for me to say sure go ahead but it's not that simple when you are talking about human life, in most cases yes it seems reasonable for the spouse to be the primary decision maker. I would also say though that it is important to have a living will if you really feel that strongly about this, as this is a great help to your spouse if something catastrophic does happen.

If a person can't feel emotionally or mentally stable enough to make this decision, then they ought not get married. I don't need a living will to replace my wifes responsibility to me.

 

[freeandfun1]

Ask jack kevorkian.

Kevorkian was operating outside the law, so no need to ask him. I was serious in my question. I know the answer, so I guess it was rhetorical. For her to die any other way, the state would have to get involved and we don't want that.

 

[Gem]

This is a strange case...but one I feel will be used to set legal precedent in years to come, so we must tread lightly.

I understand and am very aware of how ruling against Michael Schiavo might undermine a spouses right to make decisions for their partner...however, I am also aware of how ruling FOR Michael Schiavo might undermine a person's right to life if they have not been specific in spelling out exactly what they mean to their spouse.

It seems to me that if a person is braindead, in a Persistive Vegetative State, or is being kept alive by extraordinary means, like a breathing machine...then the medical community (and the legal community as well) should have no problem allowing her husband to make decisions in her best interest....

However, we are not dealing with any of these situations...we are dealing with a woman who, through accident, has become mentally and physically handicapped...a woman whose body is still functioning properly and whos brain is still working, although not optimally...a woman who could regain much of her quality of life through proper rehabilitation...something that has been denied to her.

If we allow this woman to be starved to death...what precedent have we set?

Can I tell my husband that since I am a jogger, I don't want to live without the use of my legs? While certainly extreme, it isn't altogether different from Terri...afterall, her body was functioning, her brain was functioning...just not optimally...she was alive, reactive to people...although not optimally...and she had decided that she didn't want to live without the proper optimal use of her body...and so they killed her. Shouldn't I have the right to say I don't want to live without the proper, optimal use of my body and/or mind?


Now, if you are a person who believes that a person should have the right to end their life whenever they want...if you beleive that euthanasia should be legal and allowable...that is your right...and obviously, you will say that Terri should be allowed to be starved to death...and I should be able to kill myself when I can't go for my morning jogs...its our choice.

However, most of the US isn't quite at that stage yet...many of us feel that if a person is being kept alive artificially, and specified that they didn't want to be kept alive this way...that they should be able to allow their bodies to pass away naturally.

But this, in my opinion, is the clincher:

We are not allowing this woman to die naturally...we are going to kill her. Is that the precedent we want to set?

 

[Merlin1047]

You guys are topic-jumping:

Does a Husband/Wife have the 'right' to make the hard choices for a spouse, in spite of parents' wishes?

vs

Is Terri's husband doing the right thing?

Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the husband is in fact doing the "right thing" and that he is indeed attempting to implement the wishes his wife expressed. If I were subject to such circumstance, then I would no doubt do whatever I could to assure that my wife's wishes were honored.

Problem is, we (society) only have the word of the surviving spouse for that. Therein lies the obstacle.

Let's abandon the specifics of the Schiavo case in favor of broader issues that relate to this. First, we as a society maintain that killing another human being is wrong. It is punishable as murder or manslaughter. Second, some evidence of intent is required to act on behalf of a spouse in some very mundane things. If a spouse owns property of any kind which is in his or her name only, the other spouse needs a power of attorney to dispose of that property. Yet some in this discussion seem to think that society should accept the death of a human being on faith - with no evidence other than the word of the surviving spouse. These same people seem to resist the idea of a living will which would enable them to legally carry out the wishes of a spouse unable to act for him or herself. Apparently they take the attitude that this is an issue in which society has no say.

Well that is simply arrogant and unrealistic. One of the most fundamental and legitimate functions of government is to protect the helpless from the depradation of the powerful. What is more helpless than a comatose person or an infant in the womb? Society has a right to demand certain standards of conduct. Society has an obligation to protect the helpless. These two principles go hand in hand.

So while I have no basis for being suspicious of the husband's motivation, I believe that in order to end a human life, we as a society have an obligation to assure that the actions requested by the surviving spouse are indeed those requested by the spouse who is in the coma or in the near-vegetative condition. We need to make sure that the comatose spouse desired certain actions and that the surviving spouse is not seeking to end the life of the other simply as a matter of convenience - or worse.

Both my wife and I have living wills which outline our desires should either or both of us find ourselves in a condition similar to Terry Schiavo. This serves several important purposes. First, it takes the pressure off the other spouse in regard to making an extremely painful decision. Second, it provides tangible proof that these are the wishes of the comatose spouse and not the desires of the other. And finally, if both of us were to become incapacitated simultaneously, it would provide guidance for our doctors as well as legal protection for them.

So we need to separate the emotionalism from the legalisms. We need to separate spousal obligation from spousal "rights". Each of us has a right to say what kind of medical care and life support we want for ourselves. But none of us has the right to say what kind of medical care anyone else should receive. If a spouse is critically injured and requires surgery, or requires an operation to remove a malignant tumor, the other spouse has no "right" to decide whether that operation will be performed or not. But yet we want to assert that a spouse has the right to make a decision regarding life or death. I believe that only one person can make such a decision.

So yes, I believe that a surviving spouse has an ethical and moral obligation to assure that a promise made to the other is carried out. But society has an obligation to assure that those wishes have in fact been expressed by the person who is unable to act on his or her own behalf. A living will is the bridge between the two competing obligations.

 

[dmp]

We are not allowing this woman to die naturally...we are going to kill her. Is that the precedent we want to set?

The precident is already set. See:Roe vs Wade.

 

[Bonnie]

Kevorkian was operating outside the law, so no need to ask him. I was serious in my question. I know the answer, so I guess it was rhetorical. For her to die any other way, the state would have to get involved and we don't want that.

Murderers on death row don't drool and apparently Terri does. I wish I knew the answer to that!

The state is getting involved either way!

 

[Bonnie]

If a person can't feel emotionally or mentally stable enough to make this decision, then they ought not get married. I don't need a living will to replace my wifes responsibility to me.

Merlin1047

So yes, I believe that a surviving spouse has an ethical and moral obligation to assure that a promise made to the other is carried out. But society has an obligation to assure that those wishes have in fact been expressed by the person who is unable to act on his or her own behalf. A living will is the bridge between the two competing obligations.

That sums it up for me

 

[Avatar4321]

the only problem with the 'nothing in writing' argument is that you're now talking about THE most sacred relationship in history....that of husband and wife. read above, others feel the same. That relationship should be inviolate.

Problem is her husband violated that relationship already by cheating on her and having children with another woman.

 

[dmp]

Problem is her husband violated that relationship already by cheating on her and having children with another woman.

Is it really 'cheating'? People love to through that word around.

 

[freeandfun1]

Is it really 'cheating'? People love to through that word around.

According to the Bible it would be cheating. If one does not believe in the Bible, then they must make their own moral judgements I guess.

 

[dmp]

According to the Bible it would be cheating. If one does not believe in the Bible, then they must make their own moral judgements I guess.

Negative. Not really. Not 'cheating'. Adultry - yes...the same as it would be for ANY person who married another after a divorce. There is SO much more than 'adultry' which should be labelled 'cheating'. Perhaps Terri had broken those vows before her collapse? I don't know the whole story of their relationship..nor do you, I suppose.

yes - they aren't legally divorced, however under those circumstances...I doubt anyone would have blame. Just as 'legal documents' aren't required for God to recognize a marriage, I believe they aren't required in the case like this.

 

[freeandfun1]

Negative. Not really. Not 'cheating'. Adultry - yes...the same as it would be for ANY person who married another after a divorce. There is SO much more than 'adultry' which should be labelled 'cheating'. Perhaps Terri had broken those vows before her collapse? I don't know the whole story of their relationship..nor do you, I suppose.

yes - they aren't legally divorced, however under those circumstances...I doubt anyone would have blame. Just as 'legal documents' aren't required for God to recognize a marriage, I believe they aren't required in the case like this.

Not sure how you cannot equate adultery with cheating.... adultery is the act of having an EXTRA-MARRITAL affair. Sounds like cheating to me. If Terry had broken the vows first, he should have filed for divorce. Sure, none of us know the story of their relationship, but that does not change the FACT that they were are are still married. And with or without a piece of paper, that is how G-d looks at it.

 

[Bonnie]

If you go to this cite, which provides an unbiased examination of the Schiavo case, there are additional links to numerous court orders and decisions dealing with this case.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Interesting site: Here is what I found in realation to proof of Terri's wishes to die


Page 4

There are no written declarations by Terri Schiavo as to her intention with regard to this issue. Therefore, the court is left with oral declarations allegedly made to parties and non-parties as to her feelings on this subject. the testimony before this court reveals that she made comments or statements to five (5) persons, including her husband and her mother.

Page 5

Michael Shciavo testified as to a few discussions he had with his wife concerning life support. The Guardian Ad Litem felt that this testimony standing alone would not rise to clear and convincing evidence of her intent.

It goes on to say the other witnesses were her brother and sister in-law

Im just not convinced. And apparently the courts haven't been along the way either or this matter would have been settled long ago.

 

[Bonnie]

Is it really 'cheating'? People love to through that word around.

Technically it is cheating maybe even morally, but truly I don't think many people cam blame him for moving on, that's really not the issue. Why doesn't he just divorce her now? Because if he does that he dosn't get the 700 thousand dollars.

I submit that if you took away that money he would have divorced her long ago and left her to her parents care.

 

[dmp]

Not sure how you cannot equate adultery with cheating.... adultery is the act of having an EXTRA-MARRITAL affair. Sounds like cheating to me. If Terry had broken the vows first, he should have filed for divorce. Sure, none of us know the story of their relationship, but that does not change the FACT that they were are are still married. And with or without a piece of paper, that is how G-d looks at it.

No one can be certian they were in fact 'still married' when she entered this condition. Perhaps she was on her way out the door - after the two had agreed to divorce.

I'm not saying Adultry isn't Cheating...I'm saying "there's more to 'cheating' than "adultry".

When you break ANY vows, you are cheating. My wife vowed to Love, Honour, Cherrish, to forsake all others - to stick with me thru richer and poorer. If she stopped loving me....she'd be 'cheating' me out of her love. If she stopped showing affection, she'd be 'cheating' me out of being Cherished. If she had sex with another person, she'd be "cheating" me out of our bond/intimacy.

The tone in this thread was: "He has already 'cheated' on her, thus broke his vows. My contention is, Many vows may have been broken, or not, prior. Thus, it's wrong to vilify the man.

 

[dmp]

I submit that if you took away that money he would have divorced her long ago and left her to her parents care.

I agree.

 

[freeandfun1]

I'm not saying Adultry isn't Cheating...I'm saying "there's more to 'cheating' than "adultry".

When you break ANY vows, you are cheating. My wife vowed to Love, Honour, Cherrish, to forsake all others - to stick with me thru richer and poorer. If she stopped loving me....she'd be 'cheating' me out of her love. If she stopped showing affection, she'd be 'cheating' me out of being Cherished. If she had sex with another person, she'd be "cheating" me out of our bond/intimacy.

The tone in this thread was: "He has already 'cheated' on her, thus broke his vows. My contention is, Many vows may have been broken, or not, prior. Thus, it's wrong to vilify the man.

I understand your point, so I guess they shoulda said, "he boned another woman". I am not sure how you equate an extra-marrital affair with the others. There is a difference. Love, affection, cherish can all be regained. But once you dip your wick someplace else, you CANNOT take that back. Period. So I would say that adutery is much worse than the other examples you cite.

 

[Bonnie]

The life legal defense fund........not exactly an unbiased source.

Well that is true which is why I looked at the site ReillyT posted and found nothing there to prove Terri wanted to die. It's just not there!