Gem said:
SmarterThanYou,
There is no vow being broken, none of the sanctity of marriage being violated in the slightest...what people who object to Terri Shiavo are saying is that given that Terry is NOT in a Persistive Vegetative State, NOT in a coma, NOT braindead, NOT on any machine that is doing the work for keeping her alive, NOT meeting ANY of the criteria for what our country has usually deemed acceptable for allowing a person to die....that we should be a bit more careful about making a decision to allow her to be starved to death.
There have been conflicting reports stating that both sides are correct. You want to side on the err of life, which is admirable however, what you are doing is violating the sanctity of marriage by interposing yourself and your wishes/ideas between something that should exist between a husband and wife alone. The current ideology of 'life' has removed the possibility for a humane end to an otherwise horrendous quality of life because our society has deemed it logical to make assisted suicide a crime. Self preservation, or lack of, is being forced in this case because an overriding mentality has superceded common sense.
Gem said:
A society SHOULD be cautious about taking a human life
Absolutely. I do not disagree with this, but how cautious do we want to be? Shall we be 10 years cautious? 20 or 30? How long is long enough before we decide that we'll let the individuals wishes be fulfilled?
Gem said:
...I mean, jesuschrist we'll give umpteen appeals to a woman who drowns all five of her children in a bathtub...we'll allow cop killers, rapists, child molestors, and serial killers the ability to appeal their death sentences and their court decided punishments....I think we could at least consider the possibility that this woman did not mean "I want to die even if rehabilitation could give me some of my quality of life back, I want to die even if it means a slow death via dehydration," but rather meant that she didn't want to live if she met any of the usually understood criteria I mentioned above...PVS, coma, brain death, etc.
As has been stated before by others, what you are really saying is you want to remove the decision about quality of life OR whether to live or die from the hands of anyone you feel less capable and turn it over to a legal system and the government.
Gem said:
Note carefully, I am not saying that Michael Shiavo is evil, nor am I saying he isn't doing the right thing if he is truly fighting for his wife's wishes. I'm just saying that as a non-partial member of our society...I want to make DAMN sure that we aren't going to starve someone to death just because someone else said so and that someone else had ulterior motives in mind.
and in almost all circumstances I could agree with you, however, the relationship between a husband and wife has, and always should, supercede anybody elses opinions or ideology without clear and convincing evidence that there is criminality involved.
Gem said:
There is legislation being past by a Senator and Congressmen (I think) in Florida that would appoint Terri her own counsel, one not bought for by Terri's parents or her husband, who all have their own agendas....the basis for this legislation is taken from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. I feel that this legislation would be perfect for this case. Allow a "non-partisan" lawyer to look at all of the information of the case and argue for or against with only Terri's PoV in mind.
Again, all you are doing is approving government interference into the marriage sacrament because of your ideology of 'life first'. In all other issues, you could be correct, but not when it involves the marital union.
Gem said:
I think that considering there is no legal documentation stating that Terri would want to die in these circumstances, as a society we need to be a bit more hesitant to starve her to death than, "Well, gee...her husband, who didn't even mention that these were her wishes until 7 years later after a very profitable malpractice suit was settled, says that she wants to die...so lets just starve the girl."
The mention of not living by artificial means or quality of life has been mentioned by a couple of others who apparently have no vested interest in the case and are family members of a sort.
You're making this all about the money, using that one area to contest an issue that for all intent and purposes is irrelevant in this case. Your wish for terri to get better and live is indicative of most everyone elses, but its still not our decision, nor should it be anyone elses but her spouse.
