What I'm Seeing about the Schiavo case

[MC Just]

She has not right to life, only a right to death. How cruel is that?

Edited March 23, 2005 by MC Just

[dairygirl4u2c]

It could be argued that the constitution only guarantees preventing the government from taking people's life arbitrarily. The government is not taking her life.

It seems that taking the constitutional argument is very week in and of itself. But especially considering all the other moral and philosophical arguments.

Edited March 23, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Carnanc]

but isn't the government ordering that she must die?

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think they're allowing her husband the choice of whether or not to let her stay on support or be taken off. Her husband decided after fifteen or so years not to extend her support any longer.

Edited March 23, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[jasJis]

Catholics like the fact the law protects the right of the Spouse. In this case, the Spouse is abusing that right. The loophole of the law is defining food and water via a tube as extrodinary care. I'm disappointed that the Federal Government wouldn't define food and water as a basic right and basic care and never extraordinary care. That is what has happened. The State and Federal Government has upheld the Spousal rights. That is good. The Schindlers attempted to prove that Micheal was abusing his right by attempting to prove that what he represents as Terri's wishes aren't so. They failed at that because Spousal rights trump parental rights when the evidence is weak. The second step was to prove that Micheal abused his wife and withheld basic care. They failed at that, seemingly becasue food and water via a tube is not defined as basic care, but extraordinary care.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]They failed at that, seemingly becasue food and water via a tube is not defined as basic care, but extraordinary care.[/quote]

Isn't that the whole, basic question of whether or not someone can be taken off the care to begin with? So they were arguing that because he would deny her food and water through a tube that he was being abusive and withholding basic care and that they should have guardian rights?

Also, I bet that it's not just food and water that's being defined as extraordinary care, but food and water for an extended period of time that's being defined as basic care.

[jasJis]

dairygurl,
It is all about being able to deny food and water. Micheal has even prevented the Schindlers from attempting theorapy to enable Terri to take food and water orally. What's too long to provide food and water to someone in a coma or severely brain damaged, or a parapalegic. When can food be withheld from them? When it's too inconvenient for the caretakers?

[Oik]

Please see link:
[url="http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH05C02&f=WU05C17"]Truth about Terri Schiavo[/url]

There are no extraordinary means in this case. Michael Schiavo is murdering his wife.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Mar 23 2005, 08:34 AM'] She has not right to life, only a right to death. How cruel is that? [/quote]
She has the right that her life not be removed from her by the government without due process of law. The government is not removing her life. These endless and meaningless court battles have certainly provided due process of law. Her husband is her next of kin and is in control of her medical care. Her parents are trying to interfere with this relationship. She told her husband her wishes and he is attempting to carry them out. Her parents selfishly want to remove her self-determination (as voiced to her husband) and the courts have ruled against them at every turn. The courts have ruled against them because they have not satisfied the burden of proof that rests on them that she would actually benefit from the therapy they with to provide. If they could satisfy that burden of proof then this would be a non-issue.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 23 2005, 01:45 PM'] She has the right that her life not be removed from her by the government without due process of law. The government is not removing her life. These endless and meaningless court battles have certainly provided due process of law. Her husband is her next of kin and is in control of her medical care. Her parents are trying to interfere with this relationship. She told her husband her wishes and he is attempting to carry them out. Her parents selfishly want to remove her self-determination (as voiced to her husband) and the courts have ruled against them at every turn. The courts have ruled against them because they have not satisfied the burden of proof that rests on them that she would actually benefit from the therapy they with to provide. If they could satisfy that burden of proof then this would be a non-issue. [/quote]
her husband only brought up her wishes seven years after she was struck down. He also denied treatment for Terri from the beginning, using her malpractice award to pay for lawyers. If Terri had received the full extent of medical care, therapy and the like, and showed no improvement, then I would be more inclined to say maybe it's time to let her go. There are nurses who worked with Terri who were told by the husband not to put cloth in her clenched hands to prevent her fingernails from growing into her palms.
I imagine that after actually being in a situation we change our views sometimes. Perhaps Terri has changed hers, if she ever did express that view.

[God Conquers]

Removing someone's food and water is never acceptable.

We wouldn't even do that to prisoners of war or mass murderers.

[XIX]

Michael Schiavo is unrealistically evil. I'm having such a hard time believing this stuff. It's like, can that many people conspire to bring death upon an innocent woman? I feel like I should be so skeptical of this, even though it seems like there's no way around the fact that the nurse was telling the truth.

[catholicflower]

[quote]Michael Schiavo is unrealistically evil[/quote]
Although Mr. Schiavo is doing a great evil, no man can be evil. Everyone has the potential to be redeemed. We must pray for his soul.

edit: sorry, I worded it badly

Edited March 24, 2005 by catholicflower

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 23 2005, 01:37 PM'] her husband only brought up her wishes seven years after she was struck down. He also denied treatment for Terri from the beginning, using her malpractice award to pay for lawyers. If Terri had received the full extent of medical care, therapy and the like, and showed no improvement, then I would be more inclined to say maybe it's time to let her go. There are nurses who worked with Terri who were told by the husband not to put cloth in her clenched hands to prevent her fingernails from growing into her palms.
I imagine that after actually being in a situation we change our views sometimes. Perhaps Terri has changed hers, if she ever did express that view. [/quote]
It doesn't matter when he brought it up. Her parents have been fighting with him since the beginning. Terri can't have changed her view -- she doesn't have enough cognitive function to do so.

But, in reality, would you want to be kept in such a state? Would you want to be kept alive artificially for 15 years?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Mar 23 2005, 02:55 PM'] Removing someone's food and water is never acceptable.

We wouldn't even do that to prisoners of war or mass murderers. [/quote]
It's not a matter of removing her food and water. It's a matter of keeping her alive artificially. If she were able to swallow, this would be a non-issue.

Then again, there are some who are pro-euthanasia for just this reason.