What I'm Seeing about the Schiavo case

[MichaelFilo]

[quote] The fifth commandment also forbids the death penalty, war and killing in self defense. That doesn't matter to most.[/quote]

The 5th commandment forbids murder. The word kill is meant for murder. As you know, the bible must also be taken in context. The verse would seem a direct contradiction to any Jew who happened to know of the laws perserved in Dueteronomy and Leviticus. Indeed, the passage in Exodus would make no sense in the Pentateuch, which would mean that for at least 6000 years Jews didn't know what the killing part meant, as the Pentateuch was always used by Jews (who had it available to them) and sometimes was all that was used (Sadducees(sp?)).


[quote]  She has had right to life, but it's been 15 years and nothing has gotten better with her, shouldn't her soul be alowed to be in peace. I don't agree with the way this whole thing has happened, but after 15 years and no hope of any kind of recovery, I think her husband had every right to make his request.[/quote]

She HAD the right to life? When does a person lose that right? A person can forfeit that right, but when do they lose it?

When does starvation equate to peace? Would you say someone who isn't allowed food because none is afforded and dies from such has died in a peaceful state?

If no therapy is allowed, there can be no hope for recovery, this is true. X+0=X. Nothing can do more than it can do on its own without outside aid.

When does a husband have the right to kill his spouse? Would a husband who has slept with another woman and had two children by her constitute a loving husband who does things because he cares for her? When is it right to dispose of someone? Why 15 years even, why not 2 days, why not half a second?

If this line of logic were to be followed, we would all be rightfully dead.

[quote] I think they are saying that she was basicly dead already, and that releasing her soul was humane.[/quote]

Killing someone isn't humane. I didn't think you supported euthanasia, so if you don't mind me asking, do you?

God bless,
Mikey

Edited March 31, 2005 by MichaelFilo

[megrc]

The point is that now her soul is at rest and that's the way it should be. I don't think it was right for them to go against what her husband said was her wishes. If she had a living will none of this would be happening. The doctors would have followed it and she never would have been given the feeding tube in the first place, this never would have come out in the news, and we wouldn't be talking about it now.

I guess you guys don't understand my point of view, I've been through this kinda of thing with my dad. I know how hard it is on the family and I just wish that the news media would stop plastering this story all over their broadcasts and let the family deal with this in peace.

I've also discussed this with my mom and her wishes are that she not be put on any kind of life support, including a feeding tube. Is that murder if I tell the doctors that she doesn't want it? (she's not in the hospital now, but if this kind of thing was to ever happen to her, I know what she would want)

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Mar 31 2005, 04:10 PM'] The 5th commandment forbids murder. The word kill is meant for murder. As you know, the bible must also be taken in context. The verse would seem a direct contradiction to any Jew who happened to know of the laws perserved in Dueteronomy and Leviticus. Indeed, the passage in Exodus would make no sense in the Pentateuch, which would mean that for at least 6000 years Jews didn't know what the killing part meant, as the Pentateuch was always used by Jews (who had it available to them) and sometimes was all that was used (Sadducees(sp?)). [/quote]
Woo for rhetoric that allows you to change the meaning of the word kill, eh?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='megrc' date='Apr 1 2005, 11:55 AM'] The point is that now her soul is at rest and that's the way it should be. I don't think it was right for them to go against what her husband said was her wishes. If she had a living will none of this would be happening. The doctors would have followed it and she never would have been given the feeding tube in the first place, this never would have come out in the news, and we wouldn't be talking about it now.

I guess you guys don't understand my point of view, I've been through this kinda of thing with my dad. I know how hard it is on the family and I just wish that the news media would stop plastering this story all over their broadcasts and let the family deal with this in peace.

I've also discussed this with my mom and her wishes are that she not be put on any kind of life support, including a feeding tube. Is that murder if I tell the doctors that she doesn't want it? (she's not in the hospital now, but if this kind of thing was to ever happen to her, I know what she would want) [/quote]
I think it would only count as murder (to them) if she were put on a feeding tube before the doctors knew of her wishes and then the feeding tube was removed.

[megrc]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Apr 1 2005, 12:05 PM'] I think it would only count as murder (to them) if she were put on a feeding tube before the doctors knew of her wishes and then the feeding tube was removed. [/quote]
Ok, that's my point. Terri never should have been put on that feeding tube in the first place. As her husband, Michael has power of attorney, which means that he makes decisions for her. The past 15 years she has been brain dead and has not been able to do any daily functions on her own. I don't see how her "quality of life" was made ony better by being kept on that feeding tube so long.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='megrc' date='Apr 1 2005, 12:20 PM'] Ok, that's my point. Terri never should have been put on that feeding tube in the first place. As her husband, Michael has power of attorney, which means that he makes decisions for her. The past 15 years she has been brain dead and has not been able to do any daily functions on her own. I don't see how her "quality of life" was made ony better by being kept on that feeding tube so long. [/quote]
Oh they don't care about her quality of life in any way.

[Carrie]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Apr 1 2005, 05:02 PM'] Oh they don't care about her quality of life in any way. [/quote]
It has nothing to do with us not caring about the quality of life.

It has to do with us saying that we do not have the right to judge who should live or die, period.

We have no right to say that someone should die because their quality of life does not meet our standards. We are not to play God.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Apr 1 2005, 03:27 PM'] It has nothing to do with us not caring about the quality of life.

It has to do with us saying that we do not have the right to judge who should live or die, period.

We have no right to say that someone should die because their quality of life does not meet our standards. We are not to play God. [/quote]
Meh, it seems in this case one would be playing god either way. Either a person is kept artificially alive or a person dies of starvation because of non-intervention. That's why I defer to the wishes of the person in question and when they aren't completely obvious that person's guardian. My SO is my health proxy and knows my wishes should I ever enter a PVS. I fully expect them to be carried out even if I haven't written them down. Hopefully I would never be put on a feeding tube, but if I was I would expect it to be promptly removed.

And, frankly, your last paragraph indicates that I was right. Quality of life doesn't matter in the slightest to you. Each person gets to decide what quality of life is acceptable for zirself and for some that means living only because zie is hooked to machines is unacceptable. You don't have to make that decision and you don't have to be health proxy for anyone who makes that decision. Just don't try to take it away from others.

[Aloysius]

by your definition, I play God by eating dinner every day.

when there are machines taking the place of major organs of the body without which a person cannot stay alive, then your point is okay that it's like playing God. Those things are not morally obligatory, they're extra-ordinary means of staying alive, and there is a point when one does not need to stay alive that way. Here we had food and hydration being given to terri throug h a passage other than the mouth. how do you label this "playing God"? it is giving her food and water. Everything else worked to keep her alive without anything sustaining her. nothing was sustaining her brain, her brain kept the body's functions and to a certain extent a small thought process, her heart and her stomach and her lungs and everything worked.

[reelguy227]

What I say is that if you possess a living will than starving you is fine ,but if not than thats a different story. No living will ,no starvation in my eyes.

God Bless,
Ricky

[Aloysius]

three words: DOCTOR ASSISTED SUICIDE

Consent of the patient isn't the issue, the patient cannot decide to be starved to death. With a living will saying they should be starved the person is actually committing suicide.

food and hydration are ordinary means of keeping a person alive. if it is an extraordinary means, like a respirator, in which a major organ is only being sustained by a machine, that is extraordinary and it is okay to pull the plug. you can never ever in your life say "stop feeding me", not even if you get to the point where you can't get the food through your mouth.

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Apr 1 2005, 07:52 PM'] three words: DOCTOR ASSISTED SUICIDE

Consent of the patient isn't the issue, the patient cannot decide to be starved to death. With a living will saying they should be starved the person is actually committing suicide.

food and hydration are ordinary means of keeping a person alive. if it is an extraordinary means, like a respirator, in which a major organ is only being sustained by a machine, that is extraordinary and it is okay to pull the plug. you can never ever in your life say "stop feeding me", not even if you get to the point where you can't get the food through your mouth. [/quote]
Ya I guess.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Apr 1 2005, 01:04 PM'] Woo for rhetoric that allows you to change the meaning of the word kill, eh? [/quote]
I'm sure this could be much better shown through the use of the Greek, although I don't know any.

However, the Latin that I know (and it is little) may shed a little light on it.

Exodus 20:13

[quote]non occides[/quote]

Translated, "Thou shall not kill".

However, the defenition of the word is lost in simply the word "kill". Occides is more properly defined :
[quote]to strike down , beat to the ground; to kill, slay; to plague to death, torment].[/quote]

A more appropriate word for your defenition of kill would be "interficio". Occido is more appropriatly used to mean "murder". The death penealty isn't a beating to the ground, it is a punishment. War isn't exactly murder (depending on how the war is being fought) either. Aside from that, my "rhetoric" is actually sound, dismissing it as rhetoric doesn't make it any less sound.

God bless,
Mikey

[Carrie]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Apr 1 2005, 07:13 PM'] Meh, it seems in this case one would be playing god either way. Either a person is kept artificially alive or a person dies of starvation because of non-intervention. That's why I defer to the wishes of the person in question and when they aren't completely obvious that person's guardian. My SO is my health proxy and knows my wishes should I ever enter a PVS. I fully expect them to be carried out even if I haven't written them down. Hopefully I would never be put on a feeding tube, but if I was I would expect it to be promptly removed.

And, frankly, your last paragraph indicates that I was right. Quality of life doesn't matter in the slightest to you. Each person gets to decide what quality of life is acceptable for zirself and for some that means living only because zie is hooked to machines is unacceptable. You don't have to make that decision and you don't have to be health proxy for anyone who makes that decision. Just don't try to take it away from others. [/quote]
My last paragraph does not indicate that quality of life does not matter to me. What my last paragraph is saying is that I have no right to say someone should die just because they are not living the same way as you or I. Just because their quality of life is different from mine does not mean that I have the right to determine whether or not that person should continue living. That in no way indicates that I don't care about quality of life. For all I know, the quality of the life she was living and the impact she made is probably more than mine will ever be.

[Donna]

Meg, yes, to not allow another to be given food and water is either murder (w/out the ill person's permission) or suicide (with their permission). What does it matter if they need a tube to be fed? Someone w/ broken arms, or a little baby or an old ill person may need to be fed by spoon.

Burnsy, the 5th does not forbid the death penalty and neither does the Church.

The standard of morphine being given only reveals more guilt upon those who insist she feels nothing, has no awarenss, brain only liquid, etc;

Misogynists do have something to do w/ this when they foul up the debating air.

The husband-has-sole-power-no-matter-what is not the sacrament of marriage, but an anti-sacrament. This Jansenistic rot has been seen in some trads.

Crack a catechism. Even the child must, and rightly, disobey parents if the latter induce the child to sin.