Terri Should not Die
Let us assume, for the sake of argument that Michael Schiavo is factually correct about the condition of this wife, Terri Schiavo. The facts that Mr. Schiavo puts forth are these:
1)Terri is in a persistent vegetative state. This means that only brain stem functions which cause her to breath and her heart to beat are working. The part of the brain which makes one human, according to Mr. Schiavo's lawyer and others, is “liquefied.” She is “brain dead.” Her soul is not there.
2) In her mid twenties Terri told her husband that she would not want to be kept alive by “artificial” means.
Assume the above correct. Since she is brain dead, since her soul is not there, “she” is not being kept alive by artificial means. “She” is gone, and her soulless, human less body is being kept alive. Since “she” is NOT there, how does this hurt HER?
If the feeding tube were reinserted and her soulless, human less body “lived” for twenty more years, what would the harm be, to ANYONE? Terri's parents will take ALL financial responsibility from her husband, and since “she” is gone, she would not be harmed.
If she is brain dead and without a soul, then this is like arguing in court for years over how she should be buried.
I have heard the argument that until her body “dies” her soul cannot go to the afterlife. I personally do not subscribe to this, but even if you do, when her body does die “she” will have eternity in the “afterlife” to make up for a few years. I still see no logical argument there.
The ONLY way for Mr. Schiavo to have any credibility in his argument, he would have to admit that she is NOT brain dead, and her soul IS still with her for her request to not be kept alive by artificial means to have ANY bearing. If she is aware of things and in constant excruciating pain, then her wish not to be kept alive like this at least makes some sense, but her husband maintains that she feels NO pain, and is aware of NOTHING.
One more problem with Mr. Schiavo's case. When she said no to “artificial means" did she mean food and water? Is a baby being kept alive by artificial means when his parent makes a bottle of formula to feed him? Would this same court say that it is ok for a parent to stop "artificially" keeping their baby alive with formula? Or would a parent be thrown in jail for not feeding the child?
The late actor Christopher Reeves was a quadriplegic. He had to be fed and hydrated. HE even had to have a machine breath for him. He was in some ways WORSE off than Terri. Yet had his food and water been taken from him it would have been a crime. Why? Because he could communicate in a way that others could understand. Had he not been able to attain a full enough level of consciousness he may have been starved like Terri.
NOW, let us assume that her parents are factually correct about her condition. Her parent's assertions are these:
1)Terri is in a less than full conscious state. She is somewhat aware of surroundings. She DOES feel pain. Her soul IS there.
2)She never mentioned to anyone that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means.
First off, if you believe the second, then even her husband has NO legal right to have her killed. The only legal loophole that he has is his own uncorroborated “conversation” which he claims to have had with her years ago.
Now, assuming that the parent's first assertion is correct, what would the harm be in starving Terri to death?
Well, her painful drawn out death would be something like murder. The harm in killing a live person who wants to live is great. What if someone, anyone, felt that YOUR quality of life does not meet their standards and decided to kill you? What if you could not communicate that you wanted to live? What if you perhaps, at one time told someone not to keep you alive under certain circumstances, but, now that you cannot communicate you have changed you mind. Would you want to be killed?
Regardless of who is correct, there is obviously a great deal to be lost if the tube is removed, and essentially NOTHING to be lost if it is left in.
Should we not err on the side of doing the least damage?
Should we not err on the side of life?
After finding that Terri is brain dead, why would the courts and Micheal Schiavo be so bent on not allowing her parents to financially, medically and physically take care of their daughter's soulless body? If the taxpayers, or Michael Schiavo were going to have to pay for her continuing care, they would have some case, but since neither the state nor Mr. Schiavo have ANYTHING to loose, it sounds kind of like the 8 year old who takes his ball from the court when things don't go his way. “If I can't play, neither can you.”
Read more about it.....
Yahoo! News - Schiavo's Health Wanes As Parents Appeal
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
1)Terri is in a persistent vegetative state. This means that only brain stem functions which cause her to breath and her heart to beat are working. The part of the brain which makes one human, according to Mr. Schiavo's lawyer and others, is “liquefied.” She is “brain dead.” Her soul is not there.
2) In her mid twenties Terri told her husband that she would not want to be kept alive by “artificial” means.
Assume the above correct. Since she is brain dead, since her soul is not there, “she” is not being kept alive by artificial means. “She” is gone, and her soulless, human less body is being kept alive. Since “she” is NOT there, how does this hurt HER?
If the feeding tube were reinserted and her soulless, human less body “lived” for twenty more years, what would the harm be, to ANYONE? Terri's parents will take ALL financial responsibility from her husband, and since “she” is gone, she would not be harmed.
If she is brain dead and without a soul, then this is like arguing in court for years over how she should be buried.
I have heard the argument that until her body “dies” her soul cannot go to the afterlife. I personally do not subscribe to this, but even if you do, when her body does die “she” will have eternity in the “afterlife” to make up for a few years. I still see no logical argument there.
The ONLY way for Mr. Schiavo to have any credibility in his argument, he would have to admit that she is NOT brain dead, and her soul IS still with her for her request to not be kept alive by artificial means to have ANY bearing. If she is aware of things and in constant excruciating pain, then her wish not to be kept alive like this at least makes some sense, but her husband maintains that she feels NO pain, and is aware of NOTHING.
One more problem with Mr. Schiavo's case. When she said no to “artificial means" did she mean food and water? Is a baby being kept alive by artificial means when his parent makes a bottle of formula to feed him? Would this same court say that it is ok for a parent to stop "artificially" keeping their baby alive with formula? Or would a parent be thrown in jail for not feeding the child?
The late actor Christopher Reeves was a quadriplegic. He had to be fed and hydrated. HE even had to have a machine breath for him. He was in some ways WORSE off than Terri. Yet had his food and water been taken from him it would have been a crime. Why? Because he could communicate in a way that others could understand. Had he not been able to attain a full enough level of consciousness he may have been starved like Terri.
NOW, let us assume that her parents are factually correct about her condition. Her parent's assertions are these:
1)Terri is in a less than full conscious state. She is somewhat aware of surroundings. She DOES feel pain. Her soul IS there.
2)She never mentioned to anyone that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means.
First off, if you believe the second, then even her husband has NO legal right to have her killed. The only legal loophole that he has is his own uncorroborated “conversation” which he claims to have had with her years ago.
Now, assuming that the parent's first assertion is correct, what would the harm be in starving Terri to death?
Well, her painful drawn out death would be something like murder. The harm in killing a live person who wants to live is great. What if someone, anyone, felt that YOUR quality of life does not meet their standards and decided to kill you? What if you could not communicate that you wanted to live? What if you perhaps, at one time told someone not to keep you alive under certain circumstances, but, now that you cannot communicate you have changed you mind. Would you want to be killed?
Regardless of who is correct, there is obviously a great deal to be lost if the tube is removed, and essentially NOTHING to be lost if it is left in.
Should we not err on the side of doing the least damage?
Should we not err on the side of life?
After finding that Terri is brain dead, why would the courts and Micheal Schiavo be so bent on not allowing her parents to financially, medically and physically take care of their daughter's soulless body? If the taxpayers, or Michael Schiavo were going to have to pay for her continuing care, they would have some case, but since neither the state nor Mr. Schiavo have ANYTHING to loose, it sounds kind of like the 8 year old who takes his ball from the court when things don't go his way. “If I can't play, neither can you.”
Read more about it.....
Yahoo! News - Schiavo's Health Wanes As Parents Appeal
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home