I cannot believe this has happened in America??
Or anywhere for that matter.......where the hell was the common sense?? You err on the side of caution.....that being life!!
This is not a good day!!!
"Yes, death is part of life."
Really, it's not. Death is the end of life.
I intuitively disagree (with Damian), but I'm not even sure why I feel that way.
Aside from the "starvation" issue, if there IS a G*d, and the major opposition to her dying seems to be coming from the religious ranks, why is there a reluctance to let her go to 'a better place'? There seems to be a strong element of doubt built into that position.
From all accounts (I've seen)she sems to have passed peacefully and didn't apparently suffer at all. But then, that's what I had predicted in a much earlier post.
Killick brings up a good point. While almost all of the usual political groups have been divided over Terri - Repubs and Dems, liberals and conservatives, religious types and atheists - there is one group that has been unanimous about this issue: the disabled.
Disability-rights groups, among which Not Dead Yet is prominent, see a slippery slope here, and they have excellent reason to fear where this is leading. They have all campaigned to keep Terri alive. And they have all been ignored by the media. Why?
Joel, shock of shockers for me, the Toronto Star has a very interesting note on this case vv the disabled:
[External Link]
Cheers,
Ran
Some excellent points raised by Dan. Well said.
Hopefully, she died peacefully. And if it helps anyone saddened by this story, whether or not she deserved to die, I think she's more at peace now.
Terri's case is a tough one. Personally, I don't think I would want to be in her situation, but one can never say whether they would want to die or not until they actually were in her shoes. A lot can change once you experience it.
Damian, I wouldn't say the media "framed this as a 'right-to-die' issue." This story has had loads of coverage with plenty of arguments from many different angles.
What's hardly been touched upon, though, is the despicable charges being thrown around by both sides at one another in this media circus. It's one thing to fight for what you believe in; it's another thing to stopp to such low levels
"Hopefully, she died peacefully. And if it helps anyone saddened by this story, whether or not she deserved to die, I think she's more at peace now."
Awww, thanks B. We'll try to keep that in mind when you come out defending the slaughterers of Israeli kids.
Talk about stooping to new lows, Ran. It seems I've upset you enough to stoop to unheard of attacks. We both know I've never said anything close to that, yet you post it anyway. I guess if you've lost an argument, that's all you have to resort to. Shame.
Posted at 2005-03-31 14:36:56 [PermaLink]"Some excellent points raised by Dan. Well said."
-B.
(*Shocked expression*) I did? They were?
Eh, 'B', see 'D'(ara)? You're supposed to be on HIS team..:} Heheh...
Sorry, the Devil made me do it...
"Yes, death is part of life."
Really, it's not. Death is the end of life.
No, it's the end of the individual, as far as we know, religious or spiritual arguments notwithstanding. Obviously all the constituents that made up that physical presence merely metamorphose into other forms. I always come back to Carl Sagan's line from the Cosmos series, "We are all stardust."
For some reason, I take great comfort in knowing that my corporeal existance will end but my bits and pieces will go on for eternity in some form.
I think I'll have that put on my headstone.
Regarding DaninVan's question about why religious groups were so intent on keeping Terry in this world than allowing her to go on to the next, here's my stab.
The parent's felt that they had an obligation to care for their daughter. The author Orson Scott Card recounted his experiences in raising his son Charlie, who apparently had serious disabilities and died at the age of 17. Card defended the notion of caring for people like Charlie (and, presumably, Terry) because the act of service makes us better. If we refuse to care for people like Charlie and Terry, we are less human, we are less moral.
And basically, this fight was over what was the moral thing to do. While I'm still a little dizzy over the claims, counter-claims, facts and disinformation that has been written and spoken, I'm with Damian. I don't like this line we've crossed. I'd have been far more at ease if Terry's parents were granted custody. After all, there is no written will, and the claim for this wish to die was made 6 years after Terry's accident. To me, that's reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, if she had a written living will, I'd be more than happy to keep my trap shut. And so would most religious people, I imagine.
1/2 Cdn;
Ok, makes sense but Ms. Schiavo aside, why is there a reluctance on the part of many if not most people, that believe fervently in a paradisical afterlife, to simply succumb joyfully and move on to their just reward?
Of course I shudder when I reflect on Islamic Suicide bombers doing exactly that, but excluding that bizzare mutation, why then?
Daninvan, I don't know why this is such a hard distinction to grasp for so many (non-religious) people, but I'll try - you got close by wondering about what you call the "bizarre mutation" islamic suicide bombers, but you're just not making the right connections.
Just because religious people believe in an afterlife, even one that promises paradise, it doesn't mean they should strive to enter it, or usher other people there, especially their loved ones. Life is God's greatest gift, to be cherished and celebrated, and that celebration is our life's duty. Without this, Christianity would simply be the death cult that the aggressively irreligious are so fond of calling it, and which the more politically and theologically warped edge of Islam has become.
Saying things like "if there IS a G*d, and the major opposition to her dying seems to be coming from the religious ranks, why is there a reluctance to let her go to 'a better place'?" is the equivalent of "If you hate America so much, why don't you go back to where you came from" - the sort of straw man meathead arguments that the left loves to tar the right with, and which the right shoots itself in the foot when it embarasses itself by occasionally using them.
Just because we religious kooks believe in an afterlife - though few of us can really presume to anticipate its nature - doesn't mean that our life's work is ideally a headlong sprint to get there.
Dan, I see life as Rick sees it (and he expressed it better than I could ever have.)
BTW, it's not just the religious right that supported saving Terri - old-line lefties, too, especially those concerned with the rights of the crippled and the retarded and the helpless. Inconvenient to the Press' pretty, neat R v L model, so even Fox ignored them. (One would expect the NY Times to remain mum.)
I don't intend to invoke Godwin's Law, but there have been regimes in the past that favoured euthanasia and the "merciful" removal of society's weakest. Terri's case smacks of it.
Interesting...so that would include assisted suicides under the umbrella of Euthanasia, in your opinions? I'm of course speaking only of those people who find themselves either terminally ill and in a lot of pain, or so severely handicapped that they want out of their mortal coil, now. I'm not being argumentative, really. I respect your opinions and would like to better understand your position. I'm not particularly interested in religious dogma but rather your personal philosophies on death and dying. It seems to be one of those nearly taboo subjects for discussion.
For some (statistical?) reason, I seem to have a lot of it going on around me at this time, (no family members)and dying, not discussion.
)
HAH! Dan, a troll you ain't.
Suicide is one thing. Self-determined decision to end one's life. I'm personally opposed to it, but that's a whole separate discussion. Concerning others, I'd let them have their way if I wasn't asked to be involved.
So your question - yeah, I don't know if assisted suicide falls under euthanasia. I wouldn't get involved. I have killed run-over animals, but I don't view animals' lives at all as I do humans'. I haven't taken a position (yet) on others' involvement, though I'm more inclined to oppose.
Euthanasia appears to be defined as mercy killing of the suffering or the terminal, their will to die or to live regardless. On this I'm totally opposed. W put it succinctly today: The duty of society is the protection of the innocent.
Rick's comments fit in this discussion. I'm rather agnostic myself, but I tolerate my own blind faith or hope in a God because my religion believes in fundamental respect for life. It's the same passion in those old-line leftie groups who agitate for the disabled... They see the innocent, the helpless, and they feel the need to offer protection. I dig those guys, though we vote unalike 99% of the time.
I'd like Rick's take on your question. Dev? How 'bout yours?
Daninvan - you've got to undertand that includes euthanasia, in every form. As a conservative - which I understand as being someone who believes in choice and responsibility - this isn't what you call a simple, or easy, stand to take.
Where's the line? Well, a dying person, able to articulate their choice, makes it a bit easier: it's their choice, it's their soul. A painful death is hard to face, just as hard for any loved one who has to stand by and watch. Choosing to end that life is a hell of a choice, and as a Catholic, I would pray for their ability to find the strength not to make it; I would pray just as hard for their soul if they did. As a conservative, however, I have to respect the laws that might allow them to do it, and hope that they might change.
But with Terry Schiavo, who was essentially euthanized in the most drawn-out, painful fashion, the line is so much clearer: We only have her husband's word that she would have wanted to die - the doubt that suggests, and the possibility that she might have wanted to face death, is the basis of what has been articulated as the "err on the side of life" argument.
I don't believe in capital punishment, for the same basic reasons - a position that separates me from quite a few conservatives, obviously. But doubt - of guilt, of intention, of circumstance, motivation, whatever - demands that someone with these convictions would have to want a better outcome than, say, slow starvation.
I hope this has cleared things up a bit for you, Dan. Frankly, the Schiavo case has exposed faultlines among conservatives as well as in the general population. You're right about the subject being taboo - it's hard to talk about, because it's so emotional, and frankly, any explanation - mine included - isn't going to be satisfactory for most people.
Thanks, Rick and Ran;some of your comments sort of surprised me. I think it's fair to say that this issue has caused a whole pile of people to pause and reflect on death and dying. Considering how political some aspects of the subject have become, it's positive that discussions open up.
As I mentioned last week, several religious figures offered their perspectives on how their particular teachings related to Schiavo and the touchy area of medical intervention, now I wish that I'd saved the article!
Anyone else want to step up to the plate?