The right to die

[chomp_rock]

Hype, only having one source is a red flag not to believe anything you say, I suggest either put up your other sources (if you have any) or stop posting in this thread as you will loose all credibility (in my eyes at least).

Strutter, you may also want to post your sources.

[StrutterGunner]

Yeah, should have stated them before. I stated information I read in newspaper articles from various

[Scottler]

It's written from the family's point of view, yes.  Unfortunately, there isn't much else out there from Michael Schiavo's perspective because he tends to hide behind his attorney.

Here are some of my sources though:

http://www.glennbeck.com/audio/free-audio.shtml

http://www.societyfortruthandjustice.com

Warning - this one is disturbing:
http://www.conservativealerts.com/media ... friday.mp3

http://www.foxnews.com

In a March 18, 2005 interview with Larry King on CNN, Michael Schiavo said:

We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...

You can read the full transcript at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... kl.01.html

Some "local" (From Tampa) coverage:
http://reports.tbo.com/reports/schiavo/

Should I go on or is this enough?

EDIT:  Some of you may notice that some of the media accounts seem to use words like "coma", "painless" or "Euphoria".  I suggest to you that these media accounts are equally as biased as some of the family reports, just for the other side of things.  If someone's got a link to a Michael Schiavo support site, please, by all means post it.  I'll read his viewpoint, and we'll see if my opinion is changeable.  Until that time, I stand by my contention that  this is nothing more than court-appointed homicide.  (Also, if someone REALLY wants the links to Article 3 - which grant the government right to intervention, let me know, and I'll see if I can dig it out for you.)  Incidentally, did anyone notice how much evidence to prove she wants to live is being requested?  If only that much evidence that she wants to die were required, this conversation might not be going on at all.

[Scottler]

Here, I'll save you the time, just in case someone requests Article 3 information while I'm in bed...which is likely since that's where I'm about to go.  lol

United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 1:

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Constitutional scholars tell us that this section grants Congress the authority to CREATE the judicial system.  Remember, in the US government, there are three branches - legislative, executive and judicial.  (Most of you in the US will know this.  I'm mainly writing it for the out of towners.  lol)

According to:

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/branches.html

"A branch may use its powers to check the powers of the other two in order to maintain a balance of power among the three branches of government."

[Hagar]

While I find all this very interesting I would remind everyone that the aim of this poll is quite clear. A simple hypothetical case of; if you were in a similar position yourself, would you wish to live or die? Yes or No. Think very carefully before answering as from what I've seen in this thread I suspect the way you view this case (which side of the fence you are on) is based on deeply held personal beliefs. Put yourself in this wretched woman's position & think about how you really feel about it. I don't care about the interests of anyone else or upsetting their feelings but what is best for YOU, the unfortunate patient who is being used as a football & condemned to suffer while others argue. Some of these arguments have been going on for many centuries & the sides are still as far apart as they ever were.

This is quite clear in my mind. If I was sentenced to the living hell of being bedridden for the rest of my days without being able to move, see, hear, feed myself or communicate with others I would rather let nature take its course & be allowed to die as quickly as possible. The alternative is unimaginable torture & to my mind extreme cruelty. I hope that I would be allowed to do this without offending anyone's feelings, with as much dignity as possible & without my doctors & relatives being accused of murder or manslaughter.

PS. I am fully aware that it's not usually as clearcut as that. Human nature being what it is there is always the chance that someone will make a mistake or take advantage of the situation by trying to benefit from my death. No legislation can be 100% perfect but providing reasonable safeguards are in place to prevent that I'm quite satisfied with my decision This was made while I still have my faculties & is unlikely to change. That's why we need to get this sorted out once & for all.

[ATI_7500]

Remember, in the US government, there are three branches - legislative, executive and judicial.  (Most of you in the US will know this.  I'm mainly writing it for the out of towners.  lol)

Most out-of-towners also know that.

[Paz]

 I said it before, if I had been laying there for 15 years unable to do anything but slobber all over myself...please, let me die...it might be better on the other side.

 If you really think about it, she is supposed to die anyway, without machines and technology she would have died a long time ago, she is being forced to live, not allowed to die as her cards decided for her a long time ago.
 We would not keep an animal alive in this state, when it is time to die it should be allowed to happen whenever our fate dictates it is time.
 In my opinion it is more cruel to be kept alive if little more than a pile of barely functioning crap than to be able to rest in peace .

[chomp_rock]

Paz speaks the truth!

Back in ZA when something like this happened the person died right away or in days, medical tech was (and still is) poor. Nature's built in population control mechanisms have been overridden by today's medical technology, this is not a good thing.

[Scottler]

Under normal circumstances, I would wholeheartedly agree with you.  But if there's ANY chance that someone's motivations might not be what they should, and their intentions are anything but pure, that needs to be investigated thoroughly before someone dies.  Unless all evidence has been completely reviewed and investigated, which wasn't the case in this case, it's murder, IMO.

[Jester]

I would choose option "C" if it were on the poll. Frankly, I  do not know. How could I know without being in it? How does anyone know what it is like for that matter?

If a answer is required from the choices avaliable it would have to be let me die if and only if all of the following are true:

1.) Zero chance of improvement by the doctor on my case (a terminal situation).
2.) A second opinon confirming my case doctor.
3.) 100% family consent. I am not my own. My wife and children will have to approve.

In the event of a non-terminal situation where I am in a coma, life gets interesting. I would have to say to let me live for a predetermined period of time - 7 years. If I am showing signs of improvement - add one year to the 7 year period for each sign of improvement. Even if there was brain damage that could not be "fixed" or "heal", I would rather be there for my family in a reduced mental state than not at all. If medical costs are too much, then with %100 family consent, terminate me.

What a mess huh? It isn't a simple question with a simple answer. So many what if's that have to be factored in. What if you change your mind, but didn't change your Living Will in time? Oppps.

Opinons are lke noses: everyone has one and they all smell.

John

[The Ruptured Duck]

I am seriously sick of this shit being on the news.  What do I think?  KEEP POLITICIANS OUT OF IT.  Leave it for civil courts to decide.

[eno]

I think the issue that everyone forgets is QUALITY OF LIFE. This poor woman has none and should I ever be in the same state I would hope that someone would terminate me painlessly.

There is a similar case going on here in the UK involving a baby who was born with so many brain injuries that she will never live or function normally. She can not hear or see, she will never speak,her brain function is almost nil and the list goes on. Despite what the doctors have told the family, they are insisting that all possible interventions should be made to keep her alive. This child only 50 years ago would have been left to die naturally and the parents given quality time with her untill she died. Miracles do happen occasionally, but in the two cases mentioned there will never be any change or chance of change... Intervention will never help these people just prolong the inevitable.

Leave be and let nature take it's course.

[Scottler]

I think the issue that everyone forgets is QUALITY OF LIFE. This poor woman has none and should I ever be in the same state I would hope that someone would terminate me painlessly.

I don't think anyone is forgetting it.  In fact, if you follow the case, it is mentioned quite extensively.  But here's the thing.  Who determines another's quality of life?  Sure, she may not be running marathons next summer, but does that mean she  should die?

There's an ethical theory called "slippery slope".  I'm sure you've all probably heard about it.  If not, what it says is that once you take that first step, the ball is going to keep rolling, and it's going to get worse and worse down the line.

That applies to this case in ways that terrify me.  Once we determine that a human's life has no "quality" and therefore should be aborted,  we open up an entirely new can of worms.

What about poor people?  What about blind people?  Fat people?  Black people?  Now, that last one probably hacked you off, didn't it?  That's what it was meant to do.  It isn't a racist thing at all.  But what if you WERE racist?  If you hated a specific group, be it a minority or otherwise, you could argue that they have no quality of life, in your opinion.  So should we kill them because some view them as having no quality of life?  (Incidentally, I don't think any of the aforementioned groups have a lesser quality of life.)

Leave be and let nature take it's course.

It would seem to me that this contradicts your general quality of life argument, no?  Lets apply it to the Schiavo case.

Terri has now been without food or water for 9 days.  Surely this is evidence that she was never on life support, and with the exception of feeding herself, is quite capable of surviving out of a hospice environment.  But I've seen my share of elderly folks, or brain damaged people, who can't feed themselves either.  Alzheimers Dimentia, for example, could render someone incapable of feeding themselves.  Should we starve them as well, claiming that it's "nature in action"?  If nature would let her live, as we've seen over the last 9 days, then isn't starving her to death the same interference to which you object?

It's important that we not project OUR wishes into that case.  I know that's what this thread was originally about, but when it comes to someone else's life, it is their wishes that matter.  In the Schiavo case, Michael Schiavo has failed to prove those wishes.

Also, I have been thinking a lot about this thread.  I hope that no one perceives it to be a flame war.  In fact, I want to commend all of you for not letting it turn into that.  This is a case that I am, like many of you are, very passionate about.  I disagree with some of you, but it is disagreement which gets conversation started, and gets things done.

[Hagar]

[quote]That applies to this case in ways that terrify me.

[Smoke2much]

I think that Scott has raised a valid point.  There is a difference in law between brain death and persistant vegatative state (PVS).  Brain death is black and white, there are certain tests that can be performed that confirm that the patient is dead.  If this is confirmed the ventilator (life support) can be switched off and the patient dies.

In PVS the patient is still alive but unable to move or communicate.  EEG's have shown that there is brain activity.  In this case the law is very grey and should remain so, definitions of PVS differ from country to country and each case needs to be discussed individually.

There are two sides to the argument and we have supporters of both.  I look on it that all adults of sound mind should be allowed to make their wishes known.  If they indicate that if the enter this tragic condition then  a fatal dose of morphine should be given.  This ensures that the patient dies quickly of a respiratory arrest in a state of extreme euphoria.  I feel that both starving a PVS patient and leaving them alive are equally barbaric.

Will