Schiavo case

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

03-27-2005, 03:33 PM

#11

kscarrol

Contributors

Join Date: Mar 2004

Location: New Orleans, LA USA

Posts: 4,672

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

My Ride: E90 M3

Model Year: 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by DXXXi' date='Mar 27 2005, 02:54 PM

I am normally a spectator - do nothing until it is too late then you never have to do anything appears to be my motto.? However, I find this case disturbing on so many levels.

1. I don't know if it is her wish to die - did she have a living will?
2. The Euthenasia aspect - I hadn't heard this had been legalized in the U.S.
3. The method - starving her to death - I find this totally unacceptable.
4. The highest level of democratically elected representatives of the U.S. people seem to be powerless to alter the course of events.? What's with that?
5. The precedent it might set to remove "life support" from other people with alzimers, MS etc. who are also unable to feed themselves.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong in concept, just that I find it disturbing and particularly so in the execution and democracy aspects (3 & 4 above).

[snapback]107443[/snapback]

1) good point, we don't know the answer to this, but it simply comes down to her husbands word against her parents. We will never know, but I can tell you, both my wife and I have been very clear with our wishes AND have put those on paper through a living will prepared by our legal counsel.

2) It has been legalized in Oregon, that's it, no other state has been so progressive.

3) 100% agreed! If the decision is that she would want to die rather than live it a "vegatative" state, at least show her the mercy we show convicted killers and do it medically rather than starving her to death, an awful wayto die!

4) It is the system we have in place. What few people seem to recall these days is that our Constitution is not about enforcing the will of the majority, but its purpose is instead to PROTECT the minority's rights from the majority. Nearly every judge who has reviewed the details of the case has ruled in favor of the husband, indidcating they believe him and that her wish was to not live in such a condition. If that is her wish, and that is what the courts believe, then the legislative branch cannot willy nilly pass some law that overrules her wishes, right to life beliefs or not. Again, the consitution is about protecting the minority from the majority.

5) Don't think so. You have greatly over simplified the situation. This is not a case where someone can't feed themselves, in every way we can measure with current sciense, that person is simply not there. Now with very late case Alzhimers (and I know, my wife's grandfather died from it) when the person is effectively gone, that might be getting close to the issue here.

Main point to be taken away is be prepared! Get a living will, and tell your relatives your wishes, so that there is no seconding guessing at such a critical time. The only issue for me is the method of her death. I'd rather die quickly and painlessly by leathal injection than suffer through the starvation she is now undergoing. Just my 0.02