SkinWalker Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 ...I want to remind everyone its easy to say let her die, when its not your child laying there. I'm willing to bet that it's easy to say let her live when you aren't the one changing her diapers, bathing her, and constantly moving her around to prevent bedsores. I wonder how many antibiotic shots she's had to receive because of bedsores. I bet her own parents don't even spend that kind of time with her. Rhetorical Question (because a posted answer would be suspect): how many of us would be willing to live her existance? Who would be willing to trade places with her? She exists in one of two possibilities: 1)She's totally unaware and actually in a persistant vegetative state. In which case she should be allowed to terminate naturally. 2) She's partially or even totally aware of her situation and unable to communicate or function. In which case she should be allowed to terminate naturally. The religious right, if they truly were adhering to the principles of Christianity, should be the FIRST to step up and agree with the concept of allowing her to terminate naturally. Don't they believe she'll "ascend to a heaven?" Isn't this alleged heave a "better place?" If there's a god, her current state of existance is definately a sign that it's calling her "home." But what we really see, is the real hidden agenda: this is yet another attempt by the "religious right" to get a foot-hold in the political realm through the "right to life" issue. They even have their puppet, GW Bush spouting "right to life" rhetoric. Ironically, Bush, as governor of Texas, signed a bill that would allow hospitals to pull the plugs on indigent patients or those patients that weren't properly insured. Now he's talking about how "it's about the right to live." What freaking hypocrits! They might as well say, "We believe in heaven and god and all that crap, but screw Terri, let her exist in a living hell for as long as it takes for us to get a better grip on the politics of the United States." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rad Blackrose Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I looked through the new arguments and decided to drop this little tidbit in: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/opinion/polls/main682674.shtml Inside it is a comprehensive polling section done by CBS news in relationship to the public opinion on the Terri Schiavo case. Interpret as you will. From a piece of the CBS article: An overwhelming 82 percent of the public believes the Congress and President should stay out of the matter. There is widespread cynicism about Congress' motives for getting involved: 74 percent say Congress intervened to advance a political agenda, not because they cared what happened to Terri Schiavo. Public approval of Congress has suffered as a result; at 34 percent, it is the lowest it has been since 1997, dropping from 41 percent last month. Now at 43 percent, President Bush’s approval rating is also lower than it was a month ago. As for sample size: This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 737 adults interviewed by telephone March 21-22, 2005. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus four percentage points for results based on all adults. Error for subgroups may be higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 They should, familial matters shouldn't be government responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I think people should stop using this thing for their own good, and start thinking about Terri Schiavo. What is best for her? To keep living a life that no one would want to live, or let her go so she can at some peace? But i'm not sure that removing a feeding tube is such a good way of letting her die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 But she's already pretty much dead. All the feeding tube is doing is keeping the body from rotting. That way the parents can continue falsely thinking their daughter is still alive, and spend their time and money keeping their daughter's body in a hospital bed. The parents claim that through medication she might get better... sorry but no, this is brain damage, not a virus. No amount of meditation could make you "grow a new brain." If that was my loved one, I'd have them pull the plug, and instead of denying that my loved one is dead, move on and live with the memories I have of my loved one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 I think what he was saying was that it's rediculous that the only way to let her die is for her to starve to death, as opposed to doing what we do for animals who are in a similar condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Some people view active euthanasia as murder. *shrugs* I think it's the most humane thing to do, but not everyone shares that view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 I think what he was saying was that it's rediculous that the only way to let her die is for her to starve to death, as opposed to doing what we do for animals who are in a similar condition. Yes, and why should we treat people who are in such rediculous pain so terribly, when someone on deathrow who deserves a painful death, gets a quick and painless death. I think we should re-think somethings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Originally posted by Feanaro Yes, and why should we treat people who are in such rediculous pain so terribly, when someone on deathrow who deserves a painful death, gets a quick and painless death. I think we should re-think somethings. Well, she can't feel anything, so they say, but who really knows whats going on inside of her? Even Skinwalker posted some possibilites, which I too, have wondered about. :-( The second, would be the worst possibility imaginable. I'm willing to bet that it's easy to say let her live when you aren't the one changing her diapers, bathing her, and constantly moving her around to prevent bedsores. I wonder how many antibiotic shots she's had to receive because of bedsores. I am not saying let her live, part of me wants her suffering to end (if there is any suffering) and then the other part values her life (if there really is a life to save, it seems not) I have done a lot of thinking about this, and I can't come to any conclusion I agree with 100%, if thats even possible. It's not my decision though. No seriously, this is such a minor thing, fattened up by the media and politicians who want to capitalize on the situation. Once again, it's all about the money. Skinwalker, to be honest I don't think (and I could be wrong) that the use of religion should be taken seriously. I think they are using it as a tool to get what they want, disreguarding the key points of Christianity, and perhaps their daughter's well-being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Originally posted by SkinWalker I'm willing to bet that it's easy to say let her live when you aren't the one changing her diapers, bathing her, and constantly moving her around to prevent bedsores. I wonder how many antibiotic shots she's had to receive because of bedsores. Make the parents do those things and pay for the medical bills if they want to keep her alive so bad. Originally posted by SkinWalker The religious right, if they truly were adhering to the principles of Christianity, should be the FIRST to step up and agree with the concept of allowing her to terminate naturally. Don't they believe she'll "ascend to a heaven?" Isn't this alleged heave a "better place?" If there's a god, her current state of existance is definately a sign that it's calling her "home." Just becuase the religeos believe there is heaven dose not mean the want to go right now, ask any preist if they beleive in heven. They will all say they do. "wanna go right now?' they will say "No, god has a pourpose for our lives. Originally posted by SkinWalker But what we really see, is the real hidden agenda: this is yet another attempt by the "religious right" to get a foot-hold in the political realm through the "right to life" issue. They even have their puppet, GW Bush spouting "right to life" rhetoric. Ironically, Bush, as governor of Texas, signed a bill that would allow hospitals to pull the plugs on indigent patients or those patients that weren't properly insured. Now he's talking about how "it's about the right to live." What freaking hypocrits! They might as well say, "We believe in heaven and god and all that crap, but screw Terri, let her exist in a living hell for as long as it takes for us to get a better grip on the politics of the United States." I totaly agree on that part! Bu$h does a lot of flip-floping himself, as do all the fundementalist who support him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Jedi Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith Some people view active euthanasia as murder. *shrugs* I think it's the most humane thing to do, but not everyone shares that view. I agree. I can't believe the way they're letting it happen. It just doesn't seem right. I mean, she's going to die anyway; at this point it's basically inevitable, so why not just euthanize her and let her go? I truly do not see how knowingly starving a person is more humane than euthanization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Urg. Allow me to copy and repaste. - Removing her nutrients will not cause her any pain. She has no cerebral cortex and therefore cannot feel hunger or thirst. It will be painless. And anyway, it's the only legal way to let her go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Originally posted by Lady Jedi so why not just euthanize her and let her go? Some view it as murder, where as taking away her nutrients is natural order, and thus not murder. Like I've said many times, people are weird and they're incredibly fickle about their compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 In this case removing feeding tubes falls into the same category (no artifical means of life support and no heroic measures of recovery) as a patient rejecting life-prolonging medication, turning off a ventalator machine, or refusing CPR if that patient stops breathing or goes into cardiac arrest. Since she can breathe on her own, but she can't eat or drink on her own, removing the feeding tubes is the only option for the doctors to take to comply with the wishes that the courts have ruled she would have made if she were competent enough to communicate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 In this case removing feeding tubes falls into the same category (no artifical means of life support and no heroic measures of recovery) as a patient rejecting life-prolonging medication, turning off a ventalator machine, or refusing CPR if that patient stops breathing or goes into cardiac arrest. Since she can breathe on her own, but she can't eat or drink on her own, removing the feeding tubes is the only option for the doctors to take to comply with the wishes that the courts have ruled she would have made if she were competent enough to communicate them. I never thought of it that way. - Removing her nutrients will not cause her any pain. She has no cerebral cortex and therefore cannot feel hunger or thirst. It will be painless. And anyway, it's the only legal way to let her go. My Grandmother was in a hospice for almost two months. For the last month or so she didn't eat at all, except when she had to. Like taking medicines, so they wouldn't make her sick. I saw my grandma go through this for almost two months. Part of me wishes that she wouldn't have been in the pain she was in, and would want her to be put out of her misery. But for those two months, my Grandma had the biggest impact on the people around her. Our family is Christian, and i believe that God had a purpose by leaving her there, exposing others around about God. I'm not saying this is the case with Terri Shiavo, but maybe this was why she was still here, maybe to make a huge story and change some lives. just a possibility, from my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Just becuase the religeos believe there is heaven dose not mean the want to go right now, ask any preist if they beleive in heven. They will all say they do. "wanna go right now?' they will say "No, god has a pourpose for our lives. Wrong, well.. kinda. Are you speaking from experience? The Bible tells us that nothing should make us want to stay on this earth. My thoughts are, the reason God wills for me to live this moment is because He has a purpose for me. If He wills for me to die, then bring it. If you don't want to die, then either A. You really don't believe it. B. You don't fully trust God. C. You are too comfortable in this world (which is a bad thing) I get the impression you (not really you, lukeiamyourdad, but people in this thread in general.. not all, but some) have some screwed up ideas about Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Wrong, well.. kinda. Are you speaking from experience? The Bible tells us that nothing should make us want to stay on this earth. My thoughts are, the reason God wills for me to live this moment is because He has a purpose for me. if she is hanging in between getting better and dying, how do we know what god's will is? is it in god's will that we remove the tube or keep her here? If God does have a porpose for her, he would make her better. If he wants her to "Come Home", he would just take her already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 So your saying she can't serve a purpose being in a vegetative state? Look around you, if it wasn't for her we wouldn't be having this conversation right now! She is serving a huge purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 I think he's talking about her being able to do something by her own will. We're having a discussion about her she probably never wanted us to hae, never wanted to be such a publicised character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Well, Sith, I thought about saying that, but then I thought that if the US changes, other parts of the world will follow too. It may not, but other countries will at least consider America's decision on this case. Yeah right. These other countries of yours, do they include, say, Norway? Norway "puts irrecoverable patients to sleep" on a daily basis. In many other countries, too, euthanasia has been legal for a long time. If a patient will never again wake up, what's the point of wasting millions of bucks on him or her? What about all the other patients in permanent coma in the States? Should untold millions of dollars be spent keeping those, too, in a permanent state of coma forever? I also think it's moronic of Bush to break off his vacation and try to impose a new law (no, he's not done taking away civil rights, liberties, or the power and independence of the various States yet:rolleyes:) to keep this from happening. Another slap in the face is him calling himself the "Guardian of Life" now. Er... Right. The guy who's killed untold numbers in Iraq and executed more people in a given state than any guvernour (sp.?) before him is our guardian of life:rolleyes: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Keeping Schiavo alive for 15 years has cost, what, $2 million maybe? Hospital equipment and service is expensive, so this is a realistic number. If those $2 million were spent on vaccination on third world children, we would afford to vaccinate roughly 80 000 children against all common diseases. Diseases that claim the lives of roughly 5500 children every day. How would you spend that money? To save the lives of thousands of children, or to artificially keeping alive a vegetable for 15 more years? I do not wish to make this a question of money, but rather a question of priorities. And as Dagobahn Eagle said, it is rather odd that the person who started two wars without reason, don't give a bird's ass about poorer countries and is a warm supporter of death penalty now calls himself "Guardian of Life". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 So your saying she can't serve a purpose being in a vegetative state? Look around you, if it wasn't for her we wouldn't be having this conversation right now! She is serving a huge purpose. you know, you are right. she is serving a HUGE porpose. maybie the porpose for her is to debate rather to let her live or die. maybie god is testing us. to get us a perception of life. Originally posted by Breton Keeping Schiavo alive for 15 years has cost, what, $2 million maybe? Hospital equipment and service is expensive, so this is a realistic number. If those $2 million were spent on vaccination on third world children, we would afford to vaccinate roughly 80 000 children against all common diseases. Diseases that claim the lives of roughly 5500 children every day. How would you spend that money? To save the lives of thousands of children, or to artificially keeping alive a vegetable for 15 more years? I do not wish to make this a question of money, but rather a question of priorities. People don't think. People waste and want. That is the trouble. We could end world hunger if we wanted to. No. Originally posted by Breton And as Dagobahn Eagle said, it is rather odd that the person who started two wars without reason, don't give a bird's ass about poorer countries and is a warm supporter of death penalty now calls himself "Guardian of Life". It is obvious. anyone who contridicts themselves Is full of horse crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Enough about Bush, there are plenty of other threads in this forum that you can bash him in. Finally, Terri's parents are moving on and fighting with Michael Schiavo over what to do with her corpse. It never ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 call me sick, but is she dead yet? I'm sick of the news. It's just sick that they are putting mass coverage on this whole thing while there are CONSCIOUS LIVING people dying of starvation in other countries. It disgusts me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 I heard MR shiavo would get a million bucks in malpractice lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.