Terri Schiavo (Page 7)

Edited by dontracy 2005-03-29 6:44 PM

Assuming I was in her condition, "I".

I'd say that she did in fact die - her heart stopped beating and she stopped breathing - but the medical profession was able to bring back her body but not her mind which to me is were the spirit of a person lies - hence she died 15 years ago. Her mind was deprived of oxygen for too long of a period and her spirit left her and is with God, but we humans have kept the vessel of her spirit beating and functioning. For me the spirit lies in the mind not the body - the body only holds the spirit. That's my 2 cents.


Edited by houston-tri-mamma 2005-03-29 7:15 PM

Don't go just be the (R) and (D)s.  I would like to point out that  David Reichert (R), Representative from the State of Washington, voted against the Shaivo bill.He said he couldn't reconcile his own and traditional Republican belief in smaller, less intrusive government with legislation that would do the opposite.  One of (D)s voted in favor of the bill. 

Edited by zagagirl 2005-03-29 8:04 PM

If you were in her condition, could you say "I"? No, so make sure you have a living will and that those who love you know your wishes.

Edited by zagagirl 2005-03-29 8:08 PM

Dontracy: all excellant questions and excellant observations. I would disagree with you on one characterization of the issue in this case. i don't believe it's an issue of euthanasia, it's an issue of fundemental rights of self determination and the right to refuse or accept medical treatment. The courts are enforcing, based upon their assessment of the evidence, what Terri's wishes were, not what Michael wanted nor what her parents want. Both of those considerations are immaterial. Its not euthanasia. Euthanasia is a "mercy killing" and is specifically illegal. Fla Stat. sec 765.309. I would agree that if this is a case of euthanasia it would be wrong. But it's not, it's an agruement over what Terri would have wanted and the exercise of her fundemental constitutional right of self determination.

Florida statutes state: "The Legislature finds that every competent adult has the fundemental right of self-determination regarding decisions pertaining to his or her own health, including the right to choose or refuse medical treatment." " The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existance. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in the decisions concerning himself or herself...the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognizr the right of competent adult to make an advance directive..." Fla. Stat. sec. 765.102(1) and (3)

Regarding your questions about when life begins, isn't there a concurent issue of self determination and free will? Are these rights granted by the government or are these natural rights? If they are derived from the government then in theory they can be taken away. If they are natural rights the government cannot infringe upon their free exercise.

If there is a concurrent right of self determination, then doesn't an individual have the right to determine when and how they die. Or if not when and how they die then under what circumstances they choose to live?

If as a society we value personal freedom, and believe that the government should not infringe upon our most private of matters, then does a government have the right to force an indivdual to accept life saving medical care?

Could it take Texas along, do ya think??

This state used to be democratic. I don't know what happened.

tmwelshy...the voters here in Texas finally woke up!!

 

Edited by OldAg92 2005-03-29 10:52 PM

how to put this... i believe if two people are dedicated to each another so one can represent the opinion of other, that it would not be possible that one person has an eating disorder and even stop menstruating and that other person is not aware what is going on for so long? when two people have special bond, both know if something is terribly wrong with the other - if not, its ok but than they don't have the right to represent others' wishes?

don't want to harm anibodys feeling here. also i don't imply guilt on any part. just this right to represent others wishes is "a little bit" suspicious.

i am for free choice but i am for protecting all affected who can't express theirs

intresting link about removing the tube
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-050322starvation...



Edited by sanjana 2005-03-30 3:59 AM

Did I hear right this morning that the courts might hear this again? I'm praying for all parties involved...it's a horrible thing to be involved with, and I pray I never have to make such decisions regarding loved ones.

Did I hear right this morning that the courts might hear this again? I'm praying for all parties involved...it's a horrible thing to be involved with, and I pray I never have to make such decisions regarding loved ones.

The answer is maybe-kind of. As I understand what has happened is the Court of Appeals set a Saturday(3/26/05) deadline for the Schindlers to file any additional appeals they may have had in the matter. If they failed to file said appeals by the 26th they would be time barred. What has happened is that the attorney for the Schindlers has sought the ability to file an appeal after this date. that is, to be allowed to file an appeal today. All the court did was allow him to file the appeal. My understanding is they have not ruled on whether they would grant the remedy sought in the appeal filed early this morning. (While I haven't been able to read the actual appeal, I understand he is arguing for the Appelate Courts to review the entire seven year record of all of the lower court proceedings) This does not mean that the Schindlers newest appeal will be granted. It is entirely possible, that the court will again deny this appeal. But, for those of you that want the feeding tube re-inserted, you can look at it this way, at least the Federal Courts allowed the appeal to be filed. They will review it quickly, as they have in the previous appeals, and who knows what might happen.

Again we see that the Courts have granted incredible latitude in this matter. They have extended a previous deadline that was set when they did not have to do so. Due process has been delivered yet again in this case!!

ASA22 / John, I take your point about whether this is an issue of euthanasia or not. I personally view it that way, but I see that it would be impossible to argue that euthanasia is the issue while ignoring the issue of self-determination and the right to die.

So I guess the question is: if we have a right to life derived from natural law do we also have a right to die derived from natural law.

The founders of our republic acknowledge the existence of natural law. They also acknowledged a right to life in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienableRights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It seems to me that if it is true that there is an unalienable right to life, it must also be true that a life has intrinsic goodness. Its value is not based on what a person does, but rather on the fact that a person is.

Someone who eats fast food three times a day and chain smokes has the same intrinsic goodness as a triathlete who can complete an Iron Man in under twelve hours. A person at the bottom end of an IQ scale has the same intrinsic goodness as a person at the top of the scale.

It seems to me the argument being put forth by those who claim a right to die is that life is not intrinsically good but only instrumentally good. They seem to be saying that life is a means to an end. For example, it only has goodness and value if it meets a certain standard of "quality". It only has goodness and value if it makes me feel a certain way, or if it makes you feel a certain way. It's goodness and value is judged by what a person can do and not that a person simply is.

The problem that I ran into while holding this belief as a strict secular humanist is the problem of duality.

If life is not intrinsically good but merely instrumentally good, then my existence must in fact have a mind/body dual nature. I think it's what folks are arguing when they say things like, "...the medical profession was able to bring back her body but not her mind which to me is were the spirit of a person lies...".

I've come to understand that this belief of the dual nature of human existence is irrational. It requires a leap of faith that I see no rational reason to take.

The mind/body duality seems to imply that there is an "I" that is a distict entity and separate from the "body". The "body" is like a machine that is being operated and manipulated by the "I". Usually, rights of personhood are assumed to be possessed by the "I" and not by the "body".

It's an irrational belief because it's impossible to locate exactly where the "I" exists. If it is located in the conscious, the person then cuts themselves off from the body which is the entity that others know them by and which is the very nature that is in question. Contemplating the "I" as being outside the "body" also requires the use of biological processes. For Descarte to say, "I think, therefore I am." required the firing of millions of brain cell synapses.

On the other hand, if the "I" is located solely in the body, then it leaves no room for a conscious self. It negates the very "I" that folks are arguing is where the person resides.

It seems that the only form of human existence that makes rational sense is a mind/body unity. That would mean that the body is as much a part of personhood as the conscious.

So do we have a unalienable right to die?

If we have an unalienable right to life, it is because human existence is unitive and life has intrinsic worth. If we have an unalienable right to die, it is because human existence has a dual nature and life has merely instrumental worth. Both can't be true. The former makes rational sense, while the latter does not. Therefore, I would say that based on natural law we have a right to life but do not have a right to die.

This does not negate the fact that we posses free will. By exercising our free will, we can choose actions that are morally right as well as actions that are morally wrong. The moral nature of an act, however, is not derived from our choice, but rather from an underlying universal truth or natural law.



 


Edited by dontracy 2005-03-30 9:42 AM

Maybe they think it's different than others? I do think it unusual for the courts to do this, but maybe there's something different or unique about this case....??

I agree with you to a certain extent. But the question I pose is at what point does a government have the right to infringe on an individuals fundemental rights of self determination? My question is geared toward adult individuals that have made an intelligent, volluntary decision regarding what, if any, medical care, they accept or reject.

Can a government force an individual to take anti-psychotic medication? can a government force an individual to have a blood transfusion? Can a government force a cancer patient to take chemotherapy?

Lets say you are out on a long training ride tomorrow and you fall, and suffer a broken ankle. You are rushed to the hospital. The doctors tell you that they can set the ankle and in 8 weeks you'll be back on your bike. You, for what ever reason be it religious, moral, fear, ignorance, whatever, decide that you don't want any treatment. The doctors tell you that with out treatment you may eventually suffer septic poisoning, loose your foot and possibly even die. Does the government have the right, duty or power to force you to accept the medical treatment? And if the government has this right/duty or power, from where is it derived?

From a personal perspective, if Terri would have refused medical treatment and it was somehow expressed, then I do not feel that any government has the right/duty/ or power to infringe upon that decision. I am also confident in the legal systems determination that Terri expressed her wishes in a sufficient manner to justify the current state of affairs.

I think I would take a different tactic arguing for a right to die. I say that, often, when you give someone the right to something you also are granting a (either implied or stated) right to refuse that something. People over the age of 18 have the right to vote. They also have an equal right to refuse to vote. People have the right to procreate without restrictions. They also have an equal right to refuse to procreate and to take steps to prevent pregnancy. In my (possibly limited) understanding, the right to live implies an equal but more disturbing right NOT to live.

I struggle with the moral implications even though I feel very strongly that it is proper. I was raised Jewish but do not currently pledge allegience to any organized religion or philosophy. I try very hard to live according to a pretty simple but strict morality that states very simply that I can do what I want to do as long as it does not cause undue harm (and the definition of undue harm could be a whole different explosive topic) to another person. I feel good about this choice of morality even though it was necessary for someone like me who skirts along the fringe of what is acceptable by the majority. There are a lot of people out there who feel that my love for my partner is immoral or that my dressing in men's clothes even though I'm a woman is immoral. I look at what I do and know that they do not cause undue harm to anyone. That I am not taking anything away from anyone else.

There are very few things I would classify as being absolutely sinful. I, personally, think it is an affront to the boundless possibilities of life to kill oneself. But I cannot, in good mind, declare that no one should be allowed to do it. I _know_ suicide causes undue harm to the people who love the victim. But ending a long-term relationship in divorce does, too.

It makes me very nervous, though, to think that I have been "granted" the right to life without also the right not to live it if I choose, if I find it unbearable to continue to live, if living causes undue harm to me or to others. And it has nothing to do with whether my life is worthwhile. I know a lot of healthy and hearty people who contribute nothing to society. Who live immoral lives. Who cause undue harm to many other people. Yet they have a right to live (if they don't get caught peddling their crime in Texas). That doesn't make sense to me. Either everyone has complete control over their own life and death or we are living in a kind of world that scares me silly.


amanda

Amanda: very cool observations. Lots to chew on and think about. Sounds like the type of answer Scout would get from her father.

If I am half as wise and kind as Atticus, I would count myself accomplished. I really wish I had some unequivocal answers--for myself if for nothing else. I fail to live up to my ideals on a daily basis, see a frustrating wisdom in the way my partner deals with her parents' blind rejection of huge parts of her, a wisdom I know I am far from achieving. I am not as kind, not as empathetic, not as reasoned as I wish I could be. But I work on getting better every day. I work to refrain from judgement. I work to find beauty in the moment. To be a better partner in life. To deserve the incredible opportunities I've been given in my fortunate life.

But I cannot stand other people telling me what I should and shouldn't do. Not after having given the construct of my life so much thought outside dogma passed down from generation to generation, outside out-dated social mores and hurtful restrictions. Not after making informed decisions about my actions and not after having to endure judgement about the most fulfilling mutually beneficial love I've experienced in the form of jeering stares and threats of hell. I dare those who would have their god judge me to walk a mile in my shoes and still condemn me to their firey pit. And if they still want to judge me ... I don't know. At least do it behind my back.


amanda

Amanda - Bravo

I know I shouldn't be laughing, but that is the best thing to come out of this thread!

Kick ass Amanda!

Isn't that the truth. By the way, the people that are telling you that you are going to hell seem to have lost the major point of the teachings of Jesus. It can be summed up in one word: Love!


Edited by ASA22 2005-03-30 2:22 PM

John, I'd say that every case has to be considered individually, because there are too many variables involved.

As to your example of a triathlete refusing medical treatment for a foot injury. I'm going to assume that the refusal of treatment is because they feel that their healing is better served by alternative methods of treatment or by no treatment at all. They may die from not getting standard treatment, but their intent is not to die.

So as long as their intent is not to die, I'd say they could morally refuse treatment on their foot.

As to your other examples, I think the calculation is different with end of life issues than it is with quality of life issues like Terri's. For example, does someone who is suffering from stomach cancer have the moral right to refuse supplemental enzymes that they may need to take with their food if they have had their stomach removed by surgery. Let's assume that the surgery was successful and the cancer will not reoccur. If it does reoccur, however, and they are in the terminal phase of their illness, do they have the right to refuse further chemotherapy.

In the first case, the supplemental enzymes are needed to sustain life, but the person is not dying from the disease. In the second case, the person is dying from the disease and the chemotherapy will not stop that process.

So I'd say that in the first case they do not have the moral right to refuse the enzymes (unless they believed that an alternative treatment would be better suited for maintaining life). In the second case I'd say that they do have the moral right to refuse chemotherapy.

Whether the government should get involved in either case is a separate question.  Perhaps I can give you my answer to that question tomorrow.

I think, actually, that the best example of this would be how the government chooses to deal with Christian Scientists refusing treatment. I actually agree with the government stepping in when a child of a Christian Scientist is in danger due to the parent refusing medical treatment as the child has not had a chance to make a defined religious choice for him/herself. But in the case of a Christian Scientist adult, I don't think the government has any place intervening with decisions to refuse medical treatment.

One of my sister's supervisors in the Commerce department in DC was a Christian Scientist who suffered from an infection that destroyed one of her eyes (it got so bad at one point that my sister and her coworkers had to call OSHA on the woman because they felt her walking around with an oozing eye under a patch was a workplace hazard). She eventually died from complications that could have been avoided with medical attention. Was it moral for her to refuse treatment? In her mind, yes. Did she cause undue harm to others by refusing medical treatment (except the OSHA incident)? Not really, presuming her loved ones believed the same way.