Terri Schiavo dead

31-03-2005, 18:24

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4398131.stm

I can't help but think it was so utterly wrong.

There is nature taking it's course and there is starving someone to death. Just because she couldn't complain about it, doesn't mean she didn't suffer.

If they really believed it was 'right' that she should die, they should have had the courage to end it with more dignity.

Like so many people, I have said that I wouldn't want to live if I was in that state, but I'll add to that I don't want to die this way either!

Mike · 31-03-2005, 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4398131.stm

If they really believed it was 'right' that she should die, they should have had the courage to end it with more dignity.

Press Press Press

Richard M · 31-03-2005, 18:30

I think it was wrong to forcefully keep someone alive like that, they should have done the decent thing and let her die years ago.

punky · 31-03-2005, 18:31

Few situations have come up as complex as this. Most of the time, you can decide what side you are on, but on this, I kept going to and fro. As soon as I thought one thing, I thought about something else on the other side.

I am very pro-ethanasia, but as you said, this is murder as Terri had no say in the matter. I don't know why they didn't just sign custody over to Terri's parents, everyone could wash their hands of it all, and her parents could deal with it, like they wanted.

In the end I sided with whatever the doctors wanted to do (in this case, to let her die). They are the experts, and their informed opinion is what they are paid hugely for, so it seems silly to ignore it.

31-03-2005, 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

Press Press Press

What are you saying?
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard M

I think it was wrong to forcefully keep someone alive like that, they should have done the decent thing and let her die years ago.

Perhaps. Maybe back then she'd have died 'naturally'.
Doesn't mean that killing her years later makes up for the fact that they didn't.

the_neurotic_cat · 31-03-2005, 18:39

hey SWW

I think your absolutely right. The way she was allowed to die is dispicable in my books. There must have been some form of discomfort for her as she was so responsive to stimuli.

And the way her having brain damage was used to rationalise her death is disgusting. I don't care how brain damaged she was I think she had a mind, regardless of how 'articulate' it may have been is another issue.

At lest now she can't be hurt anymore.

Take care

31-03-2005, 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

I am very pro-ethanasia, but as you said, this is murder as Terri had no say in the matter.

I am against the murder of the defenceless, and in particular when it is for social convenience. I try not to be black-and-white on the issue, but hold a predominantly pro-life viewpoint.

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

I don't know why they didn't just sign custody over to Terri's parents, everyone could wash their hands of it all, and her parents could deal with it, like they wanted.

That would have been abdicating responsibility. It is good that people stand up for what they believe is right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

In the end I sided with whatever the doctors wanted to do (in this case, to let her die). They are the experts, and their informed opinion is what they are paid hugely for, so it seems silly to ignore it.

Again, maybe that was the kindest/best/right thing to do, but then why use such a draconian method as starvation to deliver the sufferer from her plight?

Even the people on death-row get a better way out.

punky · 31-03-2005, 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Again, maybe that was the kindest/best/right thing to do, but then why use such a draconian method as starvation to deliver the sufferer from her plight?

Even the people on death-row get a better way out.

From what I can gather, it is because of a legal wrangle. They can't give her a drug to specifically kill her, as this would constitue legal murder, even if given by a doctor. It would be regarded the same as if someone walked in with a gun and shot her.

Whilst you can't give her anything, you can legally deprive someone if they are in a "persistant vegetative state". In this instance the only thing that she could be deprived off to kill was food and water, as she had no infections or anything that would have killed her in the absence of usual drug treatment.

Why they say that? I have no idea, but I guess it is the easiest way to split up letting someone die, and forcefully killing them.

As far as I know, she suffered no pain, given the sheer amount of brain damage she had, she couldn't process the signals from the nerve endings through spine to the synapses, etc.

31-03-2005, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

In this instance the only thing that she could be deprived off to kill was food and water, as she had no infections or anything that would have killed her in the absence of usual drug treatment.

That's the nature ofthe human condition - if we're not physically ill, then food & water will sustain life.
That must mean that actively depriving someone of food & water when it is readily available to give is no different than murder - no matter what the legal niceties.

I fully understand why the legal system uses these distinctions so as not to inadvertently legalise euthanasia/murder.

Still, they seem to have managed to find a way to do so in the case of the unborn and convicted...

punky · 31-03-2005, 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

That's the nature ofthe human condition - if we're not physically ill, then food & water will sustain life.
That must mean that actively depriving someone of food & water when it is readily available to give is no different than murder - no matter what the legal niceties.

Well, the flip side of that is that if she wasn't in a "persistant vegetative state" then she'd have to be given food and water, it would be murder otherwise as euthanasia is illegal.

Quote:

Still, they seem to have managed to find a way to do so in the case of the unborn and convicted...

Interesting side note to this: Abortion is legal on the understanding that a foetus isn't a person. However, it seems the laws can change pretty erratically to suit a purpose. Scott Peterson was convicted of a double murder, his wife was pregnant, and he was convicted of killing her unborn baby which theoretically should make all abortionists, serial killers.

31-03-2005, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

Interesting side note to this: Abortion is legal on the understanding that a foetus isn't a person.

Yeah, that's why it has been suggested to give the foetus an injection before evacuating it (by whatever gruesome means) - so it doesn't 'feel' anything.

http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/abortion/methods

I think no-one would argue that the foetus is only a person after birth - it is quite clear that it is a 'person' well before that point. But is it when it gets a basic nervous system (15 days), its heart start beating (18 days) or when it starts moving (7 weeks)...

http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/abortion/human-development

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

However, it seems the laws can change pretty erratically to suit a purpose. Scott Peterson was convicted of a double murder, his wife was pregnant, and he was convicted of killing her unborn baby which theoretically should make all abortionists, serial killers.

They probably are...

dilli-theclaw · 31-03-2005, 19:15

It doesn't look like it's going to stop with her death either.

I get the feeling that the two familys will just let this roll on and on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC

BBC Q & A
However, a dispute between Mrs Schiavo's parents and her husband appears to be developing over the funeral arrangements. The husband has said he wants a cremation and burial on a Schiavo family plot in Pennsylvania but the parents want their daughter buried in Florida.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4398679.stm

31-03-2005, 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

It doesn't look like it's going to stop with her death either.

It's crazy - in any 'normal' circumstance it would be entirely normal for a husband to bury his wife (well, only if she was dead, of course) - in any case, that's part of what marriage is about.

No doubt more court time for this. The only ones winning here are the lawyers.

bmxbandit · 31-03-2005, 20:50

wow, anyone seen the south park parody on this? They don't take a side, understandably, but raise some interesting points.

the lawyers make their money, everyone else loses (in so many ways...)

punky · 31-03-2005, 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmxbandit

wow, anyone seen the south park parody on this? They don't take a side, understandably, but raise some interesting points.

the lawyers make their money, everyone else loses (in so many ways...)

Blimey, those guys are quick... I'm going to have to look for that...