I think that's why Pitts said "rallying cry for those whose hypocrisy is exceeded only by the incoherence of their logic."
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct me if I am wrong, but Schiavo's case and her subsequent death have resulted in states making it harder for people to die/be put to death without proof of their wishes, not easier.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think that's why Pitts said "rallying cry for those whose hypocrisy is exceeded only by the incoherence of their logic."
Pitts is oversimplifying a complex issue and collapsing an incredibly broad range of views into a single insulting sentence.
And, oh by the way, stating that someone is lucky to have died with no one speaking up for him.
Please get this straight: this controversy has been going on for a lot longer and involves a lot more people than the press's miniscule attention span seems capable of covering in any way other than as a 2-D caricature.
posted
We talked about this, my wife and I, since for a matter of weeks it was almost unavoidable.
She said that since I have expressed the desire to be kept off of heroic life support, in a similar situation where the preponderance of medical opinion stated I was brain dead she would let me go.
However, if my mother decided to fight the issue, she would sign my guardianship over to her immediately, have her own ceremony with friends and family to honor my death, and move on. Her reasoning, which I can't fault, is that if I am as dead as she believes then it doesn't matter at all to me what happens to my body (and she's right) and she might as well avoid the fight and make my mom happy. And, should I miraculously come back, I'll understand. Works for me.
What does bug me, and I think a large part of why tempers flare so much, is the need to vilify the parties involved in the Schiavo case. I don't think either side operated out of spite or personal gain. I think they did what they did out of love for Terri Schiavo.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What does bug me, and I think a large part of why tempers flare so much, is the need to vilify the parties involved in the Schiavo case. I don't think either side operated out of spite or personal gain. I think they did what they did out of love for Terri Schiavo.
Very well said, Chris.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question, one I haven't seen addressed by OSC in his essay or people in this thread: what if Mrs. Schiavo had signed a living will?
What if she had expressed her wishes on paper, with witnesses?
What if her parents had sued to keep her alive anyway?
Would you agree that she should be starved to death then, as per her stated wishes? Or would you side with the parents and demand that her wishes be ignored so she could be kept alive anyway?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as the will was explicit and clear as to the triggering conditions and to the request for withholding of nutrition, I would say it should be honored legally. I would still require a due process showing that the condition exists. For example, if she had specified "coma" or "brain death" then the tube would remain in.
Morally I'd still be opposed, but with clear knowledge of her wishes I would tend more toward the personal autonomy side of things.
posted
"Artificially provided sustenance and hydration" is already considered "life-prolonging procedure" covered by Florida's "end of life" statutes. Doesn't require separate language. Signed by Gov. Bush in 1999, by the way.
Just sayin'.
[ April 05, 2005, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Sure am. I don't consider this case to have anything whatsoever to do with abortion, however; the parallels just aren't there.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another one for the top ten list! Sweet. I have got to start keeping track…. When we hit ten this will be a neat thread!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Artificially provided sustenance and hydration" is already considered "life-prolonging procedure" covered by Florida's "end of life" statutes. Doesn't require separate language. Signed by Gov. Bush in 1999, by the way.
Just sayin'.
You asked if we would think it acceptable to let her be starved if she had left a written will. I told you the conditions under which I would.
posted
No, I was just having some fun, but I did want to make sure it was clear I advocated a change in the law. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
