It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Law to Save Terri Schiavo's Life Ruled Unconstitutional

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   
God, let the poor woman die and her husband move on.... The fact that all of this has gone on so long is truly mind-boggling. We have more compassion for the suffering of an animal than we do humans....




posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
She's human, just as is her husband, but he's not facing death by starvation. I agree that it would be ideal if she could die, but with our laws as they are now, she cannot do that peacefully. I don't get the feel from any of this that people want her alive at all costs, but rather that her death be peaceful and she not suffer. If she starves to death, her husband seems like he will hop right along with his life, but her parents certainly won't. They'll suffer a long long time behind it.

It's a tough thing when it's gray rather than simple black and white.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT


. I can tell you if I was in her condition I would want to starve to death. Its too bad that others have imposed thier religious values on someone elses life.!



To impose your own values on another would be in effect the same. Terri never made her wishes known and to impose ones value judgment of what is considered a life worth living or not is a dangerous precedence to set. It should be the sole decision of the individual, if those wishes were not made known, then erring on the side of life protects us all.

This has nothing to do with religion or religious values but ones innate right to life as set forth in the constitution; The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I'd say allowing Terri to be outdoors, teeth cleanings, motion therapy, musical and visual stimuli, speech and swallow therapy(all of which has been denied by her husband) is basic and humane in the meantime.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
God, let the poor woman die and her husband move on.... The fact that all of this has gone on so long is truly mind-boggling. We have more compassion for the suffering of an animal than we do humans....


He has moved on....................

It is a crime to starve an animal in most, if not all states; so yes if starving humans that are disabled is acceptable, then indeed we do have more compassion for animals.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas


Might be wrong of course.

The fact that the Bush camp is interfering is sick! As if they care about her (as an individual), this is about spin and "morals" (of the religious nazi sort).






Actually, Eugenics as adopted by Nazi Germany, from the US, was the prelude to the holocaust. The disabled were exterminated because of the view that their life was unworthy of living-- then of course the slippery slope ensued. I am also not religious, I just believe strongly in basic human rights.

As a liberal I believe that Governor Bush who was strongly supported by the Florida legislation, and who actually were the branch of government to implement the law(not Gov Bush), did the right thing by preserving Terri's right to live.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Anybody who thinks they'd rather starve to death should try it. I think you'd change your mind quickly!

In the end it's easy for us, being completely removed from their situation to say "I'd do this" or "I'd rather do that", but ultimately, thankfully, it's not something we have to do.

Yet.

It's a tough thing and a cup that I'm glad has passed from my own lips.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Here's where a lot of the controversy lies:

Active euthanasia: Actually providing the means by which someone dies - being the direct cause.
Passive euthanasia: Passively 'allowing' someone to die by not providing means of support and the disease or starvation becomes the direct cause of death.

Active euthanasia upsets a lot of folks for religious and moral reasons, but everyone seems to accept passive euthanasia. However, isn't the ACT of withholding treatment an action in itself? Doesn't passive euthanasia automatically become active?

Once the decision is made for someone to be "allowed" to die, why not do the humane thing and end the suffering right then and there? It is certain that the person will die - its only a matter of how fast, and how painfully. Why let the organs consume themselves as the body starves? THAT is cruel - not ending someones life because they lead an empty existance.

Some could argue that she 'died' the moment her ability to think and maintain her body ended and she required life support for her body alone to live. But that's a whole seperate mess....



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Excellent point, RedBalloon. Passive ends up being active, just a worse method. If it's really time, she should get a shot and go peacefully. Absolutely right. Hopefully the good, if the only good, that comes of this will be that the whole subject of humane euthenasia will be revisited in a more meaningful way as a result of this woman and this family's suffering.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by torque
Anybody who thinks they'd rather starve to death should try it. I think you'd change your mind quickly!


Yes it is. Is it worse that a catheter in your urethra, a tube in your throat breathing for you, gagging and choking on your own seretions, not able to move, see feel, hear, interact. Do any of those things that made you special unique person. Your day revolves around pain, pain from contractures, pain from breakdown, pain from not being turned as often as you like. Pain from medical tests, endless blood draws. Having a catheter inserted into your breathing tube to suck out the mucus your lungs keep filling with............ Can't forget the feeding tube place in your nose and down the back of your throat into stomach. If your lucky youve had a Tracheostomy and a G-tube placed for feedings........


How many people want this life?



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I have no information on her pain situation.

I have neither starved to death nor been on life support so I can't attest to which is worse from personal experience. I can say that you can't starve a person to death. Period. Whether anyone agrees or not makes no difference to me. I can only speak for myself. I wouldn't starve a wrecked animal to death, I'd kill it. Same with glue traps for mice and insects where they get stuck in place and slowly die. They're diseased vermin and I still go for the quick kill rather than starvation. The closest I've come is when my granny was on life support briefly and the family had a sit-down to decide what to do. I voted to take her off because she was brain dead, completely gone. A few wanted her to keep going, but the majority vote was to pull the plug. We did, she died, and that was that. No controversy, no arguments, no hope that she'd respond, no response at that time. There was no question that her brain was kaput. She truly didn't know what hit her.

Terry Shiavo's situation is different. There is some question of her ability to respond to stimuli. Her parents say one thing and her husband says another. Unfortunately, the situation here is not cut and dried as far as her capability and prognosis for a responsive life. These are the types of cases that must be used to spearhead another push for legal medical termination/euthanasia. Perhaps she did wish to live only without life support. However, not many people who express that wish really go through it. It's always generalized as "being hooked up to machines". There are no specifics or "what if" scenarios gone through for the most part. Most people don't even really understand what it means to starve her to death. They see it as "pulling the plug", but it's not. There's much more to it than that. Prisoners on death row get a better break than the husband wants to give this woman. If we tried to starve them, it'd be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Rediculous.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Yes it is. Is it worse that a catheter in your urethra, a tube in your throat breathing for you, gagging and choking on your own seretions, not able to move, see feel, hear, interact. Do any of those things that made you special unique person. Your day revolves around pain, pain from contractures, pain from breakdown, pain from not being turned as often as you like. Pain from medical tests, endless blood draws. Having a catheter inserted into your breathing tube to suck out the mucus your lungs keep filling with............ Can't forget the feeding tube place in your nose and down the back of your throat into stomach. If your lucky youve had a Tracheostomy and a G-tube placed for feedings........


How many people want this life?

i live it everyday, its not as bad as it seems to you...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join