The Terri Schiavo thing

[Sgt. Boomer]

I don’t doubt Terri’s parents have tried some character assassination on Michael, but he’s certainly made it easy and I don’t think they’ve stretched the truth. Whether he tried to kill her is obviously speculation, though it wouldn’t be the first time someone has gotten away with murder. At any rate I think they’ve made the point that her life shouldn’t be in his hands.

From what I’ve read, they’ll keep her heavily sedated as they starve her so she probably won’t feel any pain. But if you tried to kill a dog, or a convict, that way you’d be in jail so fast it would make your head spin.

[*EDIT*: New information: apparently she isn’t being sedated to the point of insensibility, and dehydration is apparently one of the most painful deaths there is. Which means she is probably suffering terribly. There was an interview with a woman who was in similar circumstances as Terri (pvs or comatose- I’m not sure) and she said when she had her feeding tubes removed it was very painful. (Obviously she recovered)]

Saying you wouldn’t want to live like that – now, while you have all your faculties – is rather irrelevant. It would be like asking someone if they wanted to go on living with fleas, sleeping on the floor, licking themselves, and eating dog food. If that someone was a person, they would say no. If that someone was a dog they’d think they had it pretty good.

As I said before, it’s impossible to know what Terri wants, and odds are pretty good she’s too brain damaged to know either. It’s also very certain that Michael’s motivations are suspect – and I’m being understated here, there’s a lot more info on him if you’re still not convinced.

The question of euthanasia in this specific case is clear-cut, and it’s outrageous that the courts have made the rulings they have. There is a huge difference between unplugging a machine that keeps body functions going after the person is clearly brain-dead and deliberately killing someone because they need some help to survive. I don’t remember the public rallying support to unplug Christopher Reeve’s ventilator. When Reeve was given the choice to die, he chose to live.

As for the question of euthanasia generally, I’m against it in principle (but I suppose I’m resigned to democratic compromise :roll: ). I also believe in the “slippery slope”, and “please kill me” could quickly turn into “please don’t kill me”, like the cards they have now in Holland (If you have time, read this article [*EDIT*: I should have said Op Ed ] : Right to die turns into 'duty'). And it seems like it’s headed in that direction with Terri. It should not be up to a small group of people to decide what is an acceptable quality of life, and to have the power to kill you if- in their judgement- you don’t meet that standard.


[*EDIT*: Another good Op Ed: Key point missed in Schiavo case
excerpt: In law, spouses hold more weight over life and death issues regarding an incapacitated loved one than parents.
That\'s as it should be as long as that spouse remains devoted to that person and still adheres to the vows -- or contract -- they made with their spouse.
Surely, the time has come for governments to make a ruling that a spouse who is (in a common-law marriage with someone else) shouldn\'t be the one to make determinations over whether their former disabled spouse should live or die. ]