Euthanasia (follow-up on \"The Terri Schiavo Thing\")

[=D.C.L.I=Everest]

Okay, since most of the stuff on the Schiavo case has been said, I found it best to start a new thread to discuss the broader subject - euthanasia. Below is the last post of the other thread.

Sgt. Boomer Wrote: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.

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 : 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.

I read the article that was mentioned: it\'s little news, more of an over-opinionated piece of journalism. Nothing wrong with that, of course, that\'s what I\'m good at too

Anyway, I\'ll hold my peace on this until more of you have formed an opinion.