OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation

[Saber Cherry]

Who cares? If my head was cut off and thrown in a garbage disposal, but my body was kept alive with tubes, would I care if my heart stopped beating? No.

Who gave the government the right to force families to waste their money on brainless lumps of flesh? I don't see that in the Constitution anywhere. Rather, I see that people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... but a person is a thinking entity... and thus, brain-dead people, who can't make choices anymore, or have happiness, are no longer really people. So, for example, if I cut off my finger, it would not have any rights, because it is not a person. But let's pretend that brain-dead lumps of human flesh are actually people. Then I would say, the family of the lump of flesh has a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and being saddled with high medical bills that serve no purpose is a violation of their rights.

-Cherry

P.S. I'm not saying her husband isn't disgusting - maybe he is, I don't know him - but I don't see why vast amounts of resources should be wasted on the dead when there are live people starving and homeless. There are only finite resources, you know... and every million dollars spent on life-support of a corpse for a year is a million dollars that can't be used to feed 2,000 people at a soup kitchen for a year.

[ October 15, 2003, 22:21: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

so, your convieneince takes precendence over another human life? well, your arguements are interferring with my enjoyment of life. should i get that sniper rifle now?

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
so, your convieneince takes precendence over another human life? well, your arguements are interferring with my enjoyment of life. should i get that sniper rifle now?

That's very insulting. But if I was brain-dead, then sure.

[Grandpa Kim]

I agree with Cherry: My convenience does take precedence over the convenience of a still warm corpse.

[Krsqk]

Terri is not brain-dead, and she is not in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). Seven doctors have presented sworn affidavits stating as much, and the judge admitted in his written report that he only looked at one of them. Terri responds to her mother, her father, her siblings, her friends, and her nurses; but when her husband comes in, she closes up. Try this page, which links to a video showing Terri during one of her examinations to determine her mental state. The doctor performing the examination later testified that Terri wasn't really following his instructions; she just "looked like" she was.

The immediate issue is that Terri has normal physical functions, except that she has lost the ability to swallow. She requires a gastrotomy for her nutrition and hydration (a "feeding tube"). Several doctors have indicated that Terri is an excellent candidate for therapy to help her regain the ability to swallow; but Michael Schiavo and the courts have refused to even allow a trial period to see if she would benefit.

Regarding the money, it's not Michael's. The money was awarded to Terri and put in trust for her medical treatment in a malpractice lawsuit in 1993. The money wasn't even the problem: immediately after the trust was established, Michael instructed the care facility not to treat a potentially fatal infection and gave Do Not Resuscitate orders for his wife. The facility refused and notified the family. After a court battle, Michael simply moved Terri to a new facility without telling the family and repeated the move. Oh, and Terri has no will--if she dies, her husband would receive everything in the fund.

Regarding his fitness for guardianship, evidence was presented (and summarily rejected in a bench ruling) demonstrating multiple breaches of Florida guardianship statutes (as many as one dozen in a single guardianship report). Second, there's a definite conflict of interest when Michael has been engaged to another woman for seven years (while his wife is still living), has one child already and another on the way, and only needs his wife to die so they can officially marry. Does anyone else see a problem with appointing this man to control his wife's medical care?

[ October 15, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

But let's pretend that brain-dead lumps of human flesh are actually people. Then I would say, the family of the lump of flesh has a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and being saddled with high medical bills that serve no purpose is a violation of their rights.

it was this qoute i found offensive. my following comment was just a logical extension.

but in this case, she doesn't sound brain-dead. personally, i'm not sure about the truly brain-dead. or how you would be sure someone is truly brain-dead.

[Puke]

Gramps and Cherry have it. Its ugly, sure. The husband sounds awfully self serving. But spending resources on people that can no longer contribute to society, on the off hand chance that they might rehabilitate? on the same token, im not a big proponent of life terms in prision.

The thing that bothers me the most, is that they are going to euthanize her through starvation. at least make it lethal injection - starvations a cold, cold, way to go.

which isnt to say that there are not enough resources to care for her, and the homeless, and the hungry. there definitly ARE. we have just made a consious decision as a society not to use those resources towards those ends. and with good reason.

Though by "wasting" resources on the infirm (instead of throwing inferior babies in ditches, like the Spartans...) we DO help develop more advanced medical procedures that we would not otherwise develop. but is the medical effort worth the backwards evolutionary steps?

OH NO! the Meaning of Life! Another Philosophy Thread! Socialists vs Capitalist Pigs! Run! Euthanasia! Value of life! Devolution! we'll be talking about forign policy, next! DOOM! DOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOM! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!