Okay, I just read the following on cnn.com:
"Legal appeals on behalf of Terri Schiavo's parents to put their brain-damaged daughter back on a feeding tube again failed on Thursday. Courts have consistently ruled against her parents, who want to keep her alive, and in favor of her husband, who wants her to die with dignity."
Die with dignity? Whaaa??
Starvation is how people lost in the desert, people trapped in caves, and people who are prisoners in Eastern Bloc prisons die. Dignity? I give up on unbiased reporting. Give me a five minute break, already.
I have only a couple of questions:
1.) Who deemed starvation a humane, kind death? Let's be honest; the more humane route would be lethal injection. And, no, I am NOT kidding.
2.) Where is the feminist outcry? Divorce would save Terri Schiavo's life in this case, but she's not allowed to divorce. HEL-LO.
3.) Where IN THE HELL is the ACLU? Can you even imagine the insane level of ruckus if the method of execution for a death-row murderer was "slow dehydration and starvation over 7 to 14 days"? (Of course you can; it's even MORE ridiculous that a person who is not on death row being executed in this manner.)
Thursday, March 24
D-U-N DONE WITH CNN.COM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I agree that starvation seems to be the wrong way of ending a person's life. I do, however, think that we do not deal with death well in this country. I find the "Christian" side of this arguement seriously lacking in compassion and respect for what her apparant wishes were.
First, I think that we need to continually and prayerfully examine our own concepts of life. Through modern medicine God has allowed us to extend life and to make life much more rich and livable than it was in the middle ages or in ancient times. Yet God has also allowed us to create ethical situations for ourselves that the biblical writers could not have foreseen. I believe that reasonable people -- and Christians -- can and do disagree about the definitions and boundaries of life.
Second, and more importantly, the editorial is focused on the rule of law more than it is focused on the question of life. My belief is that the rule of law is one of the best protectors of the freedom that we have in this country to worship how we choose. To erode that basic principle - even for a result that you believe is aligned with God's will - is to erode some of our future rights. To be in favor of states rights when you don't have power at the federal level and to be willing to trump states rights when you have the votes shows a lack of integrity. Support for such an act seems to reveal partisan rather than ideological or theological alignment. There is plenty of room in this debate to affirm the sanctity of life and to abhor what the president and the GOP congress have done.
NT boi, mostly agreed. I am not a fan of what the congress has done, either. I'm FAR LESS a fan of starving a disabled person to death. She's not on any other life support. I am unable, at this time, to draw a distinction between not feeding a baby and not feeding a disabled person.
I'm also having a hard time believing anyone (parents or spouse) who is talking about her apparent wishes after over a decade has passed.
Additionally, I'm not even talking about the "Christian" side of this argument. I'm just sitting over here with the humanists wondering why starvation is being used to kill someone. I didn't go very much further in my examination, I just cried for her parents, to be honest.
I wasn't responding to the NY Times editorial, which I thought had some important things to say.
I should have been more clear above ... I was referencing an editorial that we passed in e-mail from the NY Times. This dealt a lot with legal issues. The concern expressed above deal with the anguish due to starvation, and I agree with what was written. You are right - we need a better plan here.
i think by "humane" they mean not a shot to the head with a gun, or draining all of her blood out of her.
they arent "killing" her. they are "letting her die". which i do agree is cruel. but i was under the impression that her husband was seeing someone else. isnt that considered adultery and grounds for divorce?
As a UK based blogger I hope you realise that the rest of Europe is looking at the hysterical and frankly bizarre behaviour of the US over this issue and shaking it's head.
You may not care about what Europe thinks and I can assure you it does not stem from a 'looking down our nose' attitdue at you, all it stems from is a nervous twitch at the 'right to life' Christian-right, that seem to dominate US politics at the moment.
This is a non-issue, let her die as she requested.
On a side note, it is interesting how the issue of abortion was raised in UK politics recently, it died a death, it is a non-issue as we have a sceular political system that deems it the right of the woman to choose; rather than an issue with God and heavy handed Christian morality.
And if you think CNN is bias you should watch FOX...
Mr. Hoffmann-Gill, thank you so much for coming by and for leaving a thoughtful comment. I'm thrilled to have visitors.
I am quite sure Europeans are looking at the US with a slow and mournful shake of the head. Maybe I was perfectly clear and you're just giving your opinion, but now I'd like to clarify a couple of things:
I don't believe the parents or the spouse are acting on her behalf. She may very well have not desired to live like this, but we shall never know. And now she is dying a death that I'd not select for an enemy -- that's my whole point. My point DOES NOT encompass the right-to-life position, nor does it come from a careful examination of what I believe Christ might do in the situation. It is only that she's dying an inhumane death, and that her parents are being forced to watch it. It would probably have been clearer if I'd stated this without all my other comments.
On another note, while I'm not personally satisfied with the politics of the US, I'm trying to remind myself that, as a country, we're around 20 years old. (Not 200, 20.) We're bound to make the mistakes of the idealistic, passionate, and young. I don't think this excuses behavior that is anti-US Constitution, it just helps me love my home.
Regarding Fox, somewhere earlier in my blog I stated that what I really dislike is "reporting that pretends it's unbiased." Fox was mentioned there, as was another "news" source.
ok, here comes ugly christel.
didn't she end up like this because of an eating disorder?
so, essentially she did this to herself. yes i know that looks like i dont care. but i do. if this had been a woman who was in a car accident... and had been on this type of life support, i would feel differently. this woman took an active role in getting herself like this. and by NO means did she EVER assume that in her quest to be skinny she would end up being kept alive with a feeding tube. understand me when i say i have empathy for her parents and everyone else who has rallied around her, COMMA BUUUUTT....
this was an accident.... yet caused by her.
its like leaving someone on life support for a botched suicide. they wanted to die, they TRIED to do it. give them their diginity and let them go. why else are we keeping people alive if they cant interact with their life?
there is no cure for brain damage that *I* know of. how is keeping this woman alive doing any good to her?
Hi Christel. I insist that you not call my friend "ugly christel." Your opinion does not make you ugly. Loving you.
Thanks for the reasoned and articulate response, I understand a lot better now your position on the issue and it's one I have a great deal of respect for. BTW I came here via Red.
I could die from shock! I mean, a reasoned, balanced response to the whole story. Wonderful!
It has long struck me as hypocritical of a nation to get worked up per se about the imposed death of a poor woman in a long-term and irreversible vegetative state when US soldiers kill Iraqi citizens as easily as you or I take a deep breath. That said, I agree that this woman's body is being starved and it is not right - if she had been euthanised, That would have been compassionate. That would, in my own personal view, have been the right way for her husband to do things. I don't agree with the parents. I can't. I do believe that the husband didn't have the option of euthanasia for his wife and deserves some recognition from all of us of his dilemma; the demonising of him by evangelical fundies has been distressing and plain wrong. He had no choice other than to leave her as she was - empty but functioning as a piece of fleshy hospital furniture - or starve her body to death. How revolting for the poor man. He had to go for something which, while deeply sad and painful for him and the world to behold, is nevertheless going to bring her physical body to an end, which is appropriate given that I believe her soul flew the nest many years ago and is no doubt progressing in whatever way we believe souls do. I wish her spirit completion and his heart the deep healing he needs. Above all else, I think you will agree this situation needs an outpouring of love and compassion from those of us who know and value our own humanity.
Thank you for such a refreshingly common sense perspective. I see too little of it in the American media reports that filter through to the UK. x
Looking for information and found it at this great site...
» »
best regards, nice info
»
Best regards from NY! Proactiv advanced blemish treatment fishing Eliptical trainer running pace Baccarat tsar cordial big breasts Wireless internet pdas hotel offers Fishing fly idaho instruction http://www.space-pod-egg-chair.info stop smoking program
Post a Comment