To err is human, to really screw up takes the US Court System
I haven't made any social commentary is a while, so I guess now is as good a time as any.
In the news lately, you've probably heard a lot about Terri Schiavo and the 'Right to Die' debate. For those of you who haven't heard about it, I'll summarize. There was a woman in Florida that, several years ago, had a heart attack and lost consciousness for a while, causing severe brain damage.
Since then, she's been pretty much vegetative, and has to be fed through a feeding tube. She can still breathe and do basic bodily functions like that without help, but she isn't capable of feeding herself or eating solid food.
Her family wants to keep the feeding tube in on the off chance that she'll improve or one day be able to subsist without it. Her husband wants to remove it because he claims she wouldn't want to be kept alive artificially. In the interest of full disclosure, her husband is already living with another woman with whom he has children, and stands to make a substantial amount of money off of Terri's life insurance policy in the event of her death.
After numerous court cases, Terri's feeding tube is currently removed and it's been 3 days since she's had food or water. Congress is working on a bill as we speak that would get the tube reinserted, but it will be Monday at the earliest before that happens.
Anyway...enough background. Now for my $.02. In cases like this, it's always better to err on the side of life. Terri Schiavo is not on life support. Removing her feeding tube does not prevent her from breathing and does not allow her to die quickly. She is currently literally starving to death for no other reason than she cannot feed herself. In my opinion, that is shameful. Absolutely shameful. A woman is starving to death in an American hospital because of a court decision, and the people who want to keep her alive have no ability to do so because it would go against court order.
Once again, the US Court system has made an ass of itself. Now we can add 'allowing mentally handicapped people to starve to death' to an already stellar list of achievements that includes 'upholding slavery' and 'legalizing abortion'.
posted by That guy @ 6:06 PM
7 Comments:
There is also a place against cruel and unusual punishment in some important document or another. And, as the poor woman is a prisoner in a dead body, it applies here. Letting her die is the humane thing to do in the situation. And yes, a dead body. After a year, brain damage is irreversable. It's been 15 or so or something. I was screaming about this in the airport yesterday, as it's all over CNN. My conclusion was something like she should brutally haunt those doing this to her when she's finally dead.
I've got no problem with her dying. At this point it's probably the best thing for her. My main problem is the fact that she would die slowly and painfully from starvation. If she was on a respirator or something else that was physically keeping her alive on an instantaneous basis, it'd be different. But letting a human being starve to death just doesn't sit right with me.
Well, blame that on the media. They could just as easily say "take her off life support" or something.
So what you're saying is...it would be alright for her to starve to death, so long as it wasn't reported in the media as such...wow.
While we're at it, why not get the media to start referring to cancer as 'happy cell multiplication', AIDS as 'sexy fun virus' and terrorism as 'mild religious disagreement'.
I thought the idea of the media was to present the truth, not gloss it over to make us feel better about it. But I guess it's all in the interpretation.
Not arguing the media with a Republican better informed than I. (Made that mistake before. :P)
But had Terry a living will, she would be "starving to death". And quite legally. Actually, it would have happened awhile ago.
I've been following this for longer than I've known my fiance'. There's really nothing more to say.
I've been following the issue for since it was first on the Glenn Beck program (glennbeck.com) a couple of years ago.
Of course, had she had a living will, there would be no argument. That's obvious. However, there is so evidence that she ever made one. Hence the whole debate. If she'd made it clear before hand, we wouldn't be in this mess.
But in the absence of proof, I don't see how the decision can be made on her behalf to end her life. Just doesn't seem right.
I just saw the beginnings of a newscast...the Fox station in West Palm Beach...and the anchors were sick of this story.
But turns out that the courts trying to force her to remain on the feeding tube is unconstitutional or something. Hmmm.
But I agree, having it in writing is better. But she didn't, so why punish her?
Not to mention the cost of the hospice, the protests, everything. What a waste.
Post a Comment
<< Home