|
Post by Archagon on Mar 31, 2005 11:42:31 GMT -5
So what do you think? Should she have lived or died? (in case you haven't heard, she passed away today)
I believe that people are gravely mistaken when they say that the case is an issue of the healthy attempting to control and eradicate the disabled. Terri was brain-damaged; there is a good chance that she was not even conscious in the human sense of the word, and even she was, she never would have had another opportunity to use this consciousness. Yes, there was a dilemma here, and it was justified: should a patient's disability grounds for his or her killing? can brain-damaged cases like Terri be fixed? But it was more or less proven that Terri could not have recovered, and death and its consequences certainly seem like merciful fates compared to lying half-awake, half-dead, until life would evaporate naturally. In addition, her treatment utilized valuable hospital space and expenses, which could have been given to other, more urgent cases. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to be selfish here - but isn't treating and actually saving a life better than keeping one in a pseudo-conscious stasis for prolonged periods of time? The method of removing her feeding tube and dehydrating her was barbaric, but the motivations weren't at fault.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Mar 31, 2005 14:26:01 GMT -5
most of the people on this forum are liberals, so most members will probably agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Mar 31, 2005 17:19:04 GMT -5
I agree as well. I wouldn't ever want to live like that. Some people seem to think that all life must be preserved, regarless of what state it's in; even if it means staying alive is a living hell.
On a similar note, if a person no longer has the ability to want to live, then how can they even be considdered alive? I don't mean whether or not they want to or not, or if they have the ability to survive on their own, but more whether or not they have the ability to desire life. This may sound morbid, but it's like what would happen if you amputate the head of a creature and keep the body alive then is it spiritually alive, or is it just hunk of flesh?
|
|
|
Post by Hans Lemurson on Apr 5, 2005 1:47:07 GMT -5
When a new cardiac surgical ward was constructed in some Latin American country, someone was quoted as saying that "it had just killed 50 people" referring to the fact that the funds could have been spent on providing basic care to the poor.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 10, 2005 4:13:37 GMT -5
You know what I think? Nothing. I wont mix myself into the batch of dolts who have to mix with a family's problem. How would YOU like it if the whole country debated about an issue you're having within your family? Now, to be broad, I think the supreme court shouldn't of had a decision. The reason we founded this country is because England's ass was too tight, and they controlled us too much. Now, If they government can control what we say, where we go, whether or not we live, how we control our pets, at what age we're allowed to love, where we're allowed to stay, what we're allowed to wear, and where we allow our minds to venture, then I decide to stamp America as Obsolete.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 10, 2005 18:22:27 GMT -5
An unrestrained human is a danger to both society and him or her self.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 10, 2005 22:25:12 GMT -5
andrew isnt arguing for an unrestrained human. He is asking for government to not be a major part in the restraining process. We are at an age now, where government can back off of us when it comes to social issues, but really needs to help us when it comes to economic issues. Its doing the exact opposite.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 10, 2005 23:41:54 GMT -5
Without governmental restraint, nothing can keep us in check except internal and social pressures -- which are, by most measures, unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 11, 2005 0:52:45 GMT -5
We made this country because there was too much restraint. I'm not saying the government shouldn't put some laws, and make punishments, but when they can decide what Music I listen to in my home, How loud, what time i'm allowed to be outside, and when government patrol men people "what are you doing here" and the person replies "none of your buisness", then the police man takes him away for questioning. THAT MAKES AMERICA OBSOLETE
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 11, 2005 0:56:57 GMT -5
That's absolutely true, but the Terri Schiavo case concerned itself with broader issues: Should mercy killings be allowed? Who gets to decide the fate of an incapacitated sufferer? Etc.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 11, 2005 1:59:45 GMT -5
why shouldnt mercy killings be allowed? if someone wants to die because they are in pain, and the family agrees with them, and the doctor is willing to do it.... Why not? who gets to decide is a harder issue to answer, and I think that that has to be done more on a case by case basis.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 11, 2005 2:16:01 GMT -5
Morality and the Bible typically disallow the taking of life under any circumstances. Both questions are debatable.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 11, 2005 3:54:46 GMT -5
some people believe in the bible, some people dont. Some people have their own sense of morality. People shouldnt try to impose their own beliefs on other people, and the government especially has no role in doing that. In fact it is the governments duty to protect the freedom of decision of other people, (as long as their morality doesnt intrude upon someone else freedom,ie human sacrifices should not be protected by the government unless the person being sacrificed is willing). Just because some people believe in the bible and disagree with mercy killings, its not their place to make that decision for someone else. If the other person wants it, and their family agrees with it, it should be allowed to take place.
In my opinion this is similar to the pharmacists who will not sell out the morning after pill to some women because they dont believe that that women should abort. Its the womens choice, not the pharmacists to make.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 11, 2005 13:52:30 GMT -5
That's not entirely true. To preserve peace and order, the government must impose its own beliefs on the people. These will always be there; the question is, how far should they go?
In the case of Terri Schiavo, the issue was a bit more complicated -- after all, Terri could not give her own opinion on the matter -- but still exhibited compelling arguments on both sides. One could easily debate that killing a human being inadvertently and irreversibly scars the killer for life, or that human life is protected under the Constitution.
I'm not here to argue for or against abortion, but this is a rather bad example. Depending on your opinions, abortion could easily be viewed as non-consentual murder.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Jun 11, 2005 14:17:28 GMT -5
i agree with alexei's original statement that it was probably the right thing for her to die, but doing so by starving her was absolutely wrong
another part about this; why the fuck does congress call a special session for this, which is a case that concerns the safety and rights of ONE CITIZEN while there are about 10 or 20 other issues that concern everyone, and they're not doing anything about it?
we're getting to a point where people campaign to do things about whatever gets on CNN, not to do what our country needs to get done
do you guys think that Terri Schiavo would have gotten all this attention if the media hadn't chosen to talk about it?
|
|