Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (105198)	3/21/2005 11:24:18 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793928

Michael, While coming in to work there was a debate on the BBC between a British Doctor and A Dutch Right to die advocate. The BEEB interviewer was obviously siding with the Dutch advocate, but then the Doctor asked the following: What will be put as the cause of death on her death certificate? This is not euthanasia for a terminally ill person - his answer was that she will die of starvation and dehydration. This is never done in the UK for coma or PVS patients unless there were explicit instructions left. There was considerable silence. However, since her husband appears to have no vested financial interest in continuing the fight, I am at a loss to figure out his motive - unless this was discussed. I tend to dismiss the allegations of spousal abuse - simply because they were not brought up before he decided to withhold nourishment and let her die. But I will go with CB on that one - if he orders a cremation without autopsy - it will stink. John

To: greenspirit who wrote (105198)	3/21/2005 12:08:42 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793928

That was not a bad summary. I concur with most of the observations. But I definitely except this one. MYTH Terri’s case is a right-to-die case. REALITY This claim is disputed. Terri’s parents and siblings say that she does not want to be starved to death and are asking the courts to allow them to care for her. By circumstance my humble parish priest is a Jesuit. Michael you know how picky I am, Father is good, I mean good. He like your has the ability to often get right to the crux of an issue. This is a right-to-die case plus. I had argued misgivings based upon the unique spouse relationship in this case. My arguments do not apply legally or spiritually(Catholic doctrine). The plus here is that never before has any third person been allowed to exercise the full sanctioned right to die possibilities that a conscious person would have the right too. That may be only in cases where no documents exist to state the wishes of a person who can no longer communicate their wishes. It is accepted legally a person has the right to in effect choose suicide by refusing such treatment as the feeding tube. What is unique is that this case redefines what a third party and the court can decide. In that a spouse is really no different than any third person, allowing the court decision to stand means any court can decide another can do or redefine whatever, in this case remove a feeding tube to assist in a suicide. One can feel assisted suicide is right or wrong, but legally now assisted suicide is barred pretty much everywhere. That is the big deal as I understand it.

To: greenspirit who wrote (105198)	3/21/2005 3:10:51 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793928

Now the World chimes in: ~~~World Opinion Divided Over Ethics of Sustaining Life of Brain-Damaged Woman By Emma Ross The Associated Press Published: Mar 21, 2005 Monday, March 21 ap.tbo.com LONDON (AP) - The Vatican criticized the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, saying Monday she should not be treated like a broken "household appliance," while Orthodox Jews said keeping the brain-damaged woman alive was tampering with the process of death. Others argued that regardless of the outcome, the decision should not be reached through the political process. Spiritual authorities around the world had differing views on the Florida case, underscoring the agonizing moral dilemma presented by the tug-of-war over Schiavo's life. While the Roman Catholic Church opposed the withdrawal of nutrition, Orthodox Jews said the feeding tube should never have been inserted in the first place. Islamic scholars, meanwhile, are divided on how the case should be handled. Court-appointed doctors say the 41-year-old woman is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Her husband says she would not want to be kept alive in that condition, but her parents insist she could recover with treatment. Schiavo's feeding tube was removed Friday after her husband sought a court order, but on Monday, her parents appealed to a judge to order the tube reinserted after Congress passed a bill allowing them to petition a federal court. President Bush signed the bill less than an hour later. The Vatican condemned the withdrawal of the feeding tube in its newspaper Monday. "Who can judge the dignity and sacredness of the life of a human being, made in the image and likeness of God?" L'Osservatore Romano said in a commentary Monday. "Who can decide to pull the plug as if we were talking about a broken or out-of-order household appliance?" it said. "Who can, before God and humanity, pretend with impunity to claim such a right?" But according to Rabbi Noam Zohar, an expert on Jewish bioethics from Bar Ilan University in Israel, Orthodox Judaism draws distinctions between letting someone die and causing their death. "According to mainstream Orthodox Jewish law, it is not only permissible but requisite to remove artificial impediments to the death process because it is not permissible to place these there in the first place," Zohar said, adding that this applies only if there is no hope of recovery. Opinion in the Muslim world was mixed. "Islamic scholars and scientists have two different opinions in this case. Some say that ending the life of a person in a hopeless condition is considered murder and is forbidden, while others say that it could be done if the physicians assure that the patient is clinically dead," said Safwat Hijazy, a prominent Egyptian Islamic cleric. Even influential Islamic religious organizations are split over the issue, said Abdul Rahman al-Jaray, professor at King Khaled University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Some European commentators said activists from across the American political spectrum were merely using the Schiavo case to advance their agenda. "Conservatives against liberals. Abortion opponents against abortion rights advocates. The religious right, which fights for the Ten Commandments in public buildings, against the liberals, who want to keep a separation between church and state. They all want to use Terri Schiavo's fate for their own purposes," German newspaper the Berliner Zeitung reported in a Monday story in the news section. In the Netherlands, the first country to have legalized euthanasia, the case is seen by some as government interference in private decisions. Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 after her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive. When a similar case arose in the Netherlands in the late 1980s, the Dutch courts ruled that feeding tubes are medical therapy and thus it is up to doctors to decide whether to withdraw treatment. "It's absurd, the way America is treating this issue," said Walburg Dejong, spokeswoman for the Dutch advocacy group the Society for Voluntary Euthanasia. "We couldn't imagine that our prime minister would fly into The Hague and say, 'I'm going to sign a new law to fight this issue.' It's a professional thing between the doctor and the patient and the patient's family - not for the government to interfere." AP-ES-03-21-05 1436EST