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: Neeka who wrote (105751)	3/24/2005 12:49:34 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

I understand the reasoning. Put into a nutshell, the argument is that people have a right to refuse medical treatment. It's your body, nobody can force you to eat, or drink, or have surgery, or anything else if you don't want it. That's your right. And I happen to agree with that argument, as far as it goes. The question then arises, did Terri Schiavo make a decision, before the fact, that if the time ever came that she was unable to decide for herself that she wanted to refuse extraordinary medical treatment, nevertheless, she wanted this to be done on her behalf? And that's a grey area because she did not make her wishes known in writing. But Florida law allows the people who know Terri to say what she told them, and the judge decided that this is what she wanted. Under their logic, she has been forced, for years, to live in a condition in which she did not wish to live. Now, personally, I have some disputes with the process. First and foremost, I don't believe that withholding water and food is the same as refusing extraordinary medical treatment. But Florida law allows it. Second, I don't believe that Terri is in a state which would trigger the operation of an advanced health care directive, that is to say, a terminal condition. "Terminal" to me means dying, imminent death. It seems that they are defining "terminal" as "she won't get any better." But Florida law allows it. Third, I don't believe that the judge should have taken her husband's word for it without corroborating evidence, and his brother chiming in would not have been sufficient for me. If the people who now say that Terri would never have wanted this had testified at trial, I definitely could not have found either way on this issue, and would have been forced to punt it. But Florida law allows it. Your argument rationally should be either that you don't believe Michael and therefore the parents should have won, which won't get you anywhere, or that the laws of Florida are wrong -- which, unfortunately, still doesn't get you anywhere. "Erring on the side of life" really would not change any of the above, it would just prolong the state of indecision, in hopes that a miracle would occur.

To: Neeka who wrote (105751)	3/24/2005 12:51:12 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

MM, you and I and millions of others still don't understand why the people with the power to make these decisions have decided to err on the side of death. Ever notice that states and countries that get more highly involved in medicine - to the point of managing it - start pushing these issues? Oregon and Holland come to mind. Heck they just had a case in the UK where they had a 3rd trimester partial birth abortion to avoid the horrors of a cleft-palate! (its illegal to abort 'normal' babies at that stage in the UK). Heck those @#&! right-to-life types make a big deal out of the few cases that slip through the cracks in Holland and people are Euthanized against their will. If we cared for these people, we would understand that they do not want to be a burden. By allowing them to die peacefully through various means (like dehydration), we could reduce health care costs and more appropriately spend money on lives we feel are important! John@logunsrun.com

To: Neeka who wrote (105751)	3/24/2005 3:52:48 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

kholt hasn't made it clear I thought that CB explained it well, but since you mentioned me, I will weigh in. If you accept, at least for the sake of argument, that Terri would have wanted to die, then forcing her to remain alive is just as much an assault on her and on her rights as killing her when she wants to live. It's her choice to make. Yes, I understand that the determination that she would want to die clouds the issue, but that was the determination made through due process so that's what we go with. I think that people that don't understand are simply not willing to accept that the right to die is as much a right as the right to live.