the ghost of "terri schiavo"
i placed terri schaivo's name in quotes because, quite simply, she became the poster girl for personal and family choice and responsibility in determining the outcomes and decisions for persons unable to voice their own wants when it comes to matters of life and death, specifically when one no longer has the capacity to speak for oneself due to extraordinary circumstances. that's a really long sentence.
terri's plight was debated extensively here on the boards as well as amongst people in real time all across the nation. her degree of humanity, or lack thereof, was cast aside in order for religious fanatics to wail and gnash their teeth, screaming for someone to rise up from the ashes and "save terri", as though she were some sort of christ-like figure incarnate and irrespective of the fact her brain had shriveled to less than the size of a walnut. there was no way to "save terri" except for politicians to step up in their pretty three-piece suits, backed by photographers and headlines to declare they were wresting control away from terri's husband, the man who should, by law, be the decision maker since she left no living will or advanced directive. they did this with arms spread and smiles wide. the move by capitol hill was not only unprecendented, it threatened to destroy personal control of one's life and place it in the hands of the government. it was, for lack of a better way of putting it - one of the most grotesque abuses of power the government has ever attempted, that of removing the most basic and significant of possessions (one's own life) away from the individual. they lost, after much posturing and terri eventually died. such is the circle of life. behind the scenes, however - or at least away from the headlines - the government, specifically george bush's clan and the religious fucktardical right have continued to petition to remove the right of the individual away from said individual, just as was postulated during the heated debates here on the board. today, an historical judgement was laid down by the supreme court - a decision that should never have been up in front of the supreme court in the first place, in my opinion - for the individual to retain the right to make decions about his or her life and or death, depending on the laws of the singular state rather than having the federal goevrnment mandate what the states must follow. in other words, it is the responsibility of the people of each state to decide what is acceptable inside the state within which they live. case in point - oregon has a doctor assisted suicide law on the books, known as the 'death with dignity' law. the federal government, read as george bush and those fanatical fuckin' christian crusaders who describe themselves as conservative republicans, attempted to undermine state sovereignty and remove said law from the books in oregon and move control into the hands of the federal government instead, or more specifically, allow the federal government to mandate their directives nationwide thereby removing the power of the individual (us, you and me) to decide on our course of fate should hardships befall us. they wanted to tell the states and the people living there that they were no longer in charge of, or had the ability to, decide what happened to them in the event of extraordinary circumstances - be that the decision to continue living or to allow our bodies to cease functioning. the supreme court today thankfully nixed their crusade. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Supreme...C-RSSFeeds0312 so, if you bothered to read this far, you're likely saying - ok, edible... blah, blah, blah. what's your fuckin' point? my point is this - the federal government has no place in personal and family decisions regarding life and death decisions amongst individuals. republicans, otherwise known as conservatives, most specifically have strayed in this respect as far away from their conservative roots in their attempts at undermining individual rights. i've rarely expressed disgust toward the republican branch of the government, however with this decision having reached the supreme court before being neutralized, i have to say - shame on the republican party. shame on them for assuming to have a better grasp on what i or my family should have to endure in the event of a horrendous event that would have one or more of us brain dead. shame on them for having the arrogance to assume they have the ability to better decide what i or my family would like or prefer or request in such an event, be it to continue living or to be let go. quite honestly, i'm disgusted a decision for this even reached a court room. you can debate the pros and cons of wire tapping, prison camps, iraq, afghanistan, the war on terror, hamas, oil, or any other isue that doesn't affect you personally - but the federal government believing it has the right to decide how you live or die despite your own wishes is absolutely anti-american. it's unfortunate such a ruling had to be handed down by the supreme court - but if such a thing was our last defense, then thank the gods they ruled the only appropriate way. for now, the right to decide our fate rests with us - the people. |
I just wanted to point out, in the case of the law(s) you mentioned in Oregon, no state law or laws can override federal law, regardless of the nature, morality, or pros/cons of said law. Often times states try to pass laws that override federal, and several of them get away with it because no one thinks to challenge it. Still, doesn't make it legal. So if federal government decides to create a new law that suddenly outlaws a state or state's current law, well so be it, so long as it stays in line with the constitution. That is why we have a federal government. Otherwise each state would be its own nation, passing its own laws, for everything from marriage to labor and workforce. Unless I'm completely misinterpreting or misunderstanding what you wrote.
In regards to whether or not we, as citizens, have the right to decide when and how we live or die, well - you do realize that suicide is illegal in (most) every state, (if not all) correct? So where do you draw the line? If we don't have the legal right to take our own lives, then how can we possibly be granted the legal right to decide who should be in charge of taking our lives, if or when the time comes? As far as the Schiavo situation, I wasn't around here when all of that took place, so I missed all those (most-probably heated) debates. But I remember hearing about it almost daily, on cnn and other news stations. It was rather depressing. My only real argument about it was in regards to her actual mental state. Her family claimed that she showed signs of mental awareness and was, at times, trying to speak. There was video tape and witness testimonies to these facts, but no doctors were allowed to actually perform significant tests, from what I gathered. Plus there was the questions surrounding how she ever fell into such a state in the first place, and speculation that it was quite possibly due to the actions of her husband and possible abuse of some sort. If that was ever investigated at all, it wasn't very thurough. Then there is the fact that her husband made it clear that there was to be no autopsy done. An autopsy to determine the actual cause of death, in this situation, seems rather redundant, considering its pretty obvious to everyone that she was starved to death. But an autopsy could possibly have revealed other things that certain people may or may not have wanted known. So in my opinion, there are too many things that seemed wrong in the entire picture. Who knows what they might have added up to. Maybe nothing. Regardless, in that particular situation, I thought her care should have been left to her blood relatives, and not her fuckhead of a husband who just wanted to be rid of her in the first place. In general, I think decisions like this have to be taken on a case by case basis, and sometimes maybe it does require a completely unrelated and unbiased source to step in and take over, in order to insure that the patient receives the best and most humane treatment. Starving someone to death, regardless of whether they're a vegetable or not, is anything but humane. What was done to Shiavo is nothing less than torture. I would have felt more comfortable with it had they done something like lethal injection, where it is quick and done with and there's little to no suffering. But then it wouldn't be "natural causes" now, would it? My grandmother is lying in a nursing home bed right now, in virtually the same condition as Terri Schiavo was in. She's had three strokes in less than two years. She has to be fed through a tube. She can't even move on her own. Nurses roll her from side to side every hour or so. Most of the time she doesn't even know who she is, much less where she is, or who anybody is that comes in to see her. Other days she's more aware, and asks for water and says she wants to go home. She still doesn't know who any of us are. She doesn't even realize that her husband died of a heart attack in November of 2004, in a room in the same hospital she was in at the time. She's been told several times, but she can't comprehend it. Nobody can take her home. We can't take care of her the way she needs, and nobody can afford the $500+ per day it would cost to hire a full-time nurse. We can't even give her water because she'd choke to death on it. They swab her mouth out with lemon every few hours. There's no possible way she'll ever come out of that bed or be able to function on her own again. So what's the humane thing to do there? Should we pull out her feeding tube and let her starve to death? |
It's a matter of opinion, stone.
|
Hold on.
I'm not seeing a very significant relation between the Schiavo case and the cases presented in that article. They seem very different to me. Schiavo was not able to verbally request dr assisted suicide, nor was it administered via any drugs. Rick Miller, however, was fully aware and able to make such a request and more importantly, administered the drug to himself. These are two very different types of cases. At least as far as I can see. I do see a possibility, from the info in that article, where the government may turn around and make those specific drugs illegal, or prosecute doctors anyway, for prescribing them in lethal doses. It seems like the bush administration went about it the wrong way. |
My husband and I were watching the news last night and heard about the Oregon ruling.
He made a remark that I hadn't really thought of before. He said the current administration seems to be concerned only with who holds the power when it comes to life and death. Abortion, assisted suicide, allowing 'vegetative' people to die according to their family's wishes? Personal empowerment - wrong. Death penalty, Afghanistan, Iraq? Government's power - right. I have my own views on each of the issues mentioned so I don't argue in this post for each specific issue. I do think that it's just a bit eerie how devalued personal choice is becoming. |
Quote:
I think that those are very specific guidelines. On a personal note - who am I to look a terminally ill cancer patient in the eyes and tell them it's just God's will that they suffer? |
Quote:
there is no gray area. the law is the law. such is the constant uproar of roe vs. wade - the federal government's assertion that abortion be legal vs. the state's independant decisions of whether or not to allow abortion within their border. what you've written encompasses both factual statements as well as misguided perceptions. Quote:
let me make sure i'm being clear - if i decide to kill myself i am absolutely able to do so as long as i don't attempt suicide where i will a.) be found by others who might call for help or b.) call for help myself after the attempt. there will not be a statement to the effect of my bereaking the law post-mortem. Quote:
the human body doesn't become a miraculous, self-healing entity just because religious fanatics wail and gnash their teeth and prostrate themselves in front of nursing homes. there is nothing spectacular about a diseased body that whittles. damage 'x' dictates disease process 'y'. the autopsies were done. terri's brain had shriveled. terri's body had shriveled. speculation about her supposed abilities were dismissed, post mortem. any evidence of abuse was dismissed, post mortem. what happened to her prior to death was fantastically horrible. regardless of what anyone thought of terri schiavo - she was used. her plight is extended to thousands across the country, those of brain dead human bodies being kept alive for the purpose of... what? the federal government wants their bodies to be placed under their control. the people want to maintain control of their loved ones. that's the bigger picture. terri's shriveled soul was just a tool. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
she was counseled. she was evaluated. it was determined that she was of sound mind and body. the doctors honored her wishes. if the federal government had their way, she would have been forced to undergo hemodalysis until her body gave up on its own. that's the point. that's the locus of control. the power of the individual to decide his or her own fate vs. the government's desire to take it away. |
Quote:
if the government had been successful in overtaking the decision in whether or not terri was kept alive, that would have been a legal foothold in furthering their fight to wrest control away from the states and ultimately, the people. open your eyes wider than one woman. she was the carrot the goverment and the media dangled before the donkey-led country which blinded most to the bigger picture. that's my point in putting terri's name in quotes. none of this was about terri schiavo - all of it had to do with the control of the individual over his or her fate. terri was just one of the masses we could all focus on and feel pity. Quote:
|
Quote:
the supreme court ruled appropriately, but be forewarned - just as the issue of roe v. wade continually rears its ugly head as being "threatened", the issue of governmental control over the individual has now reached the courts as a legal precedent to be decided. just because the supreme court has ruled against it for now does not mean it will not be overturned at some point in the future. if anyone has seen that movie - what about bob? - you'll remember the term "baby steps". i'm far from being a conspircay theorist but i do see the government attemtping to take baby steps in order to gain as much control over the individual as possible now that such a precedent has been set to appear before the court. Quote:
|
Right. I was clearing that up for Existential.
A few years ago, my grandfather passed. His life was being sustained for him. He had asked my mother to take him off the machine if it ever came to that. When she had a conversation with the doctor about it, he actually told her she was a terrible daughter and that she should ignore her father's last wishes if she loved him. What has happened to the value of personal freedom? If you are not infringing upon the rights of another citizen, then I believe an adult should be legally able to do as they please with their own life. |
Quote:
Exactly. It just seems that little by little the government is chipping away at our individual rights and freedoms. Sneak and peek searches for example. How in the hell can you get away with declaring the fourth amendment null and void without the American public making a sound? Refusing to supply the morning after pill because it would 'promote promiscuity'? When the fuck did promiscuity become illegal? When Viagra can be ordered over the internet, if you have the know how? What about the FCC? No one votes for membership of the FCC; American citizens have no choice in the matter and Family First makes 99% of the complaints the FCC attends to. What pisses me off isn't just the people who are making these asinine laws and statements; it's the American people who aren't doing a thing about it. Don't even care. The day you don't give a shit about the rights of your fellow Americans is the day you don't give a shit about your own rights. |
hey, speaking of ass-handing - i believe you and i have some business to attend to.
check your e-mail in a few days. |
Quote:
it's too bad your mother didn't claw his eyes out and piss in his sockets. |
I was in my teens when it happened, so I don't know as many details. It was traumatic all around, I think that's why nothing was ever reported - though she may have without my knowledge.
That doctor did not respect the emotional pain my mother was experiencing, nor her father's last wishes. If he keeps doing business like that, one day an unbalanced patient just may assualt him, and I can't say that I would be sorry. |
Right. I was watching a more in-depth news report about this earlier and for some reason it clicked more correctly than what I'd gathered from the original post and attached article on it. I was under the impression that there were already fed laws regarding this in place, which there are not, specifically. That changes things completely.
Still, I don't see a significant correlation between cases like Schiavo where the 'patient' is unable to make such decisions for themselves, vs cases like Mr. Miller where the 'patient' is fully aware and mentally/physically capable of making such decisions. These are two different areas that need to be ruled on seperately. I agree with the atourney general. A doctor's purpose is to make you better, or at the very least comfortable, while nature takes its course. I am not an advocate for most anything the bush administration or religious groups try to push, but i can see the pros and cons of both sides to this argument, and I still say that there's reason for each case to be dealt with individually. Everything is not black and white. |
Ok. I don't watch the news, I'm not that informed about political or social happenings of the world. The only thing I know is that if it ever came to keeping me alive with the aid of a life-support machine, and I was not coherent or had little to no chance of waking up, I would not want my loved ones to suffer or have to pay an exorbant amount of money by keeping me alive.
If you read my last two posts in the Rant thread, you know that my "adopted" mom, Tish had a heart attack. She was being kept alive by means of a life support system and it was agonizing to see her hooked up to a machine, even for that short amount of time. When they pulled the plug I felt slightly relieved, because we knew she would not have ever woken up. I think a person should be able to make the decision whether or not they want to live like that. But then again, everyone else has a right to make their own decision about it and shouldn't be burdened by the beliefs or prejudices of others. |
Quote:
set. match. |
First off, you gotta understand something about "evangelical Christians", and I'm not saying they were right in the Schaivo case because I don't think they were, but I think at its core, it's a very simple faith at time, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the destitiute, etc. So if a person is dying and can't tell you they want to die, an evangelical Christian will assume they want to live and give them what they need. I doubt very much that any of them were trying to erode personal freedoms or anything like that.
Secondly, in right-to-die cases,like if someone is in a coma, even if the person makes there wishes known ahead of time, the family can still really mess things up, and ignore the patient's wishes. My sister is a nurse, and she sees families fighting over this stuff all the time. And too often, it isn't about what's best for the patient, it's a power struggle in the family. Maybe one feels guilty for not spending enough time with the patient, so they keep them alive when they want to die. Anyways, families aren't always the best ones to decide if a patient should be kept on life-support |
Quote:
|
Quote:
:D :D :D |
Yes, yes. Sycophants, worms, grovel at my feet in the hopes that I never leave the Intestinal tract of the Internet known as Gothic.net.
Of course, I've always had a thing for Peritonitis. Love ya Ghostposts. |
lol
I'm loved. ;) |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:40 AM. |