Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Enlightenment

Journal bmetzler's Journal: Today We Kill A Defenseless Victim 52

Journal by bmetzler
Today Terri Schiavo is scheduled to be starved to death. There is a lot of debate over whether she wishes to live or not, but she cannot tell us, even though she can laugh, and respond to music and track things with her eyes. However, if society does wish to kill her, starving her is the most inhumane way of doing it. Death must always be quick and painless.

If we were to starve a cat or a dog, society would judge us harshly. We cannot even starve a death row inmate who has brutally taken the life of another. But we can starve the life of a helpless person, just because they cannot speak to us their pain. This seems like something a modern world would not do, but yet today, at noon, we will do it. Again.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Today We Kill A Defenseless Victim More

Today We Kill A Defenseless Victim

Comments Filter:
  • Terri Schiavo, according to Drudge, is about to be subpoenad into testifying before congress [myway.com], meaning no one can harm her, and no one can removed her feeding tube.

    She may or may not be brain dead, I honestly don't know. But if an error is to be made, it's always better to err on the side of life.

  • She's in a 'permanant vegistative state' keyword permanant.

    Let the woman die already. Stop FORCING her to live when she cannot be beneficial to society. A few remaining reflexes do not constitute life.
    • Kind of reminds me of a story I read about a baby with a rare birth defect. It lacked a brain- just had the stem. The parents insisted on keeping it alive, took it home tubes and all. When I read the story, it was a year and a half old, unable to actually do anything like breathe, eat, or think. Most expensive houseplant ever.

      A heartbeat does not a life make.

    • Re:She's dead already (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RevMike ( 632002 )

      Stop FORCING her to live when she cannot be beneficial to society.

      While I don't neccessariy disagree with a right to die, and am even sympathetic to assisted suicide, I reject the test you suggest here. That someone is not beneficial to society should not be the standard that we use in our modern socienty to justify euthanasia. By that particular standard many elderly, handicapped, and mentally ill people would be eligible for euthanasia.

      No, I don't have a precisely formulated alternative, but I'd pro

      • By that particular standard many elderly, handicapped, and mentally ill people would be eligible for euthanasia.

        But why shouldn't it be? This woman is a drain on society, and all of us are nonethebetter for her being alive. Its a false hope that she will EVER return from this state, and there is a chance that the equipment that she's tying up at the hospital could be used to save someone with a chance to have a higher quality of life. I'm sure she has perfectly usable organs that could go to those in n
    • By that argument, though, we should start killing people in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's.

      Before my Great-Grandmother finally died of it, she forgot how to feed herself, and a nurse had to spoon feed her like a baby.

      I recently saw a program where a man who was also in a permanent vegetative state partially woke up after 19 years. He thought his 19 year old daughter was his wife, and was (and is) bewildered a bit, and likely brain damaged, but very much alive.

      I don't know if Terri Schiavo will eve

    • Myths [terrisfight.org]

      MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
      FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101 [flsenate.gov]:
      Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

      (a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
      (b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

      Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to co

      • How much does her life benefit society as a whole? zero
        How much is she costing me, either as a taxpayer or as a user of medical insurance? something greater than zero

        So - I guess her husband and I have something in common if you buy into that theory. A millionare offered him a million to walk away, and he didn't. That says something to me like he is honoring her wishes.
        • A millionare offered him a million to walk away, and he didn't. That says something to me like he is honoring her wishes.

          not to mention the sheer amount of money he has probably spent on legal fees, medical consultations etc. This poor guy is clearly not in it for the money, and perhaps his life is the true tragedy here (its going to be ruined forever, both by th initial emotional trauma and then the subsequent 15 years, not to mention the slander et al)
      • But what dog do you have in this race? What's your stick in the fire? Please explain.

        Good question. Since you and people like you are the ones that are gunning for the laws and personal rights governing this issue to be circumvented by the federal government's meddling in the name of this one case, why don't you answer? Michael Schiavo is the person who is to rightfully make medical decisions concerning his wife because we recognize that individuals who are incapacitated need to have their private matt
    • From her family's website:

      Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact pur

      • Not exactly the most unbiased news source. The parents want to believe she's responding but the cat scans and EEG's show that its just muscular responses, not cognitive.

        Just because her heart continues to beat, doesn't mean she's alive. If that was the case, I could keep myself alive eternally with enough batteries.
        • There's no such thing as an unbiased news source. The only way I can find out the truth is to fly to your country and visit her in hospital.
          • I wasn't aware that you were a Doctor versed in this aspect of the field.

            The truth is, the Doctors have diagnosed her, there have been second and third opinions, and the parents don't want to believe that thier little girl is dead.

            Her parents are not neurologists. She is not waking up. No amount of hand wrenching will convince me otherwise.
      • Fact: Appointed doctors say that she is, from the position of a medical professional providing an opinion, in a PVS.

        Fact: The state courts that have heard this case have not decided against that, and have, in fact, sided with this opinion.

        I will take the opinion of medical professionals over the opinion of a layperson's website - especially when the maintainers of that site are currently embroiled in a national political feeding frenzy and have a great many reasons to provide partially accurate, untested,
      • her parents are in denial, and people in denial often see things that arent really there many many many doctors have examined terri in the course of the last 15 yrs and they have all come to a consensus that she does in fact meet the definition of a persistent vegative state. As much as her parents and brother would like to believe differently they are quite simply wrong.
    • She's in a 'permanant vegistative state' keyword permanant.

      I don't know about you- but the woman I saw in the video tape on the news most certainly was NOT PVS. For one, she had mobility of her arms, though limited, her eyes move (PVS patients don't), and she attempts to communicate. PVS patients can't.

      Only ONE thing argues for removal of her feeding system- money, profit to society. Decisions based on profit are not morally valid.
      • Patients in PVS do not suffer from any significant physical impairment unless they suffer additional nervous system, muscle, or bone damage. There is no reason a patient in PVS cannot move all parts of their body, they simply do not normally do it because there is no stimulus to make them do so.

        Not only that, one of the earliest signs of a possible recovery of a PVS patient is eyes following a moving object in the environment. Terri Schiavo can do this to a limited extent, but has been in PVS for so long t
        • Patients in PVS do not suffer from any significant physical impairment unless they suffer additional nervous system, muscle, or bone damage. There is no reason a patient in PVS cannot move all parts of their body, they simply do not normally do it because there is no stimulus to make them do so.

          True enough- but this patient actually DOES react to stimulus. Therefore- can't be Vegitative, because Vegitative patients do NOT respond to stimulus.

          Not only that, one of the earliest signs of a possible recove
          • This is getting old...

            Therefore- can't be Vegitative, because Vegitative patients do NOT respond to stimulus.

            Yes, they do. This is well documented. The brain stem is undamaged so control of involuntary reactions is present. This is evidenced perfectly by the fact that she breathes and beats her heart on her own. If you don't believe this, go smack your wife in the knee with a rubber hammer. She'll kick. Just like Terri will. Go pick up a hot coal, you'll (at least attempt to) drop it. Just like Terri w
            • Yes, they do. This is well documented. The brain stem is undamaged so control of involuntary reactions is present. This is evidenced perfectly by the fact that she breathes and beats her heart on her own. If you don't believe this, go smack your wife in the knee with a rubber hammer. She'll kick. Just like Terri will. Go pick up a hot coal, you'll (at least attempt to) drop it. Just like Terri will. It's involuntary. Brain stem function. Her stem is undamaged. There's no reason her body will not properly ha
              • Terri does not.

                That's a rather fascinating claim considering that the parents themselves once tried to get a stay in order to perform swallow tests to see if she actually could swallow.... and then bitched and moaned and whined because they weren't allowed to try and give her swallow therapy. Question: if she can already swallow, why did they ask for swallow tests and therapy?

                Who needs a neurologist to see that the english words used in the diagnosis are inaccurate? Do you always check with a neurologis
                • That's a rather fascinating claim considering that the parents themselves once tried to get a stay in order to perform swallow tests to see if she actually could swallow.... and then bitched and moaned and whined because they weren't allowed to try and give her swallow therapy. Question: if she can already swallow, why did they ask for swallow tests and therapy?

                  If you'll note- they weren't allowed to conduct those tests and give her that therapy merely because Michael wouldn't allow it and he's the guardi
  • However, if society does wish to kill her, starving her is the most inhumane way of doing it.

    But it probably does go a long way towards evidently the more important purpose, for those who don't like to think too much about these kinds of things, of assuaging guilt and helping them tell themselves that they actually aren't killing someone. There would be much more cognitive dissonance, and the risk of unpleasant and undesired feelings, if she were put down like a dog. We can't let anything interfere with h

    • I don't mean to beat this to death (or starve it to death!) but something I just read illustrates my point perfectly, and speaks for itself, in volumes -- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150878,00.html [foxnews.com] ends with:

      He [Dr. Sean Morrison] also said it was

      wrong [emphasis mine] to characterize Schiavo's death as starvation.

      "What happens is she loses fluid from her body, she enters a peaceful coma and she gradually passes away, very gently and very peacefully," he said.

      Ah, she'll just be comfortably float

  • (1) Her husband is among the lowest scum on the face of the planet. Anyone who thought that Gingrich was a scum for his actions and thinks that Schiavo's husband is in the right needs to get beaten severely for being a hypocrite. Mr Schiavo SAYS she would rather die. Unfortunately, that's all Florida law requires. Mr Schiavo's actions show me that he could very-well be lying. Schiavo has a girlfriend on the side and even has CHILDREN by her, yet he hasn't the decency to allow for a divorce. It's clear
    • Who should we believe?

      How about this: NORMAL, INTELLIGENT people think that it's more important for next of kin and loved ones to decide a person's fate than the federal government.

      I don't CARE if Michael Schiavo wants his wife to die. It's not my problem if they didn't have a strong, healthy relationship. It's not Congress's problem, it's not Bush's problem, and it's not the federal court's problem. What are you going to ask for next, that because all this happened Congress draft laws requiring that all

      • How about this: NORMAL, INTELLIGENT people think that it's more important for next of kin and loved ones to decide a person's fate than the federal government.

        Well, we have a dilemma here. On the one hand, we have a weasel who is (if you will pardon the expression) a piss-poor excuse for a husband who wants Terri to die because he says that was what she wanted. There is no other evidence whatsoever to support that position. Nothing from other family members, nothing from friends. On the other hand,

        • Where one state has failed to protect the rights of an individual, it is the responsibility of the Federal government to protect them.

          Again: it is the right of any individual to refuse excessive medical treatment (ANY medical treatment, actually). When an individual becomes incompetent, the next of kin bears the responsibility for exercising that person's rights by-proxy. Michael Schiavo petitioned the courts to decide, based on all the evidence everyone had, how Theresa would have wanted that done. The c

          • Again: it is the right of any individual to refuse excessive medical treatment (ANY medical treatment, actually). When an individual becomes incompetent, the next of kin bears the responsibility for exercising that person's rights by-proxy. Michael Schiavo petitioned the courts to decide, based on all the evidence everyone had, how Theresa would have wanted that done. The court's, after hearing all the available evidence, decided she would have wanted to die. Therefore, Michael Schiavo decided to "pull the

            • There is something seriously wrong with a system that allows the guardian of a disabled person to refuse any serious attempts at therapy AND chooses to "pull the plug" on the guardian's say-so.

              There is nothing that allows the guardian of a disabled person to refuse any serious attempts at therapy, in normal circumstances such as this, short of will and/or money, and when you can point me at one example I will print this page off and eat it. You're just making things up now. In fact, quite the contrary, th

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Close