Text 10587, 188 rader
Skriven 2005-03-29 14:00:34 av Max Kohn (1:18/200)
Kommentar till text 10553 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
*** Quoting John Hull from a message to Ed Hulett ***
EH> > > My grandmother had several strokes putting her into a state where
EH> > > she had to be fed by hand and she had as much recognition of
EH> > > other as I have seen Terri Shiavo show. She lived for 12 years in
EH> > > a nursing home because none of us could care for her. She died
EH> > > naturally. We didn't starve her to death. We sold the farm my
EH> > > father grew up on and used that money to pay for her care while
EH> > > she was alive. By the time she died there was no money left. We
EH> > > didn't look at her like Michael Shiavo looks at Terri. We
EH> > > considered her a human being and deserving the dignity of life.
JH> > I have to ask what she would have told you after several years of
JH> > being trapped in a body that was useless? Nobody wants to die, but
JH> > it isn't unreasonable for someone under such circumstances to want
JH> > to do so. I don't know about you, but I couldn't stand it, and I
JH> > have a real hard time believing anybody else would choose that
JH> > state over ending it.
Now you're imposing your feelings onto Terri. Maybe she'd want a chance to
see if she could recover what she lost. She may have totally recovered with
physical therapy but it's too late to know that for sure now. She's been
trapped in a body that is useless thanks to inaction by her so-called husband.
He is basically killing her legally and that sucks.
JH> Again, I have to ask what HER wishes would have been if she had a
JH> choice. I don't consider keeping someone alive by artificial means,
JH> even if there is supposedly no pain, who is in a coma or otherwise
JH> trapped in a body that will never function normally again as having
JH> any kind of quality of life. Let me ask you: If you were in a
JH> situation like that, regardless of the reason, where you couldn't
JH> move any part of your body, couldn't speak, and dependant on somebody
JH> else for everything, would you want to continue living?
I'll answer this for myself. I would want every oppportunity to recover if it
were possible. I would hope my family would put me into physical therapy and
make me undergo every possible medical test to get an accurate diagnosis, and
that would INCLUDE an MRI. If every test shows little hope for recovery, I
would ask that they leave the feeding tube in but take no other life-saving
measures to save me. That would be my directive.
JH> Hoping against all reason for a miracle in such a situation is
JH> understandable but it certainly isn't realistic or rational, yet all
JH> too often relatives simply can't make life or death decisions because
JH> they can't get past their own grief and sense of loss. I have seen
JH> too many friends who have gone through this, and not a few of my own
JH> family members, where they are unable to let someone go, ruining the
JH> financial state of thefamily to the extent of destitution in some
JH> cases, and for what? I don't think its fair to the person in that
JH> condition to keep them alive by force, no matter how gentle and
JH> loving that force might be.
And who appointed you God as to what is fair and what isn't? No offense but
it's not your call to make, it's not Ed's and it's not mine. It's Terri's and
she messed up in not having a living will and someone to trust named power of
authority to carry out her wishes. Even if she had a living will, it has been
proven her husband is not trustworthy to be that power of authority.
EH> > > At what point did she cease being a human being deserving human
EH> > > dignity?
JH> What is dignified about laying there in a piece of flesh that can't
JH> move under its own volition? What's dignified about being reduced to
JH> the mental state of a 6-month old baby? What's dignified about
JH> having a plastic tube stuffed into your stomach through a hole in
JH> your throat so they can pump nutritious goo and water into you? I
JH> have some real problems understanding what some people think is
JH> dignified.
Where is the MRI results? Why wasn't physical therapy attempted? Why did
Michael change from trying to help her recover to trying to kill her after he
got the malpractice money? If he had Terri undergo every possible test and
the diagnosis was irreversable brain damage and brain DEATH and if he had
tried physical therapy to no avail, I would STILL say keep the feeding tube in
and let GOD decide when it's her time to go. It's not our decision when to
die. It's God. Even without food or water she lives on. That's God's will.
Nothing you can do will change that.
JH> > I never said she didn't deserve it. What I've said is that it
JH> > isn't any of MY business to say what should be done. Or yours
JH> > either, or anybody else who isn't family.
EH> And her parents aren't family? Why does her husband want her dead?
EH> Why does he not allow her parents to take care of her? He could
EH> divorce her and go live with his fiance. But no, he would rather
EH> Terri be starved to death.
I agree with Ed and of course your next argument is that state law is being
followed. Florida state laws are messed up and the judges are worse. I'd
love to see Judge Greer voted out of office at his next election. For this
judgment, it would be a fitting end to his legal career.
EH> > > > > Actually, no one has shown what Florida state law gives a
EH> > > > > spouse the right to order the death of their mate.
EH> > > > > If you know of such a law, please cite it.
JH> I believe somebody already posted the relevant law, or at least
JH> paraphrased it.
I take this as meaning you don't know the answer Ed asked you. If you can't
post the relevant law, how can you say it has been followed? You can't.
JH> > I didn't say that. This is a hard thing to deal with. Ideally,
JH> > the family should have made a unanimous decision one way or the
JH> > other. They didn't, and got activists involved on both sides of
JH> > the issue who won't give an inch no matter what. Terri has become
JH> > a tragic pawn. Getting the state Supreme Court and the USSC
JH> > involved only made matters worse.
EH> For crying out loud. So she should be killed to make things all
EH> better?
JH> Didn't say that, did I?
In effect, you did.
EH> Give me a break. No human being should have such power over
EH> another. If it was a case of heroic measures, I'd err on the side
EH> of the husband, but it isn't. All she needs to sustain life is a
EH> feeding tube and experts have said she could be given theoropy to
EH> get her to swallow again.
JH> Maybe they shouldn't, but they do. It happens every day all over the
JH> world, and you know that as well as I do.
Doesn't make it right.
EH> > > It doesn't matter what you *think* or *feel* about it, ordering
EH> > > someone starved to death because they can't feed themself is not
EH> > > right. It isn't humane.
JH> Nor does it matter what *YOU* think or feel about it. It isn't under
JH> your jurisdiction to decide.
We all have a right to what we think and feel about this situation but
unfortunately none of us has the final sayso.
JH> > And who gets to decide what is humane, Ed? Do you claim to have
JH> > that right over me? Do I have it over you? Does some judge who
JH> > thinks HE knows best have it over both of us? The answer to all of
JH> > those questions is a resounding NO! What is humane for me, or my
JH> > family in such a situation is what WE AS A FAMILY have decided is
JH> > humane for US. I would expect you or anybody else to honor that,
JH> > just as I would honor your decisions in the same situation.
In this case, Michael has the right over his wife. If you're married and
you're incapacitated, your wife has the right to decide to kill you. I hope
you can live with that knowledge, dude. If you become incapacitated and while
you are in the hospital, your wife hooks up with another dude, she can legally
ask that you be put to death by withholding your food. Boy if that isn't
messed up I don't know what is.
JH> Who is thinking clearly? The parents? Michael? The advocates who
JH> have lined up on either side behind them? How about the people
JH> getting themselves arrested? How about Congress, or all those judges
JH> up and down the line? You're sitting there telling me *I* am trying
JH> to assume some power I shouldn't have for god's sake! Apparently I'm
JH> some sort of evil person because I'm simply trying to stand back far
JH> enough to make a rational decision without having to wade through all
JH> the static. I guess that makes me callous and unfeeling according to
JH> some people.
Yes you do come across as callous and unfeeling. It's obvious Michael wants
Terri dead..period. What's nice for him is that he can kill her legally and
marry his new girl. How fortunate for him. Your rationale for your
decisions is seriously flawed. Let's review the facts. Terri breathes on
her own. Terri's heart is beating on its own. She can make noises. I say
she deserves a chance to live and recover if that is possible. Michael
doesn't give two craps about Terri anymore. He has a new woman now. He has no
further use for Terri. This excuse he gives about following her wishes is
hogwash. While Terri lives, he cannot marry his fiance.
JH> Respect for human life is a laudable thing, but part of that respect
JH> also includes the decisions that sometimes have to be made to let
JH> somebody go.
So you are now judging that it's time to let Terri go? Where do you get off
playing God? Sorry fella, hate to burst your bubble, but it's God's decision
not yours or mine. If he wants Terri to live, she ain't going nowhere. I
pray that she miraculously sits up in the bed and demands food, if for no
reason than to ruin Michael's life by not letting him marry his fiance. Boy
would he be in a real pickle if that happened. LOL.
- Jokester- Outpost BBS
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - Kennesaw, GA - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)
|