RSS 2.0 FeedRudy Giuliani And The Terry Schiavo Case
by Doug MataconisThere are few examples of just how disgusting government intervention into personal decisions can get than the Terry Schiavo case. Schiavo was, by all medical standards, beyond any hope of regaining consciouness. Her husband said that she would not have wanted to live that way, and petitioned the Courts to have her taken off all life support. The Courts ruled in his favor after a full evidentiary hearing and, when Schiavo’s parents and the right-to-life crowd couldn’t get their way in Court, they tried to use Congress to intervene in what is clearly one of the most personal decisions any family has to make.
The Republicans in Congress pandered to the right wing of their party, and a woman’s life, such as it was, was needlessly extended.
The Schiavo case is one of the things that turned me against the Republicans in Congress, which is why I found this story interesting:
Here’s a bit of a surprising story from LifeNews.com. Apparently, on a campaign swing through Florida, Rudy Giuliani said he supported the efforts of the Florida legislature and governor (that would be one Jeb Bush) to keep Terri Schiavo on life support.
“I thought it was appropriate to make every effort to give her a chance to stay alive,” LifeNews.com quotes him as saying at the campaign stop.
Mitt Romney, meanwhile, said last month that he disagreed with the state’s actions. “I think it’s probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts,” Mr. Romney said.
Of course, this is something of a reversal of the normal order of things. It is usually the formerly pro-choice Mr. Romney pandering aggressively to pro-life groups. Mr. Giuliani, on the other hand, has been pursuing a take-me-or-leave me approach, which has so far included reaffirming his longstanding support for taxpayer-funded abortion.
As the Sun points out, this position seems completely at odds with Giuliani’s position on abortion and doesn’t make much sense if he’s merely pandering to the pro-life crowd. More importantly, if he really thinks it was appropriate for the state to intervene in the Schiavo family’s life the way it did, then it makes one wonder where else he thinks the state should be allowed to intervene.
There are few examples of how opinions injested with regurgitated media can abound but your blurb is exemplary of such.
Disabled groups from across the country also petitioned government agencies, very effectively, to intervene in the death sentence given Terri Schiavo. All congress did was offer the same review that is routinely done for prisoners sentenced to death.
She was a disabled woman whose sentence resulted in death by starvation and dehydration.
There are laws which prohibit such treatment to puppies. However, for humans it is now justified.
Comment by kadamson — April 10, 2007 @ 2:24 pmKadamson,
The laws permit healthy puppies to be injected with fatal doses of anesthetic. Are you arguing that she should have been accorded the same treatment?
The fact is, the poor woman died over a decade ago. What was left was a body that kept breathing. The messy fight over what to do with that body was not aided by Congressmen wading in to grab the pulpit.
Comment by tarran — April 10, 2007 @ 2:30 pmI am saying your blurb is a pile of regurgitated media notes that discounts what really occurred with the Terri Schiavo case.
I am saying that death by starvation and dehydration is hideous and inhumane to any living breathing animal and in particular to humans regardless of how diminished you might perceive them.
I am saying that if we have laws that require ethical and humane treatment of puppies, surely we can apply the same to humans.
Got it?
Comment by kadamson — April 10, 2007 @ 3:48 pmSince Eric Dondero believes pro-choice Republicans are libertarians by default; does this mean since Guiliani is expressing a pro-life viewpoint he’s no longer a libertarian?
Come on Eric, have some principles.
Comment by Kevin — April 10, 2007 @ 4:37 pmkadamson, sweetie, I don’t think you get it.
Once your brain is destroyed, your soul no longer is in the body. The non-reptilian parts of her brain had been dead for many years when the doctors stopped caring for her.
Yes, I agree that the whole affair was degrading. One, I would prefer that people be permitted to commit suicide by injecting something into their veins instead of ceasing life-giving care. Two, I would have preferred that her husband had ceded control and care of her body to her parents.
Three, I would like to familiarize you with the doctrinaire anarcho-capitalist postion. Nobody had an obligation to feed or care for Mrs Schiavo’s body. No human being has the right to enslave another to care for them. Now, had she purchased an insurance policy that bound an insurer to caring for her body indefinitely, that would be another matter, but obviously she had made no such agreement with anyone.
If one accepts that a human mind existed inside of her brain, then she was responsible for her own care. If her mind had ceased to exist inside her brain, then her body belonged to her next of kin, to dispose of as they wished.
Now, if I had been in her husbands position, I would be torn. If indeed she had requested not to be kept in a vegetative state, I would try to end her body’s functions as peacefully and in as dignified a manner as possible. On the other hand, I would have been tempted to give her body to her parents as a gift since the idea of letting go of her caused them such pain. Whatever choice I made would be an act of charity, not an obligation.
Now as to the whole puppy/human treatment thing, starving her body to death was not inhumane in that since her brain died, I don’t believe that there was a human being in her skull. However, I agree, her care-givers should have given her the dignity that we afford puppies. I think the doctors should have injected the body with a lethal dose of barbiturates and allowed it to die quickly and peacefully.
My grandmother went pretty much the same way, losing her balance, falling down a flight of stairs and shattering her skull. In the end, everything above the brain stem was one giant blood-clot, and a respirator was breathing for her. Fortunately, she had written a living will, everybody understood that she did not want to have her body maintained if her brain was damaged, and she was allowed to finish her death in a peaceful and dignified manner.
What struck me in the Schiavo case was that one or more parties were behaving imbecilicaly. I do not know who, since I was not involved. I refuse to pass judgment since I don’t have enough information. But, the information that I do have convinces me that the whole disgusting spectacle was a fight over a breathing corpse, so I have little sympathy for the parties involved.
I remain convinced, however that Congress inserting itself into the matter was a dramatic overreaching of their authorized powers. On the other hand, while they were meddling with the whole affair, they weren’t passing laws that impacted me, so maybe I should be grateful that they did get involved.
Comment by tarran — April 10, 2007 @ 10:46 pmtarran,
I remain convinced, however that Congress inserting itself into the matter was a dramatic overreaching of their authorized powers. On the other hand, while they were meddling with the whole affair, they weren’t passing laws that impacted me, so maybe I should be grateful that they did get involved.
That is exactly the point, and exactly what was wrong with the GOP’s position in the Schiavo case. There had been, as I mentioned in the post, a full evidentiary hearing on the issue of what Terri Schiavo’s intentions and best interests might have been and what was in her best interests, as well as several appeals of the trial judge’s ruling in both state and federal courts.
And yet the right-to-life nanny-state lobby wasn’t satisfied.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — April 10, 2007 @ 10:59 pm“Once your brain is destroyed, your soul no longer is in the body.”
“I refuse to pass judgment since I don’t have enough information. ”
How does one have a discussion with a theological giant who doesn’t have enough information?
May you always exist in your current state of doctrinaire anarcho-capitalist. May you never need the care of another individual that you do not pay them for there services. I suppose your mother sent you a bill.
In all of your rhetoric, I still find no justification for imposing death by starvation and dehydration on a human being.
Comment by kadamson — April 15, 2007 @ 7:42 pmkadamson wrote:
Don’t you get it? Terry Schiavo was dead and being kept alive by artificial means. I think every contributor on this site would have preferred that her body have a morphine drip administered that ended functioning of her body rather than the approach that was taken. But, the fact is, Terry Schiavo never knew it happened. Because she died years earlier.
P.S. the fact that Terry Schiavo was brain dead at the time of her physical death is not rhetoric, it is scientific fact.
Comment by Adam Selene — April 15, 2007 @ 7:47 pm” I think every contributor on this site would have preferred that her body have a morphine drip administered that ended functioning of her body”
This is legal only with a diagnosis of a terminal illness. It is other wise called suicide – even if you are severely brain damaged and no longer want to live.
“But, the fact is, Terry Schiavo never knew it happened.”
The fact is the best science does not know if Terry Schiavo new what happened.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-6,00.html
The only artifical means of life support for Ms. Schiavo was food and water. When those were discontinued it took her ten days to die. If a human is alive do they not retain their humanity?
Comment by kadamson — April 15, 2007 @ 8:08 pmKadamson,
I imagine it is about as difficult as arguing with someone who said:
;)
Comment by tarran — April 15, 2007 @ 8:36 pmLaughing, nicely done Tarran.
Comment by Adam Selene — April 15, 2007 @ 8:51 pmCute but juvenile.
Comment by kadamson — April 15, 2007 @ 9:00 pmI quite agree, so let’s not go there again. OK?
Comment by tarran — April 15, 2007 @ 10:23 pmYou went there all by yourself.
I stated your sentences in their entirety and my comments were to point out the irony in them.
1. You made a sweeping theological statement that has been debated through the centuries as though it were a truth.
2. Surely you see the irony in the second sentence without my assistance?
You did a cut and paste for a snicker.
Comment by kadamson — April 15, 2007 @ 10:42 pmYour writing reveals that somewhere in your conscience are questions regarding the Schiavo case. I suspect however, that you are afraid that if you question the outcome, you somehow give up some liberal ground to the Republican agenda.
I assure that is not the case. Man’s humanity to man is totally within the liberal parameter. It is a very leftist agenda to insist that laws protect the disabled who do not have a terminal diagnosis.
I cannot help that in the Terri Schiavo case the media spotlighted the support they received from the Christian Right. I can only assure you that they received support from others for different reasons.
Comment by kadamson — April 15, 2007 @ 10:57 pmI am sure that Terri received support from people other than the Christian right.
I can say, I am fine with her death. Honestly, even were it the most painful way to go, were I in her position, I would wish to die. Admittedly, I am biased in the situation. But everyone is.
When I was young, I used to have a reaccuring nightmare. Of being buried… I was dead, yet whatever soul I might have had was stuck in my rotting self, unable to break free of the coffin. It’s stuck with me my entire life. Because of that dream, I have claustrophobia.
I would think, being in Terri’s place, that it is much the same. However, she may not have thought that way. None the less, as she was unable to truly communicate (Yes, I know some people said she could blink messages…but I saw as many reports that said the opposite), then someone had a need to make a decision. I disagree with the state getting involved, as I believe in the right to die. And when one does not know if a person wants the plug pulled or not, one asks the survivng member of the family. And the husband or wife is always first.
Either way, I was fine with the decision to let her die.
Comment by Ted — April 15, 2007 @ 11:13 pmActually, kadamson, I would say that tarran, like myself, wishes to give up ground to neither the religious nor the secular authoritarians. Whether you want to force me to continue living while brain dead because of your religious beliefs or your belief that you have to be my nanny doesn’t matter to me at all.
I have an inherent right to life, liberty and property so long as I do not violate anyone else’s right to life, liberty and property. My body is my property, and no one else’s. Liberty includes the right to do anything I wish to myself. Therefore, I have the right to die when and how I wish. Not that the secular or religious authoritarians will agree with me. But, they can kiss my ass.
That said, if I cannot make the decision, then my family can, and should, make the decision. In the event that my wife is still alive, that is who will make the decision of when and how I will die. And, once again, the authoritarians can kiss my ass.
Your desire to interfere in that makes you an authoritarian. It doesn’t really matter whether a religious one, or not. And I have no desire to give up any more ground to those who would wish to make decisions for me for my own good.
Comment by Adam Selene — April 15, 2007 @ 11:21 pm“Either way, I was fine with the decision to let her die”
So, you are fine with the decison to let her die of starvation and dehydration?
And this is fine for others, as well?
Comment by kadamson — April 16, 2007 @ 8:25 am“like myself, wishes to give up ground to neither the religious nor the secular authoritarians.”
So your primary block is authoritarians?
And you never impose your belief system on others in any way? Because if you do, that make you an authoritarian.
Comment by kadamson — April 16, 2007 @ 8:39 amkadamson,
I always viewed this as nothing more than a guardianship case. The fact is that someone has to make the decision. Were I in that place, I would want my family (my wife primarily) to make the decision. Not some idiots in Washington.
At best, the courts can adjudicate whether someone is an adequate guardian, and that was the main peculiarity to this particular case. But those questions were settled in court, and the decision was final. Congress had no place in the debate.
As for your other question: “And you never impose your belief system on others in any way? Because if you do, that make you an authoritarian.”
Hang around this blog a little while, and you’ll see that some of us believe that government is a necessary evil, and some believe government is an unnecessary evil. Either way, the basic tenet of libertarianism is against forcing your beliefs on others.
I do not recognize the legitimacy of Congress in this matter, nor do I believe I am legitimate to decide this matter for Terri Schiavo. Getting back to the point, Rudy Giuliani thinks it’s legitimate for him to make all sorts of decisions for all of us, and that’s precisely what we’re arguing against.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 16, 2007 @ 9:07 amkadamson:
No, read what I wrote, don’t cherry pick.
No, I would not force you to accept my beliefs. I will argue them to the end of days, but I would not use the power of government to impose my beliefs upon you.
Comment by Adam Selene — April 16, 2007 @ 9:42 amKadamson, kadamson, kadamson,
You just shot your foot off. Seriously… Selective quoting taken out of context does not magically become OK simply because you quoted entire sentences.
Your chances of convincing me of anything took a big hit. If your arguments were compared to a flight of an aircraft, what you just did would be called “a controlled flight into terrain”.
Anyway, whatever.
I’ll just finish my contributions to this discussion with a couple of observations:
1) My conscience in the Schiavo case is clear. No action, or lack of action on my part causes me any guilt.
2) As I said earlier, I am convinced that Mrs Schiavo’s body was her husband’s property. If he had hauled it out to the Nevada desert and abandoned it as meat for scavengers, I would see no moral imperative to interfere. Of course, I would find it disgusting, and would refuse to have dealings with him over it. I personally wish that he had given the body to her parents, but again who am I to judge.
3) As to the actions of the various Congressmen, I thought they were making a big fuss to con people like you into continuing to vote for them. Listen, Congress is looting you. Like noblemen of old, they confiscate half your crop, and use it to enrich themselves. The whole circus was designed to fool people like you into thinking that they are there to protect you. They put on this ridiculous vodoo dance, and you grovel in gratitude to them.
Adam is right in that nearly all of of these Congressmen are evil people who seek to rule over others. I am convinced that if extraterrestrial squirrels enslaved everyone in the Capitol building during the State of the union address and worked them to death in their nut mines, the rest of us would all be much better off.
Comment by tarran — April 16, 2007 @ 9:43 amTarran, I am now cleaning the coffee off my monitor that I spewed all over laughing. Damnit man, warn a fellow, would you?
Comment by Adam Selene — April 16, 2007 @ 10:05 amRegardless of your view, it was not a guardianship case. It was a right to privacy case. It is a verifiable fact. So in some ways, you did force your views on Terri Schiavo. I wonder if she agrees with you that starvation and dehydration are the best way to bring about one’s demise.
I am not fooled by anyone, least of all a politician. They did not interfere of their own accord. Perhaps you didn’t realize that it was I who made them dance. I and others like me.
It is a bit circuitous that you blithely trust the adjudication of the court’s decisions and actions in this case while blanketly rubbishing other government entities. Is it only congressmen who are evil world domination seekers? Those of the judicial branch are not?
I would not presume to convince you of anything. I merely question the arrangement of your philosophies and present mine.
Throughout our conversation I have avoided statements for schtick value only. Quoting sentences for reply is de riguer.
The state receives its authority from you. If it does not it will act on its own authority. If you find the state to be evil, you have granted it to them.
Lastly, you still present no justification for the starvation and dehydration death of a human. It was a cruel death. The authoritarian government you envision has given itself permission to do it again and the circumstances do not have to be the same.
Comment by kadamson — April 16, 2007 @ 12:37 pm“My body is my property, and no one else’s. Liberty includes the right to do anything I wish to myself. Therefore, I have the right to die when and how I wish.”
If something is a truth, is not a truth in all cases?
Is this what you would tell your seventeen year old son or brother? Because, otherwise it would a truth only applicable to you and not applicable universally.
Comment by kadamson — April 16, 2007 @ 12:47 pm“Either way, I was fine with the decision to let her die.”
The question is were you ok to let her die by starvation and dehydration? Is that a justifiable way to bring about a person’s demise?
Comment by kadamson — April 16, 2007 @ 12:52 pmkadamson:
It is, indeed, what I tell my 14 year old son.
Comment by Adam Selene — April 16, 2007 @ 1:23 pmkadamson:
Must be nice to live in a world where you think that the state has derived its authority from the citizens. I would argue that it has usurped authority we never intended it should have. And the idea that elections, in the current era, somehow change that makes me chuckle.
Comment by Adam Selene — April 16, 2007 @ 1:25 pmIf you do not engage, then you concede. If authority has been usurped, you have allowed it.
Comment by kadamson — April 16, 2007 @ 1:41 pmkadamson:
I am engaged. That’s what this blog is about. It’s what my votes are about. And many other actions I take on a regular basis, such as political donations, time spent helping with education, etc.
Sorry, I disagree with you. Usurpation of authority is not something I “have allowed”. You appear not to understand how we have gotten to where we are in the Republic’s history.
Comment by Adam Selene — April 16, 2007 @ 1:53 pm“we have gotten to where we are in the Republic’s history.”
In the history of the eons, rulers serve at the pleasure of the masses. Thousands of examples exist and I will not enumerate here.
As a result of TS case the state can legally enforce the starvation/dehydration death of a human being. The acceptable situations for this will morph beyond the current circumstances if the public conscience remains unaware and unengaged.
Comment by kadamson — April 17, 2007 @ 10:52 amThe state receives its authority from you. If it does not it will act on its own authority. If you find the state to be evil, you have granted it to them.
I do not recognize their authority in this case. The problem with democracy is that to you, I don’t have to recognize their authority, you and other voters like you have done it for me.
In the history of the eons, rulers serve at the pleasure of the masses. Thousands of examples exist and I will not enumerate here.
I don’t give a damn about the masses. I ask that the state not intrude into my life where I don’t accept their authority. The masses are easily fooled, because we’ve allowed government to educate them. If the masses all decided to follow each other like lemmings off a cliff, I wouldn’t let them drag me with them.
As a result of TS case the state can legally enforce the starvation/dehydration death of a human being.
As a result of the TS case, the state is forced to stay out of these cases to a very large extent. I’m not saying she should have been taken off, or she should have been kept on. Based on the evidence I’ve heard of her condition, I would not want to have been kept alive. I would also have preferred a more direct and active method of death than starvation/dehydration.
What I don’t want is Congress telling me or my family what they must do, and second-guessing their decision about what to do with me if I were to end up on that state. I trust my family. I don’t trust the bureaucrats who are living on what they think is legitimacy to decide such things for me, just because YOU elected them.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 17, 2007 @ 11:13 amBrad:
Exactly the philosophical premise of the Constitution. It does NOT establish a democracy, although kadamson seems to think so. Over the past century, give or take, a group of people have usurped the power that was restricted to the states and the people by blatantly ignoring the Constitution.
kadamson, wouldn’t you prefer that the government was not involved in this discussion and decision at all? The only involvement that I could see as reasonable is to determine who has custody if I am incapacitated. Then the issue is within my family only.
Comment by Adam Selene — April 17, 2007 @ 11:49 amThe government became involved the day the court was petitioned to allow an individual starve to death.
“I would also have preferred a more direct and active method of death than
starvation/dehydration.”
Oh really, but it’s okay for someone else?
“I do not recognize their authority in this case.”
Of course you do. Only in this case it was the judicial authority you recognized.
“I ask that the state not intrude into my life where I don’t accept their authority.” That is funny because what you request is only remotely possible in some kind of democratic or representative governement in which mass participation is inherent. Go make that demand in Cuba, Darfur, China…the list goes on. See how far it will get you.
Comment by kadamson — April 17, 2007 @ 11:57 am“kadamson, wouldn’t you prefer that the government was not involved in this discussion and decision at all?”
What is that to the price of tea in China?
The governement exists. It is involved in a myriad of decisions, sometimes to your liking and sometimes not.
Where ever a group of people agree to a system of decision making applicable to the group, there is a government.
The authority you fear has been expanded to include enforced death by starvation/dehydration. The right to choice or refusal of treatment remains as it was.
Comment by kadamson — April 17, 2007 @ 12:39 pmOh really, but it’s okay for someone else?
Again, you don’t understand me. It’s not my decision!
Listen, we can debate this endlessly. And in the long run, there are going to be times where this process gets screwed up. There are going to be times where some woman’s husband simply wants to be rid of her, and decides to pull the plug. That may have happened here, it might not (although the courts didn’t find basis to pull his guardianship). It may be unacceptable to kill someone who is diagnosed as PVS by starvation/dehydration, it might not.
What I am telling you is very simple. The decision of what to do in that situation is not an easy one, and belongs to the people closest to the person in that state, not Congress.
Years ago, my wife’s uncle was put into the position of making that decision. His brother was in an accident, and was in the hospital. He had to decide whether to pull the plug. He ended up choosing yes (it wasn’t a feeding tube situation, so it wasn’t starvation/dehydration), and his brother died. You know what? He has to live with the consequences of that choice for the rest of his life. I’m sure there are days when he questions himself, and I’m sure there are days when he feels like it was the right thing to do. He loved his brother dearly, and I’m sure that’s the hardest decision he’s ever made in his life. And he did it trying to figure out what was best for his brother. It was his decision, not Congress’. And whether he made the right decision or the wrong one, we’ll never know. But I trust the people who care most about the individual in that situation to make the decision. I don’t trust Congress, nor democracy.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 17, 2007 @ 3:36 pmKadamson
“Either way, I was fine with the decision to let her dieâ€
So, you are fine with the decison to let her die of starvation and dehydration?
And this is fine for others, as well?
Please read the second paragraph in my post. I said that were I in her position, I would wish to die, even if it were a most painful way to die.
I am fine with it for myself. Few individuals are more important to me than myself.
Also survivors of massive starvation have often been quoted as saying that it is not painful after a little bit. Doctors say this is due to an anesthetic effect of chemical produced by the brain when it does not receive nourishment.
Of course, there have been some survivors who claimed to have been in great pain as well. It’s all a metter of ones perception of pain.
In either case, death by starvation, were I in the same place, would be fine with me.
Comment by Ted — April 17, 2007 @ 3:55 pm“(it wasn’t a feeding tube situation, so it wasn’t starvation/dehydration),”
It’s moot to this discussion or issue. The TS case would not have changed those protocols.
“It’s all a metter of ones perception of pain.”
?????????And for a sociopath there is no perception of the pain of others.
Comment by kadamson — April 18, 2007 @ 8:16 amSo what’s your issue? The method of death, or the fact that she wasn’t kept alive?
Because that’s a rather flippant way to wave off my entire comment, and I want to know what your justification is.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 18, 2007 @ 10:04 amI, too, have touching, heart-wrenching stories. But that doesn’t make them relevant to this discussion regarding death by starvation and dehydration of a disabled woman. I just quoted the statement that made the example in your story moot.
Once again, I repeat….
I am saying that death by starvation and dehydration is hideous and inhumane to any living breathing animal and in particular to humans regardless of how diminished you might perceive them.
I am saying that if we have laws that require ethical and humane treatment of puppies, surely we can apply the same to humans.
It’s perplexing that you hold dear the mantra that in this case it is not your decision. It is as though this somehow absolves you of any responsibility in cases similar and future.
It is not my decision as to how my neighbor treats his dog. But if the dog is consistently beaten and malnourished what course remains? Perhaps, it becomes my responsibility to see that laws make this kind of treatment of dogs illegal. Or perhaps I make it a media event explaining how dogs prefer this treatment. Either way it has become my business.
What makes this one issue sacred to your involvement?
Comment by kadamson — April 18, 2007 @ 1:37 pmAre you saying that if a puppy is in a PVS, it’s brain is atrophied and there’s absolutely no brain activity, and it’s nothing more than a “breathing corpse”, as suggested above, that it would be illegal to remove the tube?
Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 18, 2007 @ 2:15 pmBrad,
In such a case with the puppy, letting it die of starvation in such a case is considered wrong in many circles.
However, in such a case with a puppy, the provide the puppy with an anesthetic, then put the puppy down. This is something that is considered illegal with humans. Kadamson offers no solution here, however, only a sweeping condemnation.
Kadamson,
I have said I am fine with dying by starvation were I in the situation.
I am fine if other people die that way as well.
You seemed to imply that such thoughts made me a sociopath.
I will also say I am fine with a person being injected with something for less pain. But it is illegal most places, and considered immoral by many.
But what do you think should be done in a case such as this?
Should the decision rest with the husband? The parents? The government?
Should a person be left “alive,” and if so, who should pay for it?
If a person is to be let go, how should it be done? Starvation? Starvation with painkillers? Injection?
I am asking because I would like you to clearly define what feel should have happened.
I will tell you from my point of view.
The husband should have made the decision, barring a living will; although I believe every person should set a limit in their living will to avoid ruining their supporters life with medical costs. The parents and the government should stay out of it. I would like it for an injection to be administered to make it quick and painless. However, since doctors would like to keep their hands “clean,” I am perfectly fine with starvation as a means.
That, in my opinion, should have been the end of it. What is yours?
Comment by Ted — April 18, 2007 @ 3:11 pmOnce again, I repeat….
I am saying that death by starvation and dehydration is hideous and inhumane to any living breathing animal and in particular to humans regardless of how diminished you might perceive them.
I am saying that if we have laws that require ethical and humane treatment of puppies, surely we can apply the same to humans.
As a result of this case – which, by the way did end where you wanted it to – it is now legal for an individual to be starved and dehydrated to death at the behest of the government. Where such a hideous death was once rejected it is now legal. Can you see past the rainbow, now?
Comment by kadamson — April 18, 2007 @ 3:44 pmkadamson,
A hypothetical which I don’t think has been addressed yet.
Let’s say Terry Schiavo had had a Living Will that stated that if she was brain dead that she did not wish to be given any life sustaining treatment, including no food and no water.
Would it have then been proper for to be “allowed” to die in that manner ?
If not, why not ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — April 18, 2007 @ 3:47 pmKadamsin,
Ethics and morality are subjective. Not objective. You have failed to point out what you would consider a viable solution to this so called unethical and inhumane treatment.
If a person is to die, how should it be done?
Are you advocating to allow Doctors to inject a patient with someone for a painless death? Or or you advocating leaving someone on a feeding tube forever?
Comment by Ted — April 18, 2007 @ 3:59 pmIf she’d had a living will she would not have been resuscitated. We would not have this discussion.
It seems to me that it requires a lot of “ifs” and “probablys” to make the starvation/dehydration death of this woman ok.
This case would not have been monumental in end of life decision protocols. It will be very instruemental in new life terminating protocols for the disabled.
There is no one this does not effect. Instantaneous death is not as likely as gradual demise by old age or disability from an accident or health issue.
Comment by kadamson — April 18, 2007 @ 3:59 pm