Fox has some really good varied articles about Schiavo.
Patients Often Suffer Under Twisted Medical Ethics By Radley Balko
"It’s time we stopped mingling our morals and our medicine."
Wrong Balko, it is time our morals start leading our medicine. With unlimited medical technology the only thing to guide us are our own personal set of morals. Our technology can either help or harm, and we need to have clear moral principles to guide the use of technology in caring for our extremely sick. In fact, the entire Schiavo case was caused by unclear moral direction from the wife and husband. The husband kept Schiavo alive for 7 years to get the malpractice suit settled, and then wanted to get rid of her once he got the money.
Morals out of medicine sounds like a great idea. No, it is a horrible idea that will only lead to the immoral application of medicine.
The Meaning of Life by Neil Cavuto
"Something is very wrong in a country that can throw you in jail for not giving your dog food and water, but not even care if you do the same to a human being."
Morals need to be clearly established and consistently applied.
Terri Schiavo's Case Is a Private Family Matter by John Gibson
"You can argue that crass politics are at the bottom of this saga — maybe. But I think it's a simple question that has people fired up: Is Terri Schiavo being given a right to die by her own choice, or is she being killed?"
We will never know.
A Solution to the Schiavo Case By Bill O'Reilly
"this whole ordeal can end right now if Michael Schiavo simply stops the litigation. He should stand up and say that he tried to implement his wife's wishes, but the greater good is now served by allowing her family to care for her as they want to do."
Bill is thinking along my lines. I would really love to know why hasn't Michael done that yet. I would have given up a few years ago.
cube
9 comments:
Perhaps its as simple as he truely loves her and is willing to fight as long as necessary to carry out her wishes?
Some people don't quit when things get hard.
Yea I have already said that.
"Taken into consideration these facts, I have to believe that Michael either wants Terri dead because he believes that he is fulfilling her wishes or he wants her dead because he is afraid of what she will say if she gets better."
That is a possiblity, but this is not hard, this is monumentally tough to kill this woman. She has been alive for 15 years in her state, and 8 of those he has been trying to kill her.
He wants her dead either to cover up a crime or because he is fufilling her wishes.
his motives are unclear at this point. He waited until after he recived the malpratice suit settlement before he put starting trying to kill her. If he was fufilling her wishes, he would have done that 15 years ago not 8 years ago after there was money involed.
I agree it could be that simple, but it would have also been that simple 15 years ago, and it was not that simple back them (based on the fact that Terri is still alive)
It is very tough for me to believe that he wants to kill her to cover up something.
IF you believe that, then you have to believe that Michael Schiavo believes in Miracles (because that is what it would take for her to be able to speak again) but doesn't care about the Religious consequences of Murdering someone.
It would take a strange person to believe in God enough to think his wife could recover, but still be willing to kill her.
"IF you believe that, then you have to believe that Michael Schiavo believes in Miracles (because that is what it would take for her to be able to speak again) but doesn't care about the Religious consequences of Murdering someone."
not ture. Even the devil belives in God, Dave. You can belive in miracles and still not have morals.
He could be playing the problity game, he knows their is an x percent chance she will get well, so their is an x percent chance that he will go to jail when she recovers.
secondly, if he knows their is a good chance of her recovering (better than what you belive, much more like 50/50) then that would only increase his disire to kill her (if in fact he wants her dead).
the logic is continuly going against the man. If he was carrying out her wishes he would have done it 15 years ago not 8, if he is not carrying out her wishes and wants her to die, it is for some other motive (which i have ruled out money), which only leaves he wants to kill her for some reason other than money.
While their could be many reasons for wanting to kill a woman, the most probable seems to be that he wants to cover up somthing.
First I think we should be careful not to use words inappropriately. Webster's dictionary defines murder as "to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice". I think that can't be applied here. It is obviously been ruled lawful, and I don't think anyone can show any malicious intent in his actions. He probably just wants some closure to this difficult part of his life. How long should this be drawn out? If her body can be kept alive for another 100 years do you think that would be the moral high road? I think it is time to end the suffering of all involved.
"It is obviously been ruled lawful"
Incorrectly, i belive. The judges, lawyers, and most of the other people on the side of micheal have exibited an unsual ablility to want to stick to the "law" in this case. They seem to for get that laws are meant to server socity,society is not meant to sever the laws where were made by man.
the laws were made by man and can be struck down by man.
"I don't think anyone can show any malicious intent in his actions."
No, but i can show unclear direction, lack of clear intentions, and a certian disintrest in what happens to his wife.
" He probably just wants some closure to this difficult part of his life. "
He could have had that if he would have handed over terri to her parents years ago. If he wanted to move on he could have, but he did not. So he is either fufilling her wish or he is trying to kill her. I can think of no other options.
"The husband, who should have legal claims in these types of situations, had the feeding tube removed."
to answer this point.
Yes he did AFTER he won a malpratice suit where their was some money involved. That money was unfortunatly earmarked for terri's care. After the malpratice suit Michael had a DNR (do not resuscitate ) order placed on terri.
I don't see how you can argue about the legality of the decision. It has been discussed at every level of the courts and in Congress. It was a legal decision. How you feel about the law or the ethical and moral context of this decision don't change that. You can argue the ethical and moral implications of this act, but that does not change the fact that it is a decision for the family involved. What exactly is your argument? Do you think that the parents should have a choice over the husband or do you think that no one should be able to end the life of someone reduced to a permanently vegetative state who was shown no signs of improvement for well over a decade?
This is one thing a few people do not quite seem to understand. Just because it is a law does not make it right or wrong. Sometimes the law is screwed up and needs to be changed. The courts are subject to the law, but the law was meant to serve society, society was not meant to serve the law.
To limit yourself to just the law, is to wear blinders.
As to my position. If someone wants to keep her alive, on their dime, then I see no reaons why someone else should get to kill her (in the cases of an unclear living will).
If she is brain dead, then there is no problem keeping her alive because her pain will not matter.
If she is NOT brain dead it is a travesty to kill her.
I also think flordia law is screwed up because a feeding tube is considered "life support".
Post a Comment