Shall Terri Schiavo die?

A lot of prolifers are against the capital punishment. The Pope is at least. For some people who are pro-capital punishment their support of the death penalty is hypocrisy. They believe they're so far removed from committing those crimes that they want to kill those who do. But for most people, it's cultural training. These people have been taught all their lives the death penalty improves society and stops criminals, and so they believe they're being tough on crime.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Those trying to keep Teri connected to a feeding tube are using archaic definitions of life and death.

Until modern times, death was generally defined as having a functioning heart. Until several hundred years ago, the heart was considered the basis or source of our emotions. Popular songs still have lyrics suggesting this.

In the absence of modern medical technology, it was very reasonable to equate life with a beating heart and death as cessation of heart activity.

We now know that the heart is a pump, merely a mechanical device. Its functioning is necessary to life, but its functioning cannot be considered a sufficient condition.

Teri is not alive, although those on both sides of the issue use terms like "allowing her to die", “keeping her alive”, "Starving her to death", et cetera. The semantics of these statements imply that she is alive, when she is actually dead.

When the cerebral cortex ceases to function, a person is no longer alive. There is no memory, no rational thought processes, no personality, no plans for the future, no desire for life, et cetera. Without those intellectual and emotional processes, there is no longer a person. There are cases of people recovering after being as a coma for years, but people in Teri’s condition do not recover. Being brain dead is being dead.

This is a different situation than deciding that a mentally retarded person or a person with few physical functions and a functioning brain has a poor quality of life and should be put to death.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who gets to make the arbitrary decision on what should constitue "alive" and what should not for the people? You perhaps?

 

The more technology advances, the harder it becomes to decide what is just, what is right, what is wrong -- morality seems more and more arbitrary.
And, I'm afraid, *is* more and more arbitrary.

 

Well the essence of morality hasn't changed much then. But the question remains: Who gets to decide for everyone else? Why "Ethics, Morality, & Justice" if there is no justice in letting the hilltop decide for the hill? Morality is necessarily incongruous with justice - if we maintain justice to be "blind". That must be why kids are sent to schools and church, to be indoctrinated and to learn to conform to order as someone else would have it. Empty vessels thirsting for another's water.

Watershame.

 

SouthStar: I am willing to let the medical experts decide who is dead and who is alive. For somebody who is brain dead, I think some active method should be used to stop the heart from beating. Why expend medical services on behalf of a corpse? A morphine overdose seems called for in these situations.

If some depressed person put a shotgun in his mouth and totally destroyed his brain, modern medical science (if not today then 50 years from now) might be able to keep his heart beating and his other organs working for weeks or even years. Would you keep somebody in that state for even 5 minutes?

 

So let's bury her.

 

That's fine and dandy for you. But if I remember correctly, you spoke of a "we" as if you were deciding for all individuals. Just don't rub your beliefs on others.

Again you ask such a very pointless question. It is not my place to judge and decide for someone else. Once you set that precedent, you point the shotgun down your own throat. Be careful with that thing.

 

SouthStar: You do not remember correctly.

I used “we” in the following context.

I see nothing wrong with that statement. I do not see it as rubbing my beliefs on others. As indicated by the following, I do not claim to be an expert on who is alive and who is dead.

Do not try to win debate points by distorting what others have posted.

 

Any person with any background at all in the English language will tell you that the introduction of the pronoun 'we' in argumentation is a rhetorical device, an appeal to the audience's taste, moral, knowledge etc. concerning what has been said or is about to be said (depending on context).

You apparently do not understand your own argument.

Not that it matters now anyway. I've said what I needed to.

 

SouthStar: Cut out the nonsense and nit picking. If you prefer, I will restate as follows.

• The medical experts now view the heart as a pump, not the seat of our emotions. They do longer view the fact that is it beating as a sufficient condition to consider a person to be alive.

Sorry I used "we" instead of "medical experts" I agree that you should not tolerate such a snide use of a rhetorical device in an attempt to befuddle you. You are to be congratulated for being erudite enough to see through such a ruse.

Do you feel better now that I have admitted my attempt to deceive?

 

In my opinion, all the important parts are already dead. You are putting to rest a semi animate slab of meat. If I am wrong, she should still be put to rest. Lying there in such a reduced state without hope of communication or recovery can be summed up in a single word... hell.

It would be a dire crime to continue her existence... provided there is enough there to feel anything.

 

She still has the ability to beg her mother for mercy apparently.

 

Terri Schiavo should be pimped-out ala 'Kill Bill' to pay for the grotesque medical bills she's run up.

If she can earn it, they can keep the feeding tube there.

Dignity, shmignity!

 

The only interesting thing about Terri is why she's become so popular.
Withdrawing nutrition is nothing new.
I hate acting rationally round here, I do enough of that in the day job.
So I'll just post a link instead.

Treatment decisions for patients in persistent vegetative state

'nuff said.
Dee Cee

 

What kills about pro-lifers is that they had put out death threats against the husband and the judge...love religion.

 

She wasn't suffering until the courts decided to starve her to death. We also don't know her true desire. Sure, several years ago she may have said she didn't want to be kept on life support, but I doubt she said she wanted to be starved to death. Furthermore, the parents argument is that she could recover.

She's not brain death. She's in a persistent vegistative state. But more to the matter, if she was dead, we wouldn't be using the pronoun "she", instead using something more on the lines of "body".

She's not no a machine or "life support". Her wishes are unclear. Did she want to be removed when there was no chance of recovery? Is there a chance? Some doctors say so, and, knowing the increase medical technology, she might have a good chance..

I'm not sure what you mean here? If there's direct causation, they kill in self defence or to preserve life. Otherwise, sure, there's a few "criminals". But remember, those fighting against slavery had quite a few more "criminals".

 

Okinrus: You are correct, the language used implies that a living person is being discussed. Calling it “she” and saying “allowing her to starve to death” implies that the object being discussed is a living human being, which is not the situation..

Our language has not kept up with modern medical technology. Teri does not fit our notion of a corpse because the heart is beating and various other organs are functioning, so everybody is reluctant to call it a corpse. However, it is not a living human being in the absence of higher brain functions. The best we can come up with is “persistent vegetative state.”

I find it hard to understand how anyone considers Teri alive in the absence of consciousness, memory of the past, plans for the future, emotions. The doctors who examined her carefully and ran tests do not claim that she is alive. The doctors who claim otherwise only viewed videos. I sympathize with her parents, but their view is merely wishful thinking, a refusal to face reality.

The British have studied this problem and passed some laws. DeeCee posted the following URL

• http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/pvs

It provides a rational point of view consistent with modern medical technology. 12 months in a persistent vegetative state is strongly suggested as sufficient to consider the situation beyond hope. After 7-8 years, there was no hope at all, which is about how long the husband waited before taking legal action.

The medical profession should have the courage to back their knowledge with more forceful actions and push for legislation allowing them to actively terminate the body when they are certain that there is no longer any hope. Why wait for lack of nutrition and water to end it?

Our laws will someday define a subject like Teri as dead after being in that state for a lot less than 7-8 years.