by missy04 67 Replies latest jw friends
Missy04 said: You might think differently if you knew the facts. If you're interested in the facts you might want to go to the site and read "Myths about Terri"
I read them. I still think she's better off dead than living this way. And there is NO hope for her to ever recover. Here's another link you might want to read about Myths about Terri: http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/03/debunking_lies_.html
I respect people's right to disagree with me but the "better dead than disabled" attitude that some people have sometimes is quite frustrating.
There's a difference between disabled and vegetative. People who are saying let the poor soul die are not espousing a "better dead than disabled" attitude.
There is a point in life where the quality of life is not worth saving anymore. If someone is truly a vegetable and is labeled braindead what is the point of prolonging that life? What benefit does that person bring to society? What purpose does it serve to keep this person alive? Is it for them or for us? Are we hoping too much? Are we just trying to soothe our conscience?
This may sound harsh but I think we put too much emphasis on quantity of life. What good is quantity when there is no quality? Why is it humane to "put-down" an animal that is suffering and can't be saved but at the same time be humane to try to prolong the life of somone who is suffering and will not recover?
As I stated in my original post, Terri's case is complicated but it is the current hot topic that leads to discussion on the issue.
The point is that we start with people like Terri who are called "vegatative"...and then we see movies like "Million Dollar Baby" where the person was not vegatative but simply didn't want to live with a disability and yet the movie glorifies that her friend killed her, as a gesture of love...WHAT NEXT....each case leads to another and another and another...and each one make it easier and easier to justify ending someone misery if they are not considered "Normal". THAT is my concern...the overall view of society that this is okay. I don't want people deciding for me that I am not normal enough and need to be put out of my misery.
I thought this was an interesting article.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbush224186328mar22,0,3998982.story
As Texas governor, George W. Bush signed a law that allows hospitals to pull the plug on critically ill patients despite family objections.
Why all the fuss now?
Let us all help by letting her die in peace already, and end this media circus!DY
Where did I put my live animal trap?
RWagoner. I want you to know that I have tremendous respect for you, who you are (what I know ), what you do, and what you believe. As you know, I believe a bit differently.
"better dead than disabled"
It's too bad that so many people see it this way. There are also many people who become even mildly disabled, as myself, who choose to end their lives by their own hand. But I understand it. Reprogramming yourself to live differently abled is difficult. To live life with chronic, sometimes almost unbearable pain is difficult and very disturbing. Most are up to it. Many are not.
The situation is totally different for the terminally ill. I am a big believer in Death with Dignity, AND I live in Oregon. No, that's not a threat.
I do not believe Terri is disabled. In everything I've read and heard, she isn't there anymore. The video we keep seeing was a one-time event, and videos we don't see are the attempts to replicate this event. The only thing functioning is her body's brainstem... which provides for basic life functions i.e. breathing, blinking eyes, elimination function, etc. In what I've seen,read,heard, everything possible has been done for her body, even her husband taking her to California for some non-FDA approved new neurological procedures that did not work.
I agree that it is and has been a difficult situation. And I agree with removing the feeding tube and allowing her body to die because of complete lack of quality, let alone evidence, of life other than basic bodily function. If there is any sign of discomfort, which they believe to be not likely, she will be (if not already) sedated. I feel it is too bad that they cannot just give her enough sedatives to end her body's life quickly.
Now:
A person who is capable of exibiting intelligent life is a different story. My reference is Stephen Hawking, my hero! Who now has a completely disfunctional body due to ALS (Lou Gerigs), has a brain and technology and medical science which has grown as his disease has progressed and has allowed him to continue to communicate and function. His brainwaves are fully active. Terri's body's brain shows no activity.
Christopher Reeve with money, fame, and advocacy, and an indominible will, blew away medical beliefs with his persistence that he would regain his abilities! Before he died-too-soon, with the help of ongoing medical developments in science and technology, he regained movement in his legs, and could spend time off of his artificial lung. He's my hero!
Just because these two people had money and fame doesn't mean that the person without should be treated any less. If they have loving caregivers and exhibit, even with technology, the ability to have a quality of life, by all means they should survive and thrive, with whatever it takes.
I had a neice that was born with severe cerebral palsey. This was due to a combination of being held back at birth by the nurses because the doctor wasn't there yet, and the shallow breathing my sister had due to the anesthesia given combined with lack of proper monitoring. In 1958.
She never crawled or walked. She developed a horribly twisted body. She was hand-fed, was in diapers, and had to have her mentrual pads changed, right up until her death of undetected kidney failure when she was 30. She exhibited far more humanity than Terri with laughter, crying, "talking" for what she could... mostly cooing, creeping on the floor to get to the cat that would tease her to try to catch him. The cat, who hated children, would lay on her chest purring. Nancy would grab handsfull of fur from the cat, and he'd purr louder. The dog would cuddle her. The doctors told her parents she would not live to be 5 years old, that they should put her in a home. Should she have been allowed to die? Absolutely not!
I now set aside my recycled and reused soapbox until I feel it necessary to pull it out again.
RW, would you like me to make you a ramp? I'd be happy to loan you my soapbox!
Hugs.
Brenda
(((Brenda)))
Dear friend...and I do consider you that. You are an able debater who responds with thought and feeling rather than sarcasm or ridicule and most often your posts demonstrate your good humor.
I posted on this thread...not because I think Terri should be kept alive...in fact I find myself torn on her case specifically. I also agree that if I were terminally ill...no chance of recovery...I would choose to end my life at a time and manner of my choosing.
I posted, as I often do, mearly to take the opportunity to speak to a topic close to my heart and hopefully make people think, raise awareness or just start a little intelligent debate.
As to needing a ramp for your soap box.....I bought one of those $25,000 wheelchairs that climbs stairs..."I don need no stinkin ramps"
the movie glorifies that her friend killed her
this is slightly off-topic, and i don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but have you seen this movie? the only reason i ask is because this was not the impression i got. after he did it, clint eastwood's character was completely shattered and, overcome with guilt, he was (apparently) left to occupy merely a shadow of a life. in effect he ended his life by ending hers. i really have a hard time seeing that as a glorification of his actions.
doogie,
Perhaps glorification was the wrong word....
By offering this as an alternative and in fact an act of love or mercy, this movie along with others continues to make this practive more acceptable...the more we see something that more normalized it becomes, especially if it is presented as an act of love or mission of mercy.
As for her friend feeling guilty it simple adds to the drama and image...
...."aaaaw...see how hard it was for him...he must have loved her very much to do that for her...put her out of her misery".....
Medicare (taxpayer money) and her husband's supplemental money $80,000 a year have supported keeping her alive for 15 years and she still hasn't spoken 1 word. Her cognitive brain function hasn't worked.
Her husband doesn't pay anything and all the money that he won from a court case hasn't gone to possible rehabilitative therapy. I once knew a kid who was born almost like a "vegetable" and for years he stayed in a wheelchair and wasn't able to talk or eat very well. But then he started getting cognitive therapy and eventually he was able to walk and talk, a totally different person. While this may not be possible in Schiavo's case, no one has even tried.
Plus, her husband was offered $1,000,000 for her care by a businessman in Florida if he didn't pull the plug. But he did.
