by missy04 67 Replies latest jw friends
RW-
i see what you mean and i completely respect your views. i guess that's the thing. this is such a deeply personal thing...the right to live or die...that everyone is going to feel differently. like i said in an earlier post, it's important that we personally know how we feel about this stuff and make our wishes known (legally speaking). it's when we're left guessing what the person wants that we start imposing our own moral standards and that never ends well.
doogie,
That is certainly true. Thats why I have a living will and durable power of attorney for health care...so as not to put my family is a similar situation.
If she is starved to death, I fear Pandora's box has been opened. Why is it a crime to starve animals to death, but not Terri?
If she is starved to death, I fear Pandora's box has been opened.
This already happens every day in nursing homes, hospitals, hospice patients, etc. This happens every day. This case is NOT unique, nor is this the first of it's kind. There is no Pandora's box here.
If she is starved to death, I fear Pandora's box has been opened.
if that's the case, the 'box' has been opened for years and years and years because this is not the first time the next of kin has made this decision.
beat me to it.
Micheal Schiavo was only interested in the $ from the malpractice lawsuit. Keeping Terri alive would mean having to spend the money on her. So he has fought a long uphill legal battle and wasted much of the money on that, instead of Terri's care. Terri Schiavo is a humane being, she should be treated with dignity and respect, allowing her to starve to death is cruel and unusual punishment. The Humane Society doesn't even treat animals like that. And we really don't know what her true wishes were, as we have only heard from her husband. I hope that if she has to die, that it happens quickly for her sake.
Dragonlady76
Let the woman die for gods sake. Respect her wishes.
Micheal Schiavo was only interested in the $ from the malpractice lawsuit. Keeping Terri alive would mean having to spend the money on her. So he has fought a long uphill legal battle and wasted much of the money on that, instead of Terri's care. Terri Schiavo is a humane being, she should be treated with dignity and respect, allowing her to starve to death is cruel and unusual punishment.
even if all that is true (which is debatable), the courts have already determined that if not specified by the individual herself, these matters are to be decided by the next of kin. in this case, her husband. end of discussion.
the day that judges can just ignore decades of precedent just because they (or others) disagree with the legal guardian's decision in one particular case would be a dark day for the justice system.
e day that judges can just ignore decades of precedent just because they (or others) disagree with the legal guardian's decision in one particular case would be a dark day for the justice system.
So what you are saying is that it's ok to let someone die a horrible painful death to appease the harmony of justice system? What if this was a child? How is this any diffirent then the JW's denying their kids life saving blood? The kids don't have a voice and neither does Terri. The point is Terri did not have a living will with final arrangements, so we do not know the truth.
Dragonlady76
