|
Her husband had 4 independent witnesses who
testified that they had conversation w/Terri on the subject before her illness
and that is why the husband wins, honoring her wishes!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:10
PM
Subject: RE: [QUAD-L] Slippery slopes to
making it personal
yes, very good points. But, I think there's still a
big distinction - yes, I believe that most people prior to being injured would
say they wouldn't want to be kept alive artificially. And, I believe
that most people who remain conscious, after adjusting and overcoming
depression, would ultimately choose to live in a dependent condition no matter
what they'd said previously.
In Terri's case, it's not just that she'd expressed these
wishes before. It's that, and the fact that she's brain dead, so not
only can she not express wishes to the contrary now, she doesn't have wishes
to the contrary, or any wishes for that matter, because she's in a vegetative
state.
If someone was hooked up to life support and still
able to communicate wishes, then it would be clear cut and there would be no
debate no matter what they'd said before.
If someone was hooked up to life support and was
conscious and living mentally, but was unable to communicate their
wishes, I don't think someone could petition to remove a feeding tube
based on something they'd said before, right? God, I hope not!
At 12:03 PM 3/29/2005, Lori Michaelson wrote:
First, If any of us has learned
ANYTHING from this discussion ... we should all have it put in writing what
our wishes are in any scenario. Rather than playing the "I'm still
young ... can't/won't happen to me" game.
Secondly, In all
honesty I really didn't have an opinion on Terri's case. Why?
Because MOST ALL info is SECOND-HAND. Then becomes hearsay and so
on.
And, in all honesty, I can SOMEWHAT "see" where W is coming
from but don't fully agree.
In cases like Terri's ... onlookers
(The nation, the world, the media) will tell OTHERS what is RIGHT or MORAL
or JUST. While half or even 85% may not be FACTUAL. Any
missing pieces to a story makes it less credible or
true.
I agree that we are not getting the whole story in
Terri's case. This is how I look at it:
- Polls have shown most able body people in good health say they would not
want to be kept alive by artificial means or hooked up to machines.
- When an accident happens and a persons wishes are not known, everything
is done to keep them alive. They are taken to a trauma center and put on
machines if needed.
- When a person is actually in a position where they are being kept
alive by artificial means or hooked up to machines, and they are able to
express their wishes, after an initial state of depression many (maybe most)
decide they want to continue living.
- People generally don't chose to starve to death.
So even if she
might have made a comment about not wanting to live "in a condition like this"
sometime before it actually happened to her, since she didn't have her wishes
in writing, she might very well have chosen to remain living.
I came
across this article on a "progressive" web site for those who think it's only
the "religious nuts" making a big deal of this case. "Terri Schiavo: A Cause
for the Left?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0328-25.htm
|
