Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

obtuse wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

And it's twin, mind your own business.
Might as well call in XYZ, this works on the gay issue too.
Call the pot folks too.

Speaking of which, can I take humor in the fact that many of these people are the ones who complain about redefining marriage?

Not really, they have their opposite numbers on the 'other side' that also try and impose their moral codes on others.

Oh I take humor in those too.

obtuse wrote:

gradient wrote:

obtuse wrote:

The AMA has worked it out that feeding tubes and whatnot count as medical care that can ethically be withdrawn.  And moreover, the choice to continue this sort of situation should be up to the husband, even if you don't agree with that choice.

Medical care can be ethically withdrawn?

Are you suggesting that is it completely moral to kill someone simply because they require a feeding tube?

Yes, if that is the person's wish.

but is it her wish?

You have no knowledge that it is in fact Terry's wish. This is the whole intent of living wills.
If that were her wish then certainly I could see removing her feeding tube. However, what if its merely the husbands wish because he's tired of the aggravation?

Further, the guy has gone on. Has a new gf and child with said gf. To what extent is he even her husband any more? He certainly has no problem assuming a new life, creating a new family, getting a new gf despite any marital vows. Which is fine. He should get on with his life. Then why is he clinging to this notion that he has to see to it that she is killed? Just divorce her and let the family deal with it. If he can move on to another life he can certainly dissolve himself of carrying out his wifes so called wishes which she never uttered to anyone else and conveniently left no record of. Was it his wifes wish that he get a gf and have another kid? Of course not, yet he absolved himself of staying true to marriage vows which no longer applied. Why then does he HAVE to kill Terri?

everlong205 wrote:

that's a crock. You don't know what Terris' wishes were. There is no proof that the husband is acting out of some notion of love for Terri as opposed to a desire to save his own ass and kill off his wife who is a burden to him. So, sorry it is the states business becuase THERE IS NO LVING WILL. And as there isn't we have to look at the parties involved. One has moved on with his life, gotten a new gf and a new family and one wants to take care of the daughter. Why doesn't the husband simply renounce his rights and leave it to the family just as he moved on with his life and got a new family?

By not renouncing his rights and by trying to not leave it to her relatives, I think he's doing a lot to prove that is what she wanted and that he actually cares about doing what she wanted.

everlong205 wrote:

matt wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

that's a crock. You don't know what Terris' wishes were. There is no proof that the husband is acting out of some notion of love for Terri as opposed to a desire to save his own ass and kill off his wife who is a burden to him. So, sorry it is the states business becuase THERE IS NO LVING WILL. And as there isn't we have to look at the parties involved. One has moved on with his life, gotten a new gf and a new family and one wants to take care of the daughter. Why doesn't the husband simply renounce his rights and leave it to the family just as he moved on with his life and got a new family?

By not renouncing his rights and by trying to not leave it to her relatives, I think he's doing a lot to prove that is what she wanted and that he actually cares about doing what she wanted.

and yet  hes had no problem getting another family. Was that within the bounds of their marriage or is he pretty much movnig on and starting over? new job, new gf, new kids, new house. And yet he just HAS to make sure she dies. I don't in fact buy that there was ever that conversation, but to what extent is he still maintaining a pretense of being a husband to her? If he isn't then why is he so invested in making sure to end her life? Why not let those who still consider themselves her family make the choice considering he has removed himself in all other ways from any semblence of marriage to Terri. He's moved on. Fine. So stop fighting to kill this woman who is no longer his wife. Let her family deal with it. The family of which he is NO longer part of.
Then why can't he simply say, since Im no longer invested in this relationship, have gotten a new family, a new job, a new life, and no longer want to be part of this situation, I wipe my hands of the matter, I will divorce her and leave the decision making to people who still have an interest in her well being. And extricate himself from the situation.

Because he probably feels a duty to what was once his wife and his love.
You do understand that what made her who she was, her mind, is dead. You do grasp that don't you?
She is just a shell, nobody is home, the lightbulb in the attic is burned out.
Brain dead.
No thinky.
She is freeking dead and has been for years.
Her body should have been in a hole  and would have if her parents had one tiny ounce of maturity and dealt with the reality of her death.
She is dead.
One more time for the slow folks in the audience.
DEAD.

Farmerkev wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

matt wrote:

By not renouncing his rights and by trying to not leave it to her relatives, I think he's doing a lot to prove that is what she wanted and that he actually cares about doing what she wanted.

and yet  hes had no problem getting another family. Was that within the bounds of their marriage or is he pretty much movnig on and starting over? new job, new gf, new kids, new house. And yet he just HAS to make sure she dies. I don't in fact buy that there was ever that conversation, but to what extent is he still maintaining a pretense of being a husband to her? If he isn't then why is he so invested in making sure to end her life? Why not let those who still consider themselves her family make the choice considering he has removed himself in all other ways from any semblence of marriage to Terri. He's moved on. Fine. So stop fighting to kill this woman who is no longer his wife. Let her family deal with it. The family of which he is NO longer part of.
Then why can't he simply say, since Im no longer invested in this relationship, have gotten a new family, a new job, a new life, and no longer want to be part of this situation, I wipe my hands of the matter, I will divorce her and leave the decision making to people who still have an interest in her well being. And extricate himself from the situation.

Because he probably feels a duty to what was once his wife and his love.
You do understand that what made her who she was, her mind, is dead. You do grasp that don't you?
She is just a shell, nobody is home, the lightbulb in the attic is burned out.
Brain dead.
No thinky.
She is freeking dead and has been for years.
Her body should have been in a hole  and would have if her parents had one tiny ounce of maturity and dealt with the reality of her death.
She is dead.
One more time for the slow folks in the audience.
DEAD.

Except she is NOT DEAD. Her body should have been in a hole is merely your opinion. Chris Reeve should have been dead when he was thrown from his horse. People in comas who come out after 15 years should have been dead, but were allowed to languish for 15 years till they came out of them, thus NOT DEAD after all, despite the impatience of some people to pull the plug on them as quick as possible. And if Terri's wishes were that all life support should be removed, and this was stated explicitly, and not merely conjured by a guy who really wants out of the situation, then that would be her decision and should be respected. That however is not the case.
The fact that she may have held such an opinion is hearsay, told by someone who has everything to gain by having her utter those exact words. ANd who has left her and gone on to a new life. New life, new responsibilities and new family. Why doesn't he stop making decisions for a woman who he is no longer invovled with? If he's so adamant about getting on with his life why not stop fighting so hard to see her dead? He has a family now that doesnt involve Terri. Let him make the decisions for his children and his gf, not the person he left behind.

Terri's parents are the ones who are her family now. This husband has long since moved on to greener pastures.

What you don't seem to get it is that if he wanted her out of his situation, it wouldn't be hard for him to give up rights.

He's fighting for them to let her go, and it seems obvious to me that he's doing it for a reason. It also seems obvious to me that the reason is not what you're claiming, since there would be easier ways to accomplish what you're claiming.

The biggest probability I see is that he loves her enough to fight so that she gets what he believes is right.

matt wrote:

What you don't seem to get it is that if he wanted her out of his situation, it wouldn't be hard for him to give up rights.

He's fighting for them to let her go, and it seems obvious to me that he's doing it for a reason. It also seems obvious to me that the reason is not what you're claiming, since there would be easier ways to accomplish what you're claiming.

The biggest probability I see is that he loves her enough to fight so that she gets what he believes is right.

Right... what HE BELIEVES IS RIGHT. Exactly. Not what she believes. What he believes

everlong205 wrote:

matt wrote:

What you don't seem to get it is that if he wanted her out of his situation, it wouldn't be hard for him to give up rights.

He's fighting for them to let her go, and it seems obvious to me that he's doing it for a reason. It also seems obvious to me that the reason is not what you're claiming, since there would be easier ways to accomplish what you're claiming.

The biggest probability I see is that he loves her enough to fight so that she gets what he believes is right.

Right... what HE BELIEVES IS RIGHT. Exactly. Not what she believes. What he believes

Ummm, you do know that they are married, right?  Spouses, except in extreme cases, are the ones who get to say what their spouse would have wanted.  His actions since the event do not constitute anything that changes that fact.

everlong205 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

gradient wrote:

Medical care can be ethically withdrawn?

Are you suggesting that is it completely moral to kill someone simply because they require a feeding tube?

Killing someone means to take a life. In this case, a life is being sustained by artificial means. At the risk of sounding like Hobbes and/or Locke, ending the life of an ordinary living person is to interfere with nature, while withdrawing those means from a brain-dead person is letting nature take its course.

If you left a baby on the ground before it learned how to fend for itself it would die. Likewise if you left a parapalegic who was fully cognizant out and didn't feed him he would die at about the same rate as would Terri Shiavo. If someone tied someone up so they couldnt' move and then didn't feed them they would similarly die. Life isn't being maintained by artificial means. She is being fed. People need food to survive. Even the healthiest person would not survive were they not fed for a long period of time. HOw is that an artificial means? Its the difference of using a tube or utensils to feed someone nutrients.

Paraplegics can chew and swallow, and don't need a tube.  Anyway, the official definition has been provided and it shows what the difference is.

everlong205 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I find it very upsetting to see an ugly, anguished family drama like this played out not only in public, but in the halls of government. Everyone concerned, especially the parents, will be traumatized for life.

I just don't understand why he, who is no longer in her life, or in the parents life is making such an issue out of making sure his "wife" dies. When in all other regards he is no longer in the picture.

You have a strange mindset.

obtuse wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I find it very upsetting to see an ugly, anguished family drama like this played out not only in public, but in the halls of government. Everyone concerned, especially the parents, will be traumatized for life.

I just don't understand why he, who is no longer in her life, or in the parents life is making such an issue out of making sure his "wife" dies. When in all other regards he is no longer in the picture.

You have a strange mindset.

Ah ... today you are a man, my son.

(about fcuking time, too)

everlong205 wrote:

obtuse wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

Right... what HE BELIEVES IS RIGHT. Exactly. Not what she believes. What he believes

Ummm, you do know that they are married, right?  Spouses, except in extreme cases, are the ones who get to say what their spouse would have wanted.  His actions since the event do not constitute anything that changes that fact.

They WERE married. He now has a new gf, a new house, a new job, new kids, a new life. So let him put this behind him and let her family deal with the issue. He's put everything else behind him regarding Terri ,hasn't he? He has marriage vows, and yet he has a new family and new gf and new children. Is that a person who is still in a marriage? Of course not. The marriage is over. He is gone. Consdiering that, why doesn't he renounce his claim on her death at this point?
And I'm not saying he's wrong to move on. It must be hellish to be stuck in a situation like that. But he's started over. Let her family who is still there deal with these matters. He is not involved anymore.

So future events can counteract the present?  Mr Schiavo wanted the removal of care well before his "new life".  Why does that invalidate his past ability to act as her medical power of attorney?

everlong205 wrote:

obtuse wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

If you left a baby on the ground before it learned how to fend for itself it would die. Likewise if you left a parapalegic who was fully cognizant out and didn't feed him he would die at about the same rate as would Terri Shiavo. If someone tied someone up so they couldnt' move and then didn't feed them they would similarly die. Life isn't being maintained by artificial means. She is being fed. People need food to survive. Even the healthiest person would not survive were they not fed for a long period of time. HOw is that an artificial means? Its the difference of using a tube or utensils to feed someone nutrients.

Paraplegics can chew and swallow, and don't need a tube.  Anyway, the official definition has been provided and it shows what the difference is.

Its not an issue of how someone consumes food. Its an issue of not getting food that causes death. If a parapalegic couldn't chew or swallow but were still fed nutrients he could still live. Whereas a perfectly healthy person who goes on a hunger strike can starve themselves to death, even though they can chew and swallow and all those other nifty things.

Again, if you want to actually debate instead of being a smurf, you could look at the definition from the AMA I provided and answer that.  Unsurprisingly you fail to do that.

And all of this ignores the basic point that, by the standards the legal system uses to figure these things out, terri would have wanted the feeding tubes removed in this situation.