Jeb Bush: Pro-life or pro-vegetable
Jeb forces feeding tube back in
Why? Is this just to appease those pro-lifers that think the heart is still the seat of the soul? I know a lot of thoughtful, pro-life people who would think this is stupid.
Granted there is a conflict between the parents and the husband, but from what I've read Bush is taking a pro-life position on this, not a parental rights position.
The really sad thing is that even if her husband does get the go ahead to remove the tube, the starving process will probably ruin the organs for further use. Of course, actively euthanizing a vegetable and using the organs to save living, thinking people is someone immoral.
It's a mad, mad, mad world!
Why? Is this just to appease those pro-lifers that think the heart is still the seat of the soul? I know a lot of thoughtful, pro-life people who would think this is stupid.
Granted there is a conflict between the parents and the husband, but from what I've read Bush is taking a pro-life position on this, not a parental rights position.
The really sad thing is that even if her husband does get the go ahead to remove the tube, the starving process will probably ruin the organs for further use. Of course, actively euthanizing a vegetable and using the organs to save living, thinking people is someone immoral.
It's a mad, mad, mad world!
Comments
My understadning is that Schiavo did not have a DNR or "no heroic measures" order. Her husband, who has long since moved on with his life, wants to take out the tube....the parents don't.
Morally, I think the husband should have deferred to the parents. Legally, he probably still has the right (and should have the right) to make the decision. I suppose the bill passed changes that in a very narrow situation....particularly when a family member challenges the removal of a tube. The bill passed was VERY narrowly defined.
Why? Is this just to appease those pro-lifers that think the heart is still the seat of the soul?
That's a bit intellectully dishonest. There's no evidence this was politcally motivated.
Overall, I disagree with the husband's choice but I think that legally it probably should be his in this case.
"We are just ecstatic," Bob Schindler said after Bush told him he would issue the order that will keep his daughter alive. "It's restored my belief in God."
That's an idiotic statement. Anyone whose belief in god hinges on Bush making some order is an idiot.
During a two-hour debate in the House, several Democrats argued that the Constitution does not let the Legislature give the governor the power to overrule the courts.
"This bill so oversteps our role it ... turns democracy on its head," said Rep. Dan Gelber, a Democrat.
This is another stupid statement. The sentiment is correct though. I might agree that it turns "separation of powers" on its head but it does not turn "democracy" on its head. What an idiot.
What about her right to dignity? I'm a pro-lifer myself, but Schiavo's current state isn't life. Let her pass on. Do her parents really want to remember her this way? Let her go.
As for legal, screw legal, is Bush going foot the bill? Just because you can save someone's body from dying doesn't mean you are saving a life. Is Jeb going to explain to her why she has to be trapped in misery?
This is ridiculous, live with courage not fear. Think Jeb, obviously if it takes machines to keep her going, then God wants her to come home.
Her husband was awarded $750,000 in 1993 for her rehabilitation. (The total judgement was $1.3 million.) Instead of rehab, he put her in a nursing home, denied her treatment and put her on a DNR list. He then went to court to try to remove her feeding tube. Terri has no will. Should she die, her husband will inherit what is left of Terri's $750,000 medical fund.
If Michael Schiavo just wants to get on with his life all he needs to do is divorce her. He then, however, would have no further claim on the money.
"It's restored my belief in God."
Yes, he's looking out for the woman he's kept confined to a bed for 13 years. He's got nothing but the best planned for this lady.
Thanks, god!
Conservatives can be so hypocritical trumpeting small government, no Big Brother, etc.; but throw this philosophy out the door on all sorts of social matters, e.g., this case, abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, gambling, drugs, etc. Guess that's why I'm more of a Libertarian - I just want to be left the hell alone so long as I'm not hurting anyone else.
To wit, Bush bugger off!
Also it's based in law that the husband even has control over it. So you can't say the husband makes that call and then also the state has nothing to do with it. It's the state that gave him the call in the first place.
That's an idiotic statement. Anyone whose belief in god hinges on Bush making some order is an idiot.
Go scott go!!!!
by the way has anyone seen THIS!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/op...partner=GOOGLE
And from another site, quoting him : "On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."
So elections don't matter, because God put Bush in the White House... Of course! Now it all makes sense.
Moving on to a legal/government aspect...can the legislature really just reauthorize the governor to overturn legal decisions?
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Jeb forces feeding tube back in
Why? Is this just to appease those pro-lifers that think the heart is still the seat of the soul? I know a lot of thoughtful, pro-life people who would think this is stupid.
Granted there is a conflict between the parents and the husband, but from what I've read Bush is taking a pro-life position on this, not a parental rights position.
The really sad thing is that even if her husband does get the go ahead to remove the tube, the starving process will probably ruin the organs for further use. Of course, actively euthanizing a vegetable and using the organs to save living, thinking people is someone immoral.
It's a mad, mad, mad world!
Uh oh. Here we go again. Terri appears to be enjoying her life. So she can't hold a job or do many of the things you or I can do. Does this mean shes not worthy of life? What if someone made that judgement call for you? You can't water ski anymore, so your life is no longer worth living.
Originally posted by Naderfan
If God wants her to live, He'll find a way aside from tubes and the actions of the Florida Government.
I'm most definately not going to go into biblical defense mode again. Sufficient to say that I feel we have an obligation to help other people.
Michael Schiavo doesn't care about her, he just wants her dead so he can re-marry but doesn't want to look bad by getting a divorce. Buddy, just get a divorce and leave Terri alone.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Terri Schindler-Schiavo sustained brain damage in 1990 which was supposed to have left her in a vegetative state. But videos avaiable on this page show that's not true.
I watched a few of the videos and I didn't find them very compelling. Without knowing how often she opens her eyes wide I couldn't say whether that was a response or simply akin to when you tell a dog to sit over and over until the dog happens to sit while your saying it. One of the clips descriptions indicates that the doctor later testified that she is totally unresponsive so unless he is in the conspiracy with the husband I have no reason to doubt his judgement.
I must admit that the news reports I was privy to made no mention that the parents were actually arguing that she wasn't in a vegetative state. That's a completely different argument. I know, I know... the liberal media must be to blame.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
Uh oh. Here we go again. Terri appears to be enjoying her life. So she can't hold a job or do many of the things you or I can do. Does this mean shes not worthy of life? What if someone made that judgement call for you? You can't water ski anymore, so your life is no longer worth living.
dude, she can't FEED herself. not water-ski... talk about using apples to debate the relative merits of oranges. sheesh.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's a bit intellectully dishonest. There's no evidence this was politcally motivated.
Intellectually dishonest? It's a friggin question not a statement. And how exactly does one conclude something is politically motivated? Could you name one thing Clinton or Gore did which wasn't politcally motivated? My criteria for judging something to be purely politically motivated is when it flies in the face of reason. Given the info in the article (that she is a vegetable) there is no rational reason to keep her/it alive.
The argument that she is not actually a vegetable is a different argument. The evidence supporting this side seems weak, but I'll concede that Bush is ignorant enough of medical science to truly believe she is coherant and, therefore, not acting out of political motivation.
I agree that it is a difficult situation when the parents and the spouse disagree. I'm extremely close to my parents, but I think my wife should have final say in such a situation.
I think the solution (removing the feeding tube) is a ridiculous compromise on ethics. If she's truly a vegetable, why waste the organs? If she has some vestige of cognition left, even if it is the equivalent of a reptile, why starve her to death? I wouldn't starve a lizard to death. Not because I champion lizard rights, but it's not defensible to make anything suffer intentionally.
There's good reason to suspect that the husband has monetary motivations of his own rather than the best interests of his wife. So, if the parents have similar suspicions, they are justified in blocking the actions of their son-in-law, pending further investigation, negotiation, testimony. They are next of kin, and while typically a spouse comes first in these considerations, felial/parental rights also have a large stake -- and depending on the circumstance their wishes might take precedence in any given case.
Whatever else Bush's political stripe might be, if his intervention gives the parents, the husband and the courts reason to pause, that isn't a bad thing.
We can't really say anything about the case, without a lot more information than what we're likely to glean in the next couple of days worth of media whoring.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
Uh oh. Here we go again. Terri appears to be enjoying her life. So she can't hold a job or do many of the things you or I can do.
Uhm, I know it's hard to swallow - but if she is indeed in a vegetative state there is no "she" anymore (as a person). There is a body, but neither a functional brain nor a mind. People don't come back from that state.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that PVS mean that only the brain stem was still working, doing only enough to keep the body alive. If that is the case, how can we call a responsive patient PVS?
This is a good reminder to get off my ass and get that living will made up PRONTO.