Spanky's Place

1 - Well, I agree, that basically people should be allowed to die by lethal injection if they so wish. And that would be preferrable, but unfortunately people like Kevorkian have been prosecuted for doing so.

Removing something that is artificially keeping you alive (and let's be honest, if your only nourishment comes through a tube and you cannot eat or chew on your own then you ARE being kept alive artificially) is not the same as pulling a trigger.

The fact that there is no conscious thought to tie her to her body means that she is not suffering. Experts have said so all over the place, and the only ones who say otherwise come from a deeply religious place. That's not bad, but to me, science wins out on this one.

There was a doctor/hospice worker on the news yesterday that has seen quite a few people die in this manner. Some of them were even conscious and were cognizant as it started, and because of the ways that the body shuts down and compensates, the people did not suffer. She said it's a very peaceful process.

Michael Schiavo is fighting for his wife's wishes. He has NOTHING at all to gain by this. He's been villified and has suffered more than any of us can imagine. Yet instead of walking away, he's persisted, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT TERRI WANTED.

I'm sorry that your views don't allow you to reconcile that.

-Grey

2 - I think, my friend, you may have misunderstood my point. I believe that Terri did not want to be kept alive like this, and that her husband is attempting to honor her wishes -which is something he should be commended for doing.

My objection to this whole thing is the manner in which she is being put to death. Slow starvation / dehydration is NOT a peaceful, painless way to go. While Terri may not be able to verbalize, or even demonstrate any form of cognition that her doctors / husband are able to recognize; this does not mean she cannot feel pain. Starvation is painful. Dehydration is painful. If she is capable of feeling pain; then allowing her to die in this prolonged manner is reprehensible.

I believe the fact that you brought up Dr. Kevorkian means that on some subconcious level you also recognize that killing somebody by withholding food and water is simply wrong. If the courts are going to uphold her right to decide her own fate (which they have done by allowing this to proceed), then they have recognized that she is a human being and therefore has the same basic rights as you or I.

If her life is to be terminated (as she so wished), then it needs to be terminated in the most humane and painless way possible. We Americans regularly execute our most criminal elements; yet we recognize that torturing them to death is wrong. We are compassionate; we execute them using "lethal injection" -which is painless and quick.

Shouldn't we at least grant that same level of compassion to an innocent woman?
-Devin

3 - Hey Devin,

Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but I took "Starving a person to death is NOT humane; it is a coward's way." to mean that you were calling Michael Schiavo a coward. I thought you were against him on this, and so that's where I was coming from.

The reason I brought up Kevorkian is that he is the only case where any legal precident has been set, and they have called what he did illegal. So, unfortunately you cannot assist in the killing by doing something like a lethal injection. To me, I disagree with the government on that as well.

Trust me, if there WAS a choice between lethal injection and starvation, I would rather see the lethal injection surely. That doesn't mean we shouldn't allow Terri to die if removing the tube is the only means there is to allow that to happen.

Even though the starvation feels uncomfortable to me in general, I'm much more comfortable about it after reading about a lot of the science of it all. Even people that start this process while having a conscious connection to the world suffer very little. Certain endorphines are released that give a euphoric state to counteract what is shutting down.

Then taken into account that Terri Schiavo's brain cannot consiously connect anything that is going on, and I don't really have a problem with it at all. Basically, anything that made Terri Terri has long since left her. All that remains is a human husk that held her, that husk is what is dying away. And once that happens, Terri will be released to a much better place.

"If you're going to go through with it, then step up and do it right." I hope this was directed at the government, senate, congress and the Bush brothers. Because they are the ones that have done everything wrong in this case. They have tried every avenue to skirt our legal system, and to do so for politcal gains. People have their feeding tubes removed all the time, in fact we both know people that have made this painful decision. Government should keep it's nose OUT of this.

Anyway, I think you and I agree on this more than we think, we just may be focusing our energy at different targets of our dissatisfaction.

Take Care,
Grey

4 - "Starving a person to death is NOT humane; it is a coward's way." -meant for the courts that have determined that Mrs. Shiavo should die; it was not aimed at her husband. I think Michael Schiavo has done the best that he can given the terrible situation he is in.

"If you're going to go through with it, then step up and do it right." -again, directed at our legal system and the current state of politically motivated "handwringing for the press".

I think that a system that says it is ok to kill somebody by slow torture, but not ok to grant them a painless death (again, lethal injection) has some serious priority problems.

My biggest bitch here is that it seems nobody who has the authority to actually do something to ease her suffering has the balls to step forward. Well, that and what I think is a whole lot of "Hey! look at how much I appear to care" B.S. on the part of our elected officials.

Let's face it, killing somebody is wrong, it is a sin. However, if I am going to bring my theology into the argument; I cannot "pick and choose" the portions of my beliefs that happen to fit. While "Thou shalt not kill" (or "commit murder" -depending on which Biblical translation you choose to read) is important; it is not the most important. Jesus, when asked what was the most important commandment, answered: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matt 22:37-40)

I ask this question: How can we love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds, how can we love our neighbors (in this case Terri Schiavo); while torturing them to death? Loving and honoring God means we also need to care for and respect his creations. God gave us free will. God granted us the right to decide our own fate. Out of love, honor, and respect for God, we should honor Mrs. Schiavo's wishes. If we as a society are going to decide that it is ok to "end somebody's suffering" (which I personally have not yet been able to reconcile biblically -so I can only go by what she told her husband), we need to honest enough with ourselves to admit that this means we are going to kill them. Removing a feeding tube and allowing them to starve to death is not humane; it is torture. It is also an attempt to avoid responsibility for the person's ultimate death.

If Michael Schiavo were to humanely inject his wife with the same chemicals that the STATE uses to execute criminals; he would be charged criminal murder. Because the crime would have been commited with forethought, planning, and full knowledge of the result; he would most likely be charged with capital murder -which carries the death penalty in Florida. "...The death penalty is an authorized punishment for capital crimes designated by the Legislature..." (Florida State Constitution, Article I, Section 17). Which means Mr. Schiavo must turn to the STATE for help, and ask them to perform this terrible task.

And yet the STATE, instead of being compassionate, allows her to slowly starve to death.

The people who (aside from her parents and family) claim to care about her and want to save her life are no better. Sure, these folks make a whole lot of noise while waving their hands about on the floor of the House and Senate, and they pass resolutions (which they know are unconstitutional and will be ignored); but they don't do anything worthwhile. It they truly cared about her instead of looking good on camera and getting more votes, then they would show up at the hospice and re-insert her feeding tube. They would, if necessary, use force to save her.

But that won't look good on camera, and it won't win votes. So instead, they thump their chest and shout "I care" to the winds, because appearance, not accomplishments, is what counts in todays body politic, and it will get them re-elected.

So, to all the politicians trying to appear as if you really cared: shut the hell up and leave this poor family alone.

To the courts / doctors who have recognized her right to die, but don't want to have an "active" hand in her death: show some real compassion and step up.

I hope my stance on this is now a little more clear.
-Devin.

5 - BTW, there is an interesting thread going on over at Rob "Captain Oblivious" McDonagh's site: https://www.captainoblivious.com/members/rob_mcdonagh/home.nsf/d6plinks/ROBH-6AP53A
-Devin

6 - I agree 100%.........Below is another point of view on a different subject with a similar plot
-------------
Murderer Should Not Be Executed
Killer competent to accept death sentence?
4 psychiatrist to evaluate serial murderer who welcomes his execution
https://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3116604

**THIS MAN SHOULD NOT BE EXECUTED!!! THERE ARE TOO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS COMPETENCY!!!!

Since there are doubts about his competency, they should just assume he isn't......It's much easier this way.

Because of this question he shouldn't be executed!!!!

INSTEAD HE SHOULD BE "SCHIAVOED!!"

This incompetent man should have his food and water withheld, PERMANENTLY!!

Welcome to The NEW AMERICA!!
Otherwise known as The OLD GERMANY!!**
------------------------------------------
"The Right is Right" - https://therightisright.blogspot.com/

"Liberal Jackass Quote of the Day" - https://libbyquotes.blogspot.com/
----------------
"War is the continuation of Politics by other means" - Clauswitz
”Politics is the continuation of War by other means” - Pero

7 - Poison (can I call you by your first name?), I am honored you have graced my site with your comments. I check This Day in History almost every day.
-Devin

8 - Well Devin, that definitely clears things up, and like I said, we basically agree most of the way around. The only thing I have a problem with is that I don't equate letting nature take it's course to murder or even torture, given the science I referred to above.

The thing I don't understand, is why can't they shoot her up with a bunch of morphine or something to at least mitigate the pain? (if any truly does exist.) Seems to me that starts to make it much more humane.

Anyway, no matter what happens, everyone in the family loses here, and the government should be ashamed of itself all the way around.

-Grey

9 - Thank you for the kind words, Devin.......Yes you may call me Poison

If you enjoy my This Day in History Blog, I would recommend you check my others.

The Right is Right: https://therightisright.blogspot.com/

Liberal Jackass Quote of the Day: https://libbyquotes.blogspot.com/

Medal of Honor Recipients: https://medalofhonorrecipients.blogspot.com/

I've added your to my daily blog list, so I'll be around here more often.

10 - Yo, Spanky! I'm with you, sir (and thanks for the Trackback, by the way).

Given two choices, lethal injection or removal of a feeding tube, why is one considered acceptable while the other is illegal? The end result of both actions is that someone dies. The illegal lethal injection causes that death quickly and painlessly. The removal of the feeding tube, while it isn't causing any discomfort to a patient like Ms Schiavo (simply because there is no Ms Schiavo left to feel discomfort), certainly isn't quick and definitely causes more pain in those who care about the patient.

One is actively killing a person while the other is passively allowing the person to die. Same result, same intent. Ergo, morally identical. So why, for cryin' out loud, can't we opt for the more merciful option? Because the people in charge in our country (all parties included) are weak-minded moral cowards.

PS Don't blame the doctors, though - if they euthanised Ms Schiavo, they'd be arrested for murder. Most doctors tend to be pretty merciful people, but the level of self-sacrifice it would take to step up to that plate would be pretty extreme. Sainted martyrdom, to my mind, but martyrdom all the same. I blame the weanies who write the laws. And those of us who let them get away with it carry a share of the guilt as well. Lethal injection in this situation shouldn't be any more illegal than withholding nutrition.

11 - Point well taken about not blaming the doctors.
Thanks Rob.
-Devin.