Terry S.
I posted this in response to my friend Jason's blog.
___________________________
First, I am inclined to think that Brian is on the right track.
Second, I'm not sure, Jason, if all of the facts are straight. She isn't brain dead. She is responsive and is receiving NO extraordinary medical care, that is, she is in no way being kept alive by extraordinary means (i.e., not with a ventalator). A feeding tube is in no way medicinal and the reason she has that is because eating is too difficult. Her husband is a jackass who has another wife and family; he refuses to get her physical therapy despite insurance money available for such.
Third, if we allow Terry Schiavo to die because of her alleged lack of 'quality of living' how shall we limit ourselves to just her case? How are we defining 'quality of life'? At what point do we draw that line? When we depend on others for our well being? When we are incapable of caring for ouselves? I suggest that those who are making the case for her death are begging the question (and are unable to give a non-question begging account thereof) as to what 'quality of life' is.
Furthermore, shall we starve all other mental handicapped people? The answer I anticipate is a resounding NO. But why? What non-arbitrary reason could a proponent of Terry Shiavo's death give? Are there not hundreds of thousand, nay millions of people who are unable to feed themselves or even care for themselves? For about 13 months of his life, my 21 month-old was unable to feed himself or clothe himself or do much of anything for himself. Ought we to have done him in? My brother, after a motorcycle accident was kept alive by not only a feeding tube but also a ventalator. He has some brain damage. Ought we to have pulled the plugs on him? After all, there was a time when we thought he wouldn't make it. So, what non-arbitrary reason shall we give for not limiting ourselves to the Terry Shiavo case? I suggest there isn't one.
___________________________
First, I am inclined to think that Brian is on the right track.
Second, I'm not sure, Jason, if all of the facts are straight. She isn't brain dead. She is responsive and is receiving NO extraordinary medical care, that is, she is in no way being kept alive by extraordinary means (i.e., not with a ventalator). A feeding tube is in no way medicinal and the reason she has that is because eating is too difficult. Her husband is a jackass who has another wife and family; he refuses to get her physical therapy despite insurance money available for such.
Third, if we allow Terry Schiavo to die because of her alleged lack of 'quality of living' how shall we limit ourselves to just her case? How are we defining 'quality of life'? At what point do we draw that line? When we depend on others for our well being? When we are incapable of caring for ouselves? I suggest that those who are making the case for her death are begging the question (and are unable to give a non-question begging account thereof) as to what 'quality of life' is.
Furthermore, shall we starve all other mental handicapped people? The answer I anticipate is a resounding NO. But why? What non-arbitrary reason could a proponent of Terry Shiavo's death give? Are there not hundreds of thousand, nay millions of people who are unable to feed themselves or even care for themselves? For about 13 months of his life, my 21 month-old was unable to feed himself or clothe himself or do much of anything for himself. Ought we to have done him in? My brother, after a motorcycle accident was kept alive by not only a feeding tube but also a ventalator. He has some brain damage. Ought we to have pulled the plugs on him? After all, there was a time when we thought he wouldn't make it. So, what non-arbitrary reason shall we give for not limiting ourselves to the Terry Shiavo case? I suggest there isn't one.
posted by Josh at 8:34 PM
1 Comments:
Great thoughts, Joshua. And helpful ones, as I (and I assume others) continue to struggle and think through all that is happening in this case.
Post a Comment
<< Home