MaxedOutMama
Friday, February 25, 2005
Yes, It Does Make A Difference
Yes, those who are stubbornly insisting upon reality in Terri's case do make a difference. Certain things can only be done in the dark. Certain things don't survive the light of day.
At Hyscience, a columnist who has changed his mind about Terri's case and itemizes his reasons for doubt:
Understand that questioning the legality of the proceedings and justice of what is occurring in Terri's case doesn't mean that you don't support the right of an individual to make his or her own decisions as to what medical treatment should be acceptable. You have to claim the right to free speech in our society. You have to make the effort to document your wishes or name your representative in the case of your incapacity. Doing so protects you and your family.
But to attempt to make this decision for other people on the basis of your fears or your wishes denigrates the rights of the individual. If we permit our society to assume that every disabled person who can't speak for themself would choose to die of thirst and hunger, we are not living in the real world. There are so many financial and human interests that exert pressures in favor of not spending money to support the lives of the helpless that the official presumption should be otherwise, and especially so if there are family members who say that this was not the intent of the individual.
You can find the latest news at BlogsforTerri. Read the perspective of Sigmund, Carl and Alfred. Again, do as your conscience and beliefs require. If you consent to this, consent willingly and knowingly. If you dissent to the laws being applied in such a way, then dissent loudly and openly. We live in a democracy with the right of free speech. There are corresponding moral responsibilities.
At Hyscience, a columnist who has changed his mind about Terri's case and itemizes his reasons for doubt:
Detail 3: The Schindlers think their daughter could benefit from physical therapy and might someday swallow on her own, but her husband, as her legal guardian, reportedly will not allow it. Which leads to an equally uncomfortable question: If Schiavo merely required spoon feeding instead of tube feeding, would anyone seriously be arguing to withhold food and water? Does not every human, no matter how incapacitated, deserve sustenance?There is no "reportedly" about the fact that Michael Schiavo went to court to block the Schindler's efforts to see if therapy could teach Terri to swallow again. His reason? It was too dangerous - she might choke. The court ruled for Michael.
Understand that questioning the legality of the proceedings and justice of what is occurring in Terri's case doesn't mean that you don't support the right of an individual to make his or her own decisions as to what medical treatment should be acceptable. You have to claim the right to free speech in our society. You have to make the effort to document your wishes or name your representative in the case of your incapacity. Doing so protects you and your family.
But to attempt to make this decision for other people on the basis of your fears or your wishes denigrates the rights of the individual. If we permit our society to assume that every disabled person who can't speak for themself would choose to die of thirst and hunger, we are not living in the real world. There are so many financial and human interests that exert pressures in favor of not spending money to support the lives of the helpless that the official presumption should be otherwise, and especially so if there are family members who say that this was not the intent of the individual.
You can find the latest news at BlogsforTerri. Read the perspective of Sigmund, Carl and Alfred. Again, do as your conscience and beliefs require. If you consent to this, consent willingly and knowingly. If you dissent to the laws being applied in such a way, then dissent loudly and openly. We live in a democracy with the right of free speech. There are corresponding moral responsibilities.
