MaxedOutMama
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Just Asking
I want to ask you to read two posts which emerged from two different people's consciences. Mamacita has written a moving and courageous story about her father and how his life ended. Goldie has written a story about being in the hospital in Russia with her young son. Please also read this nurse's account of a woman who was denied food and water because she was "failing", and what happened as she begged for it (unless you have already). This took place where Terri is now dying.
On an issue of life, whether of people like Terri Schiavo or of people like those dying needlessly in Darfur, it is necessary that those who have the freedom to speak do speak. We must speak our consciences and our experiences. We must share our small bits of knowledge and form a conception of reality, and then we must agree on what is right based on that reality. We have the responsibility to do that because we live in a democracy and because our constitution guarantees us these rights in order that we can ensure the rights of others, and thus our own.
One of my brothers called me today. We had argued about the Schiavo case, and I had warned him to go back and click the links. I told him he was reading severe misstatements in the media. He did. He called me today to tell me that starving her was terribly wrongl. He also said he was very thankful to all the bloggers, because he would never have known the real issues if it were not for the bloggers. He has now read a lot of testimony and original sources. His opinion has changed.
Neither he nor I are addled "life at all costs" religious maniacs. I am a "never again" historical maniac. I don't like mass murder and I won't participate in it. And in agreeing to society's right to decide for individuals that life is not life and thus not worthy of water and food, I would be agreeing to mass murder. A high proportion of severely impaired people end up as wards of the state. Surely in Florida their numbers will shortly be diminishing in a fashion approved by "ethicists" such as Singer.
I am perfectly willing to starve myself to death under certain circumstances, although I am not willing to die of thirst. I am unwilling to starve someone else to death against their will, and I am unwilling to assume without proof that their preference would be to die of thirst or hunger.
For you who disagree, please ask yourself the following questions. When food and water are considered deniable medical treatments and nursing homes become places where those too disabled to physically escape are subjected to death by thirst (even while begging pitifully), what type of nurses do you think will work there? And what type of treatment do you expect should you ever find yourself in one, even if you are one of those given water, food and other medical treatment?
Think it over. This is your nation. Oh - one last question. Would you have fed the old lady as the nurses did? Or would you have decided not to? And if you refuse to answer this question, or get angry at me for asking it, what right do you have to put others in this position?
On an issue of life, whether of people like Terri Schiavo or of people like those dying needlessly in Darfur, it is necessary that those who have the freedom to speak do speak. We must speak our consciences and our experiences. We must share our small bits of knowledge and form a conception of reality, and then we must agree on what is right based on that reality. We have the responsibility to do that because we live in a democracy and because our constitution guarantees us these rights in order that we can ensure the rights of others, and thus our own.
One of my brothers called me today. We had argued about the Schiavo case, and I had warned him to go back and click the links. I told him he was reading severe misstatements in the media. He did. He called me today to tell me that starving her was terribly wrongl. He also said he was very thankful to all the bloggers, because he would never have known the real issues if it were not for the bloggers. He has now read a lot of testimony and original sources. His opinion has changed.
Neither he nor I are addled "life at all costs" religious maniacs. I am a "never again" historical maniac. I don't like mass murder and I won't participate in it. And in agreeing to society's right to decide for individuals that life is not life and thus not worthy of water and food, I would be agreeing to mass murder. A high proportion of severely impaired people end up as wards of the state. Surely in Florida their numbers will shortly be diminishing in a fashion approved by "ethicists" such as Singer.
I am perfectly willing to starve myself to death under certain circumstances, although I am not willing to die of thirst. I am unwilling to starve someone else to death against their will, and I am unwilling to assume without proof that their preference would be to die of thirst or hunger.
For you who disagree, please ask yourself the following questions. When food and water are considered deniable medical treatments and nursing homes become places where those too disabled to physically escape are subjected to death by thirst (even while begging pitifully), what type of nurses do you think will work there? And what type of treatment do you expect should you ever find yourself in one, even if you are one of those given water, food and other medical treatment?
Think it over. This is your nation. Oh - one last question. Would you have fed the old lady as the nurses did? Or would you have decided not to? And if you refuse to answer this question, or get angry at me for asking it, what right do you have to put others in this position?
