A view that reflects the few...

Monday, March 28, 2005

TJandANGELA said:

Hey dramaKing... regarding your post on my blog...

I agree that if a P.O.A. is not assigned than the next of kin (a.k.a. a spouse then parents) should be allowed to give instructions written in a LIVING WILL...

If there is no living will I believe that there should be a court hearing on behalf of the disabled person.

If there is found to be sufficient evidence that the person would want to be disconnected from life-sustaining services than that request should be honored... but if there is reasonable doubt that the disabled person's wishes are undecided or more on the side of life - than as President Bush said "It is better to er on the side of life"

Here is the reasonable doubt as it relates to Terri:

1. When she was admitted into the hospital there is sworn testimony from doctors that she had strangulation injuries along with what appears to be a heart-related colapse which prevented oxygen from reaching her brain... AND

2. There is sworn testimony from one of her closest friends that her & Michael had fought over how much she had spent at the hair salon the night before she colapsed...

3. She DID NOT have a living will

4. Her friends say that she made references to wanting brain-damamged people to have the right to live when a similar case was happening in 1976.

5. Michael stands on the fact that Terri commented on "Life-Support" regarding their grandmother who had an actual life-sustaining system hooked up to her.

6. Michael stands to inherit even more money after Terri passes.

7. Terri's parents have offered to take care of her - Michael wont have it.

8. Someone offered to pay Michael 10,000,000 to leave her alone - He still would not accept.

9. If he truly loved her he would not have started a new family with another woman - remember that line "In sickness and in health"?

10. Michael denied Terri any rehabilitation & pocketed most of the 1.4 million he was awarded for HER CARE. I wonder why Michael who loves his wife SO MUCH would deny her the possibility of rehabilitation... hmmmmm.

11. Terri is NOT on life support - all she needs is to be fed a little differently ... walk into any hospital and ask them to show you a patient on life support... I will guarantee that you will see a lot more attached to the person than a feeding tube.

Plus who are we to say that sitting in a bed & making noises is not a good life? She gets to spend countless hours with people who love & serve her - plus I am sure her mind is not on what is going on outside her hospice room.

This reminds me so much of the abortion advocates argument -

"I know that baby would not want to be brought up in that poor & broken family - let it die... it will be happier that way"

We are NOT God & if you reflect on your life you will see that suffering creates endurance & character... and if we start trying to judge what suffering is allowed in peoples lives compared to our own standards... than we are missing the bigger picture of why the suffering was created in the first place.

------------------------------------
dramaKing responds:

Hi TJandANGELA, thanks for responding to my post. A little debate is always healthy. Just for the record, like 5 seconds AFTER I posted on your blog, I read the plight of your grandfather and felt like a total ass (not for my ideas, but for the way I expressed them... for sounding bit cold, I'm sorry).

OK, on to Terri. I totally agree with the first part of your comment, about how things should be dealt with in an ideal situation. Not much to say here.

I think that in principle "It is better to err on the side of life"... but you just cannot apply this to every situation. How do you know the person is not in anguish? Being alive is not necessarily always better than not being alive.

Ok, about the reasonable doubt. I think that much of the information you presented in your comment came from the internet (which is NOT always the best place to get your facts). I'm not explicitly calling all of those sworn statements lies, I'm just saying that when you read a web site called "Save Terri Shiavo", you can't expect to get completely objective facts (I've probably been fed info by the left-wing media, for all I know). As we've |seen on the news, people are very capable of doing irrational things for this woman (like death threats and such). Lying doesn't seem too far fetched. But again, I cannot say with any certainty that these people are lying... or that they're telling the truth, for that matter. And I think you cannot be certain either. Therefore, I feel these arguments are not valid.

This goes for her being mistreated by her husband, her husband getting rich on her death, his being offered tons of money, him denying her rehab, his reasons for re-marrying, ... I see you've read many negatives things about him. I've read many positive things. We can argue about his character for ages. The point is that neither of us knows him and therefore we cannot pass any fair judgment on him.

I understand she is not on life support. But this is still artificially prolonging her life. And about "who are we to say that sitting in a bed & making noises is not a good life?"... well, I don't know, this is just subjective, but being stuck inside your body without being able to communicate seems like the real agonizing torture here (supposing that's the case, which it most likely is not). "I am sure her mind is not on what is going on outside her hospice room"... after 15 years, I think that she's pretty much sick of that room to the point of clinical insanity... but then again, that's just my opinion.

Another thing that is irrational is that everybody acts as if a perfectly normal human being was being put to a torturously slow and agonizing death. I really do not think this is the case. This woman has not been aware of her surroundings for years. She cannot feel like we do. This is not a good argument, and it only prays on falsely placed compassion.

I'll level with you, if I were her husband, I'd just let her parents take care of her. It would have saved me a lot of pain and money. Still, he has fought them every step of the way for at least 8 years. This could be attributed to two things: 1) He wants her dead because he has a new family and, supposedly, has lots of money to earn (that will probably go to legal and medical bills)... 2) Seeing the woman he fell in love with in such a pathetic state hurts him too much. Which is true? I don't think we'll ever completely know. And, in all honesty, we shouldn't. God is the one who passes final judgment on people, not us.

"We are NOT God... and if we start trying to judge what suffering is allowed in peoples lives compared to our own standards... than we are missing the bigger picture of why the suffering was created in the first place."

You know, this is a good point. We're not God and it's not always fair to impose our own judgments about pain and suffering on other people. That's why her family must make this decision; they knew her best. What happens when a family doesn't agree? You go to court. What happens when you don't agree with the court's ruling? This is a toughie. I'm not sure what you should do. I just know you shouldn't let a bunch of political grandstanders take advantage of your child for their own private gain.

Oh, and for the record, my veiw is not necessarily the few. Most Americans believe her husband and think Terri should be let go, peacefully.

Where did I get this info? Here, on ABC News. Is it obejctive? Well, I think so. But again, "so say I".

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home