The issue is not Right to Die

The Issue is our Humanity

Published on March 21, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

Right now there is one big debate about Terry Schiavo, but it is the wrong debate.

The wrong debate is whether she should be allowed to die or not. And whether that is indeed her wishes, or just an expedient way for her husband Michael to get a divorce. And that debate has been beaten into the ground.

But the right debate is whether we have the right to inflict cruel and inhumane torture on one of our citizens whose only crime is her inability to speak for herself.

Starving Terry to death will ease many consciouses, but it is wrong. We would not do that to your dogs and cats, and Terry is arguably at a higher cognitive level than dogs and cats. Yet here we have a bunch of people on one side advocating doing exactly that. Why? What travesty has she done to you that you so hate her as to cause her such pain and distress?

Or are you just being dishonest with yourself? Do you believe in death with Dignity? Then put her to sleep. It is quick and painless, and far more humane.

Oh, but does 'killing' her cause your conscious to cringe? Are you yet lying to yourself? You mean you cant kill her? Then shut up and get out of the debate.

The debate may be on death with dignity versus a meaningless life. But the answers are either to put her to death, or to keep her alive. The answer is not starving her to death. Period.

For those advocating death with dignity, be honest with yourself. If you are going to argue it, then also demand she must be put to sleep.

Do not allow her a long, slow, painful death just because you are too chicken to do the right thing. That is beneath contempt and is not only immoral, but sick and deranged. Like pulling the legs off of frogs for your own amusement.

Comments (Page 1)

philomedy

on Mar 21, 2005

Good point. Since they removed the feeding tube I've been wondering why they're doing something that's going to take two weeks as opposed to a more immediate and painless solution.

Dr Guy

on Mar 21, 2005

Good point. Since they removed the feeding tube I've been wondering why they're doing something that's going to take two weeks as opposed to a more immediate and painless solution.

I think that both sides of the debate are being dishonest, but the 'right to die' group has a lot of explaining to do as there may be a right to die, but I dont think that gives us the right to torture her to achieve that end.

Caracarn

on Mar 21, 2005

In my opinion this should not have even gone to congress. Congress should not even care, don't get me wrong, they can care as people, but not as politicians. With social security and the war just to name a few I think we have bigger fish to fry. This should be a state issue AT THE MOST. This woman is as good as dead already, her brain is damaged beyond repair. There is more to life than blood through your veins and air in your lungs. I think if anyone, the husband should have more say than the parents, as they have probably discussed this issue at some point, most couples do. This woman is being kept "alive" by her parents instinctual greed alone. End rant.

Dr Guy

on Mar 21, 2005

And again you miss the point. This is not whether congress should have gotten involved, or even if she should be allowed to die or not. This is about starving a living sentient being to death. You may quibble about her brain activity, but some still exists. And we would not starve an animal to death as there are laws against that as well.

But we can starve a person to death? That is the travesty. If you want her dead, kill her, dont torture her.

Zoomba

on Mar 21, 2005

Part of the problem is how do we define when someone has gone beyond the point of no return? She's been in a vegetative state for well over a decade, she is alive only in the most technical definitoon (and even then only by a conservative definition of the word... she can't live without machines).

If we could get past that issue, which is what people are fighting over so much... we may be able to tackle the issue you're talking about, whether or not it's humane to kill her by starving or if we should give her an injection and end it quickly.

If it is decided that she is to be left to die, it should be quick and decisive... letting any creature slowly starve to death while everyone stands around and watches is torture, plain and simple. We condem other countries for such actions, we ourselves shouldn't even come close to considering it. If she is to die, let it be by injection that lasts a few minutes.

Dr Guy

on Mar 21, 2005

If it is decided that she is to be left to die, it should be quick and decisive... letting any creature slowly starve to death while everyone stands around and watches is torture, plain and simple. We condem other countries for such actions, we ourselves shouldn't even come close to considering it. If she is to die, let it be by injection that lasts a few minutes.

Exactly! Thank you for seeing the issue.

Moderateman

on Mar 21, 2005

simply put if we decided to starve a sick animal we owned we would be crucified by the public, with LIBERALS calling for our heads on a platter. but starve a human being no matter what state they are in and thats ok?

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 21, 2005

She's been in a vegetative state for well over a decade, she is alive only in the most technical definitoon (and even then only by a conservative definition of the word... she can't live without machines).

A feeding tube is not a "machine".

By your definition a newborn baby is equally expendable; they are entirely reliant on outside sources for nourishment. Please research the case a little more.

Dr Guy

on Mar 21, 2005

By your definition a newborn baby is equally expendable; they are entirely reliant on outside sources for nourishment. Please research the case a little more.

EXACTLY! Thank you for the short and sweet version of it.

Zoomba

on Mar 21, 2005

In this case it is an artificial prolongment of life, whereas with a baby it's the natural order and progression of things. If science had not progressed this far, she would have been dead a long long time ago. The baby would survive as long as it wasn't abandoned and it avoided disease or predators

I term life as the period of time from birth, to the point where the body can no longer sustain itself. Prior to and beyond that you're not dealing with a viable being... beyond that we use science to keep it going. We defeat the natural cycle of life.

And before you say it, no I don't consider surgery or other medical treatment cheating the system. There's a difference between repairing the body, and keeping it alive well past the point where it would have failed on its own.

Dr Guy

on Mar 21, 2005

I term life as the period of time from birth, to the point where the body can no longer sustain itself. Prior to and beyond that you're not dealing with a viable being... beyond that we use science to keep it going. We defeat the natural cycle of life.

First, this blog is not on the debate of the right to die. But I will allow you to argue that here as you are wrong. It is not science that is keeping her alive. Her body, like any living beings body requires sustenance. She is getting that and nothing more.

So by your definition, she still should be kept alive as it is the natural progression of life. No machines, just food and water.

Caracarn

on Mar 21, 2005

According to the "experts" the part of her brain that registers pain/starvation and the such is already gone. Only the instinct to avoid it remains. If she put her hand on a hot stove she would most likely pull it away due to instinct but not actually feel the pain and would be likely to put it right back on the stove again. So i guess the question is, is it still torture if you can't feel it and/or don't realize that it is even happening? I guess that is for you to decide.

They did say however that they will be putting her on painkillers anyway, but more for her parents sake than for hers as she will not even register the effects of said painkillers.

Caracarn

on Mar 21, 2005

Caracarn

on Mar 21, 2005

Edits: 1)sorry for double post, comp froze.
2) I got your meaning in your initial post, just had to say my 2 cents, it was just peeving me, sorry for going off topic.

bakerstreet

on Mar 21, 2005

" In this case it is an artificial prolongment of life, whereas with a baby it's the natural order and progression of things"

Then all the autistic and mentally handicapped kids who never moved, laughed, spoke, whatever, that I spoonfed as a volunteer in high school should die, too then, I suppose.

Or are people who gain their handicaps later in life not allowed the same rights as those who are born with them.

Maybe they aren't as cute and cuddly. I guess it is easier to shoot and old dog than it is to drown a puppy. Sickos...

"I term life as the period of time from birth, to the point where the body can no longer sustain itself. Prior to and beyond that you're not dealing with a viable being... beyond that we use science to keep it going. We defeat the natural cycle of life."

A spoon or a tube is not "science", thanks. Why are handicapped people who can't feed themselves any less viable than a newborn that can't feed itself? Don't for a moment say that it is because babies WILL be self-supporting someday, because I have known families who gave birth to kids with no hope of ever surviving on their own who didn't consider a nazi solution...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!