Terry Shiavo Poll

[dazzleman]

I have stated my views earlier.

I don't think extraordinary means should be used to keep people alive when they are functioning in a vegetative state, and there is no hope of reversal of that state.

However, I don't consider feeding somebody to be extraordinary means.  We have no right to starve her to death.  I would turn off respirators, discontinue medication if it were being used to keep her alive, etc., but cutting off food is in a different league.  That I would consider murder.

[dazzleman]

Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

So you'd just flat-out kill her, without even the pretense of calling the feeding tube extraordinary life support?

Unfortunately, our propensity to take life and death decisions into our own hands greatly exceeds our wisdom on how to handle these matters.

I also find it funny that people who are willing to flat-out kill Terry Schiavo would fight tooth and nail to prevent vicious murderers from receiving the death penalty.  Very strange political philosophy, this thing we call "liberalism."

[dazzleman]

Terri Schiavo is not on life support.  She's only on a feeding tube, as I understand it, and I don't consider feeding somebody to be extraordinary means of life support.  We all eat.

If she had a living will that said she didn't want a feeding tube, then it would be different.  But she doesn't.

If she were in a position to request that the feeding tube be removed, then it would be a different situation.  But she isn't.

I don't think any of us has the right to take it upon ourselves to take proactive measure to kill her, and removing the feeding tube is tantamount to that.

[dazzleman]

Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

So you'd just flat-out kill her, without even the pretense of calling the feeding tube extraordinary life support?

Unfortunately, our propensity to take life and death decisions into our own hands greatly exceeds our wisdom on how to handle these matters.

I also find it funny that people who are willing to flat-out kill Terry Schiavo would fight tooth and nail to prevent vicious murderers from receiving the death penalty.  Very strange political philosophy, this thing we call "liberalism."

I think you totally misunderstood me, as usual.

Either way, I am pro-death penalty.

Ooops, guess your endless liberal stereotyping doesn't always work.

As usual?  In case you haven't noticed, I don't respond to your posts that often, because you seem to know a lot that isn't true, and it isn't worth my energy to argue with a closed mind.

I read your words again, and it still seems to me that you favor administering a lethal injection to Terry Schiavo over taking out her feeding tube.  I don't favor either option.  And your rude response to me didn't explain your position.  You simply used your usual arrogant posturing to say I was wrong, without pointing out exactly where.

As far my death penalty goes, I was making a general comment, not talking about your own politics.  I only know that you hate white southerners.  And it's perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned to talk about general liberal positions.  I don't think I have to make sure that every single liberal on God's green earth agrees with this position before I state it. 

The fact is that liberals in general favor killing Terri Schiavo, however you want to phrase it, and liberals in general are likely to oppose doing the same thing to vicious killers.  Your arrogant tone cannot obfuscate this basic fact.

[dazzleman]

I haven't voted but I will say that I would never want to live like that

Dave

Neither would I.  But does that mean we have the right to take active measures to kill her?  There are lots of people living in ways I wouldn't want to live, but I don't favor active measures to kill them.

I think there's a line between withholding extraordinary life support (which I have personally done), which is a passive way of allowing somebody to die without prolonging it more than necessary, and taking active measures to kill somebody.  I think that effectively starving a person to death, who is surviving without any life support other than food, is tantamount to taking active measures to kill her.

I think we have to be very careful about taking life decisions into our own hands.  As I said earlier, I could accept it if she were able to state a preference, but she is not.

She deserves to be made as comfortable as possible, and then let nature take its course.

[dazzleman]

I believe that the women deserves to live. It is not in the hand of doctors or judges to see who may live and who may die.

It's not an issue of whether she deserves to live.  She is not on life support, and I think it absolutely wrong to take active measures, such as denying food, to kill somebody who is surviving without life support.  So in that sense, she deserves to live, because she has lived without anything more than the rest of us need - food and water.