| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"wp123" |
| Date: |
29 Mar 2005 08:53:14 PM |
| Object: |
Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die? There are two possible: firstly that
the cost of the care is exorbitant. For example, if at the cost of
your life savings, your home, your future earnings you could prolong
the life of your spouse by only 1 hour, no-one one would say you were
morally obliged to. The second justification is that a person has the
right to decide for themselves whether to live or die.
In the Schiavo case it is not the second principle that is adopted,
because assisted suicide is still illegal. And neither is the first
principle adopted - because the cost of a feeding tube is minimal - in
fact the cost to Michael Schiavo is zero, as others are willing to
carry the burden, but are prevented from doing so. (It's also
debatable whether a feeding tube should count as medical care or
nothing more than providing food and drink)
So what is the principle that is being applied in the Terri Schiavo
case? It is that some lives are not worth living. Some lives are more
valuable than others. And if the value of someone's life falls below a
certain (arbitrary) threshold their deaths can be brought about by
omissions which would otherwise count as murder. Normally, if one
person (e.g. Michael Schiavo) brings it about (e.g. by preventing
others from helping) that another (e.g. Terri Schiavo) is so totally
dependent on their care that they would die without it, and the care
required is minimal and they do not supply it, they are guilty of
murder by omission. But in Terri's case the normal rules are not
applied. Why? Because her life is "not worth living", i.e. she does
not have sufficient value for the law to compel anyone to lift a
finger to keep her alive.
A very significant threshold is being crossed once it is accepted that
there are some human rights which some (born alive) human beings don't
deserve. America has boasted that its moral superiority lay in its
treating of all men as equals. That boast was dealt a serious blow
with Roe v Wade, and any legitimacy it had will die with Terri.
.
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
30 Mar 2005 05:44:59 PM |
|
|
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7137dda1.0503291853.4e9b4165@posting.google.com...
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die?
It was her wishes to her husband.
Your disapproval of the decision doesn't mean jack-diddly-*****.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
30 Mar 2005 09:00:48 PM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7137dda1.0503291853.4e9b4165@posting.google.com...
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die?
It was her wishes to her husband.
Your disapproval of the decision doesn't mean jack-diddly-*****.
Be that as it may, why should such wishes only be respected when a
person is very sick or disabled or terminally ill? Why not respect the
teenage drug addict's wish to kill himself slowly with the drug of his
choice? Why not allow doctor assisted suicide for those who are just
plain sick of living?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
01 Apr 2005 10:44:13 AM |
|
|
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112238048.656500.105210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7137dda1.0503291853.4e9b4165@posting.google.com...
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die?
It was her wishes to her husband.
Your disapproval of the decision doesn't mean jack-diddly-*****.
Be that as it may, why should such wishes only be respected when a
person is very sick or disabled or terminally ill? Why not respect the
teenage drug addict's wish to kill himself slowly with the drug of his
choice? Why not allow doctor assisted suicide for those who are just
plain sick of living?
You're attempting to invoke a false slippery slope. It is invalid, and has
nothing to do with the situation at hand. If you desire a discussion on
those different topics, you are welcome to begin it, but don't act as though
a teenager with a drug problem is somehow related to the Shaivo debacle.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
01 Apr 2005 04:34:51 PM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112238048.656500.105210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7137dda1.0503291853.4e9b4165@posting.google.com...
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from
sick
people and just letting them die?
It was her wishes to her husband.
Your disapproval of the decision doesn't mean jack-diddly-*****.
Be that as it may, why should such wishes only be respected when a
person is very sick or disabled or terminally ill? Why not respect
the
teenage drug addict's wish to kill himself slowly with the drug of
his
choice? Why not allow doctor assisted suicide for those who are
just
plain sick of living?
You're attempting to invoke a false slippery slope. It is invalid,
and has
nothing to do with the situation at hand. If you desire a discussion
on
those different topics, you are welcome to begin it, but don't act as
though
a teenager with a drug problem is somehow related to the Shaivo
debacle.
You are proving my point. You think the teenager's life is worth
protecting even against his own decisions, but you don't think that of
Schiavo. In other words some lives are more valuable than others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
01 Apr 2005 04:44:59 PM |
|
|
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112394891.569038.226900@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112238048.656500.105210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7137dda1.0503291853.4e9b4165@posting.google.com...
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from
sick
people and just letting them die?
It was her wishes to her husband.
Your disapproval of the decision doesn't mean jack-diddly-*****.
Be that as it may, why should such wishes only be respected when a
person is very sick or disabled or terminally ill? Why not respect
the
teenage drug addict's wish to kill himself slowly with the drug of
his
choice? Why not allow doctor assisted suicide for those who are
just
plain sick of living?
You're attempting to invoke a false slippery slope. It is invalid,
and has
nothing to do with the situation at hand. If you desire a discussion
on
those different topics, you are welcome to begin it, but don't act as
though
a teenager with a drug problem is somehow related to the Shaivo
debacle.
You are proving my point. You think the teenager's life is worth
protecting even against his own decisions, but you don't think that of
Schiavo.
I said nothing of the sort, so stop lying. Trying to claim that you have
even the remotest clue of what I think is very telling of your arrogance and
disingenuous nature.
In other words some lives are more valuable than others.
You're just twisting my words to fit your preconceived conclusion, because
to properly interpret would expose your red herring and the invalidity of
your argument.
Didn't you post an article that stated something to the effect that "liars
are bad people?"
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
01 Apr 2005 08:35:47 PM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112394891.569038.226900@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112238048.656500.105210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7137dda1.0503291853.4e9b4165@posting.google.com...
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from
sick
people and just letting them die?
It was her wishes to her husband.
Your disapproval of the decision doesn't mean
jack-diddly-*****.
Be that as it may, why should such wishes only be respected
when a
person is very sick or disabled or terminally ill? Why not
respect
the
teenage drug addict's wish to kill himself slowly with the drug
of
his
choice? Why not allow doctor assisted suicide for those who are
just
plain sick of living?
You're attempting to invoke a false slippery slope. It is
invalid,
and has
nothing to do with the situation at hand. If you desire a
discussion
on
those different topics, you are welcome to begin it, but don't
act as
though
a teenager with a drug problem is somehow related to the Shaivo
debacle.
You are proving my point. You think the teenager's life is worth
protecting even against his own decisions, but you don't think that
of
Schiavo.
I said nothing of the sort, so stop lying. Trying to claim that you
have
even the remotest clue of what I think is very telling of your
arrogance and
disingenuous nature.
You said the teenager and Terri were "different topics". The teenager's
life was merely affected by a "problem", whereas Schiavo's was affected
by a "debacle". The teenager's life therefore held more promise than
Schiavo's. That's what made it more worth saving. There was more of
value in it than in Schiavo's life. i.e. one life is more than another.
I understand what you are saying better than you do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
01 Apr 2005 10:09:54 PM |
|
|
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112409347.040762.64960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112394891.569038.226900@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112238048.656500.105210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7137dda1.0503291853.4e9b4165@posting.google.com...
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from
sick
people and just letting them die?
It was her wishes to her husband.
Your disapproval of the decision doesn't mean
jack-diddly-*****.
Be that as it may, why should such wishes only be respected
when a
person is very sick or disabled or terminally ill? Why not
respect
the
teenage drug addict's wish to kill himself slowly with the drug
of
his
choice? Why not allow doctor assisted suicide for those who are
just
plain sick of living?
You're attempting to invoke a false slippery slope. It is
invalid,
and has
nothing to do with the situation at hand. If you desire a
discussion
on
those different topics, you are welcome to begin it, but don't
act as
though
a teenager with a drug problem is somehow related to the Shaivo
debacle.
You are proving my point. You think the teenager's life is worth
protecting even against his own decisions, but you don't think that
of
Schiavo.
I said nothing of the sort, so stop lying. Trying to claim that you
have
even the remotest clue of what I think is very telling of your
arrogance and
disingenuous nature.
You said the teenager and Terri were "different topics".
Yes, they absolutely are, given the scenarios you stated: an invalid who's
only means of survival was perpetual, intensive care.
The teenager's
life was merely affected by a "problem", whereas Schiavo's was affected
by a "debacle".
Debacle: 3 a : a great disaster b : a complete failure : FIASCO
Here's where you need to buy a fucking clue: my 'debacle' reference was
specifically directed at the circumstances surrounding her medical needs,
the legal standing of her husband as it related to that care, and the
three-ring circus that sprang up around the whole situation. At least learn
what the damn word means before going into your pedantic tirade of *****.
You are attempting to compare a corpse that had some involuntary system
functions to a teenager that merely needs his ***** kicked.
The teenager's life therefore held more promise than
Schiavo's. That's what made it more worth saving. There was more of
value in it than in Schiavo's life. i.e. one life is more than another.
Strawman noted, and still not even remotely close to my thoughts on the
matter.
I understand what you are saying better than you do.
You obviously don't understand a fucking thing, except how to distort what
people say so that you can support your preconceived conclusions.
And, since you continue to lie about the substance of my words, I shall not
give you any more to work with. I do not converse with liars.
<plonk>
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
02 Apr 2005 06:35:21 PM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112409347.040762.64960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112394891.569038.226900@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112238048.656500.105210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7137dda1.0503291853.4e9b4165@posting.google.com...
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care
from
sick
people and just letting them die?
It was her wishes to her husband.
Your disapproval of the decision doesn't mean
jack-diddly-*****.
Be that as it may, why should such wishes only be respected
when a
person is very sick or disabled or terminally ill? Why not
respect
the
teenage drug addict's wish to kill himself slowly with the
drug
of
his
choice? Why not allow doctor assisted suicide for those who
are
just
plain sick of living?
You're attempting to invoke a false slippery slope. It is
invalid,
and has
nothing to do with the situation at hand. If you desire a
discussion
on
those different topics, you are welcome to begin it, but
don't
act as
though
a teenager with a drug problem is somehow related to the
Shaivo
debacle.
You are proving my point. You think the teenager's life is
worth
protecting even against his own decisions, but you don't think
that
of
Schiavo.
I said nothing of the sort, so stop lying. Trying to claim that
you
have
even the remotest clue of what I think is very telling of your
arrogance and
disingenuous nature.
You said the teenager and Terri were "different topics".
Yes, they absolutely are, given the scenarios you stated: an invalid
who's
only means of survival was perpetual, intensive care.
The teenager's
life was merely affected by a "problem", whereas Schiavo's was
affected
by a "debacle".
Debacle: 3 a : a great disaster b : a complete failure : FIASCO
That's right. Schiavo's life is diminished by a "great disaster"
whereas the teenager's life is diminished by a mere "problem". The
least diminished life has more value left in it. Hence the teenager's
life is worth more than Schiavo's. One person's life is more valuable
than another.
You are attempting to compare a corpse that had some involuntary
system
functions to a teenager that merely needs his ***** kicked.
See you're still doing it. You are de-humanizing Schiavo. She is a
"corpse". She does not live, she merely has "systems functions". She's
less of a human being. She's not worth saving.
And, since you continue to lie about the substance of my words, I
shall not
give you any more to work with. I do not converse with liars.
Famous un-last words!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
30 Mar 2005 09:19:47 PM |
|
|
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7137dda1.0503291853.4e9b4165@posting.google.com...
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die?
It was her wishes to her husband.
Your disapproval of the decision doesn't mean jack-diddly-*****.
Be that as it may, why should such wishes only be respected when a
person is very sick or disabled or terminally ill? Why not respect the
teenage drug addict's wish to kill himself slowly with the drug of his
choice?
Maybe you should find out. What is the difference between the suicide
of a young teen temporarily depressed and the suicide of someone who
will be dead soon and who wants to die with dignity rather than
writhing in unbearable agony.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
31 Mar 2005 01:43:44 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7137dda1.0503291853.4e9b4165@posting.google.com...
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die?
It was her wishes to her husband.
Your disapproval of the decision doesn't mean jack-diddly-*****.
Be that as it may, why should such wishes only be respected when a
person is very sick or disabled or terminally ill? Why not respect
the
teenage drug addict's wish to kill himself slowly with the drug of
his
choice?
Maybe you should find out. What is the difference between the
suicide
of a young teen temporarily depressed and the suicide of someone who
will be dead soon and who wants to die with dignity rather than
writhing in unbearable agony.
I note that, as usual, when you can't answer a question you ask one
instead.
Didn't you say you believed in "liberty" FULL STOP? Don't you believe
in liberty for the healthy depressed teen?
But to answer your question: unless you say that one life is more
valuable than another, there is no relevant difference. If you disagree
its your job to find such a difference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
31 Mar 2005 10:31:13 PM |
|
|
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7137dda1.0503291853.4e9b4165@posting.google.com...
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die?
It was her wishes to her husband.
Your disapproval of the decision doesn't mean jack-diddly-*****.
Be that as it may, why should such wishes only be respected when a
person is very sick or disabled or terminally ill? Why not respect
the
teenage drug addict's wish to kill himself slowly with the drug of
his
choice?
Maybe you should find out. What is the difference between the
suicide
of a young teen temporarily depressed and the suicide of someone who
will be dead soon and who wants to die with dignity rather than
writhing in unbearable agony.
I note that, as usual, when you can't answer a question you ask one
instead.
I notice that, as is typical of right-wing morons, that you whine
about how the question is answered as a way of ignoring the answer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
01 Apr 2005 02:06:23 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
The other Donald wrote:
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7137dda1.0503291853.4e9b4165@posting.google.com...
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from
sick
people and just letting them die?
It was her wishes to her husband.
Your disapproval of the decision doesn't mean jack-diddly-*****.
Be that as it may, why should such wishes only be respected when
a
person is very sick or disabled or terminally ill? Why not
respect
the
teenage drug addict's wish to kill himself slowly with the drug
of
his
choice?
Maybe you should find out. What is the difference between the
suicide
of a young teen temporarily depressed and the suicide of someone
who
will be dead soon and who wants to die with dignity rather than
writhing in unbearable agony.
I note that, as usual, when you can't answer a question you ask one
instead.
I notice that, as is typical of right-wing morons, that you whine
about how the question is answered as a way of ignoring the answer.
That's not an answer either. You have no answer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lazarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
29 Mar 2005 08:59:06 PM |
|
|
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote...
So what is the principle that is being applied in the Terri Schiavo
case?
The principle at work here is that patients have the right to refuse medical
treatment even if such refusal hastens their deaths. And in the most
thoroughly adjudicated case of its type, it was determined that Terri
Schiavo would not want to live indefinitely in her present condition,
assisted by a feeding tube. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
29 Mar 2005 09:08:20 PM |
|
|
Is that part of a broader principle that a person has the right to die
whenever they want to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lazarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
29 Mar 2005 09:11:02 PM |
|
|
"wp123" <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote...
Is that part of a broader principle that a person has the right to die
whenever they want to?
No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
29 Mar 2005 10:39:51 PM |
|
|
What is it based on then?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Baard Ove KOPPERUD" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
31 Mar 2005 06:28:44 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die? There are two possible: firstly that
the cost of the care is exorbitant. For example, if at the cost of
your life savings, your home, your future earnings you could prolong
the life of your spouse by only 1 hour, no-one one would say you were
morally obliged to. The second justification is that a person has the
right to decide for themselves whether to live or die.
In the Schiavo case it is not the second principle that is adopted,
because assisted suicide is still illegal. And neither is the first
principle adopted - because the cost of a feeding tube is minimal -
You're assuming *only* her feeding-tube costs money!
She needs to lay in a room... ca-ching!
She needs to be monitored by nurses... ca-ching!
She needs medication... ca-ching!
She needs to be bathed... ca-ching!
She needs food put into the tube... ca-ching!
Waste must be removed from her body... ca-ching!
Her health must be monitored... ca-ching!
Her bed-linnen must be changed... ca-ching!
*Someone* has to pay that bill! For how long?
10-20-30-50 years? She would *never* have woken
up!
in
fact the cost to Michael Schiavo is zero, as others are willing to
carry the burden, but are prevented from doing so.
It's still Michael's responsibility -- as well as
his choice.
(It's also
debatable whether a feeding tube should count as medical care or
nothing more than providing food and drink)
So what is the principle that is being applied in the Terri Schiavo
case? It is that some lives are not worth living. Some lives are more
<SNIP>
I think the principle that should be learned from
this is that sometime "enough is enough".
That sometimes there is nothing we can do,
and that maybe there is little point in
prolonging the inevetable for years when
that is *all* we can do!
If she had "lived"... if she was enjoying
life to the full or unlocking the secrets of
the universe in her mind as her body was failing,
then yes -- sure we should try to prolong
it as long as possible. But as long as
*all* our efforts can do, is give her one
more day of *nothing*, there isn't that much
point.
-Koppe
--
Baard Ove KOPPERUD |
2625 FAABERG | ICQ# : 24367492
NORWAY | AIM : bokopperud
===== Vidi, vici, veni =====
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
29 Mar 2005 09:57:34 PM |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2005 18:53:14 -0800, (wp123)
wrote:
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die? There are two possible: firstly that
the cost of the care is exorbitant. For example, if at the cost of
your life savings, your home, your future earnings you could prolong
the life of your spouse by only 1 hour, no-one one would say you were
morally obliged to. The second justification is that a person has the
right to decide for themselves whether to live or die.
In the Schiavo case it is not the second principle that is adopted,
because assisted suicide is still illegal. And neither is the first
principle adopted - because the cost of a feeding tube is minimal - in
fact the cost to Michael Schiavo is zero, as others are willing to
carry the burden, but are prevented from doing so. (It's also
debatable whether a feeding tube should count as medical care or
nothing more than providing food and drink)
So what is the principle that is being applied in the Terri Schiavo
case? It is that some lives are not worth living. Some lives are more
valuable than others. And if the value of someone's life falls below a
certain (arbitrary) threshold their deaths can be brought about by
omissions which would otherwise count as murder. Normally, if one
person (e.g. Michael Schiavo) brings it about (e.g. by preventing
others from helping) that another (e.g. Terri Schiavo) is so totally
dependent on their care that they would die without it, and the care
required is minimal and they do not supply it, they are guilty of
murder by omission. But in Terri's case the normal rules are not
applied. Why? Because her life is "not worth living", i.e. she does
not have sufficient value for the law to compel anyone to lift a
finger to keep her alive.
A very significant threshold is being crossed once it is accepted that
there are some human rights which some (born alive) human beings don't
deserve. America has boasted that its moral superiority lay in its
treating of all men as equals. That boast was dealt a serious blow
with Roe v Wade, and any legitimacy it had will die with Terri.
Actually, if you want to go that route, then the legitimacy was lost
when Bush signed off on the Futile Care act while he was governor of
Texas. Your current head of government has already made his views
clear - the worth of human life is to be calculated on the basis of
what medical care costs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
29 Mar 2005 10:42:31 PM |
|
|
I agree that if anyone is to blame it is not Greer, but the elected
legislature - and therefore "the people".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
30 Mar 2005 06:52:19 AM |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2005 18:53:14 -0800, (wp123)
wrote:
[...]
So what is the principle that is being applied in the Terri Schiavo
case?
To respect her wishes...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Miss Anne Thrope" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
30 Mar 2005 08:54:33 AM |
|
|
You don't really believe that Terri's monthly medical costs are merely
some tubing and liquid nutrition, do you? Apparentely, you've never had
to bear the cost of 24/7 nursing home care............which basically
means your opinion is woefully uninformed.............again.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
29 Mar 2005 10:22:06 PM |
|
|
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die? There are two possible: firstly that
the cost of the care is exorbitant. For example, if at the cost of
your life savings, your home, your future earnings you could prolong
the life of your spouse by only 1 hour, no-one one would say you were
morally obliged to. The second justification is that a person has the
right to decide for themselves whether to live or die.
In the Schiavo case it is not the second principle that is adopted,
because assisted suicide is still illegal.
Since nobody is assisting her (which is kind of the point) your
objection is irrelevant.
And neither is the first
principle adopted - because the cost of a feeding tube is minimal
The cost of full-time assisted care is expensive. Thousands of
dollars a month.
So what is the principle that is being applied in the Terri Schiavo
case?
Respect for her wishes.
Something you don't seem to want to accept.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
29 Mar 2005 11:01:12 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die? There are two possible: firstly
that
the cost of the care is exorbitant. For example, if at the cost of
your life savings, your home, your future earnings you could prolong
the life of your spouse by only 1 hour, no-one one would say you
were
morally obliged to. The second justification is that a person has
the
right to decide for themselves whether to live or die.
In the Schiavo case it is not the second principle that is adopted,
because assisted suicide is still illegal.
Since nobody is assisting her (which is kind of the point) your
objection is irrelevant.
It is illogical to make assisting suicide illegal if you see nothing
wrong with suicide itself.
And neither is the first
principle adopted - because the cost of a feeding tube is minimal
The cost of full-time assisted care is expensive. Thousands of
dollars a month.
The assistance Schiavo requires is not expensive. And even if it were,
there is no justification for preventing it being given by those who
wish to bear the expense from their own pockets.
So what is the principle that is being applied in the Terri Schiavo
case?
Respect for her wishes.
Then why not allow assisted suicide in all cases?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
29 Mar 2005 11:40:35 PM |
|
|
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die? There are two possible: firstly
that
the cost of the care is exorbitant. For example, if at the cost of
your life savings, your home, your future earnings you could prolong
the life of your spouse by only 1 hour, no-one one would say you
were
morally obliged to. The second justification is that a person has
the
right to decide for themselves whether to live or die.
In the Schiavo case it is not the second principle that is adopted,
because assisted suicide is still illegal.
Since nobody is assisting her (which is kind of the point) your
objection is irrelevant.
It is illogical to make assisting suicide illegal if you see nothing
wrong with suicide itself.
That doesn't make sense. Nobody is assisting her. Your objection is
without relevance.
And neither is the first
principle adopted - because the cost of a feeding tube is minimal
The cost of full-time assisted care is expensive. Thousands of
dollars a month.
The assistance Schiavo requires is not expensive.
Wrong again. Full-time assisted care is expensive.
And even if it were,
there is no justification for preventing it being given by those who
wish to bear the expense from their own pockets.
And that isn't the justification.
The justification is that it's what she wanted.
So what is the principle that is being applied in the Terri Schiavo
case?
Respect for her wishes.
Then why not allow assisted suicide in all cases?
Because right-wing control freaks are opposed to liberty.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
30 Mar 2005 01:40:20 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo
What is the justification for withdrawing medical care from sick
people and just letting them die? There are two possible: firstly
that
the cost of the care is exorbitant. For example, if at the cost
of
your life savings, your home, your future earnings you could
prolong
the life of your spouse by only 1 hour, no-one one would say you
were
morally obliged to. The second justification is that a person has
the
right to decide for themselves whether to live or die.
In the Schiavo case it is not the second principle that is
adopted,
because assisted suicide is still illegal.
Since nobody is assisting her (which is kind of the point) your
objection is irrelevant.
It is illogical to make assisting suicide illegal if you see nothing
wrong with suicide itself.
That doesn't make sense. Nobody is assisting her. Your objection is
without relevance.
And neither is the first
principle adopted - because the cost of a feeding tube is minimal
The cost of full-time assisted care is expensive. Thousands of
dollars a month.
The assistance Schiavo requires is not expensive.
Wrong again. Full-time assisted care is expensive.
Not the kind Schiavo needs.
And even if it were,
there is no justification for preventing it being given by those who
wish to bear the expense from their own pockets.
And that isn't the justification.
The justification is that it's what she wanted.
That's not a justification in terms of the cost of care. You are mixing
up the two possible grounds of justification.
So what is the principle that is being applied in the Terri
Schiavo
case?
Respect for her wishes.
Then why not allow assisted suicide in all cases?
Because right-wing control freaks are opposed to liberty.
So you don't oppose assisted suicide? You favour respecting all
person's decisions to end their own lives?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
30 Mar 2005 04:49:04 AM |
|
|
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
And neither is the first
principle adopted - because the cost of a feeding tube is minimal
The cost of full-time assisted care is expensive. Thousands of
dollars a month.
The assistance Schiavo requires is not expensive.
Wrong again. Full-time assisted care is expensive.
Not the kind Schiavo needs.
$200 a day. $6,000 per month.
And even if it were,
there is no justification for preventing it being given by those who
wish to bear the expense from their own pockets.
And that isn't the justification.
The justification is that it's what she wanted.
That's not a justification in terms of the cost of care.
I didn't say it was.
It's the justification that counts.
So what is the principle that is being applied in the Terri
Schiavo
case?
Respect for her wishes.
Then why not allow assisted suicide in all cases?
Because right-wing control freaks are opposed to liberty.
So you don't oppose assisted suicide?
I'm in favor of liberty.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
30 Mar 2005 06:35:49 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
And neither is the first
principle adopted - because the cost of a feeding tube is
minimal
The cost of full-time assisted care is expensive. Thousands of
dollars a month.
The assistance Schiavo requires is not expensive.
Wrong again. Full-time assisted care is expensive.
Not the kind Schiavo needs.
$200 a day. $6,000 per month.
And even if it were,
there is no justification for preventing it being given by those
who
wish to bear the expense from their own pockets.
And that isn't the justification.
The justification is that it's what she wanted.
That's not a justification in terms of the cost of care.
I didn't say it was.
It's the justification that counts.
Not in the context of refuting my point - which was that there is no
justification in terms of the cost of care, for preventing aid being
given by volunteers willing to bear the expense.
Your "justification" belongs under the other heading I mentioned - the
right of each person to die if and when they want to.
So what is the principle that is being applied in the Terri
Schiavo
case?
Respect for her wishes.
Then why not allow assisted suicide in all cases?
Because right-wing control freaks are opposed to liberty.
So you don't oppose assisted suicide?
I'm in favor of liberty.
I don't regard that as a responsive answer. Do you oppose allowing
assisted suicide as such?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
30 Mar 2005 12:49:37 PM |
|
|
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
And neither is the first
principle adopted - because the cost of a feeding tube is
minimal
The cost of full-time assisted care is expensive. Thousands of
dollars a month.
The assistance Schiavo requires is not expensive.
Wrong again. Full-time assisted care is expensive.
Not the kind Schiavo needs.
$200 a day. $6,000 per month.
And even if it were,
there is no justification for preventing it being given by those
who
wish to bear the expense from their own pockets.
And that isn't the justification.
The justification is that it's what she wanted.
That's not a justification in terms of the cost of care.
I didn't say it was.
It's the justification that counts.
Not in the context of refuting my point - which was that there is no
justification in terms of the cost of care, for preventing aid being
given by volunteers willing to bear the expense.
But since nobody has argued in favor of your little strawman it seems
that you just like complaining.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: Terri Schiavo and the Brave New World |
30 Mar 2005 02:56:23 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wp123 <WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
And neither is the first
principle adopted - because the cost of a feeding tube is
minimal
The cost of full-time assisted care is expensive. Thousands
of
dollars a month.
The assistance Schiavo requires is not expensive.
Wrong again. Full-time assisted care is expensive.
Not the kind Schiavo needs.
$200 a day. $6,000 per month.
And even if it were,
there is no justification for preventing it being given by
those
who
wish to bear the expense from their own pockets.
And that isn't the justification.
The justification is that it's what she wanted.
That's not a justification in terms of the cost of care.
I didn't say it was.
It's the justification that counts.
Not in the context of refuting my point - which was that there is no
justification in terms of the cost of care, for preventing aid being
given by volunteers willing to bear the expense.
But since nobody has argued in favor of your little strawman it seems
that you just like complaining.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
