General discussion


Controversial life decision

By jkaras ·
Here in Orlando there is a case that is getting national headlines. The case in question is regarding Terri Schiavo. She is a woman who had a heart attack/ stroke over 13 years ago that left her in a vegitative state. The case is a right to life/right to death controversy.
She has been in this state without the ability to communicate effectivly while in this awake coma. She can smile and coo like an infant but cannot sign like blinking of eyes to signify concious though or understanding. During this time the husband who has done questionable things when dealing with the situation and contends that they talked as husband and wife if a situation ever happened she would choose death. Her parents have fought to keep her alive not willing to let go contending that he didnt invest the insurance money for recuperative therapy despite doctors that contend that she is brain dead and that no therapy can change. He has since the incident has fallen in love with another and having a baby getting on with his life wishing to remarry. He has fought a legal battle to terminate her life to end her suffering and won. The only way to do this was to remove her feeding tube and starve to death. Our Gov. Jeb Bush abused his powers and overturned the court's ruling stopping the death sentence after 5 days of starvation. Whether he did it for political reasons or right to life, he broke the law stalling the already long awaited release of wasted life.

This fight is about not having a living will documented in marriage causing abiguity. I think it is wrong to have it in writting and that your spouse is legally responsible to carry out your wishes. Regardless of the parents still alive, when a man a woman join in matrimony they are one and that responsibility is theirs and no one elses regardless of the mistake of spouse. Also I cant imagine anyone wanting someone they love to live in that state without the ability to live life experiencing the good or the bad, to me that's tourture and it shouldnt have gone longer than a couple of months to determine recovery. What do you feel is right about living or death? Government intervention or family?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

return as a better person

by john_wills In reply to If I only

You seem to have some new religion. I do not want to condemn all suicide, but the kind you are talking about - which is not really relevant to Mrs Schiavo, because we have only her errant husband's late-breaking word for her suicidal desire - does not lead to betterment under the common visions of the afterlife. If the Buddhists are right you will rearise with all the same bad karma which got you into the mess and in addition the bad karma of self-murder, so you will be worse off. If the Christians are right you will spend eternity as a tree in the wood of the suicides being torn at by harpies; I am using Dante's picture, but the idea is much the same whatever the picture. If the materialists are right there will be no you to experience or produce a better life.

Collapse -


by FluxIt In reply to Controversial life decisi ...

One. You appear to be postured for her termination and to be seeking confirmation for your position. Disheartening.

Two. I am somewhat concerned about your comments. '...he broke the law stalling the already long awaited release of WASTED life.', 'Our Gov. Jeb Bush abused his powers and overturned the court's ruling stopping the death sentence ...'

Last time, I checked there was a system of checks and balances. The court only acted on existing law giving the go ahead to begin the termination. The State Legislature rewrote the law that Gov Bush used to stop her termination. So it was not him alone in making this decision. Governor Bush is only the 'Executor' of the law. His actions were fully within his powers.

Three. Our entire structure of Government is organized based on the Judeo/Christian Bible. The function of Government is to maintain good order of the people. Our decision must always be for life first. Thou shalt not kill. Exo 20:13. Death is to be determined by God alone. It is wrong for man to condemn another man. Matt 7:1.

Fourth. You have some serious issues you need professional help with. When I hear things like "WASTED life" and "only way to do this was to remove her feeding tube and starve to death". It seems to me, whether right ot wrong, we are able to kill people more quickly with injection, gas, electric shock, and firing squads. Why don't we just choose one of those methods if death is the goal?

My position is that God is using her for his purpose and God will take her on his account when he is done. Terri's condition is not about her but about everyone else. It is about our compassion and humility. You are being tested to find out who you are. Who her husband is. I really question any man's motives who desires to take her life.

On a side note, in 1987 my family was confronted with a similiar situation when my brother was involved in an auto accident. He was declared brain dead 4 days later. It tore us apart. Machines were keeping him alive and he would have phycially healed but his brain was gone. In that state the Government stepped in. My was brother was removed from the equipment and he died almost instantly. In Terri's case the right decisions mostly likely fell short at the right time which resulted in this situation. Now I am not advocating to terminate Terri today. I am stating that the law needs to be reviewed relating to these cases.

Terri should be kept alive.

Collapse -

"Death is to be determined by God alone"

by Cactus Pete In reply to SEVERAL POINTS

Just curious, but doesn't that imply that he decides when to take them, and no one should take a life prematurely or suspend a life beyond that which he intended?

Collapse -


by FluxIt In reply to "Death is to be determine ...

This in correct modern terms means 'the right to life.' Humans should always make the decision for life.

In the case of my brother, he was brain dead and not conscious. There was no brain activity at all. Machines could assist his heart beating but there was nothing else. He was dead. Of course there was ourt emotional desire for him to regain consciousness but that was not going to happen.

Terry is quite the opposite. She is even capable of being spoon feed but the doctors feel it is safer to feed her intraveinously. There is a quite a difference here. The choice is clearly for life. The State Legislature made the right choice and Governor Bush took the right action.

All I remarked earlier is that perhaps the law should be reviewed to ensure that the right decisions are made. Terri's care could have been better and it may have resulted in an improved condition.

Collapse -

Where does anyone draw the line?

by Cactus Pete In reply to THOU SHALT NOT KILL exo 2 ...

Terri is different in that she won't die immediately from being taken off of the feeding tube. But her minimal brain activity doesn't lead for much of a life, so I don't consider this "clear" in that she should be sustained in the manner she is.

And yes, the law should be reviewed. Including the law rather hastily passed specifically for Terri. There was a lot longer than the 5 days it took them to suddenly figure out that this is an important issue. Rushing through legislation is questionable, at the least.

At the time, Terri's husband had the right to decide if her life should be prolonged in the manner is was. If you believe that allowing someone to die is killing them, then people must always be kept alive at all costs. Drawing a line seems like you make decisions for god, and thus leads to a hypocracy.

Collapse -


by FluxIt In reply to Where does anyone draw th ...

You and I are in he same boat. Hypocrisy is when I attempt to place practice of the same values we share above yours then I behave like you. This has nothing to do with Terri.

In my brother's case God had already taken him and the machines were just sustaining his body. On the 1st day after the accident I was in the NICU with my mom. The nurse opened my brothers eyes to put drops in it. I just thought his eyes looked odd but my mom gasp, dropped her head, then walked away. She knew my brother was taken by God at that point. The State stepped in and proceded with the legal process to declare him dead some 3 days later.

Terri had her stroke, is animated, and at times responsive. There is an essence of life in this woman and that is what we must fight for her. As I said before this is about us not her.

Many feel a degree of sadness and have a sense of compassion to end her misery. Meanwhile, others have a sense of compassion to help her. The Bible says, 'Thou shalt not kill', exo 20:13. What part of that is unclear? It seems to me to end her misery would violate this commandment.

The state legislature rushing a law through demonstrates a high degree of responsiveness and compassion for human life. This is the kind of Government I want and Governor Bush is the kind of leader I want representing me in Government.

Collapse -

It is so good to run across a real pacifist

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to NOT HYPOCRISY

There are so few and you quite rightly quote the bible to support your ideas which I for one don't have a single problem with but doesn't that very same book say something about turning the other cheek. Sorry but that was not what happened after Sept 11 or what is currently going on in Iraq if it is wrong to "kill" this woman for any reason then it is just as wrong for State Sponsered Murder to occure weather it be the Death Penility or War anything that leads to the death of a fellow human being should be stopped at all costs.

Even when someone attacks us we should just turn the other cheek and know we are far better than the savage that has just murdered any number of people. If only more people thought like you we could have a far better world where money could be spent on improving the lot of the Human Species rather than developing better ways of killing more and more people with less effort.

Thank You MrMiami!

Collapse -


by dwdino In reply to It is so good to run acro ...

While I agree with MrMiami's points, he is in error. Exodus 20:13 states "...shall not murder...". Killing and murder are two intirely seperate issues by means of motive. Killing is the termination of life by accident (man-slaughter), punishment (justice), or other like motives. Murder is the termination of life for selfish ambition, personal gain, anger, or any other self-centered focus.

If someone is accidentally killed in a car wreck, that is killing. If someone purposely runs over an individual, that is murder.

The Bible supports capital punishment. This is killing, or rather, being put to death as a result of ones wrong choices.

In Teri's case, the death sentence was murder. This was for the husband's selfish gains, release of responsibility, whatever.

Collapse -


by FluxIt In reply to It is so good to run acro ...

Let us take from several translations:

NIV: exo 20:13 You shall not murder.
KJV: exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
RSV: exo 20:13 You shall not kill.

Using the same verse, Exodus 20:13, and translating it into modern expressions of rights then the statement does not seek to secure one's own rights but rather protect the rights of others then the verse would read:

'My neighbor has a right to life.'

Christ in NIV Mt 5:21-26 does define Exodus 20:13 to be murder. Yet the KJV calls it 'kill'. Further research indicates that there are Hebrew and Greek verb translations that mean to 'kill'. But doctrinal evidence then tells us that the term used actually means 'murder'.

At any rate, the bottom line is the humans should always make the choice for life in societal matters. Terri Schiavo must remain alive and we must make the effort to help her.

Capital punishment is not to be administered by individuals but the Government under specific guidelines. This is a distinguishable difference between a Government and the people.

In the case of Terri Schiavo her case has not met the Biblical litmus test for the State to execute her. Once again the State legislature and Govenor acted appropriately under the system of checks and balances where the court had failed.

The choice is for life.

Collapse -

MrMiami - I'm curious on an interpretation

by Cactus Pete In reply to It is so good to run acro ...

So, would 'not kill' further apply to all life? Can 'not murder' be applied to non-human life?

I'll defer to your quick mental lookup for supporting references in the Bible that reflect on this or clarify it somewhat.

Related Discussions

Related Forums