The Forum > Article Comments > The Schiavo decision ignores the King Solomon precedent > Comments
The Schiavo decision ignores the King Solomon precedent : Comments
By George Thomas, published 12/4/2005George C Thomas argues that in the Shiavo case the family's rights take precendence over the husband's.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Mr Thomas's argument is simply a logical fallacy. The whole point of the husband's argument was that it was Terri Schiavo's wish to die rather than to remain in such a state, and that his advocacy for her death was an act of love. Whether this was true or not is not clear, but Mr Thomas offers no new evidence either way. To claim that Terri's parents clearly loved her more because they wanted to keep her alive as if it was some sort of logical equation is simply to have misunderstood the case.
Posted by chris_b, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 11:58:43 AM
| |
1. It was not just the word of her husband, and it was claimed that she HAD communicated her wishes.
2. It would be inhumane to deprive a woman of the ability to make a choice over her own body, so the option of having an abortion is in that respect, humane. Whether the actual act is also humane then becomes a question for the mother, but IMO the question is still flawed since the object doesn't exist. It is similarly inhumane to deprive someone of the choice to end their life. 3. Dehydration, not starvation. Justified because it was the only legal method of fulfilling her wishes. 4. Michael Schiavo deserves a husband of the year award. He has put up with slander and death threats, simply to carry our his wife's wishes. 5. The case was not about anyone's rights except Terri's. 6. The court's judgements were plain and simple - they followed the law. 7. A 3000 year old decision from a different legal system, about a different situation, that presumably never happened, is not precedent. (I wish I could dismiss the possiblity that this was meant literally.) 8. The legal issue was whether Terri would have wanted to refuse treatment. The political issue is... well I suppose it is either: Should an unconscious patient's wishes that are not in writing be considered when deciding what that person's wishes were? -or- Should people be able to refuse treatments that will keep them alive? 9. The person "Terri" was dead. It was not unreasonable to request that her shell be left to die, so that all may properly mourn. That her parents wanted to keep her body alive and by their own admission would've gone to extreme and unpalatable lengths to do so, shows the depth of their denial -- not their love. 10. This: "the legal "husband" in this case did not have any emotional attachment to his "wife" lying in a vegetative state for 15 years." is absurd. You can't choose your parents, why should they have a continuing veto over your wishes? Posted by Deuc, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:08:02 PM
| |
Chris b & deuc have pointed out the error of G Thomas' presumption to the wisdom of Solomon.
I would like to conduct a bit of a straw poll. Who among the posters to this web site, would like to be maintained in a vegetative state for an indefinite period of time (15 years or more)? Remember, you can't speak, feed yourself, move, watch TV, read a book, talk, eliminate wastes or bathe yourself. I know I would rather be allowed to die. Posted by Xena, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 2:13:53 PM
| |
I agree with Xena but I while I am repulsed by the opportunistic Christian fundamentalists who swarmed onto this issue (including right-to-lifer George Bush who loves capital punishment even when the defendant may be innocent - figure that one out), I did find it a difficult issue to come to terms with.
Dale Carpenter at Indegayforum (www.indegayforum.org) wrote an interesting piece asking what if Terry Shiavo was gay. Would George Bush and supporters feel as strongly towards her? Carpenter concludes that some of the more principled stalwarts of the "Right to Life" movement maybe but nonetheless she would not have attracted the same degree of popularity. Posted by DavidJS, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 2:35:28 PM
| |
I sometimes wonder what it would be like to be so sure that I had the one correct answer to problems like this. Or indeed any answer at all. It seemed to me just a crying shame for all concerned, and I was secretly pleased that I was not one of those who was forced, by their position in the medical and/or legal hierarchy, to utter a definitive statement on it.
What is equally frustrating is the apparent need that some folk have to take situations like this, which are both extremely rare and unique, and draw generalizations from them, often on totally unrelated topics. The phrase "hard cases make bad law" was never truer than in circumstances such as these, and it ill behoves us to dismiss this concept in favour of pushing our own barrow, whether on abortion, marital fidelity, parental rights or the relevance of Old Testament texts. Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 3:38:22 PM
| |
Xena,
I read something interesting recently, an opinion piece at The Age: here's the link. http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Why-Eastwoods-Baby-got-it-wrong/2005/04/07/1112815666092.html The author is 25, has C1-C2 complete quadriplegia, and has lived with it for 19 years. In one part, it reads: "The road to recovery is a long one after such a debilitating disability. There are many, many aspects of a disability that a person needs to grow accustomed to if they are to live happily again. Firstly, there is the disability and secondly there is the life-sustaining assistance that is associated with a serious disability. For me, it took years to become used to my disability - of having to breathe via a ventilator, of being pushed around in a wheelchair and to rely on other people to survive. However, once I had, it felt great to know that I had overcame such a severe disability and was still able to live a quality-filled life. I still do live a quality life and go on loving it." Quality of life is a highly subjective assessment. You may not currently wish to live in such a condition, as you probably enjoy your full physical capabilities. However, that opinion may well change if your circumstances changed. The debate over whether Terri Schiavo was technically PVS, was never adequately resolved. As far as I'm aware, one neurologist (Hammesfahr) who assessed Terri Schiavo during an assessment noted: "The patient is not in coma. She is alert and responsive to her environment... She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal praise. She responds negatively to poor tone of voice. She responds to music... She differentiates specific people's voices from others. She differentiates music from stray sound. She attempts to verbalize. She has voluntary control over multiple extremities. She can swallow. She is partially blind. She is probably aphasic and has a degree of receptive aphasia. She can feel pain.... records from Hospice show frequent medication administered for pain by staff." We will never know whether Terri Schiavo felt that, despite her severe disabilities, she had quality of life enough to continue living. Posted by Tracy A, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 7:36:02 PM
|