h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And I still fail to see why Apple thinks it's inhumane to euthanize a human, but has no problem with animals- who are just as alive, just as vital and important- being euthanized. That makes no sense at all. Why the double standard?

For the 1000 billionth time now, Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state! Did you read the links I supplied?

<>

Where did you get this particular piece of information, and why is it relevant? Is it supposed to prove she doesn't deserve to live - that she brought it on herself?

<< when this whole mess is due in part to Terri's parents' Catholic dogma>>

How do you work that out? What has her parents' "Catholic dogma" got to do with her condition?

<< am keen for her wish NOT to be sustained in this condition to be honored. >>

I can only assume once again, that you didn't read the links, or you'd know that the assertion that it's her wish is her husband's only. No one else ever heard her express any such wish. Just as with the Lesley Martin case in NZ, only one person claims to have heard the dead (or soon to be if Michael Schiavo gets his way) person say they "want" to be put down...

Why quote from a posting and then not answer the question, Della?

I don't think anyone here is impressed by your diversional tactics.


az

Yes, and the only person who's ever heard me express my wish for a DNR is my significant other. It's not uncommon to tell one's husband or wife of one's wishes when it comes to serious matters.

As far as your links vs. the facts of the case, the information that her heart stopped due to her eating disorder and NOT her husband beating her into a vegetative state- which IS PERMANENT- comes directly from the court appointed physicians.

>Where did you get this particular piece of information, and why is it relevant? Is it supposed to prove she doesn't deserve to live - that she brought it on herself?<

Della Bomb. This piece of information comes, again, from the court appointed doctors in this case. I reiterate this because YOU insist on blaming her husband for her condition, claiming that his alleged "abuse" caused her heart to stop. For you to imply that I think she deserves to die because she had an eating disorder (whether she brought the consequences on herself or not is not the issue) is unbelievably ignorant, but not at all surprising, considering the source.

As for what Terri's parents dogmatic ignorance has to do with it, their claim that Terri's previously expressed wish goes against her Catholic faith would not be an issue if they could see past their ridiculous and irrelevant assertions and do what is in the best interest of their daughter, honoring her wishes instead of what they perceive to be the wishes of a non-existent god.

<>

If you think that, then there's probably a gulf that can't be crossed in our communicating. Animals are different from people. People are not animals. That's trivial,and obvious, and inarguable.

The nature and importance of the difference could and probably would be argued, but probably to no satisfactory conclusion. Suffice it to say, I am not sentimental about animals. That's pretty much a middle class luxury.


On the subject of disabled people and their *wanting* to die, read this. Please!
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/archive/berg.htm

And I have read your links, and numerous other news reports on this case, as well as reports from the court appointed physicians.

Abbi, I'm sorry that I'll likely have to unsubscribe from your conversation here. I don't like doing that to my friends. But I'll not sit here and carry on further with a known troublemaker. Maybe one day Apple/Della will be able to see past the ignorant, conservative dogma and grasp reality. Till then, there's no point attempting any reasonable, intelligent discourse.

Sorry, Abbi. Kaz and Az, see you around elsewhere.

<>

What the...?

I am sure you know what you mean, but I am blowed if I do!

Oh, and Annette, not Della, please!

>Animals are different from people. People are not animals. That's trivial,and obvious, and inarguable.

The nature and importance of the difference could and probably would be argued, but probably to no satisfactory conclusion. Suffice it to say, I am not sentimental about animals. That's pretty much a middle class luxury.<

Sentiment has nothing to do with it. It's called respect for the sanctity of life. And being called middle-class is a compliment, coming from someone who has none.

I'm off guys, I'll certainly not stay here and be Apple/Della's new object of abusive diatribes.

Oh, so you've joined the ranks of the self-described dirty angels? I give up, if you're just going to shriek Della Bomb, there's no point in trying to talk to you.

Your anti-religious prejudice is blinding you to facts. I am sorry that you won't read any links, listen to anything you don't want to hear - there's nothing I can do about it.

<>

Again with the insults. Well, knowing that you consider 'middle class' people to be somehow unsavoury. Anyhoodle, I am far from middle class - reckoning that most middle class people don't live hand-to-mouth and constantly worry about paying the rent, as I do.

Yet I am more than sentimental about my cats (I still have two). They are a part of my family and I take their health and well-being very seriously.

A question - if you are so unsentimental about animals why do you insist on calling yourself 'Cat Woman'? You don't have any cats, as far as I know (since you have told me you don't). What is the point of this added on part of your ever-changing nick-name?

I see you have changed it yet again to Apple Adelaide.

az

<>

Poor wee girl, I am sure they'll all hold your hand for you.

You had your mind made up for you from the start, I don't know why I wasted my breath and half the night trying to reason with you.

There is so much I could say, if you want a *real* abusive diatribe to complain about, but *one* of us has to be an adult.

By the way, *not* Della. I wouldn't be so discourteous as to call someone by a name they had changed, but it seems you have a different idea of what constitutes abuse from what I do.

<> (Della to psychocandy)

In fact, the term 'dirty angels' was coined by Ben, so they are not 'self-described'.

<

Psychocandy didn't simply 'shriek' Della Bomb. She seemed to be making a point that your previous comments were based on personal opinion, not fact. And then she went on to explain why she felt this to be the case.

<>

Yet another insulting comment. Do you know what psychocandy's personal beliefs are, Della, or is it simply that anyone who disagrees with certain Christian viewpoints are 'anti-religious' in your mind?

az

<> *We* don't know whether she is in a PVS or not, nor do *we* know if it is/was Terri's wish, expressed or otherwise, to be allowed to die in this situation.

Moreover, we all agree (I think) that it is reprehensible that the decision (whichever way it goes) has been made a political football.

It is also, unfortunately but realistically, the case that in such a situation there is a possibility that even with the best will in the world by all concerned the decision arrived at might not be the best one (whatever that may be.) We are, in fact, confronted by a "moral dilemma".

Having said all that, my *opinion* is that the majority medical opinion of her condition and prognosis, and the judgement of the court, should be accepted, and that she should be allowed to die in a dignified fashion.

Noggin

<> (psychocandy)

<> (Della/Apple)

Quite rich coming from you, Della, when you constantly unsubscribe from threads in a huff only to turn up again a few postings later.

<>

Seems to me you have already been quite abusive and insulting enough to people here, Della.

<>

I think it's quite clear who is being adult here, Della, and it doesn't seem to be you.


az

I do not accept or desire personal insults about mere opinions.
Opinions are good even if they differ and links are always good to know about even if they differ from my norm. I make it a point to read all sides.

Pushing until you have nothing more to add but insulting assumptions is not desirable or constructive. There is no room in a civil discussion to push to that point.



***********************************
Terri it seems to some has the duty to live as well as the right to live. Those are too different concepts.

***********************************

I am so Tired of extremists spin, of black and white thinking that claims logic but abandons it when convienient.
If the line of logic that life is sacred is straight =
Death penalty should be abolished immediately because those people have a duty and a right to live and suffer their fate. Makes no sense to say all life is sacred at all cost EXCEPT for those people *points*

I desire balance and truth. Desire I say because nothing is perfect but you have to at least want it ,to get even close to it. I believe like Noggin that reasonable and decent people can actually disagree!
How novel that concept seems to have become in the media and other places.

Thanks all.
*sigh*
The end I imagine......

Hello people!

What the is going on here?

This thread seems to mirror the 'politicising' of this issue in the media!

To me the moment an issue is 'politicised' like this, any hope for fairness or finding the truth goes right out the window.

I don't wish to insult or even harshly criticise anybody.

I can only point out my own opinions. I don't have the 'facts', and I don't think anyone has. But maybe some people do have more 'facts' or at least opinions that are closer to true than others. But who can tell?

An interesting thing seems to be this ... the louder people shout, apparently, the less they are being heard. So someone who wants to be heard, shouldn't shout at others!

The 'Pro Choice' people do have a point, and so do the 'Pro Life' people. I don't know if I'm using the right terms, but I'm going to use them anyway ...

The issue is certainly *not* a black/white issue or even one of religion/irreligion.

If I was irreligious, then maybe I would be even more 'Pro Life' than I am right now. If I didn't believe in an afterlife, I would say that this one life is all we ever will have and even if it's the suckiest life in the universe, it's still better than no life at all. As long as there's life there's hope of improvement, of some kind of 'quality', but if life is ended, it's ended forever and there's no hope whatsoever of anything ever again.

Alternatively, I might believe that if life is temporary, it is totally meaningless and its 'quality' or lack of quality would be of no ultimate consequence. I would be in the position where I could decide for myself if my life had any meaning, or not - irrespective of any 'facts' about my life, or how it might seem to others.

As it is, I do believe in a soul that continues existence after death, and therefore, death is not a permanent end to anything important.

And yet, I do believe life is extremely important. If I was in Terri's condition, I still would want to live ... if I was able to 'want' anything at all. And if I wasn't able to 'want' anything at all, it wouldn't make - to ME - a difference if I lived or died ... and it would make no difference whether I died with 'dignity' or without dignity, or whether I lived with or without dignity.

However, my life might still have meaning and value, even if only symbolic, to *others*, and for this reason there might be something worthwhile in perpetuating my life.

<>

That sounds a bit morbid to me, Willem. That your body being kept alive - even if you had no mind or consciousness happening - might serve as a symbol to some people. Symbol of what, exactly? The miracle of modern medicine?

Do you think a body without a working mind is still 'alive' in the sense we normally think of the word? In the sense that alive humans (well, all animals really) are both physically and mentally alive?

A friend of mine's father had a totally paralysing stroke many years ago - he was kept at home, living strapped to a chair for twenty years. He was spoon fed, he had to be cleaned up all the time - this is quality of life? Okay, maybe this guy was happier living like that than not living - again, personal choice. The family simply took care of him until his body gave out.

It's a very tough call. I might say now I'd rather be dead than live like that. But if I was being lovingly cared for I might find small day-to-day things that still made living worthwhile.

However, the point of abbi starting this thread was to talk about the political issues surrounding this issue, not the emotional ones. How GWB suddenly stepped in, how the Christian Right groups have been financially supporting Terri's parents in order to use them for their own political purposes.

The emotional issues are already being talked about on several other threads at the moment.


az

Just to answer your questions, az ...

My body as a symbol of what?

A symbol of myself! Of the hope that in some way, 'I' am still around, and not too far.

Note that I am using the words 'might' ... in other words it is not necessarily so, but it might be so. There might be some use in keeping an apparently 'braindead' or 'mindless' person still alive.

There might also be situations where this is *not* the case, but I think it is necessary that we consider how this might be the case. Otherwise, we may come to a conclusion that people in such conditions should *always* be euthanised. I can only say I don't think that people in such conditions should always, as a matter of principle, be euthanised, or 'allowed' to die, and this calls for some kind of justification for what possible value there might be in keeping people in such conditions alive.

The second question ... as to the 'alive'-ness of a body, apparently without a mind.

There are degrees of life, and there are degrees of awareness, and there are degrees of mental activity. The definition of 'a working mind' is not clear. Maybe I myself don't have a 'working mind', because I suffer from a mental illness. But if my own mind is not as 'working' as that of someone else, or if I am not as 'alive' or 'aware' or 'conscious' as someone else, does it mean that my life is inferior to that of others, or that I don't have the same right to live?

I certainly do think that somebody who has a living body but apparently a 'dead' mind is not as alive and aware as 'normal' people are. But they are still 'alive' in the biological sense of 'life', the same way that us normal humans are still alive when we are in deep sleep and not experiencing any clear consciousness at all.

Right now we cannot really fully observe the mind, or even fully say what conditions it is dependent upon. We cannot say, for instance, how 'conscious', or not, animals are, compared to fully-functional humans. For the same price we cannot always say how 'conscious' certain humans are ... there are for instance many people who are mentally so severely retarded that they cannot talk, and don't show much evidence of being aware of what is happening around them. Do they have minds like ours? Are they aware? Do they have any quality of life, or any right to life?

There have been many incidents of people who have gone into serious trauma during operations, and have been 'brain dead' for periods, but recovered afterwards and gave some indications that they were in fact aware of certain things that happened during their periods of being supposedly brain-dead.

There is also anecdotal evidence that people who were in comas, or in the 'vegetable' state like the one you describe of your father's friend, were nevertheless aware of some of the things going on around them - some indication that they reacted to their friends and loved ones. Not evidence that might stand up in court, but nevertheless, enough to make one wonder.

Without any clear evidence that people who are apparently brain-dead *do* still possess some mental and conscious levels, I think it is still worth pondering giving them some benefit of doubt.

I can go into all of this in depth if anybody would want that.

As for the final issue, whether we are justified in talking of the emotional aspects, rather than the political aspects on this thread ... this I think is up to abbi, since this is her thread. For my own sake ... I would *not* be comfortable speaking on this topic elsewhere on h2g2 and I would like to say a few things here on abbi's thread but if I'm out of line I would like abbi to say so.

HI Willem.
There was not a lot to discuss on the political end but I would welcome more comments. I am the queen of drift so how can I criticise?

Many are shy about posting in some places heavily visited, so I understand and welcome your comments.
I do understand strong emotions on the topic and that all the posts may have given you the desire to speak!

What you might decide partly depending on beliefs is very close to what I have thought, though I am sure it is different for others.

Not all of that facts are known in the Terri case. I think in this case, there is enough to have made the decision ,under *all of the circumstances known and ruled on in court.*

There has been enough time,testing ,chances and care in this case to expect no will or ability to communicate or eat. Although I doubt Terri is feeling suffering ,other people can be in touturous living circumstances possibly worse than death.

I certainly wondered why those that most believe in an afterlife (all suffering is gone on the other side) are not more willing to let her go after 15 years? I have felt more peaceful when some loved ones suffering ended after a long time of them wishing it would.

I do think some souls can hang around longer in order to give the family time to accept the fate or catch up to reality or gather together. In that case it almost seems as if some suffering goes for a greater good.

Each case can be decided seperately hopefully. This is not the first round of right to die issues have become a hot debates over the past decades. Like many laws, they vary from state to state rather than being the same all over the US.

The more people who let their loved ones know what they want in writing - most importantly who speaks for you if you cannot, the kinder it is to all. In this state you can name anybody to be your medical guardian and they override all other family members.

Hi abbi!

I just want to say I came to this thread without knowing any of the 'details' of the Terri Schiavo case. I've tried to get more info ... of course, it's all beyond repair now that she's dead ... but anyways, the issues around the case are troubling and I've found a heck of a lot of conflicting information.

For instance: was she really a 'vegetable'? I know doctors and lawyers and so on are saying that she was totally mindless, but as I indicated in the postings above, I think there's a chance that she might have been more aware than 'science' would be able to tell. To put it in other words ... there is more to our 'minds' and our 'souls' than what Science can observe and measure.

What I see in this case is that it is basically about a conflict between two groups of people - Terri's parents and blood family on the one side, and her husband and his lawyers on the other. The politicians got involved because Terri's family members *asked* them to become involved. As it happened, in the end even Dubya and Jeb were unable to do anything to help save Terri's life - for whatever her life might have been worth.

Just as an aside ... it seems crazy to me that Dubya and Jeb Bush could even talk about a 'culture of life' when Dubya launched a war that's still killing thousands and while Jeb 'believes in' the Death Penalty. If there is to be a true 'Culture of Life' it should promote, protect and cherish life everywhere and in all cases. Such a culture should do a heck of a lot to improve the health, wellbeing and quality of *everybody*. Should fight things like poverty and malnutrition tooth-and-nail. Should seek to eliminate war and conflict, and to maximise peace, equality and justice between people all over the world. Should give serious consideration even to 'animal rights', environmental health, and the wellbeing of the entire planet. I don't even think humanity is ready for a true 'Culture of Life' at the moment.

I agree that a Living Will can do a lot to prevent problems like in Terri's case. In my own case, I would *not* want my life to be artificially prolonged by procedures that are costly ... however, if my life can be prolonged by procedures that are *not* costly, I would want to keep on living. If, as in Terri's case, I mainly needed to be given food and water by a tube, I would choose to hang on. Even if I cannot communicate with the outside world, I'm fairly certain that I would still have some form of internal mental life.

Mainly, I would choose (before actually being in the position) to hang on, for the sake of keeping hope alive. I do believe people can recover even from very serious brain damage. I would want to take the chance to try and recover. Even if I seemed from the outside like a vegetable, I believe that I would maintain something inside me capable of putting up a fight, fighting back to the light.