Who WOULD want to remain in Schiavo condition, if given the choice?

[jefferson_dem]

Much is being made by the ghouls on the other side who claim that "we don't really know what she would have wanted since there's no living will and her husband is such a schmuck (their judgment, not mine)". Well, we all know that it is an adjudicated FACT that she would not want to be sustained as she is.

But let us think realistically for just one moment...

Who can honestly say that if given the choice between either remaining in her "hostage-like" condition indefinitely or being allowed to pass on with dignity and in peace, they would choose the former? Anyone?

[TahitiNut]

1. A pathological narcissist like Chimperor Codpiece, of course.

:shrug:

[the_spectator]

14. You're probably joking, but ...

This is exactly the wrong response, and the reason why many people are uncomfortable with the right-to-die people. Before you know it, it won't be simply up to each person to decide whether or not to die. Very quickly society starts pressuring people to decide to die: the message will be, if you are too old / too disabled / too useless etc. you SHOULD die - after all, only "narcissists" would want to hang on to life after they've reached the point that they can't feed themselves / talk / hold a job / fuck - or whatever your particular belief is about what makes life "meaningful."

And it is precisely the people on the margins who will have the hardest time standing up to that societal pressure.

[jefferson_dem]

15. Right. The best solution is to let sick-fuck washington politicians decide

whether personal family medical decisions are "proper" or not.

Families don't know shit!

Scum-suckers like Delay and Frist...THEY should be the moral arbiters in the end.

[the_spectator]

16. I don't want them to decide

but I'll be honest, I don't really know if it is a good idea to make it so easy for ANYONE to decide -- because, as I said, I worry that once that decision is available, societal pressure will force people to decide for death.

What if, after all the to-do over this maddeningly muddied Schiavo case, it becomes a standard thing upon marriage for people to declare to each other's spouse their decision for themselves in such cases. It'll become almost a "pre-nup" type situation -- people won't want to marry someone unless that person is willing to give up life.

(And this Schiavo case IS maddeningly muddled. Yes, her parents have been co-opted by fundies. But Michael has been co-opted by pro-death people - such as his lawyer, and their main medical expert - the frighteningly pro-death Dr. Cranford. On this particular case, let the Repubs play their games; it does Democrats no good to seize the other side of the argument just for the sake of opposition.)

[Old and In the Way]

2. Wouldn't it be great if we keep her body alive for 35 more years?

Then she could have a special 50 years of non-life that the Republicans and "Right-to-Lifers" could celebrate.....

[Robbien]

3. People who set up all these Schiavo threads are probably the exact type

of people who would love being in that type of situation. They love being led around by the RNC.

[applegrove]

4. She is a bad case because some of us do not actually believe she

made the choice. Yes - if given a choice.. a living will.. etc.. do what the person wants. But don't touch someone who has not said that.

[jefferson_dem]

6. It has been properly adjudicted and determined in state court that

she did indeed make the choice, and her husband is respectfully asking the court to honour that choice, to not be in the condition that she is now in. So i beg to differ on that note.

But the point of my post was to ask - aside from the fact that her "best interest" has already been properly decided in the proper (legal!) forum, who would consider it in THEIR "best interest" to be in her condition, if given the choice ahead of time? Would you?

[TahitiNut]

7. Nineteen judges disagree with "some of us."

What's left of her is less than an amoeba. :shrug:

[mondo joe]

10. But her wishes have been repeatedly upheld in court

based on multiple witnesses.

Why keep her in a zombie state without knowing THAT is what she wanted?

[applegrove]

21. If it is her wish than so be it.

[Bouncy Ball]

5. I would not and don't want to be left like that.

Let me die in that case.

In fact, I have written, notarized, witnessed instructions as such.

[_TJ_]

8. pull the plug...

I wouldn't want to 'exist' in that state for a day - let alone
15 years :(

[KC21304]

9. Why are all these godless Republicans trying to keep

Terri from entering the heavenly kingdom ? They persist in the notion that she is cognizant, so then she knows she is lying there, causing herself and others distress. Why wouldn't they want her to start enjoying eternal happiness, no pain, just bliss ? Are they selfish or what ?

[phylny]

17. That is precisely why I would never want to be kept alive

artificially if I were in her state. I do believe in life everlasting in heaven, and if my time here is done, I want to be there.

I realize others don't believe this, but don't flame me. These are my beliefs - I don't expect them to be anyone else's.

[Syd_]

11. How can anyone know what would be best.

Unless someone has been in her situation and come out of it to tell the world what it was really like, we don't know what she can hear, see, think, feel, wish or what else she may be aware of and what senses are affecting her. I can't make a decision about what should or should not be done or how I might feel in her state. We just don't know what she is experiencing or not experiencing.

[mondo joe]

13. That's the point of having Next of Kin - in Terri's case her chosen

representative was her husband, to make medical choices for her if she could not.

[gollygee]

22. Scientifically, we know she can't think

if we didn't know that, we would have to wonder if she liked being in that state or if it was torture for her. Michael Schaivo went through a process to help him determine what she would want in this situation. We can only do what we think is best in a situation like this, and that's what he's trying to do.

[mondo joe]

12. For myself: remove the feeding tube, start the morphine and let me slowly

fade away.

[distantearlywarning]

18. Signed and Notarized Living Will = Big Middle Finger to Santorum

My husband and I decided to get one this week after watching this case. Although I don't really approve of the way in which they are letting Terri Schiavo die, I don't want any busybody crazy nutjob right wing politicians keeping me alive in a vegetative state.

That's why I am going to sign a legal document to that effect and have it witnessed and notarized. So that people who I actually trust to accede to my wishes instead of using my broken body to push their fundie agendas can put me out of my misery.

Screw you, Santorum. Screw you, Delay. Screw you, all of you crazy fundie protesting nutjobs. You are NOT going to do that to me.

[Mz Pip]

20. I wonder if that Living Will

would really matter much if some fundie crackpot group decided you should live anyway.

Say you had some dellusional nurse who heard a voice or saw some vision and made a big deal of it. Say some RW group decided to "save" you. Would that Living Will matter?

I kind of doubt it.

That's what I find so troubling about this. Even if Terri had a Living Will I doubt it would have made one bit of difference.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[adwon]

19. Me

I have no intention of delegating any power to remove respirators/feeding tubes/etc to anyone. This will sound tongue in cheek, but I will die when I'm ready.

I'm pretty much the only person I know that thinks this way, which likely isn't a shock to anyone. The underlying reason is that I reject the idea of 'death with dignity.' I do not see suicide, even suicide by proxy, as being anything remotely resembling dignity. In my opinion, the point of life is to transcend the inherent suffering and to give a sample of one's best (this is in reference to comment by Justice Holmes). I fail to see how evading suffering, in whatever form it comes, is an adult decision.

Now ask me if I think people who, in that state, would want to die should be forced to live?

Nope. I am perfectly free to think those folks are wrong. However, I'm always mindful of the fact that 'forcing to live' isn't so different from 'forcing to die.' In a situation like this, it's perfectly commensurate with individual liberties to allow the individuals to use that liberty to decide. If X wants to die and Y wants to live, what's the legitimate argument against accomodating both?