Re: My thoughts on the Terry Schiavo case
From: Anne Vasquez (annevasquez_at_NOSPAMhotmail.com)
Date: 03/22/05
- Next message: Su: "Re: GIVE ME A BREAK"
- Previous message: Anne Vasquez: "Re: Newsgroup netiquette?"
- In reply to: Jay Vance: "My thoughts on the Terry Schiavo case"
- Next in thread: Jay Vance: "Re: My thoughts on the Terry Schiavo case"
- Reply: Jay Vance: "Re: My thoughts on the Terry Schiavo case"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:55:22 GMT
Well said, Jay. When I saw the header, I expected to disagree with you
and instead found myself nodding all the way through the post. Sorry
for preconceived misconceptions! :-)
Anne
Jay Vance wrote:
> If ever there was a situation that doesn't seem to have one "right"
> solution, this is it. I feel for Terry's family, even though I don't
> necessarily agree with their attempts to keep her alive at any cost, with no
> real reason to expect that she will ever improve. I am staunchly pro-life,
> but I have a real problem with the vast amounts of money that are spent to
> add a few months or even weeks to our lives, and I also disagree with the
> concept that if it is scientifically possible to do something, we ought to
> do it, regardless of what the practical benefits may be. I have a problem
> with using Christianity as the basis of a "life at all costs" philosophy
> without also acknowledging that for a Christian this life isn't all there
> is--on the contrary, what's waiting for us after this life is over is so
> much better than anything we enjoy now. The Christian point of view about
> the sanctity of life is incomplete without acknowledging that death for the
> Christian is not some horror to be avoided at all costs. The Bible simply
> does not teach that.
>
> I realize my point of view is colored by the pragmatic nature of my
> upbringing; my family has never been much into drama or histrionics. Death
> has never been something to dread for us. My grandfather passed away at
> home in his own bed with Alzheimer's. When he had no knowledge of anything
> going on around him, we simply let him go--meaning we didn't force-feed him.
> All this talk of how horrible it must be to die of starvation or dehydration
> is simply not accurate when you're talking about someone who has no
> cognitive abilities.
>
> The fact that it is POSSIBLE to keep someone alive for years and years in a
> vegetative state by feeding them parenterally or intravenously or whatever
> doesn't mean that it is IMPERATIVE that we do so. In fact, I'm going to go
> WAY out on a limb and suggest that what Terry did or did not say about being
> kept alive at any cost is not the issue. Are we REALLY saying that if a
> person says, "I want to be kept alive no matter how much it costs and no
> matter how debilitated I am and no matter how much technology it takes," we
> as a society are then REQUIRED to honor those wishes NO MATTER WHAT? Are we
> going to start prosecuting people who don't spend every last dime of their
> own money and/or society's resources in order to keep someone's heart
> beating and lungs working a little while longer? I'm not talking about
> actively causing someone's death, mind you, nor am I advocating legalizing
> suicide or assisted suicide. But it should not be a crime to let someone
> die in peace when their body and/or mind is simply worn out. I can hear the
> question being asked, "So who gets to decide when enough is enough?" All I
> can tell you is that for doggone sure I don't want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
> making that decision!
>
> I have a real problem with the federal government getting involved in this
> for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's just another example of
> government intrusion into our lives, something conservatives should be
> fighting against tooth and nail. Furthermore, it undermines the rule of
> law, something else that is a bedrock principle of conservatism. This issue
> has been reviewed and re-reviewed ad infinitum by at least 19 judges and I
> don't know how many legislators in Florida. The laws of Florida have been
> followed; there is no cause for federal intervention, in my opinion.
> Thirdly, I don't agree with using a tragic situation like this to further a
> political agenda, I don't care whose it is. To me this is no different than
> when feminists were using bogus statistics some years back about the
> percentage of women who were the victims of abuse at the hands of men. When
> they were confronted with the fact that their statistics were out and out
> lies, they responded by saying that the issue of abuse was real, so
> therefore anything that brought attention to the problem was okay, even if
> it wasn't actually true! Regardless of what the issue is, it is morally and
> ethically wrong to use false information or personal tragedy to further an
> agenda, in my opinion.
>
> Jay
>
>
- Next message: Su: "Re: GIVE ME A BREAK"
- Previous message: Anne Vasquez: "Re: Newsgroup netiquette?"
- In reply to: Jay Vance: "My thoughts on the Terry Schiavo case"
- Next in thread: Jay Vance: "Re: My thoughts on the Terry Schiavo case"
- Reply: Jay Vance: "Re: My thoughts on the Terry Schiavo case"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
