I have payed attention to the different death-help cases, that have been covered in the news, for many years now. I have discussed it with people I know and I have thought a lot about it. I guess it's because it happened to someone in my family and also because I have been sick, all my life (not in a seriously fatal way though). I know how it feels like to be trapped in sickness, if you have been healthy all your life; you have no idea. My life is mine, it's not for anyone to say, what a sick person should feel, want or need!
The current newspaper case, are the case of Terri Schiavo. I have wanted to talk about this in my online writing spot here, for a long time and because of the Terri Schiavo case, I think this moment is better than any other.
Death-help can be done in a passive, or active way. The passive method are legal in many countries, while the active are illegal in most countries. In my country it is legal to perform passive death-help, on an individual, that are beyond recovery from a fatal condition. Meaning; if the family agrees, the hospital can remove the medical fluids, that keep the patient alive and in that way; kill it. It is mostly performed on people that have suffered a brain damage and are declared more or less braindead.
Active death-help are mostly done on people, that are in the last painful stages of Multiple Sclerosis. The person has to agree and want the procedure, before it is performed. It means that the patient will get a deadly dose of a medication, after it gets a sleeping remedy. This causes the person to fall asleep and die.
Passive and active death-help, are not supposed to be painful. Even if the person starves to death, it will fall into coma, before the body gets hurt. It sounds terrible, but the fact is, that this happens all the time, all around the world. My grandmother's sister got passive death-help and she was given sleeping remedies and wasn't at all aware. Active death-help are similar to lethal injection executions (just so you know, I am against death penalty), that they kill deathrow inmates with in the USA. You might disagree with the killing, but you cannot say that it isn't the humane method.
I will now tell you about some stories, they are all true. I will make them short and they will give you a refrence to death-help and then you can put these stories together and think about in yourself.
Active-death help are legal in The Netherlands and I remember reading a story about a young girl there. I think she was around twelve and this girl legally gave herself the deadly dose. I cant remember what she was suffering of, but the family along with their sick daughter, had decided they would use a deadly dose, when the girl was in her last stages before death. This means that she wouldn't have to suffer while dying and she wouldn't have to become a prisoner in her own body.
There was a case here in Norway, some years ago. There was a woman who was suffering, in her very last stages of Multiple Sclerosis. Naturally, she had lived for a long time, functioning well with the disease. She had a few more months to live. During this time, she would get worse, she would more and more lose her abilities to communicate and the woman had already lost most of her physical abilities. The doctors had given up on her. She lived alone, in a bed, in an apartment with extreme pain and one of the people who visited her, was a retired doctor. With him she decided, I think along with her sister, that they would make a recording, where she expressed that she wanted the doctor to kill her. The doctor would get no money out of it. They planned it in detail and he gave her a deadly dose of medications and she fell asleep, to never wake up again. Of course the retired doctor and the woman's sister, was arrested when they showed the tape. I think he was acquitted, but I cant remember. The only thing I remember, after the case blew up in the media, is this doctor's character. He truly seemed to me, to be a man who really cared about his patients and he cared about this woman. A retired doctor, that maybe had his most humane moment, in all his career as a doctor, when he killed that woman.
Just think about it in retrospect. Life isn't only, all about living, life is also about dying. And sometimes you have to be bold, you have to be tough, even in love. And not everything can be solved, the way we wanted it to be solved...
In my own family there was a case, almost identical to the Terri case. My dad's brother's wife suffered a brain damage, she was beyond recovery and they had to decide what to do. She had a family with small kids and it was a terrible situation for them all. But the husband remembered that she had talked about death-help, just some weeks before it happened. They saw a documentary, or some news stuff about it on TV and she had expressed the wish to die and donate her organs, if it would happen to her. And strangely enough just a short time after this, it happened, just out of the blue. And although her family loved her, they loved her enough to respect her wishes. After her husband had told the doctors what she had wanted, they could hear the ambulances that came rushing in, to take her organs. And when they removed them for donation, she died. But something positive came out of something so tragic for one family, another sick person could have a second chance, with one of her organs.
And I thought that was so special, it was such a good thing that happened, in such a sad moment. And I really felt I admired that woman then. She was not a hero, not a winner of anything and she is one of those people who would never be awarded for her act, but she was a good person for wanting to give of herself, in such an unselfish way. And while I have never been a fan of people that get awards, I will always admire the gentle bravery, of those who are anonymous. I thought so much of her then, that I wished I would have known her better. And it inspired me to want the same thing, if I was in that situation...
I had a cat for many years, I got him when I was eight. When I was fifteen we saw him running after another cat, across the street. He never reached the end of the road, a car ran over him. It was terrible to watch, because I loved that cat, I grew up with him. Often he came home hurt and wounded, by cars, by other cats and from jumping off from high places and what not. And we always took him to the doctor and payed for the medications and surgery that he needed. It was a wild cat indeed. He had nine lives that's for sure, but this time, that day, it was different. The driver was nice enough, to stop the car and look at him. And my mother went out and said, they had to drive him to the doctor. The cat had pulled himself back into the grass, but the driver said he was too hurt to survive. We didn't want to go have a look at him, because maybe he would identify the pain with us and it was just too painful. So the driver hit him and killed him with a hard object, that he had in his car. We agreed that this was the best thing to do, because his back was broken and he was in a lot of pain. It was a terrible day, but we buried him in the garden, on his favourite spot and I thought; he lived a long life, he was a lucky and a happy cat while he lived. He got fish every Sunday, he chased all the male cats, he took rats and mice, he teased the dog next door, he was a father and he was the biggest cat I have ever seen in our neighbourhood. It was sad that he went the way he did, but that's life for a cat, in a human car world.
I also had a dog, before the one I have now. He wasn't so old, when he got ill and we had to decide if he should suffer, or be allowed to die. In the end after having tried and looked at the other options, we decided, that we had to think about what was best for him. So the doctor gave him a shot and he fell asleep... I think about this cat and this dog, all the time, now and then. And all animals have their own character, just like people do, so when they are gone, you will never meet the same cat, or dog again. You get very connected to your animals, they give you a whole new world and they leave a void when they are gone. And sometimes you think you can hear their paws or something, on the floor and you turn around, but it was nothing...
Our human morality, our culture says, that we are more worth than animals. It's legal to give death-help in a passive and active way, on an animal. It's legal because they can be a burden to us? And because their death are more close to the nature, than our death? People that truly love an animal wants it die, for it's own good, when time is almost up.
And now ask yourself some questions.
If you have ever had an animal ask yourself, how did you feel when it got seriously sick? Would you treat a human you loved, in the same manner? Would you want it to escape the pain and die, if there were no cure? Would it mean that you loved it less? More? Did you make it feel, that it was a burden to you? Did you do everything in your power? Did you love it for your own good? Did you respect it in the end?
Of course there probably will be a cure for everything, eventually, but for how long, can a dying person wait? What are the chances of recovery, of finding a cure, before the person dies? The chances are very slim. And what is the meaning of your existence to you? Should someone else decide what your meaning should be?
Death-help is murder. A compassionate murder. A humane murder without pain. And I have to say that I find it very ironic, ironic but not surprising, that a man like the American President Bush, are against the humane murder, while he is in favour of brutal murder. Because brutal murders are performed in warfare and on American prisoners. They are shot, bombed or fried to death. And while the lethal injections are gentle, it kills people that aren't seriously sick, or dying.
I have seen both of the interviews, that Larry King did with Terri Schiavo's parents and the one with her husband. The parents, obviously strongly religious fanatics, thinks it's wrong to kill an innocent person. They want to take care of their brain damaged daughter, in their own home. And they say that her brain damaged facial expressions, are cute. The husband claimed Terri expressed while healthy, that she never would like to be kept artificially alive. The battle between the parents and the husband, have been going on since 1990. The parents have accused the husband for wanting his wife's money, but the parents themselves, have a website where they ask for money donations. Personally I think the money issue in this case, are rude and disrespectful. And this woman who is beyond repair, can only lie helpless, while a political battle are fought over her life. Her life tube have been removed and added again several times, because they cannot decide, if they should let her die or not! And the people and the legal system, ought to be ashamed, really! And we should learn from such a case, that we need new laws. Laws that protect the individual rights, of each and every living being. Stop the damn nonsense and the disrespectful fighting, over people who cannot communicate their wishes. Stop the political circus and make a law that protects, all peoples wishes!
The law should make passive and active death-help legal, for those that believe in it and wish it for themselves. They should have to sign some papers, while they are able to do so. Papers that either express that they wish, or do not wish death-help, if they happen to get into a situation, where such questions can be brought up. These documents will be like a will and they cannot be broken, or changed, by someone else. The family cannot disagree. I think the medical institution should demand such a law, because they are the ones, who have to deal with this in the end. If they care about the patients, they should demand a law that fits for everyone, in all extremely serious and deadly situations.
So how come that the fight, for the rights of the individual, are so hard? Why cant we all understand, that this is something that is highly important, to everyone? This fight is hard, because most people, the majority doesn't care about the individual. They only care in an egotistic way, when they love trough romance, or love their own kids. They do, because they want to be loved and petted themselves. They do, because they want the kids, to grow up and be something they can be proud of. And people decide that they love themselves, when they fit into the masses, because we learn to hate the individual parts in ourself, trough the masses. So we free ourselves from individual choices, we don't think we need it, we ignore it, when we fit into everything. And respect trough love, are something completely different. It's only when we stand alone in the world, that we feel that the individual rights, are fundamental. The right to live and die however and whenever you like to, become a strong wish then. Everyone are different when they stand alone, but everyone are the same in the masses. And behind all the charade, at the very end of everything, most of us will find the need for the same thing; the wish to have our own meaning.
My mother said she could understand the feelings, of the parents to Terri Schiavo. She could, because she is a parent herself and her love is egotistic at times. All parents have a selfish love for their kids, more or less. They want to protect you, sometimes more, than what is good for you. I remember when me and my brother were little and we asked my mother, before we fell asleep -"Would she switch us, with all the gold, or all the castles in the world?" She always said no. She wouldn't switch us with anything. We talked about this not very long ago, my mother, my brother and me. And my brother thought my mother's reply puzzled us, because we didn't understand the love of a parent and we thought it was silly, that she didn't want gold or castles, instead of us. But that's not it, of course we asked this while knowing, what the answer would be, we knew her reply, because she had replied with this a million times. But we asked, because we wanted to feel special and loved and safe. And we knew, we knew it, but we wanted to hear it anyway.
But my mother have also said, that she would want us to die, if we were in a situation that Terri Schiavo is in. Because love should also be sacrificing. A good parent will have to let it's child, have it's own life when it grows up. And the child will have to get individual rights, a right to live it's own faith, a life that is meaningful to itself. Not a life that serves the ego of the parents, or the masses, or the government. People must have their own individual meaning.
And if that was me, in Terri's body, I have said that I would want death for myself. I have said this many times. I would want passive and active death-help and I would like to donate my organs too. I would also want it, for people that I care about (unless they had expressed that they felt it was wrong). Because I truly think it is the humane and most compassionate approach. And this is something that people should think about, what they would want for themselves, because you cant take your healthiness for granted.
I don't want to lose my ability to communicate and have people pet with me, at my bedside, like they talk to a baby. That's not a meaningful life to me. I have been in a situation like that and I strongly wanted to die. I lived in a bed, with my bad lungs, they drugged me, they petted with me. It was not a life. I was not in a fatal situation at that point though and I recovered. But I knew then, that I would never want to live in a bed. I knew when I was able to communicate again, that communication are a fundamental thing, when it comes to a meaning, in your own existence.
Everyone experience a pain in life, everyone feel their own personal pains. And that's how life is. And pain can be hidden, the worsts pains and worries in life are the most simple things, for most people it is like that. And you can learn and grow and mature from pain. Haven't you noticed how relaxed, dying people seem to be? It's because they have moved on, from the stress and hype and death is okay, in the end. So if there is a God, that would judge me for my feelings, about life and death. The fact that I would want myself and the people, that I care about to die, if they were brain damaged beyond repair. The fact that I wanted my sick old grandmother to die and escape her pain (this was not the one that died recently). If there is such a God and he has his church here on earth, I still wouldn't care about what he thought.
Because the things you do out of love, can sometimes be a bit too much. It can even be wrong in a big sense, in a universal sense, if pain is our karma, even if so, it will never be wrong in your heart. Life is build on pain and goodness, there's so much to take. Nobody should judge anyone, for escaping the last pain.
And if you are one of those people, that claim that things like death-help, will only be a door to a Fascistic law. A law that could even kill people who have Down Syndrome, just give it a rest. There is a huge difference between Down Syndrome and the latest stages, of Multiple Sclerosis and brain damage. People with Down Syndrome can find their own meaning in life, be their own individual, a halfdead person in a hospital bed, doesn't have that choice.
I will never be for aborting a fetus, that have Down Syndrome. Naturally, I am for trying to cure the syndrome. Because a syndrome, a disease, or a condition are not what makes a person unique. People that are against finding a cure for something like Down Syndrome, are afraid that we will lose the special things, that you can find in people that stand out. And while I can see where they come from, I must say that it's sad to see, that we are so little in our human race, that we can only notice uniqueness, in people that suffer from Down-Syndrome, or sit in wheelchair. It's sad, because we're blind to ourselves. And it's tiredsome when people treat you, after you disease or condition. Nobody likes it. People with Down Syndrome aren't all the same, not people in wheelchairs either. Just think about cats and dogs, they all have their own identity and personal wishes. If we lose the disease or syndrome, the person will stay. And if there is something great in some of these people, something rare, something to learn, why not let it live trough yourself? Why not let it inspire you, to be something more.
A person with Down Syndrome should have a place in our society too, but it should also be given the chance, to be cured from it's syndrome, in the future. Because this is all about the individual rights. Who are you to say that a person should live with a syndrome, disease, or damage, just so it can colour your flat world?
My heart tells me, from personal experience, from people I have met in life; everyone should be given a chance to be born healthy. Everyone should be given a treatment and a hope, to recover and all diseases should be cured. Because this is our evolution and it's our challenge. But everyone should also be given the right to die, when it's ready to go. It's called individual freedom and your life is your own.
These comments are taken from the site, where I used to keep my journal, before I moved it here.
You can add replies to the entry, or the comments below.
From Minka: This is a hard case, for me. I do believe that she should be allowed to die if she had expressed it, but we do not know if she wanted to be kept alive or not. Her husband said she did not want to be kept alive, but there is no proof that she ever said that. If they have both decided to let her die, I do not think they should starve her. Even though, as you said, the body goes into a coma and doesn't feel anything, that is just cruel. You would not starve an animal, a human being or anything else. I do not see how the government is allowing this. At least be kind enough to give her a lethal injection and get it over with, not let her starve for two weeks until she dies. But that is just my opinion! That is what I would want done if it were happening to me.
From dj: i also support the right to die cases. i'm glad there are people like you who really do genuinely care what is going on in this world. have a good one.
From Raven: To Minka: Yes, it's a hard and difficult question. When I heard the husband express in the Larry King interview, that his wife wanted to die in such a situation, I though he spoke the truth. But of course he could be lying that's true. However, he had nothing to win on it, if she died. Because he have been offered a large amount of money, if he gave up the fight for her to die and he wouldn't take the cash. He fought for her for many years now. Naturally the parents probably love her, most likely, but I think they should have listened to the husband. But I do agree, the active death help seem more humane, when you think about it. And I think they should rather give people active death-help in such a case, than passive, but active death-help are illegal in the US at this point (isn't it?). The best thing would be, if the woman had signed some papers (and you can do this in the US), that said she wished passive death-help, the legal way. Personally I think the doctors should be the ones, that decide in the end, they should base their decision, on what the person had expressed it wanted for itself, or how slim the possibility were, for it to recover.
To DJ: I'm also glad to hear that other's feel the same way.
From Publius: I FINALLY emailed you Raven. Another remarkable and well written entry. BRAVO! I support the right to live and the right to die.As for Terrys case i don't know the intimate details, from what i have seen she is never going to recover since if i heard this correctly her cerebral cortex is well fucked and she has major brain damage. Maybe I am wrong about my info but if it is her wish to have her tubes pulled out then so be it. People till only recently were kept alive on tubes and it not at all natural way of life. I think the book and film "Johhny Got His Gun", if that makes any sense. I hope this situation works out, but being how things are going in the USA, it will go the most fucked up route. Well thats all for fom me for now and please keep writing. i love your writings. Bless you Raven!
From Gard: The problem in this specific case, is that there is no legal document stating Terri's wishes. Everything they have is the husband's claims, which (as mentioned on C2C AM) amount to the fact that he THINKS Terri would like to die. Another interviewee on the same radio show had recovered from the same situation Terri is in, long after the doctors gave her the death sentence. The question is, in absence of a legal statement of her wishes, what should the default action be? Assume that NOBODY wants to live in this state? Just kill them all off (which would, actually, destroy any chances for medical science to find a remedy)? If there had been a legal document stating that, if she was in this state, she would like to be killed, then it would not have been a problem at all. If she had thought about this situation (as her husband claims), then she should have thought of it seriously enough to write it up as a legal document and have it notarized. Since you state in your blog that you would want to be killed if you were in this situation, I urge you to write this up and have it notarized, so that there is no doubt what your wishes are.
From Raven: To Publius: I got your email Publius, thanks for writing me. I'm going to reply to your mail, as soon as I get myself to do it, I'm so lazy with replies, but I appreciate your words and it was a nice one to read :)
My opinion in the Terri case are based on the fact, that I think all people, deep down, would like to die, if there were no hope to recover, from such an extreme condition. I haven't read or seen "Johnny Got His Gun", but I'm going to check it out since you mention it. I also hope the situation works out, in the best way possible. My gut tells me that they will "save" her life and keep her on the tubes, because Bushie was going to sign some papers and he seem to get his way in all matters, these days. Bless you too Publius!
To Gard: Some stated that it wouldn't change much, if Terri had signed these papers, because the parents would probably, have fought for her life anyway. Their opinion have always been that she could possibly recover and they think she is aware. Her husband said that his wife had told him, that she wanted death in such a case, I don't understand how the parents would completely go against this and not even consider that it might be true. I would understand if this guy had a record for lying, if he was after her money, or appeared to not having loved his wife. My feeling was that the parents feels, that it's always wrong to kill in these cases and they egotistically, wanted to keep their daughter alive. Parents can often be too protective as I said, it's not a crime, but it's an offence in a way.
If it was a possibility for her to recover, of course the situation should not be like this. But my impression is that they had examined her, in every way possible and she have been like that for many years now. Then it's not about what is best for science, but what is best for one individual.
My personal opinion is, that yes, the default action should be passive and active death-help. But of course when and who should be getting this, must be decided by many doctors and different sectors.
Would this destroy the chances of a remedy, a cure? Maybe in some ways, maybe not. There are many different forms of brain damage and most of them are connected, they say, a lot of people live with a brain damage and functions. From what I have heard, it's not legal to experiment on people like Terri. People in her case are usually put away and forgotten about it seems. That's at least my impression, from documentaries and such. Recently they found a possible way, to reduce the brain damage in cases like Terri's. They have found a way to give the brain oxygen, while the patient doesn't get it naturally from the body. But this could of course only be done, before a brain damage would occur, when it was in danger of getting brain damage. This would be a great step for medical science, because it could save the brain, while the heart or lungs didn't work. Eventually they would probably, be able to fix cases like Terri's current situation as well. I doesn't change my thoughts on death-help, because I don't think it's right to keep people alive, just for the tiny hope of a breakthrough in science.
Nobody made a fuss about the situation, when my dad's brother stated that his wife wanted to die. They only had his words on it and his wife had only told him, about her wish on one occasion. She got death-help and her organs were donated, because he claimed that this was, what she would have wanted. He wasn't lying, he got nothing out if and everyone respected the way she died. Today she could have maybe been like Terri. I do think that the Terri case, are more about keeping up a political circus, than it is about the life of Terri and what is best for her. The people who demonstrate against it, most of them (not all), are not the ones who demonstrate against the killing and slaughtering during warfare. My impression is that most of them are religious right-winged conservatives and a lot of times they speak trough their god, rather than trough a human concern. I know that it sounds narrow minded, when I say that, but it's my impression.
Yes, I will sign documents that says that I don't wish, to be kept artificially alive and that I would like to donate my organs if possible. Currently it's not needed, because everyone I know, knows about my wish. My mother have promised me, that I would die if I was in that situation. And I have promised the same thing in return for her. Passive-death help are a completely normal thing in this country, like I said it's happened to two people in my family and it happens all the time.
A link to check out on the Schiavo case:
Jeb Bush's Expert Undercuts DeLay
From Gard: The idea of defaulting to death in absence of a document stating otherwise feels all wrong to me. The doctor's oath is to help patients get better. Then again, I don't trust doctor's anymore. Lately, they have been busy pushing pills on me, instead of actually working on figuring out what's wrong. And that's the first sign of an americanization of the Norwegian health system.
In the US, things are even more commercialized. If a patient is hurting their bottom line, they might as well give the death sentence in order to remove this economic problem.
As you said earlier, it's about the right to die. But there is also a right to live. And I don't feel that the right to die should be at the expense of the right to live. "I want to live," "Yes, but you have the right to die, bye bye now!"
Now, according to the law quoted, the spouse has final say in the matter, and so, according to the law, Terri's life should be terminated. Obviously, if Terri HAS been put some thought into this matter, she would have checked the law, found out that it would be up to her husband. Whether she then would trust her husband to make the right decision for her, is completely up to her.
As such, failing to check the law and making the appropriate arrangements would leave things more or less to randomness, and as such would be "her own fault". (Which reminds me, I need to check what the law in Norway says about this.) But in the absence of any other directive, I still feel that the default should be to keep alive. (In this case, if Terri was single, and there were no living relatives to make the decision for her.)
From Raven: To Gard: I don't either trust doctors and I have been to a lot of doctors in my life. I stayed in hospital for almost a whole year once. People need to be sceptic and I fully agree with you on that. But the doctors cant help a person that have ruined parts of it's brain, they cant today, in such extreme cases.
And as I said I'm not in favour, of giving out death sentences, in cases, where the patient are merely hurting. And of course this shouldn't be an economic question, I'm against it if it is. But in those cases where the person hadn't expressed what it wanted for itself, the decision will have to based, on what the medical institution says. And unless the death-help case, seems criminal in general, I don't think it's right to make it into a political case. If death-help isn't a crime in general, then why is so bad in this case?
My opinion on having default death-help, are based on the fact that I'm convinced, that everyone, at least most people, would wish it for themselves, if it came to it. In countries where they have active death-help, the person decides to kill itself with the shot, based on it's own needs. That's not an economic or medical decision, it's a personal wish. I don't think life will ever be the default act in cases like this, because death-help are a completely normal thing and more and more countries, are starting to be in favour of active death-help as well.
And in the Terri case, I think it's obvious what should be done. This woman have been in that situation for many years, I think it's a crime, that they wouldn't listen to what her husband said, in this case, more than in any other. And he won in court and most of these cases, doesn't even go into court. So which part are ignoring the woman's right, in this case? From what I can see the right-to-live side, are ignoring the fact that this woman have lived, for a long time, in this situation. They are ignoring what the medical institution have said. The court went in favour of the right-to-die side and the woman had expressed that she wanted to die.
In my opinion, people have a right to die and not be kept artificially alive, saying that, I will also support the right to live cases. But this is a right to die case, because based on what the husband said, she would have wanted to die. Terri trusted her husband perhaps? It was her words that the husband expressed. What is more correct then; listen to what she had told her husband, or listen to those that are against death-help in general? And most people doesn't sign such documents, if they are alone and have a special wish, such as donation and such, they should maybe write a document of course.
As I said this case are almost identical, to the death of my dad's brother's wife. She was given death-help here in Norway and they only had her husband's words on what to do. If she would have been alone, the medical institution decides on what to do. Death-help are normal here in Norway, in cases where there are no hope of recovery. Meaning; passive death-help are the default act, if nothing else works. That means that if you don't want it and don't say so, it's a risk of getting it anyway. My grandmother's sister got death-help and nobody knew, what she would have wanted.
More links on the case: Persistent Legislative State, No Life Support for You
From Gard: Well, there are two reasons, I think, why this is such a hot tomato in the US(unlike a hot potato, there's no real substance to a hot tomato), despite the fact that the case has already been settled as "correct within the law of Florida."
First of all, it's the rise of the conservative Christians in the US; the ones who voted Bush into power, the people that Bush represents. They claim to be against all forms of murder, including abortion and mercy killings. They are also against sex outside marriage, against the use of condoms, against masturbation - hell, they're ready to turn the US into a full blown radical Christian theocracy. (At the same time, the same bunch is FOR death penalty, including death penalty for minors.)
Now, the thing is, they don't even have to be a majority, they just get most of the air time, and the press will side with them for one reason; those are the orders from the president. (There is no hiding that Gringo press these days are VERY good at following presidential orders.) And that's the second major reason, imho, why there's so much noise about it.
And with the noise comes court battle after court battle. Sometimes, one might wonder if suing each other is the national passtime of the average Gringo. And to make matters worse, we now have federal presidential interference in an attempt to undermine local state law. And according to state law - as you pointed out in an earlier article - the husband is the one to make the decision. It doesn't matter what she has said, the law has given her husband the right to decide whether she should live or die. That's it. End of discussion. But we like to sue. And lawyers want their fees. I expect Terri's sister to write a book about this in the near future.
When it comes to recovering from brain damage, it has been proven that something as simple as watching good ol' green nature is very helpful. A positive environment is helpful. In most cases, hospitals consider these patients as not needing these positive environment "because they can't appreciate it anyway" so they are just pushed into a room, far away from natural sun light, far away from where people would even walk. They are left alone for themselves, with only the occational visit from family. People are saying negative things around them. It's not an environment that fosters recovery. On the contrary. It's a way to prolong their situation.
In my own personal belief, which may very well be different than yours, I believe that if I end up in such a state, and wanted to die, I would be able to kill myself even if I could not do anything with the actual body. Therefore, I would take my chances. My attitude, of course, stems from my view, that I am more than just a physical body, and that my consciousness is not just a chemical reaction in the physical world, and that my consciousness does not have to be linked to the physical world. (But by that, I do not declare myself a religious in any way, shape or form - I do, however, believe that there's a lot more to reality than what modern science is willing to admit.
From Raven: To Gard: Yes, I really agree with you there Gard. The Conservatives are on the rise and this is a great cause for them. I also imagine that someone, are going to write a book about it.
I also totally agree with you, on the negative environment in hospitals. I mean you don't have to be dying, to feel like wanting to die, in such a grey environment. I have thought about this a lot and i'm convinced that there would be less sickness, if they made a healthier hospital environment. But the medical institution is a grey old fashioned thing, in itself, it mirrors the buildings perfectly.
I'm desperately scared to end up in a situation like Terri's and I would want to escape it by any means necessary, but that's me. I also think that people are more that just the physical, I've always believed that, but I wouldn't bet my chance on, that I would be able to control my own death, if my body wasn't functioning. But of course there's more to life and death than science.
From PUBLIUS: I agree with you Raven (again and again) :
" The Conservatives are on the rise and this is a great cause for them." This is just another way for so many to use this woman while not giving a fuck about her for their own political gain. This story is all one hears about nowadays and the media uses it to silence any other newsworthy story, not that this one isn't but shit. Its 90% TS and 10% everything else. Meanwhile in America people are raped butchered and the war within the states continues as well as the hate, intolerance, anger and sickness that thrives in the current populace. In Dog We Trust! "The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms and false reasonings is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges. You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator to the whole human race, and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice." While many would debate god and creator I am up and willing on what that means for anyone who wishes, but no digressing! So what should one do when rights are violated? Another important question is are my rights violated when public servants pass illegal laws? DAMN RIGHT! What about when public servants actively as in the case here in America seek to undermine and destroy the constitution whom the take and oath to defend and honor? Hence the document is their to protect the people as the first duty of government is JUSTICE. But ironically the only thing happening now with government is that its duty is INJUSTICE. So the point being rights are violated on a massive scale and it is getting worse. What do the people do about it? So they use lobbyists groups to bribe corrupt greedy men who have sold their souls while proclaiming "God is own their side" with the most evil grin possible, at the same time denouncing all those who say the same thing!?! Do we vote and take a laidback political stance proclaiming "democracy" is good and the only way to peace while waging war? That poses the question of Democracy, which is after all MAJORITY RULE. STRAIGHT UP FUCK A TRULY DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. I am not for what politicians proclaim and want. For instance Bush truly does want to spread "DEMOCRACY". Why? Simply because one has the most powerful can take away the rights of the minority. Again FUCK MOB RULE. Besides demagogues just will via the media and big money control that mob into a “GROUPTHINK” mentality. Is it any wonder why politicians and political know it alls always use such hateful rhetoric? Precisely because they are hate mongers looking to divide and conquer, and my oh my they do it all so well. Everyone bitches about the USA, but in the wrong way. "We the people" have let a coup take place of our rights and the world is in danger. Who has the most nukes? USA Who has the most weapons of mass destruction? USA Who threatened to NUKE Iraq? BUSH! Yet no one seems to give a flying fuck that Bush threatening nuclear warfare should get him deposed or any of the other crimes against not just humanity but nature which he is covered in blood by his actions. The problem in America is that their is a constitution that defends the people from government and promotes justice, but it is under attack and not followed at all anymore. Basically it has been abandoned and it poses the question of what should be done about it? How does one take back those who abuse the rights of all while lying with every breath they have? What is the appropriate response? There has been enough debate about this and that but ZERO RESPONSE. I believe it is non violent civil disobedience. For this to happen it will mean educating people of their human rights, and how they have been defended in the past. Secondly an education of Satyagraha. Step three is implementing these. The time is upon us to stand up and defend our rights or sit down and be a slave. I will stand up for my self, my rights, which are violated when anyone’s rights are violated. So that is how I see individual freedom, as it takes constant defense, just as we get up everyday and eat to continue to live, we have to continually and peacefully defend our rights, our individual freedom. One more thing: "Hitler and Mussolini were only the primary spokesmen for the attitude of domination and craving for power that are in the heart of almost everyone. Until the source is cleared, there will always be confusion and hate, wars and class antagonisms." -- Jiddu Krishnamurti
From Dag: Hey ! Im around ! Just had to say i havent gone up in smoke .. :-D Ive not been much up to writing lately.. And Im not going to write much of a comment right now but i must say lying immobile in a bed is not a fun situation. AND FOR 15 years !! But still euthanasia is something that must not come out of control ..
From the tired guy: Senator Byrd is correct to equate Bush with Hitler. One last decent american in the US Senate:
From truthseeker: Iraq's Child Prisoners. I wonder who Bush sees in the mirror.. My guess is that its a grinning Satan. If he has a reflection at all. The Vampire who drinks souls like it was fine white or red wine.
From Raven: Schiavo splinters GOP, Polling Report.
From Bernard: Raven, you had a good post. Too bad the comments degenerated into Bushitlersatanism. To get back on topic, I think it's sad that this woman's situation has become such a spectacle for the morbidly curious. The press seems shamelessly eager to accomodate this voyeurism. It is none of our business. Not one of us, absent a document stating her wishes, can pretend to know what Terri Schiavo wanted. But any thinking person can well imagine she might have wished to die quietly, spared the gawking of strangers. You mentioned the right to live and the right to die with dignity. Fundamentally, as you suggest, these rights encompass the same thing: the right to control one's own destiny. The right to privacy may seem secondary, but it is something that decent people extend to the helpless and innocent. Sadly, in this case, there can be absolutely no doubt the right to privacy has been trampled.
From Raven: To Publius, Dag, Tired Guy & Truthseeker: Thanks for the comments and links. Write more if you have something, I appreciate it.
To Bernard: It's a rare moment when you and I agree Bernard, but I have to say that this time, I agree with everything you say in your comment. Except for the fact that I probably do love, to gnaw on my dislike in Bushitlersatanism ;) Unfortunately it cannot escape the extremism, to the left side these days. If it's a good cause for them, it's a good cause for the other side aswell. But I never wanted to make this into a political cause, like you say it's a matter of privacy. I hope the woman will be allowed to die and that the parents can find a peace in it.
From PUBLIUS: I wanted to add some about individual freedom: Again and again we talk about politics? About Justice..or wait.. is it rights? What are we talking about? Justice? But justice is actually concerning rights, correct? One of my all time favorite quotes in by Alexander Hamilton:
From Omni: Terrific essay!! :-)
From Dag: Go publius ! Our problem can be said not only to be the evil of the few, but the inactivity of the good majority.
From OneAlien: The problem with the the Terri Schiavo case isn't really active death help in itself but the people involved. I'm very much for making the end of life as easy as possible. Call it what you like, but it is very natural to die that is the only certain thing of life. But this case gives me the creeps, because my friends here pointed me in the right direction, and I've done a little research of my own. The two most disturbing points are: For the first: Her husband (that is rather a strange way to say about himl since he is married with another woman and got 2 children with her) got all the pointers of being a scientologist, the doctor used in this case is a scientologist and the local judge is. You can't trust those people for a second - they are trained to lie because otherwise they believe they would loose their standing (even in a court of law their lawyers lie - there are too many examples of that to think they would not). There are enough examples on the web about the way these people behaves and what they have done up through history. It is just so sad that so many rich people are lured into the "church" and get special treatment and then ordinary people are brainwashed using nazi methods (many of the methods and beliefs they have got directly from the nazis). The scientology church is based on a novel by L.Ron Hubbard (which is the worst sci-fi novel ever written - the Battlefield Earth movie is based on that novel btw) and one of the writers quotes is: "The best way to get rich is to start your own religion". And so he did. For the second: The injuries she had was way beyond what she should have gotten in this case - they all seems like coming from a a really tough beating. We got that both from doctors being close to the case and from doctors who in some ways have seen the pictures from the injuries the woman had. Deriving from this it is strange that the only doctor having anything to say in this case is the doctor in the first point (not mentioned by name, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out as I don't have it right here)
From Dag: OneAlien: scary :-( Ive heard Scientologists are pretty crazy too .. and i have a link for something unrelated: (here is a quote).. Whatever proportion these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitudes of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which the entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude towards the non-rehabilitative sick. LINK: http://www.cabalofdoom.com/archives/001495.html
From Jeniffer: A great site where one can enjoy the thought of a great mind long departed. Cheers for the good work!