You know, pulling a feeding tube is pretty cowardly, but it is reversible up to a certain point. That's probably one reason it seems more humane: someone (or a court) could change their mind a day or two into the procedure and replace the tube.

The problem with this sop to morality is that, as you point out, starvation is a hideous and painful death. Will Terri's stomach bloat up like a Congolese refugee's? Will her body begin to digest itself as it begins to realize that no more food is coming in? Is that somehow worth the comforting notion that benevolent nature is taking its course, so one doesn't have to actually get blood on one's hands from more "proactive" measures?

This deliberate starvation is not about preventing Terri's suffering at all. If it were, they would put a hollow-point through her head or a potassium cyanide IV in her arm as soon as the court order came through. This method of execution is about salving the delicate consciences of the executioners, at the expense of inflicting terrible pain upon the victim.

It's for cowards.

As I have said in another forum, if we were even to contemplate doing this to a terrorist prisoner at Guantanamo--I mean if there were just a memo proposing it somewhere--there would be resignations and court martials and scandals and hand-wringing across the world. And justifiably so.

But because Terri Schiavo's not guilty of any crime, becuase she hasn't threatened to blow up Americans or run nukes to Iran, it's okay to starve her?

Please.
See-Dubya | 02.28.05 - 3:53 pm | #

May God have mercy on us if this goes through.
Janjan | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 10:35 pm | #

I review the documents at the links you provided Dawn. It just totally amazes me that Michael has gotten away with so much. Our justice system is broken and needs major fixing.
Alnot | Homepage | 03.01.05 - 12:06 am | #

Where Governor Bush a true conservative, he would tell the Florida court that the executive is a co-equal brach that can review the state Constitution. The Governor and the Legislature did not usurp authority.
The court has made a ruling, now let it try to enforce it.
RonL | Homepage | 03.01.05 - 3:06 am | #

While I don't know enough about the Terri Schiavo case to make an informed decision, I think it's a bunch of political rhetoric and claptrap to suggest that "Million Dollar Baby" has a pro-euthanasia stance.

Just because there is an act of euthanasia in the film does not mean it favors that position. That's comparable to saying that "The Passion of the Christ" is pro-torture.

It's a cheap political tactic to interject the movie into the euthanasia debate. But kudos to the right-wing for whipping their side into a frenzy.
Chris | Homepage | 03.01.05 - 10:02 am | #

RonL,

You don't think that the court can enforce it?
Fluffy Bunny | 03.01.05 - 10:02 am | #

Dawn - I totally agree that there should be "kinder" methods for euthanasia. But blame anti-euthanasia side for that.

Euthansia proponents believe that someone should have the quickest and most painless method. But to actually do that would be considered assisted-suicide which is illegal, and the anti-euthanasia have fought all attempts to legalize that.

So for the anti-euthanasia side argue euthanasia by starvation is cruel and torturous when they won't allow any other method is somewhat hypocritical.

Dawn, personally and hypothetically, if someone had a living will which stated that he/she wanted to die if they were ever in a brain-dead vegetative state but were physically healthy, do you think it should be permissible to assist in the suicide in that person?
Chris | Homepage | 03.01.05 - 10:26 am | #

Chris,

I've been asking that question for a couple of weeks and have come to the following conclusions (although I haven't gotten a clear answer):

(1) some of the people posting comments to Dawn's site think that living wills that provide for the removal of feeding tubes shouldn't ever be allowed; and

(2) some other people think that individuals should be allowed to have feeding tubes withheld, but they don't think that Terri Schiavo would want her feeding tubes removed, despite the court findings (they think the courts have gotten it wrong).

I think the focusing on the starvation process is not really at the heart of the issue for Dawn, but rather an aside.
Fluffy Bunny | 03.01.05 - 10:49 am | #

Chris, I haven't examined the issue fully. There are very likely certain extraordinary life-preserving measures that I would not condone, but I believe it is wrong in all cases for people to be allowed to request that they be starved to death. PVS is notoriously difficult to diagnose—one study showed that 43 percent of those diagnosed in such a state were not, in fact, permanently vegetative.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 03.01.05 - 1:40 pm | #

Dawn, no offense, but you avoided answering the hypothetical question I posed. So if someone was properly diagnosed as being PVS, do you think it would be permissible to have assisted suicide [injection] if the patient previously requested it in a cognitive state.

Also, the PVS misdiagnosed study you cited was based in England, which according to the American health care industry has a worse system so technically the 43% figure isn't applicable unless you're in the UK I guess.
Chris | Homepage | 03.01.05 - 3:07 pm | #