Speaking of "swallowing", a good friend of mine has an interesting idea: A Day of Fasting for Terri Schiavo
Marty | 03.08.05 - 9:51 pm | #

Our "society" has not devalued life.
Life is devalued one person at a time, one act at a time, one person disregarding another person. Every thoughtless, careless, rude, self-centered action taken by one individual with no regard for others devalues life. Anywhere and everywhere, including blogs, people are devalued by others. Words spoken or written without consideration of how they may be recieved can so devalue a person in their own mine so as to cause years of hurt. Value can be given as well as taken away, far to many people prefer to devalue that to add value.
Franklin | 03.08.05 - 10:38 pm | #

Sorry, I don't think there are any rude or thoughtless words that can hurt quite as much and as permanently as these: "ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, MICHAEL SCHIAVO, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, THERESA SCHIAVO, at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005."
Michael Bates | Homepage | 03.08.05 - 10:49 pm | #

The fight for Terri's life is a vital battle in the continuing strugle to revalue human life. That said, no one should loose hope over any one case. After all, recall that a civil court ordered the execution of Jesus in the most famous miscariage of justice in history. God found ways to bring good out of that evil. Keep fighting for Terri, but never loose hope for mankind.
Rick9719 | Homepage | 03.08.05 - 11:22 pm | #

Seems that justice has not been served. But then again who ever said that courts serve justice? It seems that the only way to get justice is to rely on the good will of others.
Wind Rider | 03.09.05 - 1:57 am | #

What happened to the first amendment? How can a judge prevent the free exercise of religion for Terri Schiavo just because she is unable to speak? If we have reached the point that it is acceptable for a judge to order that Terri not be granted access to religious rites, what is the point of having the first amendment?
dex | 03.09.05 - 1:55 pm | #

Mr. Bates
Perhaps you have never carried around a hurt, real or imagined for, say, 10 to 15 years. Once again, because you don't think so, doesn't lessen the personal hurt.
Franklin | 03.09.05 - 4:36 pm | #

This is horrific madness.How about charging this judge Greer with first degree murder and throw him in prison for the cold-blooded order to murder an innocent human being?
Jan Gommers | 03.09.05 - 8:22 pm | #

Franklin, your sentiments are really nice, but what specifically do they have to do with the topic?
Andrea Harris | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 10:41 pm | #

Perhaps you have never carried around a hurt, real or imagined for, say, 10 to 15 years. Once again, because you don't think so, doesn't lessen the personal hurt.

I have. Y'know what?

I GOT OVER IT.
McGehee | Homepage | 03.09.05 - 10:49 pm | #

What about this woman's standard of living? All I hear is this garbage about right to life and that this is government sanctioned murder. What we are talking about is the quality of life this woman will have. She is drooling mess and that is no way to live. Until you have the guts to humanely euthanize her, this is the best alternative.
Joe | 03.10.05 - 10:45 am | #

Joe,

So your policy is this: Only the healthy, the vigorous, the physically fit, and probably the beautiful, are capable of life? And you'd murder everyone else? Babies are almost always a "drooling mess". I suppose you'd murder them too?

Hellen Keller (and millions of others), you've met your maker and his name is JOE.

Sorry, Joe, but your ideas sound pretty close to the idea of killing off anyone but blond-haired, blue eyed, physically fit people. Which, I believe, was universally rejected by the world in a big fight about 65 years ago.

Bottom line: you have no authority to determine this. It's not your decision to kill her. You don't get to deterine the value of life. We presume it to be equal, to protect everyone's rights and to protect our own humanity.
Sydney Carton | 03.10.05 - 11:18 am | #

Joe doesn't want a discussion nor does he have anything of value to write regarding Terri and others who may be in her situation. He posted to get a rise out of those of us who consider her fate that of judicial cooperation in deliberate and cynical murder.

Joe is just spouting loudmouth nonsense to get a rise. Ignore him.
John Hetman | 03.10.05 - 12:02 pm | #

John, I suspect you're right, but I drew attention to his comment because I think it reflects a genuine attitude among many that euthanasia is "humane." It also reflects an ignorance of the facts of the Schiavo case. It's easier for people to imagine that this woman who cannot speak for herself would want to die--and thereby save society from the troubling question of how to deal with the existence of helpless people like her--than for them to understand that the man who pretends to speak for her wishes is lying.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 12:07 pm | #

...well Dawn asked people to and who could resist a petite powerhouse "with a blog full of glamour photos"?



Hey Joe,

Are you a self-appointed arbiter of other people's standard of living? Let's take that to its logical conclusion.

Many people might feel your quality of life doesn't meet their standards. You have insufficient compassion for the suffering of others and that is no way to live.

Does that mean other people have the right to "humanely euthanize" you as they see fit? Is locking you in a room until you die of thirst or starvation the "best alternative"?

Under your standards, it might be.

If an individual right to life is "garbage", what right do you have to live? Because you'll kick and scream a bit more than Terri Schiavo can? Because you may not want to die when you get shoved into that room?

That's not good enough. Under your standards, you don't have any more right to live than she does.

Think about it, okay?
P.R. | 03.10.05 - 12:11 pm | #

What scares me is that people like Joe could and very likely will move on from Terri Schiavo to the developmentally disabled (like those I work with). No doubt Joe could and would describe many of them as "drooling messes" not deserving of continued life.
Jinx McHue | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 12:12 pm | #

Quality of life, eh?

We all start out as drooling messes. We're all drooling messes when we're asleep. Many of us will become drooling messes before we die. Since when does the presence or absence of bodily fluids determine quality of life? Since when does sanitation or hygiene determine q.o.l.? Since when--and I think this is the real question--does one's inability to clean up one's own drool determine q.o.l.? In other words, since when do independence and self-sufficiency determine q.o.l.? I suspect that drooling has very little to do with the real issue in Joe's post, which is dependency. Depnding on someone else to clean up what you can't may be, in Joe's opinion, too demeaning to make life worthwhile. I know nothing of the processing of Mrs. Schiavo's other bodily fluids--how does she go to the bathroom, and must someone else clean that up as well? Surely it takes some getting used to for a grown woman to have to resort to other people for her hygiene. I can see how the mere thought of such dependency is enough to make one consider life unlivable.

I am a grown woman. I brush my own teeth, take my own showers, and clean up after myself. I am not a drooling mess except when sleeping, or right after dental surgery. Nonetheless, I have lost count of the number of times other people have had to clean up my messes, even when they didn't involve bodily fluids. I can't base the determination of my q.o.l. on my own ability to clean myself up. Neither, I suspect, can Joe, or anyone else. We're all drooling messes. It's good this way: we are none of us alone, for all that we are weak and dependent. I'd say that independence does nothing to determine q.o.l. Rather, q.o.l. is determined by the presence of others who don't mind the drool. In which case, Mrs. Schiavo's q.o.l. is much the same as mine: her parents love her, drool and all, and others would rather she and her drool just faded away and took the mess with them.

Could someone please pass me a napkin?
Kate | 03.10.05 - 1:19 pm | #

Beautifully stated, Kate--thank you!
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 1:26 pm | #

Without the concept of ability, we would all be in the same boat. Ability is being able to do for one's self. Having ability demands that we use that ability to help others. If one cannot do for one's self does that make the individual less than others? No! It simply suggests that the individual requires help. If a person has the ability to recognize something they are alive and of value. Sorry Joe, but you can't kill the living without having blood on your hands.
Michael | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 1:36 pm | #

This "quality of life" equation is a very, very slippery slope. In the final analysis it amounts to an argument to eat the unfortunate. Most frightening of all, it requires us to rely upon wholly subjective measures.

Joe, what working definition do you have for "quality of life?" How is it more valid than that of a psychopathic killer or a terrorists? When one set of humans undertakes to determine "quality of life" for any other set of humans, only madness, tyranny and mass murder may follow. This remains true whether the determinating party is a dictator, a serial murderer, or an unfaithful husband.
Joel | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 2:09 pm | #

In the gospel from last Sunday, Jn 9:1-41, we hear the story of the man born blind.

"Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
Jesus answered, "Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him."

When people are suffering, it is because God wants me (you, everyone) to reveal His love in the world. The works of God are made visible when we respond with Christ's love to suffering. Suffering demands a response from us. We either bring to each other the presence of Christ, the light of revelation to the nations, or we do not.

Terri's quality of life is not the issue. The issue is the response of Body of Christ to her suffering. Will we make visible the works of God, or not?
Dennis | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 2:19 pm | #

Dawn, I have laid out what I believe are the reasons Terri's case is important in this post, at:

http:// deansjournal.blogspot.com...matters_08.html
Dean | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 4:43 pm | #

I suspect that no (or very few) people would support removing Terri's feeding tube if they did not believe that it is what Terri herself would want.

Arguing the facts over the case is one thing (whether Terri is in a vegetative state and whether the well-Terri would have wanted to continue in a vegetative state) is one thing.

But please don't mistake disagreement on those facts for the desire to kill people who don't meet some standard.
Kris | Homepage | 03.10.05 - 5:48 pm | #

andrea harris..
read the comments here. Thats what my "sentiments" as you call them, have to do with the topic.

mcgehee.. as for your comment, it doesn't deserve a response.
Franklin | 03.10.05 - 6:23 pm | #

Any thoughts on the million dollar offer?
Clint | 03.10.05 - 10:10 pm | #

Franklin, like most people, I'm carrying around plenty of hurts, some ancient, some recent, many self-inflicted. As a Christian who believes in the sovereignty of God, I have to accept that God causes all things, even the unkind words of others, to work together for my good. My attitude ought to be that of Joseph, whose brothers sold him into slavery. He was able to say to them, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good." (Gen. 50:20)

Here is my question for you, Franklin, asked sincerely, not rhetorically: What hurt are you carrying around that you believe compares to being deprived of food and water until you die?
Michael Bates | Homepage | 03.11.05 - 12:29 am | #

Mr. Bates,
I personally do not carry hurt other than what I recieve from watching how humans treat other humans.
I see the effects of these kinds of hurts from people I choose to partipate in helping to restore life to lifeless living.
Many more people than most would imagine go thru daily lives of nothing more than existance. Most of which is tied to a hurt either, real or imagined, cause by a person. These people were not successful in overcoming this hurt or hurts and it effects their ability to function with others in society.
This misery becomes so extreme to them that killing themselves is better than living. They are dying a little each day they live.
Does this answer your question?
Franklin | 03.11.05 - 6:13 am | #

An anonymous commenter wrote, "Keep Terri on a tube or withdraw it? Given her mental status and outlook, this question is on a par with the question of interment or cremation: it may make a lot of difference to the family, but none whatever to the subject of the controversy."

He included a link to a page containing an argument, in thousands of words, arguing for Terri's death.

I deleted the comment because the commenter didn't bother to make an articulate argument of his own. If you want to use this forum to argue politely for Terri's murder, as many have done, that's your prerogative, but don't just throw out some meaningless, unsupported statement and expect us to read someone else's dissertation explaining your viewpoint.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 03.11.05 - 9:29 am | #

That's OK, you restated my polite comment in its entirety.

I would like to pose another question for your consideration.

About the catch phrase "culture of life"...

Does a "culture of life" spend millions upon millions of dollars on a clearly lost cause, instead of spending them for the benefit of clearly viable babies and children?

We collectively have finite resources, and how we use them shows just what where our true values lie.
Guest | 03.11.05 - 9:49 am | #

(P.S., the link I posted did not contain any argument for or against Terri's death. The author, Matt Conigliaro, is a Florida law blogger, and pointedly does not take sides. He simply lays out the legal history of the case.)
Guest | 03.11.05 - 9:56 am | #

I'm afraid that "Guest" doesn't get it. I'm not sure what he means by "lost cause."

Isn't that the point, though? If you believe that life is a gift, is there such thing as a "lost cause"?

Also, who gets to define (and, who has a right to purport to define) what the word "lost" means?
Dean | Homepage | 03.12.05 - 1:40 am | #

The cause that is lost is Terri Schiavo recovering mental function.

The cause that is not lost is the case's hay-making potential for the right wing.

I will be very surprised if the tube is withdrawn next week. The case is just too juicy from the right wing's perspective to let it go.
Guest | 03.12.05 - 9:46 am | #