Thursday, March 24, 2005

Possibly Going to Offend You

My wife tells me that she enjoys my blogging more when I have something interesting to say. I'm fairly sure she doesn't mean that most of the time I'm not interesting. But just in case, this should attract some interest, which will mean I am interesting, thereby guaranteeing her continued admiration of me. Or perhaps not; I'll report back on this topic at a later time.

So here it is: my opinion of the busybodies who have nothing better to do than lie about Terry Schiavo in order to preserve her existence, such as it is. Hmm... I guess that is my opinion, now that I read that last sentence back. The latest I've read (here)says that Florida Governor Jeb "George got the brains, but I got the looks" Bush is trying to gain custody of Schiavo so that he can decide what's best for her. Cuz he knows better than her husband, I guess. Apparently he also claims she is not in a persistent vegetative state. Then why did he support that Congressional action which would have (had it succeeded) made it illegal topull feeding tubes from people in persistent vegetative states? It sounds to me like he's trying just about everything -- regardles of whether it's true or even logical.

Jeb -- she is not a family pet, to be preserved by any means necessary as a testament to your love for her. Stay out of this, and while you're at it get rid of the freeze-dried terrier you keep in your living room -- she's dead; buy a new dog.

UPDATE

House of Representatives Majority Tom DeLay (about whom the Misanthrope has blogged numerous times) has just thanked God for Schiavo's persistent vegetative state, because it elevates the visibility of the Conservatve Christian cause. Leave it to Tom to make it so obvious that he is willing to us others' misfortunes for his own benefit. [Source]

5 comments:

Pirate said...

I'm with you. I couldn't possibly make a decision about this poor woman, but to have half the world making comments about whether you ought to live or die seems so without dignity for poor Terri. I find the endless pictures and fighting over her offensive and embarassing. An editorial in our illustrious Calgary Herald recently mentioned that because people change and grow when they marry, their spouses often know them better than their families of origin. Still, it must be a wrenching decision for anyone involved.

And while it's none of my business, really, this sort of medical ethical delimma affects us all because at some point many of us may have to make such a choice about a loved one. Advances in medical tehcnology have brought us to that point.

Sotosoroto said...

Letting her starve to death and letting her remain sedentary with a feeding tube are both horrible answers to the question. If they really want to help her, they should be giving her physical therapy and actually working to keep her muscles active and maybe just maybe get her out of the vegetative state. They should have been doing this fifteen years ago. Her "husband" apparently even won a lawsuit and got money for this purpose, but he didn't use it for that. No, he wants her dead. And if any of you really want her dead, too, you should be arguing for leathal injection. Or is that too cruel and unusual?

Anonymous said...

While I am not sure about removing a feeding tube (as opposed to a breathing tube, which I think can qualify as extreme measures), I am certain that I don't want the government involved in personal family decisions.
This is a terrible situation, but the answer is not for the President or congress to step into these family disputes, that is what clergy and medical ethicists are for. For all the talk about the sanctity of marriage, perhaps we should respect the relationship of husband and wife and the legal standing that goes along with it. I trust that if her husband was an unfit guardian the courts would have determined that by now. I know that for me, my husband knows what I want better than my parents and I would not want him to have to defer to my parents because their position served a political purpose.
The issue is no longer the feeding tube, if she had a advance medical directive stating that she did not want to be on a feeding tube this would not be an issue; the issue is the government going to such extremes to step into a private family decision.

Pirate said...

sotosoroto should be careful about what he alleges. He knows no more about the circumstances of haveing "apparently" received the money, what was done with it, whether it was received at all, how much, etc., etc., to pass judgment on why the husband has come to this awful decision now, or indeed why it is the subject of such heated debate again. I agree with him, though, that both options are terrible options. Could not another, more humane way be found?

Panthergirl said...

The humane way is the Doctor Kevorkian way, but of course we've thrown him in jail.

What I don't get, about these "Christians", is that they don't think she'd be better off "in the hands of god". I mean, isn't that what they are all striving for? To be welcomed at the pearly gates? So what's the problem?

Sotosoroto: People in PVS do not suffer. She will dehydrate and her kidneys will fail and she will die. You cannot compare her experience with yours or mine, if we stopped eating and drinking for 2 weeks.
I would have NO problem if someone wanted to give her a lethal injection.

I've posted about this everywhere in the blogosphere, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself: This woman didn't want to live as a FAT PERSON! Do you really think she would want her drooling, braindead face plastered all over the evening news?

The other big issue for me is the declaration, by people who don't even know her, that she is an 'innocent' woman. How the hell do you know? What if she had [gasp] an ABORTION? Would that change things?