4.01.2005

State-sanctioned murder

Emperor Misha over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller clearly expresses our feelings on the subject of Terri Schiavo's murder. However, there are some points I'd like to make on the specifcs, the why and the how.

The facts are unclear: Some say she was PVS, some say she wasn't. I tend to lean to the latter. People who were around her said that she reacted to them. Call it "reflex" if you want, but I don't quite buy it. To jerk my hand off a hot stove is a reflex. To attempt even minimal communication when my parents are in the room is recognition and action. But on to why I find the entire matter abhorrent.

Terri Schiavo was not a criminal. She was an innocent woman. And yet, Michael Schiavo's supporters had no qualms with killing her. Why? Because she "isn't there"? Or because her "quality of life" is terrible? Does that make her life any less valuable? First of all, we are in no position to be judging what the value of someone's life is. Not by a long-shot. We cannot say that a person would want to die because "their life is so bad". We don't have the right to make that kind of decision for someone else. And also, how can we say that someone ought to die because they are severely disabled? They're still a person. Hell, we don't even starve animals to death, let alone human beings. Or criminals, for that matter, which brings me back to an earlier point. The folks that wanted Terri dead so desperately are the same types of people that cringe at the thought of putting Bubba the Toddler-Killer to sleep. Where the HELL do they even get the minerals to reconcile that? It truely confounds me.

What also counfounds me is that is seems like so few people are worried about this. Does no one realize that the state of Florida just executed a defenseless innocent? This is truly a sad day, my friends.

-The Talent

7 Comments:

  • While I do not agree with the way that Terri's days were ended, I do not think that it was right to let her live. We do not know whether she was aware of her surroundings, or whether she truly could identify her family and was trying to communicate with them. We do know that she had very little brain activity and that she would never recover. Why would anyone honestly want to live like that? As a vegetable with no thoughs, etc. Her husband said that she had told him she did not want to live off a feeding tube or the like, and even if she did not truly say that, it's to be assumed.

    It is sad, granted, and although I do not think that it was done the right way, it was the right thing to do.

    Anyone know if they could have done somthing along the lines of lethal injection? That sounds a little bit more human, if you will.

    By Blogger ElephantEars, at 1:27 PM  

  • (Obviously) I disagree. A decision as huge as that cannot be lef to assumption, and we do not have the right to make it for her.

    And contrary to popular belief, there were doctors who believed that she could improve with therapy and treatment.

    And if she had no thoughts, she wouldn't suffer, so killing her to end her suffering is an argument that doesn't work. It then becomes an issue of her being a burden. My primary beef is that we should not be able to determine the value of someone else's life regarding to the state they're in. They are still human, and they deserve to be treated so.

    As to that last bit, I agree. If you're going to kill someone, be a man about it, and kill them. As I see it, the reason they wouldn't kill her outright is because it makes it look more like what it was: an execution.

    -The Talent

    By Blogger The Triumvirate, at 12:09 PM  

  • Uh, they wouldn't kill her outright because that would be legal homicide.

    By Blogger Dadams, at 5:45 PM  

  • I understand that. I just find it funny that they deliberately ended her life, but it would be illegal to speed up the process.

    -The Talent

    By Blogger The Triumvirate, at 12:08 AM  

  • May I ask where you obtained the information that there were doctors who believed she could get better with treatment? And what evidence did they have that their ideas would work? On every News Stations(FOX, CNN, MSNBC) that I watched, the doctors interviewed said that there was no hope of her getting better due to the severity of the damage to her brain.

    By Blogger ElephantEars, at 10:38 AM  

  • This is a ridiculously complex issue. While I think Michael Schiavo was wrong to remove the feeding tube, I think the family was EXTREMELY wrong to get the government involved. On NPR a government official was quoted as saying "We give our supreme apologies to the family, but the government has no say in the matter" (or something to that effect). They essentially turned their daughter's situation into a three ring circus.

    By Blogger MJ, at 3:49 PM  

  • ElephantEars -

    I read it on various news articles surrounding the case, but when the case was taken to trial, the judges found no suffcient evidence to back up the two doctors' claims about therapy.

    However, I still don't think that made it ok to end Terri's life. I would highly recommend reading the article I posted in the entry above this one(about CTs and Neurologists), it's fairly interesting.

    MJ-

    I disagree. If it turned out that Terri's constitutional rights were being violated, which I believe were,(the right to life, for instance) then I think the government should be allowed to step in.

    -The Talent

    By Blogger The Triumvirate, at 5:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home