Friday, September 08, 2006

But they were CERTAIN that Terry Schaivo was unaware!

It's interesting - people the world over screamed that there was no way at all that Terry Schaivo was at all aware of her surroundings. They INSISTED she should stop being fed. They pounded desks, sued, and went to court - all for the right to stop giving her food. They trumpeted that it was absolutely impossible for her to have any chance of ever hearing the voice of a loved one again, or to see the beauty of a spring rain or a winter snowfall.

Now - later - when we can't go back and fix it, there are findings that show that these folks were wrong...again.

More evidence that people in a persistent vegetative state are at least partially aware of their surroundings have come up. Despite this fact, the people who were wrong before are still sticking to their original position and are saying that the new evidence is bogus. I say that now that we have rational uncertainty, that we should NOT kill these people - with or without a living will!

We do not have enough information to know what is going on with these people, or enough to know whether or not they're having beautiful and vivid dreams of a world where such horrors as killing a disabled human being for the sake of...convenience...do not exist.

We've murdered at least one person who did not deserve it. Let's not make that same mistake again.

-Bart

3 Comments:

Blogger dolphin said...

My argument (and most others I read) in the Schiavo case was never about whether there was the slightest possibility of a miraculous recovery, but all about the sanctity of marriage.

Either Terry had the right to marry the man of her choice (and in the process give him the right to make medical decisions for her should she not be able to herself) or she did not. Now I know that conservatives aren't big fans of letting people choose who they will marry, but at least represent the other side accurately. It's not about anything medical in general. It's about personal autonomy and the sanctity of marriage.

11:26 AM  
Anonymous Stewart said...

Sanctity of marriage? Terry's husband had started shacking up and making babies with another woman? Don't make me laugh. A casual observer who actually believed in the sanctity of marriage would have had to question, at least, her husband's objectivity. For his adulterous philandering Terry had to die a cruel and lingering death-- a death which would be illegal if you killed your fox terrier that way.

3:58 PM  
Blogger kk said...

Sanctity of marriage aside.The state conveys the right to live or die as you see fit and in the event you cant exercise that right conveys it then to your spouse. If your in laws disagree with your decisions(nothing new) that would be a personal issue not a state dilemma as it was. All the more reason to marry wisely.

5:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home