A Society Gone Mad

[deek]

by Jan A. Larson

If ever a case has proven that American society has gone mad, it is the case of Terry Schiavo.

Ultimately a court will decide if Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube will be removed and she will endure a lingering, painful and inhumane death. If Terry Schiavo were a young child being starved by her parents, an elderly woman neglected by her family, a prisoner at Guantanamo being denied food or even a horse that was being starved by its owner, there would be outrage from all corners.

~snip

According to a FOX News poll <1>, 59% of those polled would remove Schiavo’s feeding tube. This is absolutely shocking when one considers that this case is not a right-to-die case, at least in the classic sense. Terry Schiavo is not on any sort of life support other than required to provide food and water, the basic necessities of life.

~snip

There is more to this case than the simple (if such a thing were simple) decision to let a brain-damaged woman die in peace.

more at http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3568

[DemBones DemBones]

1. The abled may attack your source for this article

(if any of them wander into this thread) but sometimes conservatives do take the ethically correct side of an issue. In my view, they have always chosen the ethically correct side in the debates over abortion and euthanasia, while being on the less ethical side of the debate over capital punishment and war. I've tried to figure this out for years. Talks about cognitive dissonance! We liberals opposed the killing in Viet Nam and the killing of prisoners done by our own state governments -- and next thing you know, we supported killing unborn babies by abortion and also supported Dr. Kevorkian killing suicidal disabled people and the whole "right-to-die" movement.

How did that happen? How did the lives of the disabled and the unborn become less important than those of soldiers (including enemy soldiers) and civilian "collateral damage" victims in war, or prisoners convicted of capital crimes?

Defenders of "right-to-choose" and "right-to-die" always talk about extreme cases (e.g., a woman whose life is threatened by continuing her pregnancy; a man terminally ill with cancer and in agonizing pain) to defend abortion and assisted suicide or euthanasia. But the reality is that very few women who abort do so because their life is in danger, and that Dr. Kevorkian killed very few terminally ill patients. It's also reality that pain control for the terminally ill is extremely important and hasn't always been adequate in the past. But the humane act is to provide proper pain relief to keep a patient comfortable in their last days.

I don't want to turn this thread into an abortion debate but I think it's important to see how all the "social" issues interrelate. For example, aborting a disabled child is considered a good thing by many people today. That concerns most disabled people, even if they otherwise support legalized abortion because it shows how devalued the life of a disabled person is in the minds of many today. THAT is something we all need to care about, whatever our position on abortion is.

Getting back to Terri Schiavo and "right-to-die," isn't this more of a "needs-to-die" (so we can all stop thinking about her) case? The abled clearly think they wouldn't like to live like that, without considering that Terri's life may be quite blissful for her, thought clearly not a normal adult life. It bothers people to have to think about Terri Schiavo's current state because in a part of their own mind they know it could happen to anybody. So they conclude that she'd be better off dead. But she's not suffering. She's not, unfortunately, able to tell us what she wants done for her.

I'm not convinced Terri Schiavo ever made her wishes clear before her accident. If she had, why did her husband allow a feeding tube to be started in the first place? I doubt that was done without consent, and he has been the person giving or refusing content for Terri's treatment all these years.

It truly is shocking that 59% polled by FOX supported starving Terri Schiavo. It made me feel that conservatives have gone soft on the issue of euthanasia. But then I reflected that the poll could have been DUed, which would explain the results!

[REP]

2. Not Everyone Believes in "Life, No Matter How Horrible"

For example, aborting a disabled child is considered a good thing by many people today. That concerns most disabled people, even if they otherwise support legalized abortion because it shows how devalued the life of a disabled person is in the minds of many today. THAT is something we all need to care about, whatever our position on abortion is.

Not everyone values human suffering and misery or thinks it something that is to be sought after. Some people actually prefer not to bring a life into this world that will be filled with suffering. Lots of so-called pro-lifers like to say, "but look at how happy children with Down's syndrome are!' At the present time, Down's Syndrome can be detected in utero, but not the severity. Some with Down's are relatively high-functioning, but they are rare. Most are low-functioning, requiring a lifetime of care that may exceed their parents' life - who cares for them then? And that doesn't even touch on the myriad serious multiorgan defects inherent with Down's. Those are just some of the things that must be considered when faced with a Down's pregnancy.

And that's just one example.

To say that people faced with a pregnancy with a seriously disabled fetus are devaluing life by considering abortion is simplistic and cruel.

I am disabled, and I do consider the source.

oops! superfluous "the"

[Banazir]

3. So now needing assistance = horrible suffering?

I know you're disabled, do you need assistance with your everyday life for the rest of your life? I do. That's not incompatible with happiness. Why would it suddenly be incompatible with happiness in someone with Down's syndrome? Why are organ problems incompatible with happiness?

Is it to you that if a physically disabled person needs assistance into adulthood (including "after their parents are gone"), it's okay, but if they're cognitively disabled, it's worse?

You seem to just be voicing prejudice after prejudice after prejudice about how "horrible" some people's lives are.

[pop goes the weasel]

4. I agree, to a point

I don't think that aborting a fetus with abnormalities is any more wrong than aborting a fetus without abnormalities. And I don't think that is necessarily wrong. In an ideal world, no one would ever have to make harsh choices. But we don't live in an ideal world. And sometimes fetuses have very traumatic abnormalities of the sort that are incompatible with life (say, missing a brain or skin or lungs). And sometimes a fetus presents with conditions that parents aren't able to provide for--does it matter if the inability is financial, physical, or emotional? Fetuses without disabilities are aborted because they sometimes represent burdens that can't be undertaken, and the same is true for fetuses with disabilities. And then there is the moral issue of whether or not it is appropriate to bring into the world someone with a serious genetic condition. I think that is something that only parents can decide for themselves, and that everyone else should support their decision, no matter what it is.

But in the case of Schiavo, I find myself supporting the anti-euthanasia crowd. The "right-to-die" supporters keep making 2 contradicatory arguments. One, they say that Schiavo's life as it is consists of suffering. Two, they say that Schiavo is so brain-dead that starving her to death will not cause suffering. Sorry, but they can't have it two ways. If folks really believe that she feels nothing, sees nothing, experiences nothing, then they believe she isn't suffering. So there is no need to "put her out of her misery," as the phrase goes. If she is capable of suffering, then depriving her of loving human contact and starving her to death are cruel measures, not merciful ones. She has family who wish to care for her indefinitely and who enjoy her company, such as it is. That's more than some people who have no disabilities have got, and we don't encourage those people to off themselves.

[Sugarbleus]

5. Hi Pop, I have to go with your assessment on this one.

While I'm learning about the disabilities movement from the point of "NOT DEAD YET" and pro life for those with limitations, I absolutely support a woman's right to choose whether to keep or abort her fetus. I do NOT believe a fetus is a life until it is fully formed and can breath on it's own apart from it's mother.

Until we live in a perfect world (I hope that day comes PDQ btw), there are some circumstances where birthing and raising children are simply too much for the parents. Even with all the info we have out there about leaving your unwanted child with a hospital, girls STILL dump their babies into trash cans!! Children should be wanted and only a woman, her physcian, and her God can determine which it is.

For those who are alive, with us and breathing, I believe we should help and treat them with respect to the nth degree. Some folks in DU don't believe in or are PARANOID of Mental Health. That is just the dumbest thing I ever heard. As Banazir points out, some folks NEED BETTER CARE to alleviate that depression so as to stave off suicide--whether it's in the general population or with persons living w/limitations.

As for Ms Schiavo; from the very begining I felt like she should be allowed to live on with her loving family. Geez, the poor woman. I wonder what she'd think if she could understand the uproar over her case. Just let her family have her; they WANT to love her and care for her. Tell her ex husband to go take his ill begotten gain and go get stuffed. I mean what's up with that guy?

I also support the right to die, but not Kevorkian. That guy is creepy. A couple of our disabled friends who's health is failing simply don't want the agony if push comes to shove. None have actually acted on their desires, which makes me wonder if they really want to do it, but they are hording pills for "just in case". If a person wants to "end" their existance and they are of clear mind about it, then let them do it but DON'T PULL THE PLUG or let them starve or dehydrate to meet the goal. Of course that means somehow they have to be helped to end their existence QUICKLY AND PEACEFULLY if they can't do it themselves.

My S.O. belongs to a medical marijuana coop. It's run very efficiently with many many dying and disabled persons as members. Lately, S.O. has experienced an unusual number of members having died, naturally I assume, from their ailments. He is very sad and distressed over their passing.

This group makes a determined effort to keep these members comfortable and stress free for as long as they can. The Org is trying for a hospice facility as an add on to their regular services. Just had the ACLU here to discuss the Drug War and the issues of MM and disabled persons. Some people ARE trying to make life as pleasing and comfortable as they can for those who need it. I heartily applaud them for it. ~~Peace~~