Doctors told Mr. Herbert's family the same thing.
I have.
Even if the husband may be the person responsible for her state? Generically speaking, of course -- because there's no evidence he did. I know that if I were a slug husband wanting out of the burden of caring for my incapacitated wife...I might, 7 years down the road all of a sudden remember she wanted to die if she ever ended up that way. Yep, un huh.
I have already stipulated the parents had no rights here. I am talking decency and morality and ethics. And, there's nothing simple about killing the helpless.
What would you say to this scenario?
Your wife in a car wreck. She is turned into a vegetable. All the doctors say she has no chance to recover except a very risky operation. They tell you she has a 2% chance to survive. It's your decision to make. What do you do? Let her remain a vegetable or have the doctors perform the highly risky operation?
Terry Schiavo wasn't a vegetable. Try again...
Try and answer my question. I never said she was.
It's not relevant to the conversation and you didn't provide enough information for me to make a decision on the hypothetical.
I think that may be the misunderstand we have here. Whose ethics? My set of ethics may be different from User's. Doesn't make him wrong and me right and vice versa and I have no right to try and impose my system of ethics upon him.I am talking decency and morality and ethics.
The ethics that say, "when in doubt, choose life."
Are you all really that nuanced?
I guess it goes back to your indivdual definition of life. For my wife and I, we don't feel that is life. We would rather not live like that. However, I can only speak for us and we are not going to impose our beliefs on others and would prefer (though probably not get) the same from others.
I am confident they will sleep as well as those who feel it is their duty to intervene in the lifes of complete strangers on account of their religion.
I never said anything about religion.
You don't believe in moral absolutes, scott?
So, you would advocate immediate euthenasia?
I believe in at least one: it is immoral to adversly impact someone else to suit your own purposes.
morality and religion are not synonymous. If nothing else, Islam has taught us that.
Last edited by The Ressurrected One; 05-05-2005 at 06:40 PM.
immediate when? When an accident first happens? no. When its been determined that your chance to live is nil? yes. I don't wish to be kept alive by machines if there is no hope for my recovery.
So, write that down!
Agreed and we are in the process right now of having everything done all legal like.
My point was this though, if for some reason we didn't have the foresight to put that on paper and something happened to either one of us, the outside world should defer to the spouse. It is a real possibility that Michael Schaivo was lying through his teeth...it is also an equal possibility that he was telling the truth. None of us know...Terri knows, Michael knows and God knows.
Two totally different situations.
How so?
I never said they were. However, a vast majority of the people who decided to interject themselves in the case of Terri Shiavo did so behind the veil of religion.
As for your comment on Islam, I typically expect better out of you than that.
The inquisition too, and the holocaust and manifest destiny etc.morality and religion are not synonymous. If nothing else, Islam has taught us that.
TRO, what if it was legal for you to decide to keep your wife alive, yet a mjority of strangers felt it better to let her die naturally? What if it was a real possibility that they could enforce their views on you? Your wife told you that she wanted to live even if it meant being kept alive by machines. Should that be your choice by your word alone?
EDIT, I logged in under my name and posted it.
We've been down this road in length, and it all comes down to whether or not a person has a right to die, and most of us agree they do.
Well, then no other case matters a damn bit, and neither does her prognosis for recovery.
The only thing that mattered was whether or not you believed her husband. No other case is compareble on any grounds because that is the only thing central to whether or not what happend to Terri was right.
i've learned not to. the same could be said about christianity and morality, using the crusades as a reference. it's the same method of associating a whole rellgion with one incident. not to make this a religious debate ....
Resurrected, it doesnt make you feel any happiness that Terri is with God now in perfect form and not here on earth in a broken body?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
