Shall Terri Schiavo die?

Saint

Saint

Valued Senior Member
I think it is a torture to let her live in such condition,
it is better for her to die than to live.

I do not know your law,
the latest news say that she is not allowed to be fed.
 
yeah, she has been dead for 10 years in my opinion, but her body is still a burden on the living.
 
what is the english word for allowing a person who is terminally ill to die purposely?
 
Let's all have a smother party.
We'll toss mattresses on top of her and we'll all climb on top and get drunk.
She should be dead by the time we wake up.
Let's kill your grandma too.

(Would you strangle her? Personally?)
 
IF she does not die, what is purpose of living to her?
Do you think her husband just wants to get insurance money out of her death?
I guess no.
 
I say kill her.
I'm not kidding.
I'm not aware of the circumstances of the case and don't really care to dig into them.
But let her die. That's what I say.
Is there an issue with her death? Is the issue only one of pulling the plug or must there be an active intervention to kill her?

Would you kill her? Personally? With your own two hands?

Smother parties are an old rural English tradition (or so William Burroughs claims) where a family can rid themselves of a parasitic elderly and bedridden 'houseguest'.

(And the term is 'mercy killing'.)
 
Saint: " what is the english word for allowing a person who is terminally ill to die purposely?"

Me: "Mercy Killing"

Tiassa: "Really?"

Me: Yes. Do you have another term in mind?

Edit: Although, mercy killing would imply an active participation in the event. However, I think 'pulling the plug' counts as mercy killing.

Starvation might also. It's semantic.
 
I think the more specific term for this case would be euthanasia.

Mercy killing suggests to me shooting a horse... but that could just be me.
 
Euthanasia is an external act. If I walked up to Mrs. Schiavo and injected her with a chemical to cause her instant death and end this thing, well, that would be murder, but were that what she requested ....

Kevorkian, by putting a machine in front of a patient which the patient could activate and cause a painless suicide, was actually a step short of euthanasia. If Dr. Jack had activated the machine himself, and I do believe he wasconvicted for that, it would be euthanasia.

Mercy killing is essentially the definition of euthanasia.

Depending on what dictionary you use, though, euthanasia is allowing someone to die. It depends on whether it's a modern dictionary (yes), or specialized (e.g. law, no). This is a result of colloquial and political usage. Euthanasia has become more passive--e.g. allowing a patient to die--largely because political concerns have insisted that it be used in such a manner. When living wills were discussed in the 1980s, the basic division was that you could authorize your natural death, but not euthanasia. That is, you could say you didn't want to be kept alive, but could not stipulate when you were to be killed. Less than twenty years has made that difference in terminology.
 
Does anybody know the legal reason as to why all the courts have sided with the husband? Presumably, the courts did not decide on the basis of a moral decision, but rather a legal principle.
 
(Insert Title Here)

I believe it's order of kin:

Spouse
Offspring
Parents
Siblings
(next of kin)​

I'm not sure of the order, but I know spouse comes first, and I believe adult competent offspring come before parents, and parents before siblings. It reflects the heirarchy of family: authority within the immediate family, authority within the "prior family", authority within extended family. The home you're in, the home you came from, and then the rest.

Something approximately like that. Unfortunately, "order of kin" isn't proving to be a useful search. How many gerunds have a "k" in them?

Googling next of kin hierarchy comes up with a Scottish page, but that's not entirely helpful, since it's Scotland, and not the U.S. or Florida. Although it does highlight something we have yet to get to in this country:

The new legislation should make clear that where the deceased was not known to have expressed any views, or had not nominated a representative, it would be the "next of kin" who would be able to authorise a hospital post-mortem examination.

It is proposed that the new legislation should define the "next of kin" by means of a hierarchy. It is proposed to follow that set out in section 254 of the Mental Health (Care & Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which is as follows:

(a) spouse, including registered civil partner
(b) partner (including same-sex and unmarried couples)
(c) child
(d) parent
(e) brother or sister
(f) grandparent
(g) grandchild
(h) uncle/aunt
(i) niece/nephew
(j) person who has been living with the adult for 5 years or more​

The "next of kin" would be the person whose relationship to the deceased was highest in the list above. This is broadly equivalent to the list proposed in the legislation for the rest of the UK, except that the list in that legislation included "friend of long standing" as the final category.

Scotland.gov.uk
Click to expand...

I almost can't wait for the day "middle America" has to cough up some constructive input regarding unmarried partners in the hierarchy. That's some morbid humor on the horizon. Oh, yeah, and the social justice. There's that, too.

At any rate, as to the U.S. ... (why am I having so much trouble finding this?)

Well, here's something to start:

As a society, our courts, our legislatures have acknowledged that decisions cannot be made by committee, that there is a hierarchy. First and foremost is the notion that husbands and wives have a unique and special relationship and that each of them have the right to make decisions for the other.

If a spouse isn't still alive, under the law the next group in the hierarchy are the children. And if there are no children, then the will of the parents would prevail.

Herald.com
Click to expand...

I really need to stop writing in this version of real-time. But that's ... something to start with. I really thought a bullet-list like the Scottish one would be more readily available. "Terri's Law" notwithstanding, I believe the hierarchy is determined at the state level, although estate disputes go to county courts around here.
____________________

Notes:

Scottish Executive. "Legislation Relating to Hospital Post-Mortem Examinations: Analysis of Consultation Responses". See http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/health/pmacr-09.asp

Defede, Jim. "If she could, Schiavo would stop the madness". Herald.com. March 17, 2005. See http://www.macon.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/jim_defede/11155562.htm​
 
Last edited:
James R said:
Does anybody know the legal reason as to why all the courts have sided with the husband? Presumably, the courts did not decide on the basis of a moral decision, but rather a legal principle.
Click to expand...
Yes. The court has appointed Michael Schiavo as Terri's legal guardian specifically granting him the right to make these decisions. Although spouses are not guaranteed guardianship they do get preference from the courts. As such, the courts decision is (as it should be) a legal one not a moral one.

Michael has guardianship and his decision is consistent with the overwhelming expert medical opinion. Additionally, the courts have had many opportunities to revoke his guardianship if they determined he was acting against Terri's interests. They have not done so.

Relevant link: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090249/

~Raithere
 
dsdsds said:

hmm . .that's same same word pro-lifers use during abortion debates.
Click to expand...

Curious, isn't it? I mean, there is the term "natural death". And the phrase, "Allowing someone to die". That's a curious one, too. "Allowing someone to die." I understand objecting to "allowing" a wounded person to bleed to death in the street when there's a hospital around the corner. But in this case, allowing Terri Schiavo to die is the natural circumstance.

The anti-abortion folks are trying to take away someone's right to their body.

And so are the "Save Terri" folks.

Curious, isn't it?
 
Curious, isn't it?
Click to expand...

What I find curious is that there seems to be only 2 groups of people:

Group A (Anti-Abortion, Anti-euthenasia, pro-capital punishment)

Group B: (Pro-Choice, Pro-euthenasia, anti-capital punishment)


Both are equally hypocritical.
 
dsdsds said:

Group A (Anti-Abortion, Anti-euthenasia, pro-capital punishment)

Group B: (Pro-Choice, Pro-euthenasia, anti-capital punishment)

Both are equally hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Dat so? How? I mean, I see a superficial correlation, but I also know you don't generally argue that simplistic a point. That said, though, I'll work with what's here for the moment.

I don't see the hypocrisy unless I read group A as "life, life, death", and group B as "death, death, life". And it's most definitely not that simple.

Group A

Life and death are common themes, but so are dominion and rights. Anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia purports to defend good people from bad circumstances. As does capital punishment. Dominion comes into it because all three issues, in the end, deprive an adult human being. One wonders why, with a principle of life, this group supports the death penalty (which does not deter the crime rate, and requires more societal resources). Well, if we ignore that apparent conflict (life, life, death) and look at dominion and rights, the inconsistency goes away: a woman is deprived of governance of her body, a patient is deprived of governance of his/her body, and a person is deprived of governance of his/her body. We can even reach all the way back to Original Sin, if we want, and also whatever prior notions affected its development. For millennia, Western society, through its relationship with Judaism and Christianity, has presumed humanity itself wretched, evil, petty, &c. And there's plenty going on to back that up. Of course, as anyone who's gone through youthful nihilism is aware, there's also plenty of good taking place; people go out of their way to remind you of that when you're nihilistic. Christians responding to accusations of the harm their paradigm causes will point out, "I give to the poor ...." This society is conditioned to a state of bondage; the idea of depriving someone of personal governance is not foreign to this ideology. It is an imitation of God.​

Group B

Consistent among this troika of political assertions is a notion of governance and propriety. Given the balance between a living woman and her undeveloped offspring, we choose the former because choosing the latter carries vast implications. (It's always rights, isn't it? What about responsibility? There's nothing like emerging from the womb after others have decided you should be born and being handed a bill for nine months' room and board.) Pro-choice chooses governance of the viable self. Pro-euthanasia chooses governance of the self. Capital punishment is a governance issue. Even though many liberals are Christians, and even atheists in this society are shaped by religious moral undercurrents, recognition is anything but doctrinal. Without that notion of Original Sin, without the constant necessary presumption of humanity's subservience and corruption, capital punishment doesn't make sense. Perhaps if our parents hadn't taught us that two wrongs don't make a right, we'd agree with the "burn 'em" crowd.​

And even those summaries are superficial. Capital punishment is an unwieldy political beast because of the diversity of arguments. Texas, for instance, has a ghastly excuse for due process. That Texas is also execution central does not strike me as "merely" coincidental. Facets of the Texas argument won't apply out here in the Ninth District, where the judges just don't put up with that kind of sh@t. Your lawyer didn't defend you? Prove it within reason and you get a new trial. Arguing about Texan savagery can have little relevance in other states. Hell, it might even have been Governor Clinton, over in Arkansas (I'm not entirely sure, as this was that long ago), who called "unfortunate" the botched execution of a mentally-retarded man who killed his parents according to the Biblical education they gave him. (I never would have heard of that one if it wasn't for Newsweek's "Periscope" page. I wish I could remember the whole quote. It's only a few words, but it so utterly fails to encompass the magnitude of torturing a retarded man to death with electricity that the editors couldn't help but include a quote whose explanation was four times longer.) Metallica's James Hetfield once told the cryptic story that the album and song title "Ride the Lightning" derived from a news story he encountered in which a youth was allegedly executed for murder, but officials had to first deal with the problem of the boy being too small to fit in the electric chair. (Most likely true, but also most likely old; however, I've never been able to verify the story.)

Anyway, I digress, it seems. The larger point I'm after is that I don't think there's necessarily an apparent hypocrisy in those two groupings. Are they dominated by hypocrites? Yes. But the big hypocrisy, at least on the part of "group A" in the Schiavo case, comes from Congress, and pertains to themes more subtle than "life, life, death", or "death, death, life".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top