The Schiavo issue

[Claire]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150922,00.html

If it was possible to make me feel a tiny bit better about her manner of death, this article provided it.....still horrible, still disgusting, but gave me a little peace on the issue.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Claire

But if "government" was really to respond to the concerns of every constituent, what would that entail, exactly? Are they (our governor, senators, and representatives) really compelled to become involved in every single personal situation where their assistance is requested? How would that work?

In my opinion, the Democrats are keeping too low a profile on this one. Oh well. Let the Republicans hang themselves on their "life" issues.

So the Republicans are too involved, but the dems should be more so? So are you saying you want the government out of it, or that you want the portion of the government that disagrees with you out of it?

Of course members of the government are not compelled to become involved in what is requested of them. But they have chosen to on this one. Recently my representative became involved in in the case of a man from our district that was jailed in Mexico because he had a firearm in his vehicle that he was unaware of. Should he have become involved in that? Was he compelled to, or did it seem like a matter of life and death for a constituent?

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I would feel exactly the same. Although I do think your question is somewhat loaded and disagree with the premise - "to release their daughter from torment and let her soul be at rest". No one can say if she is in torment. From what I've read, she seems to be quite happy to spend time with her parents.

I do apologize for appearing to have asked a loaded question. My intent was to ascribe to each side, hypothetically speaking, the most altruistic of intentions. I wasn't necessarily thinking of the specific case, but trying to imagine what reasons a genuinely loving set of parents might give for a wish to remove a feeding tube, and what a genuinely loving husband might give as his reasons for retaining the tube. I will try to be more careful with my language.

I do thank you, scaeagles, as well as wendybeth, for clarifying your positions. It definitely helps me understand both your feelings in this particular case, as well as what it is about your beliefs and experiences that led you to form that specific opinion. I really appreciate that you took the time to say more, and in a respectful fashion. I'd give snaps, but that seems a bit irreverent for this topic.

I'm not sure I honestly have a firm opinion in this case. My position changes depending on whose shoes I try to inhabit. And I don't have kids, so any attempts to conjecture how I might feel in that case is, well, conjecture. If my daughter were married to some guy I thought was a total jerk, I might well take similar steps to prevent him from having his say-so on her life and death.

And then I wonder what would happen if it was my husband with the feeding tube, and his parents insisted they wanted to keep the tube in. I can only imagine the things they would say about me. Meanwhile I think they don't know him, at least the adult him, half as well as they think they do.

My only solution is to rely on the "rules" which say who gets to decide. And don't think I don't know how unsatisfactory THAT solution is. Hearing more about what others think and *why* they think what they think helps me try to come up with something more satifactory.

The impression I get from a couple opinions posted here is that some of you view feeding tubes in the same way you might view, say, moving a quadriplegic to avoid bed sores. It's more of a routine maintenance than an extraordinary measure (like a respirator). I can't say I'm ready to agree with you, but I also can't say that I absolutely disagree with you. It's definitely something for me to think about.

As complicated as that issue is, even more complicated is: who speaks in her best interest? I don't even know how to tackle that. I honestly have no idea and I don't know if there's any way to accurately determine that. Of course people have their own opinions, but reasonable people differ. Scaeagles does bring up a good point of erring on the side of caution. And Claire brings up a good point of questioning whose best interests are being served -- Terri's or her parents?

I'm going to go offer and ponder all the good points a little more.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So the Republicans are too involved, but the dems should be more so? So are you saying you want the government out of it, or that you want the portion of the government that disagrees with you out of it?

No. Not at all. My wish was for them (Democrats) to be a little more vocal about the inappropriateness of activity such as calling Terri Schiavo as a witness in order to block the removal of her feeding tube. And actually I think I'm okay with the Republicans spouting their "culture of life" rhetoric. It's thin and tired. I'm hoping that since the public opinion polls seem to be heavily on the side of Michael Shiavo that they'll back down a little.

Originally Posted by Prudence

And then I wonder what would happen if it was my husband with the feeding tube, and his parents insisted they wanted to keep the tube in. I can only imagine the things they would say about me. Meanwhile I think they don't know him, at least the adult him, half as well as they think they do.

Exactly the discussion my husband and I had this morning over coffee and the newspaper. We both agreed that our parents don't know the adult "us," and that we'd rather have one another in charge of life or death decisions, and that we want it in writing. Our daughter's preschool auction is next week, and we're already planning to purchase a "will-writing" package donated by a lawyer in our neighborhood. The thought of my Bill O-Reilleyesque/Rush Limbaugh lovin' father attempting to decide my fate someday is too much for both of us to bear.

[SacTown Chronic]

Boy, that Mr. Bush is one compassionate man! I mean, wow, cutting short one of his legendarily frequent vacations to save this woman's life (nevermind that the poor woman wants to die). Cynics will say that he's just paying off his debt to the self-righteous fundamentalists who are his base, but we know better, don't we? When Mr. Bush states, as he did last night, that, "In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumtion in favor of life.", we should assume that he is sincere, right?

Then again, pandering to his base seems to be his m.o., so maybe we should assume nothing. When his base was the Try 'em and Fry 'em state of Texas , he had all the compassion of a rock. Executing the mentally retarded and then lying about it when you ran for president? That's low, even for you Mr. Bush. I mean, really, Mr. Bush, fighting a ban that would prevent the execution of those with an IQ of 65 or lower? For shame. Maybe compassionate conservatism means making sure Ol' Sparky's sponges are wet before frying someone who cannot comprehend what is happening to him, and who is wondering where the hell that hotdog smell is coming from. Where was all that "presumption in favor of life" talk when there were serious doubts about the competency of your execution victims to even comprehend what was happening to them, Mr. Bush?

And you, Mr. DeLay, you are some piece of work. Watching you lecture the nation about morals last night sent me in search of a hot shower. It was like watching a Saddam Hussein lecture about preventing the abuse of human rights. I have one word for you and your idea of morals, Mr. Delay. And that word, of course, is ::shudder::.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Then again, pandering to his base seems to be his m.o., so maybe we should assume nothing.

Pandering to his base?...........My goodness what is the world coming to when a leader does the bidding of those who elected him to be their leader

[Nephythys]

Oh yes, and those "vacations" when he does everything he does at the White House- except he does it in TX. Heaven forbid!

[SacTown Chronic]

There's pandering to your base and then there's selling your morals to the highest bidder (or for votes). But I get your point.

Oh, and thanks for giving mojo even though you disagree with my take on this subject. You're a class act, sleepyjeff.

[Claire]

Too angry to post right now. But Sac nailed it.....Bush.....DeLay....all my thoughts on this topic have already been expressed on this thread. Bush just sealed the deal....culture of life, my ass.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Oh yes, and those "vacations" when he does everything he does at the White House- except he does it in TX. Heaven forbid!

Really? I have no idea what he does while on vacation (though I hear that abstaining from sex takes up most of his time) so I'll take your word for it.