« Cotillion Ball IV -- Ready to Rhumba? | Main | Even ladies get moody ... »
June 21, 2005
Another voice on Terri Schiavo
If you have sampled the Cotillion links you'll run across Jody of Steal the Bandwagon's post. I want to call it to your attention because she was a member of the Blogs for Terri and she offers up a though-filled post upon her participation and what she saw as the extremism that grew out of the effort to see Terri be afforded due process.
IMHO, I still find the smirking and lipsmacking by the pro-euthanasia side of the Terri affair unseemly. She was a severely brain-damaged woman in no danger of dying. Her death was imposed and imposed by a court that could have legally ruled a "life default" in the absense of Terri's written instructions and in the face of family members willing and able to care for her until a natural death.
And please don't labor under the impression that the autopsy proves Terri had PVS. Michelle Malkin read the whole thing and gives a sober assessment of it.
My concern will always be with protecting the rights of the most vulnerable members of our society from being eliminated because they become inconvenient for some.
Posted by Darleen at June 21, 2005 01:13 PM
Comments
My concern will always be with protecting the rights of the most vulnerable members of our society from being eliminated because they become inconvenient for some.
So you agree with the recent court ruling that took a child away from her parents because the parents and the doctors disagreed over medical treatment.
If my 87 year old father, who is a cancer patient, were to slip into a coma, and my family decided to forego invasive medical treatment, should courts intervene?
If you come down with an incurable disease and after much trying you decide to forego the experimental treatments and spend your last months with your family (see the movie Stepmom) should the courts step in and over-rule your decision? Your sick, perhaps you are not thinking clearly, and the more sober minds of the medical establishment should prevail. (The fact that they will make an extra 100 grand on your treatment should not be viewed as a conflict of interest.)
How do we protect the innocent? By keeping our laws. Laws for generations are clear. Spouses take precidence over parents. I would not want my parents making medical decisions for me, they are incapable of seeing me as anything by 12 years old.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at June 22, 2005 03:13 AM
I am speaking of protecting rights via rule of Law and the US Constitution.
My main problem with the Schiavo case was that she was not terminally ill and her wishes were unknown. We are not talking her about interfering with extraordinary medical care but withdrawing food and water. So the strawman argument (keyword: invasive) you offer for your grandfather is not applicable.
If I'm recalling the parent/child/doctor thing correctly, doesn't that deal with parents actually neglecting their child? The court has the discretion to terminate parental rights when a child is neglected, and that includes giving regular and expected medical care. If I have a child with diabetes, should I be allowed to forgo giving him/her insulin?
Posted by: Darleen at June 22, 2005 06:22 AM