![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyburgA final note to the Republican leadership in the House and Senate: You have to pull out all the stops. You have to run over your chairmen if they're being obstructionist for this niggling reason and that. Run over their egos, run past their fatigue. You have to win on this. If you don't, you can't imagine how much you're going to lose. And from people who have faith in you.
This is why Terri Schiavo has to live? This is why?
On the other side of this debate, one would assume there is an equally well organized and passionate group of organizations deeply committed to removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. But that's not true. There's just about no one on the other side. Or rather there is one person, a disaffected husband who insists Terri once told him she didn't want to be kept alive by extraordinary measures.
He has fought the battle to kill her with a determination that at this point seems not single-minded or passionate but strange. His former wife's parents and family are eager to care for her and do care for her, every day. He doesn't have to do a thing. His wife is not kept alive by extraordinary measures--she breathes on her own, is not on a respirator. All she needs to continue existing--and to continue being alive so that life can produce whatever miracle it may produce--is a feeding tube.
It doesn't seem a lot.
So politically this is a struggle between many serious people who really mean it and one, just one, strange-o. And the few bearded and depressed-looking academics he's drawn to his side.
I would have to disagree. And so would this fellow, I believe.
We have now reached the endgame in the case of Terri Schiavo. Her husband, Michael, remains unwavering in his view that she would not want to live in the state she is in. Despite the fact that he has been made the target of an incredible organized campaign of vilification, slander and just plain nastiness, he remains unmoved. Even a pathetic effort to bribe him into changing his mind with the offer of $1 million did not budge him.
He says he loves his wife and will do whatever it takes to end an existence that he believes she would not want to endure. He thinks that she would want her feeding tube stopped and that she would wish to die rather than remain bed-bound in a nursing home in a permanent vegetative state for the rest of her days.
He says he loves her. His detractors point to his out of wedlock children, his stance and say he does not.
Could we get to a place where we decide, as a society, when a marriage is over and other next-of-kin can step in to make decisions for people like Teri Schiavo? Isn't that where this belongs?
Otherwise, where is the sanctity of marriage in all this? It's been fought and tried and fought and litigated and argued to a standstill.
Could he still love her? Does it matter, legally, any longer?
Geez.
Right to life, sanctity of marriage (even toss in some polyamory issues for good measure) - let alone access to adequate health care - this is a place where nobody will be satisfied.
Schiavo's issues run right up against the sanctity of marriage issues. She's married, sanctified and all, to a man. Either a legally married spouse has the right to make decisions - or he does not. That's been proved to be the case, multiple times. It's ironic that a lot of argument to allow other pairings to marry has a lot of do with this legal right - it's wanted, valued and critical in many cases.
Please, I've been in this place. It's not enviable.
I think one fact can be accepted - if any can be accepted - by everyone.
Nobody can remain unmoved by Teri Schiavo and her plight.
We all wish to help her to whatever fate has in store for her.
The only argument is how.
--
NOW - if all these people could just get as motivated to solve the crisis in paying for health care in this country. You would get my attention in short order.
This is why Terri Schiavo has to live? This is why?
On the other side of this debate, one would assume there is an equally well organized and passionate group of organizations deeply committed to removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. But that's not true. There's just about no one on the other side. Or rather there is one person, a disaffected husband who insists Terri once told him she didn't want to be kept alive by extraordinary measures.
He has fought the battle to kill her with a determination that at this point seems not single-minded or passionate but strange. His former wife's parents and family are eager to care for her and do care for her, every day. He doesn't have to do a thing. His wife is not kept alive by extraordinary measures--she breathes on her own, is not on a respirator. All she needs to continue existing--and to continue being alive so that life can produce whatever miracle it may produce--is a feeding tube.
It doesn't seem a lot.
So politically this is a struggle between many serious people who really mean it and one, just one, strange-o. And the few bearded and depressed-looking academics he's drawn to his side.
I would have to disagree. And so would this fellow, I believe.
We have now reached the endgame in the case of Terri Schiavo. Her husband, Michael, remains unwavering in his view that she would not want to live in the state she is in. Despite the fact that he has been made the target of an incredible organized campaign of vilification, slander and just plain nastiness, he remains unmoved. Even a pathetic effort to bribe him into changing his mind with the offer of $1 million did not budge him.
He says he loves his wife and will do whatever it takes to end an existence that he believes she would not want to endure. He thinks that she would want her feeding tube stopped and that she would wish to die rather than remain bed-bound in a nursing home in a permanent vegetative state for the rest of her days.
He says he loves her. His detractors point to his out of wedlock children, his stance and say he does not.
Could we get to a place where we decide, as a society, when a marriage is over and other next-of-kin can step in to make decisions for people like Teri Schiavo? Isn't that where this belongs?
Otherwise, where is the sanctity of marriage in all this? It's been fought and tried and fought and litigated and argued to a standstill.
Could he still love her? Does it matter, legally, any longer?
Geez.
Right to life, sanctity of marriage (even toss in some polyamory issues for good measure) - let alone access to adequate health care - this is a place where nobody will be satisfied.
Schiavo's issues run right up against the sanctity of marriage issues. She's married, sanctified and all, to a man. Either a legally married spouse has the right to make decisions - or he does not. That's been proved to be the case, multiple times. It's ironic that a lot of argument to allow other pairings to marry has a lot of do with this legal right - it's wanted, valued and critical in many cases.
Please, I've been in this place. It's not enviable.
I think one fact can be accepted - if any can be accepted - by everyone.
Nobody can remain unmoved by Teri Schiavo and her plight.
We all wish to help her to whatever fate has in store for her.
The only argument is how.
--
NOW - if all these people could just get as motivated to solve the crisis in paying for health care in this country. You would get my attention in short order.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 08:25 pm (UTC)Did he love his wife? YES.
Is he working towards what she wanted? YES.
Then I'm a person that believes in not letting our technology out live our humanity. Using technology to fix something that has broken (a broken leg, arm, being shot, etc...) is one thing. Using technology to fight against nature (replacing organs that have failed due to old age), is just wrong. Atleast in my opinion.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 10:28 pm (UTC)"I don't care what her husband says".
Pretty much sums up the entire Right.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 10:33 pm (UTC)As for the kids out of wedlock - she's been in this condition for 16 years. He's been fighting for her right to die for almost that long. Is it really that strange that he's tried to build a life for himself while fighting almost single-handedly for what he believes his wife would want?
But yeah, it's always easier to take moralistic poses than it is to solve the big ticket issues of health care.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 11:13 pm (UTC)For example, I'd find it more believable if the editorial included the total amount awarded in the malpractice suit.
Nevertheless, I don't think this case is a simple right-to-die issue. If I were a right-to-die advocate this isn't the battle I'd want to fight.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 11:58 pm (UTC)The money left? In the thousands. Not tens of thousands. Not hundreds of thousands.
He turned down a million to keep her alive - that was more. A lot more.
No, I have to believe that both sides of the coin don't know what motivates this man. It actually might be something larger than dollar signs.
Your link is from October 13, 2003. It's been a long time, and lot of money paid to a lot of lawyers on both sides since then.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-19 12:35 am (UTC)It's despicable. She told him what she wanted, let her have it.
Moon
no subject
Date: 2005-03-19 04:10 am (UTC)