Schiavo Still Divides Nation
Both the Schindlers--what a wonderful family--and Michael Schiavo have books out about the death of Terri. If book sales are any indication, the nation remains divided by the case. I have been tracking the Amazon book rankings of both books and they have remained within one hundred of each other for the last week. As I write this, the Schindler's book, A Life That Matters, is ranked 280. Schiavo's book is ranked 215. Yesterday, both were ranked in the low to mid five hundreds.
I know which one I'd read.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:08 AM
13 Comments
13 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I was deeply involved in it for several years. And quite frankly, I am not in the least interested in anything Michael Schiavo has to say.
That being noted, Bobby Schindler is right when he says Michael Schiavo no longer matters. What matters is protecting the lives and wellbeing of profoundly disabled people.
Actually YOU are the one who is misguided.
You don't know anything about the Schiavo case and what it means for those who are disabled.
After all, we aren't talking about YOUR right to off yourself; we are talking about the so-called "right" of others, especially those with numerous conflicts of interest, to knock off the disabled because of inadequate guardianship laws.
Not Dead Yet is right, and YOU are wrong.
NDY rocks and rolls.
She's gone a whole year, and STILL people don't understand what that case was about. The analysis that followed her death revealed that she would probably have never "been the same" again, but that is NOT what the case was about.
It was NOT a right-to-die issue, because a large number of us remain unconvinced that she WANTED to die. Just a few weeks before, Michael Schiavo went on LARRY KING LIVE and said, "We don't know what Terri would want, but we know what WE want." Isn't that enough to give anyone pause?
Too many are putting their own views into the Schiavo case, saying, in essence, "Come on! Who would want to live like that?" Well, if YOU don't, fine. Put it into a living will. But we have very little reason to believe that Terri wanted to be starved to death, and if such evidence exists it should have been made more public, and then all of this could have been avoided.
I'm impressed that so many who believe in God nonetheless wanted to give her every chance at life, rather than say, "Well, no problem. She'll just go right to Heaven." We don't KNOW what happens when we die, and so that's why I'm for erring on the side of life.
Yes. These "when in doubt" cases should always be decided, it seems to me, in favor of living.
"There was very little doubt that Terri was no longer human in a sentient sense, and was not going to recover."
As I've said on other threads, "sentience" is not the key determining factor to humanity or life.
Yes. She was no longer "human." She has no rights that we "humans" need respect. So, why not take her organs, as some bioethicists have advocated? Why not use her in medical experiments instead of aniamls? Shoving people out of the human state is a very dangerous undertaking. Because who gets shoved out becomes a matter of who has the power to decide what is "human."
Ah, it always gets to money and who has the right to live, doesn't it? And notice the tone of scorn toward Terri. How very eugenic.
I valued her equally with other human beings and you should, too.
What is disgusting is equating a living human being with cancer cells. Such comparison are bigoted and demeaning to intrinsic human worth. And, by the way, Terri could swallow. She did not need her saliva suctioned. But swallowing does not give human worth, being human does.
I do not extol Republicans. And if you had read my other posts, you would note that zero Democrat senators opposed the federal Schiavo bill. Indeed, other than the umbilical cord blood stem cell bill, which some Democrat senators finally stopped blocking, the federal Schiavo bill may have been the most bipartisan of the Bush presidency.
I have contributed to groups that work to protect people like Terri, along with other charities. I also donate my time.
Thank you for your illuminating posts. They pierce right to the core of the dispute.
"So, now we're giving personhood to cancer cells, are we? Cancer cells do not have a conscious mind, much like Terri. Cancer cells will also never develop a conscious mind. They CAN, however, feed and perpetuate themselves, whereas Terri couldn't swallow."
But, yuh see, cancer cells and soft-drink cans aren't human beings...
Winston, you are missing the real concern behind the Schiavo case. Despite all the emphasis placed on it, the crucial factor was not how much Terri was or was not impaired. The crucial factor was the fact that Terri's actual wishes in such a condition were not known with any certainty, and those pushing for her termination (i.e. Michael Schiavo) had conflicts of interest. More generally, there was also the question: When there is uncertainty, do we err on the side of life or of death?
Winston, you also need to set aside your kneejerk assumption that these concerns are somehow "Republican" in nature. The truth is that this is by no means a purely partisan issue, and opposition to euthanasia (as well as support for it) cuts across all party lines.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home