“Evil is always done under the appearance of goodness.”
The American Spectator George Neumayr 4/1/2005
The initial event that disabled Terri Schiavo didn’t end up killing her. But in her obituary notice, what will the cause of death read? Will it read: murder? It should. The heart attack that disabled her didn’t doom her; a husband without a heart did.
Under judge-made law, euthanasia has become America’s most astonishing form of premeditated murder, a cold-blooded crime in which husbands can kill their wives and even turn them into accomplices to it through the telepathy of “their wishes.” To wonder if we’re on the slippery slope sounds like an obtuse moral compliment at this point. The truth is we’re at the bottom of the slope and have been for quite some time, standing dumbly as the bodies of innocent humans pile up around us. As we sift through them — puzzling over how they got so numerous — we’re reduced to mumbling sophistries about compassion and consent.
This is the “humane holocaust” of which Malcolm Muggeridge wrote, a culture that kills the weak, from deaf unborn children to mute disabled women, and calls it mercy. Those responsible for this humane holocaust look into the mirror and see Gandhi, but it is Hitler who glances back. If someone had taken the passages of Mein Kampf that speak of euthanizing “unfortunates” and inserted them into the columns from newspapers and magazines cheering Schiavo’s death, would anyone have known the difference?
I’m glad you are so smart and wise and all-knowing that you can sense the opinions of someone without even knowing them. I’m sure that terri would agree with you. I mean, you guys were best friends, right?
You mention telepathy. Somehow, you manage to figure that someone who has been incapable of eating, drinking, walking; incapable communicating; incapable of sentient thought for FIFTEEN YEARS still would want to live . Is this some sort of super-christian miracle that you can reach into her mind to know this? Or maybe you think that her brain could rebuild itself. Contrary to ANY DOCTOR’s advice you think that by prolonging her suffering in her hospitol bed she could “grow” brain cells back.
You accuse people like me and Mr. Shiavo of cold blooded murder. But if you had your way you would have been a torturer until the day she died.
A couple of points. Up to 10 years ago the entire concept of stem cells regenerating organs in the body was pure science fiction. Considering that we know almost nothing about brain function, a bit more humility and a little less certitude would be prudent, I think.
No one can reach into the mind of Terri Schiavo, including you. In the United States, at least until the decree rang out that Terri should die, no one dies without due process. Terri was denied this. There was no corroborating evidence that death was her wish, the only medical testimony allowed into evidence was by a doctor with a euthanasia bias (did you know that PVS diagnoses are wrong up to %40 of the time?), contradicting evidence about Terri’s desire to live was not allowed in evidence, and more.
In any case, killing is wrong. If you justify the killing of Terri Schiavo as you do, down the road, if the killing continues, you will justify killing people like Christopher Reeves (if he were still alive) or Stephen Hawking. It’s a slippery slope. Kill the worst off first, like babies with birth defects or unconcious people, and soon it will seem morally proper to kill the aged. We are already dismembering healthy babies when they are half-way born. Do you really think that Terri Schiavo’s death is not related to this culture of death?
What they have done to Terri has no justification; one may not even defend the killing under cover of euthanasia, because she wasn’t in a terminal health state. All she needed was some food, water and air to breathe. How could it be possible to refuse these simple and basic things to a human being?
In 19th century, thousands of schizophrenic people were murdered throughout European ‘health’ hospices, because there was, at that time, no cure or treatment to schizophrenia. Later on time, schizophrenic people could make their normal lives with adequate treatment. By backing up what has been done to Terri, some people also approve the past elimination of those thousands of schizophrenic people.
Why are we repeating the same errors, ever and ever again? The fact that there’s no cure, at this very moment, for a specific disease can justify taking the patient’s life?
“What if Terri Schiavo had had a living will saying she wouldn’t want a feeding tube to keep her alive for decades with no reasonable hope for recovery? Legally, of course, there’d be no issue. She’d get her chance to die in peace. But morally? The arguments of the proponents for keeping the feeding tube in indefinitely suggest that removing the tube is simply murder. If that is the case, then how can removing the tube ever be justified – even if she consented in advance? Murder is murder, right? Isn’t a ‘living will’ essentially a mandate for future assisted suicide?”
I know most of the objections stated here have been that it was in fact her wishes that are in dispute. What I’ve not heard from anyone is whether an explicit wish on her part would have been deemed suicide. If so and had her family/husband been unable to sustain her financially in such a condition, who would have covered the bill? Are we arguing for bigger government in this situation?