The Pope is now being fed through a feeding tube. Don’t know if he has a living will or not. Guess we should let him die as well. He’s a burden to the world and doesn’t have anything to contribute anymore.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/30/pope.monday/index.html
Let his parents decide!
I’ll just make the assumption that you can tell the difference between the two cases and that you are just trolling.
People have made the argument that those being kept alive by artificial means aren’t worthy of being kept alive and should be left to pass. Simple measures such as feeding and hydration are now deemed as extraordinary and excessive. While no two cases are the same there are some similarities.
What a stupid statement. Just shows how ignorant people can be of the true situation or how they can twist the facts to present their own “shocking” side of the story. My guess is that the Pope will have had a directive to use all means to keep him alive. Counter that with Terry’s wishes not to be kept alive in that manner and what do you get? How about respecting the wishes of each person involved? Pretty simple really. The ignorant “radio commentators” or people who are calling in saying that if we let Terry pass away like this just think of all of the thousands of others who would be in the same situation! Well, it isn’t even close to the same situation. It’s up to the person’s wishes. Have they communicated that they don’t want to live like that? Have they communicated that they want every medical step performed to keep them alive?
Actually Tyrius, it is left to speculation and very cloudy as to what Terri’s wishes actually were. They weren’t written down nor were they clear. Terri did not “clearly” communicate her wishes as you seem to believe.
Not as simple as you make it to be.
She communicated her wishes verbally to at least 3 separate individuals and every court that has looked into this portion of the saga has upheld that it is Terri’s wish not to be kept alive under these circumstances.
I know she didn’t write them down, I’m pretty familiar with the story as I’ve spent some time looking up the various decisions and the actual timelines of events in this case. That’s more than can be said for most of the people who are acting like they also know what is going on (not pointing this comment directly at you, but more at the people I hear everyday on the radio talking about it).
I’m honestly not wanting to delve into the details of the Schiavo case. It’s been discussed to death. I was simply pointing out that some people have made the suggestion that anyone who receives food and water through a tube is receiving care above and beyond what is deemed as necessary. If this logic were applied specifically to the Pope who is now being fed through a tube then he would be left for dead as well.
People have a funny way of determining whether or not someone’s life is worth prolonging or not.
Sure people are saying that, but to me it seems like more of a way for them to get a reaction out of people. I don’t think anyone in the legal or medical fields are promoting to not treat anyone that is currently or will be on any form of life support. The only people I’ve heard say such radical things are the radio talk show hosts, editorial writers, the people who call in to the radio shows, or those people who just want their 30 seconds of fame.
Basically, what I think this should boil down to is, did Terri (or anyone else for that matter) communicate that she did not want to be kept alive on life support? If yes, then pull it. If no, then keep her on it. The courts have shown the answer to that question to be yes.
I was simply pointing out that some people have made the suggestion that anyone who receives food and water through a tube is receiving care above and beyond what is deemed as necessary.
Who said that? Schiavo’s cortex is liquified, she has no brain waves. Big difference between her & the pope.
And, I believe the Pope doesnt live in the USA. I could be wrong though.
I wondered how long it would take for someone to post this ridiculous argument.
What argument are you speaking of? I didn’t pose any argument. I was making an analogy to a particular viewpoint.
That’s a straw man argument.
No one has said that just because you’re on a feeding tube, that you should die. Other factors are in consideration with the Schiavo case.
My apologies, Brian. You’re right. There was no “argument.”
But that’s one of the dumbest analogies to date that anyone’s posted on this forum, and clearly misrepresents the “viewpoint” you’re referencing.
“I was simply pointing out that some people have made the suggestion that anyone who receives food and water through a tube is receiving care above and beyond what is deemed as necessary. If this logic were applied specifically to the Pope who is now being fed through a tube then he would be left for dead as well.”
To me that is the whole point of all of this though: It is a personal issue. If the Pope has a living will or it is known that he wants any and all assistive measure to be taken, then they will be done. As a “moderately” devout Catholic (an obvious joke) it is pretty clear to anyone that he wants all measures to be taken. But if anyone has a living will or lets it be known that they view a feeding tube as receiving “care above and beyond what is deemed necessary” then that means they don’t want it. The Pope wants it all done, and the only information we have on Terri Schiavo are the three verbal comments that she didn’t want assistive measures. We aren’t applying a specific logic on the Pope because no credible person is saying everyone who is on a feeding tube should be taken off of it and die, and the logic can only apply to people as they personally see fit for themselves.
“People have a funny way of determining whether or not someone’s life is worth prolonging or not.”
This is very true, but since we’re dealing with humans we should be aware that personal logic and reasons are going to be vary different from person to person and will appear to be strange to others. You may not agree with how I personally view what my life is worth, or what measures I want taken to prolong it, but that’s how it should be. I don’t want you determining what my life is worth, or what measures should be taken to prolong it. It’s my personal decision and should be up to me based on what I declare and make known to my family and friends.
You may not agree with how I personally view what my life is worth
I may not agree that it’s a matter of subjective opinion.
This post is a blatant attempt to start a bullshit argument about an issue which clearly does not parallel the Schiavo case. Why are you wasting your and our time with it?
And you don’t have to either. To my understanding the way it is set up legally is I can refuse almost any medical assistance I don’t want. It’s my life, and I choose what measures will be taken. I could definitely be wrong about that. But I know I can refuse “heroic” measures be taken.
But I think your point also brings up another bigger issue: what do we do when different groups of thought insist in this situation that their view is the only correct view? What if some (or most or all) of those groups believe their view should be the legal view?
Stop the SEAL KILL!!!
