Printable View
The story of Terri Shiavo is indeed sad, as is every story of a person who suffers such serious brain damage that their bodies exist in the so-called persistent vegetative state. (Horrible expression).
Does anyone else suspect that this sad affair being turned into a huge media event because it distracts Americans' attention from the ongoing immorality of the occupation of Iraq?
Americans are retarded, plain and simple. The Scott Peterson case dominated their news media during the past year for no particular reason, now this will run for a while but it is pretty important as for setting precedent for legally ending peoples lives etc......
No, I dont. Its probably because of the influence of the "Religous Right" which now dominates US politics. This can be seen by the President and congress rushing back from holidays to ammend the law. Its also of the 'Human Interest' vein of story that the American media seem to love so much. Nothing about Iraq, its still high on the US media adgenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair_play_boy
The Irish have followed America's lead when it comes to taking news at face value, are you going to label the entire population of this country "retarded" too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soko
adam
Exactly. Hence my anger when over here (UK) Cardinal Cormac Murphy decides to bring abortion up. Fúcking idiot-just keep quiet and get on with your religion, stop polluting the airwaves. Ridiculous that people are influenced by such unrealistic claims. Heard a great quote from one woman:Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy.McClure
"It's all well and nice that the Gospel is against abortion, but will it pay for my new pram?, bigger house?, pay my wages when i stop work?", etc.,etc.
Well his religion does have a strict prolife stance, so I think that its quite reasionable for him to bring it up, although I though that Blair had raised the topic first?Quote:
Originally Posted by jofyisgod
It think it is very sad. Such media hype about a family matter with both (more the religious right side obviously) using the case for their own means.
I don't know enough about the matter to make judgements but think its fairly poor that the US State enacted laws purely to counteract the will of the independent courts.
Anyone else find the hypocrisy of those holding the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" posters, sickening?
These being the same people who enthusiastically support the Death Penalty?
even worse, tom delay (who prior to this was facing mounting investigations into his ethics/conduct as leader of the republican congress) was trumpeting on about keeping this woman alive, whereas he euthanized his father in 1988 after a tram accident! and even worse than THAT, he sued the tram company for the fatal injuries his father received, a type of damages lawsuit he's been critical of for years. total hypocrisy. the right believe in social darwinism (pro-business, survival of the fittest, every man for himself, etc.) on one hand while preaching the f*cking gospel on the other.
What I found most disturbing was that she was "allowed" to starve to death. If you did that to a dog you would end up in jail. Once the decision had been made to let her die there had to be a better way to end this. I fully appreciate that a doctor should not do anything to harm a living person but would a massive dose of morphine "to take the edge off her suffering" not have been more humane?
Starving to death has to be wrong on so many levels.
So dreadfully sad to see the poor woman pass away. May she rest in peace.
Reading the above opinions, maybe too many of you folks are watching Faux "News" channel. Even before, I bought "Outfoxed" and read Al Franken's book "Lies and the lying liars...", it was blatantly obvious that this channel - on Sky's digital network - is the most reactionary, right-wing piece of propaganda on the airwaves. There is an answer. In The Guardian's G2 section, yesterday, there was news on a cheap new edvice called the Foxblocker. It costs about $9 and you simply click it to the back of the telly - result - a nice grey snowsstorm.
Ok. OK - I know some of you might suggest using the off button but G2 omitted a vital piece of data.
When you buy the above device, you get a list of companies who advertise on the channel and contact information to let them know you intend to boycott their products if they continue to advertise on this journalistic garbage dump. Many of these companies have products in this country - there are no adverts in the breaks on Faux over here. A good few number of messages to Sky might also work.
The opinion on Tom Delay is bang on - he is muppet facing a number of inquiries on fraud and is trying to weasle out of his predicament by his ravings on poor Ms. Schaivo whilst trying to change government rules to side step the charges.
Try The Smudge report/Michael Moore.com/FAIR/Alternet or Air America on the net for something approaching real news from the States.
that thing sounds insane! such a devious capitalist twist, i bet a repuke thought it up ;) i'll take two!Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhamish
If you are referring to the religious fundamentalists and zealots(which I presume you are) I find them hard to stomach for their intolerance of anybody or any opinion which differs from their own, and their smugness makes me sick with anger. If there is a hell, I think this is where they go, because it is these people who would make the afterlife so unbearable.Quote:
Originally Posted by patsh
Meanwhile, Terri Schiavo, Rest In Peace.
I thought it was probably more immoral to keep her alive for 15 (?) years by means of a feeding tube - does being kept alive by medical technology really constitute life? I would have favoured the husband's view if I were in her shoes. I was surprised the Vatican condemned the decision to let her die as I'd have thought they'd have been more opposed to that way of keeping her alive. Never understood why it was getting so much newstime though?
Still, she's at rest now - RIP.
Spot on comment. It was a barbaric act to do this. It was the dehydration which killed her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Smith
The technology to keep somebody "alive" in this suspended state has been around for a few decades now, but philosophy, law and language have not developed to take this into account, or so it appears to me anyway.
I think new definitions of life need to be reflected in our thinking, in the way we refer to life, and in the laws that govern situations like this one.
If there is no possibility of a person recovering from brain death, maybe we should recognise this as death of a kind, to allow people to move on with their lives, and to provide a legal way of addressing parenthood and inheritance matters. For example, if the brain damaged person owns or jointly owns property, and has a child or children with a spouse or partner (which may have been the case with Terri Schiavo) maybe the laws should allow for inheritance and parenthood rights as if the person were actually dead. That way, the wishes of those who want to keep someone "alive" could be respected for as long as it was medically possible.
Do we actually know she wasn't given something to ease the suffering, or even has the capacity to suffer, or are we just speculating idly about a person and situation we know little about again?
adam
No we don't know either of these things. However, starvation is a barbaric way to end someones life with or without suffering. If she had been on death row she would not have been treated this way for humanitarian reasons. As to whether or not she had the capacity to suffer - I personally wouldn't have wanted to take the chance that the she had the capacity to suffer.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Starvation is a barabric way to end someones life...
So is death by electrocution, by "lethal injection"(poisoning), by hanging, by many other ways, they are ALL barbarian methods.
I don't know the ins and outs of the Schiavo case, and there were some very genuine people who objected to this on the best moral and ethical grounds, but the sickening and revoting hypocrisy of Bush, his brother and the other right-wing elements who jumped on this "bandwagon" shows us who the real barbarians are.
The word "barbaric" implies blame, but you're just throwing out a catch-all "barbaric" here, who's being barbaric and who are they being barbaric towards please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Smith
We've already covered Shiavo, we don't know if she even had the capacity to suffer. Do you mean barbaric towards the parents? How about if the husband is telling the truth and the parents have kept her alive for over a decade against her wishes, would that make the parents barbaric? Or how about this: Shiavo's bulemia would seem to suggest that the last thing she'd want is people paying this much attention to her when she wasn't at her best. Does that make you (and me for that matter) barbaric for keeping it up?
How about getting off the fly-by-night bandwagon the media pushed you onto, and giving her a little peace? Or does the attention-span-of-a-gnat populace need to get this covered straight away, before they flit onto the next topic Fox and Sky News vomit onto their screens?
Give the woman a break for god's sake, if it's truly that important to you it shouldn't be that much of a problem to bring the topic up again when a reasonable period of time has passed.
adam
The ONLY thing that matters here is whether she would have wanted to continue to exist in such a vegatative state or not.
Her wishes.
End of.