|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:07 pm
I know we've all heard about the whole Terri Schaivo case, where the woman was permanently disabled and completely braindead, yet nobody would let her die physically. The two sides were essentially her husband, who wanted to let her finally rest, and her parents with the support of the Republican Party. So who's right in a situation like that, or what you you want done were you the one who'd never be anymore human than a carrot?
And also, anyone who has any real knowledge beyond what I mentioned on Schaivo or Comas and vegetative states in general, please post it, 'cause my mom put in a new firewall and I still can't get anything to not be blocked by the damn thing.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:24 pm
I'm on her husband's side, nobody should be forced into having to experience that unless there is an absolute certainty that Terri could be brought out of it. You might be able to search Wikipedia for such info, but that subject is not my forte.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:18 am
The thing that kept her family from pulling the plug was hope. They had hope that she would come out of her state. I don't blame them one bit because if that was my daughter/sister I would want to try and hold on to her for as long as I could, and if there was some hope, I'd pursue it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:46 am
Actually, I managed to fins some stuff on the case. And Mikhail, there was no hope of her ever recovering. When she had collapsed with no breathing or heart beat, her brain was deprived of oxygen for a long enough time as to damage the centers of her brain controling personal awareness and such things. Essentially, she had lost all sense of self, muscular control, and a few other major bodily functions. So let us assume that she would never awaken, and that she had no conscious awareness of her state. It's not like Jhonny Get Your Gun, where the kid still knew what was going on, at least to some extent. Essentially, she was dead in all but name, so what should have been done? citation for case info: wikipedia article
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:16 pm
I feel bad for Michael of being accused of wanting her to no longer exist for purposes of monetary gain through life insurance. Although, i'm not sure what he did with the money I could imagine it went to medical costs for keeping Terri alive for so long, the operations that she under went for removing the feeding tube multiple times, and the court costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:46 pm
Topics like these are very hard to decide on. On one side, there's the kindness to let the person go on to a better place, instead of keeping them here, but on the other side, even just having them still physicaly alive give the family hope and prevents them from being heartbroken for as long as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:20 pm
If I were a human veggie, I don't think I'd really be thinking about wanting to die. I don't think I'd be thinking at all.
Some people think the husband just wanted to pull the plug on her life support because he wanted the money from life insurance and he really didn't care about her. The parents, however, I believe, just had a hard time letting go.
The husband did want to move on with his life and let her move on with hers, meaning death. She was already dead, just not physically, what was the point in keeping her alive so long? Even if he was just a money-grabber, I wouldn't let that be a factor in deciding if she lives or dies. It's not relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:13 pm
Unless it is near certain that a person will gain back enough use of their brain to be above the mentally retarded level after coming out of a comma that must last less than a year, I think the person should be allowed to die. In my opinion we should follow the rules of natural selection so we do not end up destroying our race (if we survive global warming) by allowing to many gene-mutations, which would be weeded out in natural selection, continue and spread throughout the population (if we survive global warming). In other words if someone is going to be down syndrome or below an I.Q. of 70 (legally mentally retarded) they should be aborted in the womb (I don't think we can currently find out I.Q. in the womb, but I am sure we will be able to soon) rather than have to be cared for like four year olds for their whole life. This may sound cruel but the evolutionary advantage humans have is their intelligence, and, I assure, you that a lion with a physical mutation that made it have only two legs would die very quickly. I'm not saying we should kill them if they are born, only that they shouldn't be allowed to be born.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:08 pm
tison13 In my opinion we should follow the rules of natural selection so we do not end up destroying our race (if we survive global warming) by allowing to many gene-mutations, which would be weeded out in natural selection, continue and spread throughout the population (if we survive global warming). I'm not saying we should kill them if they are born, only that they shouldn't be allowed to be born.
Maybe I'm just too caring, but I have thought about natural selection with humans, and all I get reminded of is Hitler. >_< I have to think about this more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:14 am
Tasty Crayons tison13 In my opinion we should follow the rules of natural selection so we do not end up destroying our race (if we survive global warming) by allowing to many gene-mutations, which would be weeded out in natural selection, continue and spread throughout the population (if we survive global warming). I'm not saying we should kill them if they are born, only that they shouldn't be allowed to be born.
Maybe I'm just too caring, but I have thought about natural selection with humans, and all I get reminded of is Hitler. >_< I have to think about this more.Hitler was genocide which is very much different. He mainly killed Jews. I don't see why "God" would care so much more about humans then it does about all of its supposed other creations which it kills if they are not the most fit possible. (don't you think it would be more insulting to say he or she suggesting "God" cares more about one gender?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
