PDA

View Full Version : Terri Schiavo



Pages : 1 [2]

Chip R
03-31-2005, 12:07 AM
Yeah, I saw it. It was hilarious. :lol:

Dom Heffner
03-31-2005, 01:10 AM
How about when Jesus said "when I was sick, you visited me"

Or how about the old favorite, "judge not lest ye be judged"?

Or don't judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes?

MartyFan
03-31-2005, 01:26 AM
Originally Posted by M2
I'm not Larkin Fan, but let me take a run at this one.

I don't think this is so cut and dried from a theological standpoint. You could make a solid religious argument that Terri Schiavo passed from life over a decade ago and that what's happening now is that her body's being kept around as a doppelganger.

It's only a recent phenomenon, historically speaking, that someone like her would have survived at all after her initial episode. Science enabled us to put a feeding tube in her in the hopes that maybe she could emerge from the state she's in. Now, 15 years later, that same science is telling us in no uncertain terms that it cannot happen. There's been a lot of talk about respect for life, but Terri Schiavo's never going to have a life. She's going to lie in bed and breathe without so much as the germ of a thought passing through her head. Frankly, the Bible didn't see this one coming and, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't think anyone can claim to truly know God's will in this one.

My position is let her be with God because she can't be with us.




I couldn't have said it better, M2.

First, let me say that the Bible may not mention this dotting "i" and crossing "t" but the one who inspired it did. There are no surprises to Him.

While the arguement you make about passing from this life over a decade ago may be a religeous one...it would not be one based on Christian scripture because as long as her spirit resides with her body...which it does until her last breath is drawn according to scripture...she has not made that journey.

So seeing as how Terri and her family are of the Catholic faith this still would not be an acceptable or godly reason to slowly starve her to death.

One thing I am grateful for out of all of this is that you are seeing less "left vs. right" arguemenets which I hope will rub off into other areas of religeous, social and political debate.

MartyFan
03-31-2005, 01:40 AM
DomHeffner

DUDE!!!! I love it when people quote this..."Judge not lest ye be judged"...this is really awesome because we judge things and people every day...all of us...on more than one aspect of our life.

EXAMPLES

Judge distance between your car and the car in front of you or you will hit the car in front of you.

Judge that you get out of bed and go to work or you won't make an income

Judge that you breath in and out or you won't have oxygen going to your brain and you know by now that not even the Supreme Court will cut you any slack.

Judge = Discern in this instance of scripture...it just means to look at the situation in light of the scriptures and make a decision or "judge" for yourself...ie...make your conclussion.

Now the sort of judgeing you are implying is one that says "hey you are going to hell" and that actually is not judgeing at all...but instead it is damning...because it puts us in the posture of God who is the only one who can reveal the eternal destination of a persons soul based on what they have "judged" to be worthy and true.

traderumor
03-31-2005, 08:49 AM
How about when Jesus said "when I was sick, you visited me"

Or how about the old favorite, "judge not lest ye be judged"?

Or don't judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes?

GAC,

I did think of that passage when I said there was no specific scripture verses. In that same passage, it also talks about giving a cup of cold water in the name of Christ. There is also the principle of defending the defenseless, just to name a few.

Dom,

When you are able to explain what the verse you quoted, in context, really means, you'll stop saying that to make the point that one should not be judgmental since I assume you don't like it when people use the Bible to say something it never said. That second statement might be Confuscious or in the Koran, but it sure isn't in the Bible.

GAC
03-31-2005, 09:16 AM
DomHeffner

DUDE!!!! I love it when people quote this..."Judge not lest ye be judged"...this is really awesome because we judge things and people every day...all of us...on more than one aspect of our life.

EXAMPLES

Judge distance between your car and the car in front of you or you will hit the car in front of you.

Judge that you get out of bed and go to work or you won't make an income

Judge that you breath in and out or you won't have oxygen going to your brain and you know by now that not even the Supreme Court will cut you any slack.

Judge = Discern in this instance of scripture...it just means to look at the situation in light of the scriptures and make a decision or "judge" for yourself...ie...make your conclussion.

Now the sort of judgeing you are implying is one that says "hey you are going to hell" and that actually is not judgeing at all...but instead it is damning...because it puts us in the posture of God who is the only one who can reveal the eternal destination of a persons soul based on what they have "judged" to be worthy and true.


I couldn't have said it better Marty.

There are two types of judgment specifically talked about in the Bible (specifically in reference to a believer's walk). And unfortunately, those that are non-believers love to get the two mixed up.

One refers to the a person who in a censorious, hypocritical, and most importantly, self righteous attitude judges (or condemns) another for the sole purpose of trying to exalt or make themselves look good. The Phairsees were prime examples of this.

The other type refers to using that God-given intellect and reasoning faculties to render proper discernment. Just as Jesus said in John 7:24... "Do do judge according to appearance; but judge with righteous judgment." (and refers to moral actions).

But we believers are not capable of doing this, due to our lack of education and intellect, so it's obvious we must be guilty of the first one. While non-believers are not. ;)

Jesus, along with the apostles, called people out on all types immoral behavior and actions (including religious people). Were they then being judgmental in the sense that you try to describe Dom?

And then there is that thing called the final judgment (but that's a no-no subject on here).

bomarl1969
03-31-2005, 09:19 AM
Did anyone watch tonights South Park?

It was great!!! :thumbup:

GAC
03-31-2005, 09:25 AM
I'm with TC, the rest of humanity has no business in Ms. Schiavo's personal life. The person with legal responsibility for her life/death decision should make the decision privately without having their personal lives dragged through the muck to support other people's personal truth...even if it is her parents'.

And I, along with a vast majority of evangelicals, thoroughly agree wtih you WS. I don't think the government should have intervened at all. As I stated before, it's not their place, and can set a dangerous precedence.

This thing has dragged on for so long, and the two parties (parents-husband) are at such odds, with no hope of reconciliation, that they used the only means at their disposal... the courts. And this case has grown, and gotten so much national attention (thank you media), inwhich both sides (right to life and euthenasia) made it their fight as well.

It's just another example of just how divided a nation we are on issues like this.

MartyFan
03-31-2005, 09:53 AM
Originally Posted by WebScorpion
I'm with TC, the rest of humanity has no business in Ms. Schiavo's personal life. The person with legal responsibility for her life/death decision should make the decision privately without having their personal lives dragged through the muck to support other people's personal truth...even if it is her parents'.


And I, along with a vast majority of evangelicals, thoroughly agree wtih you WS. I don't think the government should have intervened at all. As I stated before, it's not their place, and can set a dangerous precedence.

This thing has dragged on for so long, and the two parties (parents-husband) are at such odds, with no hope of reconciliation, that they used the only means at their disposal... the courts. And this case has grown, and gotten so much national attention (thank you media), inwhich both sides (right to life and euthenasia) made it their fight as well.

It's just another example of just how divided a nation we are on issues like this.

Agreed!

RFS62
03-31-2005, 10:59 AM
She just passed away.

RIP

traderumor
03-31-2005, 11:09 AM
It's just another example of just how divided a nation we are on issues like this.

And always will be. Christians will always be desiring for "thy kingdom to come, on earth as it is in heaven...," as they should be, wanting to see God's righteousness pervade the earth, and there will always be temporal kingdoms that are subject ultimately to God's authority, but are not in covenant with God. And, IMO, never the twain shall meet.

MartyFan
03-31-2005, 11:16 AM
And always will be. Christians will always be desiring for "thy kingdom to come, on earth as it is in heaven...," as they should be, wanting to see God's righteousness pervade the earth, and there will always be temporal kingdoms that are subject ultimately to God's authority, but are not in covenant with God. And, IMO, never the twain shall meet.


Agreed.

You guys are making this too easy today.

I pray that all the energy built on making people aware of this one womans fight will continue to inspire debate if not with each other within each of us.


Terri's struggle for life has ended this morning.
December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005

Redsfaithful
03-31-2005, 11:17 AM
It's just another example of just how divided a nation we are on issues like this.

It's really not though, at least not on this issue. Opinion polls have been overwhelming in favor of removing her feeding tube.

Larkin Fan
03-31-2005, 12:04 PM
Rest in Peace, Terri.

traderumor
03-31-2005, 12:10 PM
It's really not though, at least not on this issue. Opinion polls have been overwhelming in favor of removing her feeding tube.

Public opinion does not necessarily dictate whether culture wars exist on certain issues. Groups that are small in numbers can make awful big waves if they get a stronghold in the right political power structures. For example, that very premise gave rise to Falwell's Moral Majority, which was by no means a majority but a small group of professing Christians trying to stuff moralism down every one's throat. And they sure did cause quite a bit of consternation for opponents to their position, with the "vast right wing conspiracy" that hid in the bushes trying to take over the land. Yet, they in no way reflected the overwhelming view of the majority of Americans.

RBA
03-31-2005, 12:13 PM
Agreed.

You guys are making this too easy today.

I pray that all the energy built on making people aware of this one womans fight will continue to inspire debate if not with each other within each of us.




Terri's struggle for life has ended this morning.

December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005




I hate to ask since she just passed away a short while ago. But what do you mean by "this one womans fight" ?

According to the evidence in the courts, she would have preferred to be put to rest a few years ago.

Johnny Footstool
03-31-2005, 01:03 PM
When you are able to explain what the verse you quoted, in context, really means...

"What it really means" according to who? Which denomination of Christianity? Which interpretation of the Bible?

And on another note...

Haven't any of you pleading for Terri's life considered that maybe this was God's way of calling her to Him? Maybe the lesson is for us to let nature take its course.

Is death such an awful thing for Christians? Why do we selfishly cling to life instead of passing on when our time comes?

Not that I presume to know the mind of God, or know what He (or She) wants, but if you believe in God, you have to believe that this is exactly how He (or She) planned for Terri to go. So why all the moral outrage?

M2
03-31-2005, 01:10 PM
So seeing as how Terri and her family are of the Catholic faith this still would not be an acceptable or godly reason to slowly starve her to death.

The Catholic church was silent on this one and I'm guessing the reason why is because if you go all the way down the Catholic rabbit hole the conclusion you might have reached is that Terri Schiavo's soul was trapped in Purgatory until the unanimated flesh of her body passed. Catholicism's actually taken the position in the past that man-made medical practices are getting in the way of the call of God at what's supposed to be the end of a person's life, that in some cases we're extending a person's suffering and delaying their salvation.

Most of the folks rallying to the Schindlers seemed to be of the evangelical Protestant persuasion. I didn't notice any Catholic bishops speaking out or standing vigil outside her hospice. My guess is most Catholics were fine with the removal of the tube, even based on religious grounds. One of the things that struck me through this whole episode is that the Schindlers seemed to have become unhinged, from their own faith amond other things, and they'd been preyed upon by people who were telling them what they wanted to hear.

dman
03-31-2005, 01:46 PM
Here's a link for those interested in signing a petition relating to the impeachment of Judge Greer.


http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/petition.html

RedFanAlways1966
03-31-2005, 02:00 PM
Holy... do we start petitions to impeach each judge who makes a ruling that we as individuals or groups do not agree with on a case? Do we start petitions to impeach each elected official who makes a decision that we as individuals or groups do not agree with on that decision?

We have elections for reasons. That is your chance to make that decision. Barring criminal activity, this is not the reason to impeach someone.

"You had better agree with my thinking or we will start a drive to impeach you". Not the way this country was setup to run. Not at all.

More wasted effort and time... the bottom line on this petition. Just like the efforts (getting arrested for trying to give Ms. Schiavo water) and time (protesting outside the Hospice for weeks) of the zealots outside that Hospice all this time. To each his/her own. But a petition to impeach Judge Greer is not how this country is supposed to work. But I wouldn't think extremists would care or understand that.

RBA
03-31-2005, 02:06 PM
I'm in agreement with RFA1966. Maybe the Koran is right, the end is near. ;)

dman
03-31-2005, 02:24 PM
Holy... do we start petitions to impeach each judge who makes a ruling that we as individuals or groups do not agree with on a case? Do we start petitions to impeach each elected official who makes a decision that we as individuals or groups do not agree with on that decision?

We have elections for reasons. That is your chance to make that decision. Barring criminal activity, this is not the reason to impeach someone.

"You had better agree with my thinking or we will start a drive to impeach you". Not the way this country was setup to run. Not at all.

More wasted effort and time... the bottom line on this petition. Just like the efforts (getting arrested for trying to give Ms. Schiavo water) and time (protesting outside the Hospice for weeks) of the zealots outside that Hospice all this time. To each his/her own. But a petition to impeach Judge Greer is not how this country is supposed to work. But I wouldn't think extremists would care or understand that.
Although I do not agree with the decision(s) of Judge Greer in this case, I still think a lot of things should be looked into.

I have never known of a case, be it DWI, Speeding Ticket, Stop Sign Violation, etc., where a judge has went on hear say evidence alone.
And this was a life or death matter, where Judge Greer went specifically on just hear say evidence. That is my reasoning for signing onto this petition.

traderumor
03-31-2005, 02:26 PM
"What it really means" according to who? Which denomination of Christianity? Which interpretation of the Bible?

And on another note...

Haven't any of you pleading for Terri's life considered that maybe this was God's way of calling her to Him? Maybe the lesson is for us to let nature take its course.

Is death such an awful thing for Christians? Why do we selfishly cling to life instead of passing on when our time comes?

Not that I presume to know the mind of God, or know what He (or She) wants, but if you believe in God, you have to believe that this is exactly how He (or She) planned for Terri to go. So why all the moral outrage?

Johnny,

The Bible is not a book of "what it means to me." It is a book of absolute truth. Yes, that is my opinion, supported by what I believe to be an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that it is worthy of such a high claim. Explaining that is outside the scope of this thread. Yes, there are fallible human beings that arrive at different conclusions when developing a systematic theology that sometimes results in schism. However, I also think you understand, based on other discussions I've seen you involved in and dialogues that we have had that you understand exactly what I'm talking about. My claim is Scripture is infallible and contains one correct interpretation.

However, fallen man does not always arrive at proper conclusions about the proper interpretation of Scripture, anymore than two scientists always arrive at the same conclusion when using the Scientific Method. Does that mean that both scientists are right if they arrive at different conclusion using the exact same data? I'm hoping you would say "of course not, there must be some other explanation why they differ when they supposedly used the same method but arrived at different conclusions, all other things equal."

Such is the art and science of Hermeneutics (fancy title for Bible Interpretation) performed by fallible men who claim to use the same methods, but don't always arrive at the same answers. Digging deeper, you normally find out that either one or both in disagreement got off track using the tools of Hermeneutics. The way I always put it is, with respect to a passage of Scripture, is that people with differing views as to its proper interpretation, one can be right and one can be wrong, or both can be wrong, but both can't be right. That applies whether we are talking about denominations, sects, scholars, laymen, clergy, you name it. The people are the problem, not the truth.

Falls City Beer
03-31-2005, 02:26 PM
But I wouldn't think extremists would care or understand that.

Truer words....

This country's Constitution is a beautiful thing. Those dead white guys knew how to build a Democratic-Republic. And I'm thankful for it every day of my life. I just wish every American was.

traderumor
03-31-2005, 02:38 PM
Truer words....

This country's Constitution is a beautiful thing. Those dead white guys knew how to build a Democratic-Republic. And I'm thankful for it every day of my life. I just wish every American was.

They even foresaw that it would require a moral people to work as intended. I'll take your legislative misconduct and trump you a judicial activism.

Redsfaithful
03-31-2005, 02:46 PM
They even foresaw that it would require a moral people to work as intended. I'll take your legislative misconduct and trump you a judicial activism.

It's only judicial activism when you disagree with the results.

traderumor
03-31-2005, 02:49 PM
It's only judicial activism when you disagree with the results.

tr's definition of judicial activism: judges making law or ignoring existing law with judgments. I wasn't referring to any of the judges in this case.

pedro
03-31-2005, 02:53 PM
I'm in agreement with RFA1966. Maybe the Koran is right, the end is near. ;)


I'm right there with you.

Good post RFA1966.

Redsfaithful
03-31-2005, 02:54 PM
Hey I agree with your definition. And I think it's a pretty rare thing personally.

Most people use it when they're talking about big jury awards and cases that outrage them.

Sure, there are some judges out there that do the wrong thing. But it's rarer than the Right would lead you to believe, again in my opinion.

traderumor
03-31-2005, 03:48 PM
Hey I agree with your definition. And I think it's a pretty rare thing personally.

Most people use it when they're talking about big jury awards and cases that outrage them.

Sure, there are some judges out there that do the wrong thing. But it's rarer than the Right would lead you to believe, again in my opinion.

It is a Hallmark moment for us to agree on this side of the board, but normally I'm right there with ya with respect to the Reds, which is what really matters anyway, right? Existentialism, direction of our nation, religion, all take a back seat to the daily drama that is the Cincinnati Reds. :)

WVRed
03-31-2005, 09:54 PM
http://www.glennbeck.com/clock/starvedwifeshirt.jpg

CbusRed
03-31-2005, 09:56 PM
hey did you guys know that terry schiavo died today?

GAC
03-31-2005, 10:32 PM
"What it really means" according to who? Which denomination of Christianity? Which interpretation of the Bible?

It says the same in every interpretation I have read (KJV, NIV, English, etc). And I read various different versions for studying purposes, and have yet to find conflict. It's pretty plain and straighforward what Jesus was saying.


And on another note...

Haven't any of you pleading for Terri's life considered that maybe this was God's way of calling her to Him? Maybe the lesson is for us to let nature take its course.

Possible I guess, but I doubt this was the avenue that God chose...denying an invalid food and water till they starve to death. And the reason we had to do it this way was because this nation doesn't have any sound euthanasia laws? That is more sound reasoning?


Is death such an awful thing for Christians? Why do we selfishly cling to life instead of passing on when our time comes?

Christians don't fear or dread death. Nor think it is an awful thing. It's the manner inwhich it was brought about, and those, in today's culture, who seem to treat that life as a "throwaway" if it doesn't meet their definition of "quality of life". Whether it's euthanasia, abortion, or whatever. If that life is a burden or seen as not being able to contribute to our society acording to the standards we set, then we should be able to have that choice, that right, to discard it.

We believe life is a gift of God, and therefore, it should be valued and treasured stewardship that should be protected.

It is a trust, and I wonder how today's society is handling that trust when it comes to reading papers by neurologists such as Ronald Cranford, and others within the euthanasia movement, who advocate positions in handling the weak and sick in this country that IMO extend far beyond a case such as Terry Schiavo. Yes, that does bother me.


but if you believe in God, you have to believe that this is exactly how He (or She) planned for Terri to go.

No we don't. I don't believe that this is how God wanted her to go. Yeah, she is now gone; but that doesn't mean the means that brought about her death[/b] was God's will. I believe that no more then I believe that someone who was murdered, or died tragically in a car accident, was God's will. Why do I say that? Because it just doesn't line up with the God (Jesus) in the Bible.

Redsfaithful
03-31-2005, 10:47 PM
We believe life is a gift of God, and therefore, it should be valued and treasured stewardship that should be protected.

I wish pro-life advocates were more concerned with the quality of life of the kids who've already been born, but you don't seem to see that very often. Once they're born then all bets are off.

How many kids in this country grow up in poverty? 5 million something?

MWM
03-31-2005, 11:06 PM
That T-Shirt is disgusting. :thumbdown

Larkin Fan
03-31-2005, 11:16 PM
That T-Shirt is disgusting. :thumbdown

I'll second that. :thumbdown

CbusRed
03-31-2005, 11:21 PM
Whats life without a little humor?

Im not saying I would ever wear that T-Shirt, but come on, we have had this particular story drilled into our heads senselessly for the past couple weeks. And frankly, im sick of it. stories like this happen all over, its just another example of the media picking it up to get ratings, just like the scott peterson murder trial. maybe i have a tasteless sense of humor, but I do find the shirt somewhat funny.

Larkin Fan
03-31-2005, 11:23 PM
Whats life without a little humor?

Im not saying I would ever wear that T-Shirt, but come on, we have had this particular story drilled into our heads senselessly for the past couple weeks. And frankly, im sick of it. stories like this happen all over, its just another example of the media picking it up to get ratings, just like the scott peterson murder trial. maybe i have a tasteless sense of humor, but I do find the shirt somewhat funny.

There is no humor in villifying/judging someone in his position. It's tasteless.

RBA
03-31-2005, 11:39 PM
Catherine Crier smacks down Joe Scarborough

When is Joe going to learn not to debate someone who knows the law a little better than he does, and can express their ideas in a clear and precise fashion.

Video (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scarborough_Crier.wmv)-wmp

Video (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scarborough%20Country--2.mov)-QT

Redsfaithful
03-31-2005, 11:58 PM
There is no humor in villifying/judging someone in his position. It's tasteless.

Agreed. Let me guess WV Glenn Beck at his finest? Doesn't it ever get depressing listening to a second class Rush Limbaugh?

MartyFan
04-01-2005, 12:06 AM
The Catholic church was silent on this one and I'm guessing the reason why is because if you go all the way down the Catholic rabbit hole the conclusion you might have reached is that Terri Schiavo's soul was trapped in Purgatory until the unanimated flesh of her body passed. Catholicism's actually taken the position in the past that man-made medical practices are getting in the way of the call of God at what's supposed to be the end of a person's life, that in some cases we're extending a person's suffering and delaying their salvation.

Most of the folks rallying to the Schindlers seemed to be of the evangelical Protestant persuasion. I didn't notice any Catholic bishops speaking out or standing vigil outside her hospice. My guess is most Catholics were fine with the removal of the tube, even based on religious grounds. One of the things that struck me through this whole episode is that the Schindlers seemed to have become unhinged, from their own faith amond other things, and they'd been preyed upon by people who were telling them what they wanted to hear.


Actually the Vatican and Catholic church as a whole were NOT silent on this issue...In fact, I will dig up writings by bishops, priests, cardinals and others in the catholc church dating back to around 1992 that talk about the outrage of such a situation and identify not only Terri Schiavo but several other situations in the process.

MWM
04-01-2005, 12:09 AM
Is there any such thing as unacceptable humor? Heck, I hear that all the time. Something is offensive, but it's OK as long it's humor. I don't buy it. There's nothing funny about that T-Shirt.

Redsfaithful
04-01-2005, 12:10 AM
Catherine Crier smacks down Joe Scarborough

When is Joe going to learn not to debate someone who knows the law a little better than he does, and can express their ideas in a clear and precise fashion.

Video (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scarborough_Crier.wmv)-wmp

Video (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scarborough%20Country--2.mov)-QT

That was terrific.

MartyFan
04-01-2005, 12:22 AM
Joe Ford wrote this pretty powerful and compelling article.

http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article506716.html

FOCUS: Bigotry and the Murder of Terri Schiavo
By JOE FORD



“Misery can only be removed from the world by painless extermination of the miserable.”
—a Nazi writer quoted by Robert J. Lifton in The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide

The case of Terri Schiavo has been framed by the media as the battle between the “right to die” and pro-life groups, with the latter often referred to as “right-wing Christians.” Little attention has been paid to the more than twenty major disability rights organizations firmly supporting Schiavo’s right to nutrition and hydration. Terri Schindler-Schiavo, a severely disabled woman, is being starved and dehydrated to death in the name of supposed “dignity.” Polls show that most Americans believe that her death is a private matter and that her removal from a feeding tube—a low-tech, simple and inexpensive device used to feed many sick and disabled people—is a reasonable solution to the conflict between her husband and her parents over her right to life.

The reason for this public support of removal from ordinary sustenance, I believe, is not that most people understand or care about Terri Schiavo. Like many others with disabilities, I believe that the American public, to one degree or another, holds that disabled people are better off dead. To put it in a simpler way, many Americans are bigots. A close examination of the facts of the Schiavo case reveals not a case of difficult decisions but a basic test of this country’s decency.

Our country has learned that we cannot judge people on the basis of minority status, but for some reason we have not erased our prejudice against disability. One insidious form of this bias is to distinguish cognitively disabled persons from persons whose disabilities are “just” physical. Cognitively disabled people are shown a manifest lack of respect in daily life, as well. This has gotten so perturbing to me that when I fly, I try to wear my Harvard t-shirt so I can “pass” as a person without cognitive disability. (I have severe cerebral palsy, the result of being deprived of oxygen at birth. While some people with cerebral palsy do have cognitive disability, my articulation difference and atypical muscle tone are automatically associated with cognitive disability in the minds of some people.)

The result of this disrespect is the devaluation of lives of people like Terri Schiavo. In the Schiavo case and others like it, non-disabled decision makers assert that the disabled person should die because he or she—ordinarily a person who had little or no experience with disability before acquiring one—“would not want to live like this.” In the Schiavo case, the family is forced to argue that Terri should be kept alive because she might “get better”—that is, might be able to regain or to communicate her cognitive processes. The mere assertion that disability (particularly cognitive disability, sometimes called “mental retardation”) is present seems to provide ample proof that death is desirable.

Essentially, then, we have arrived at the point where we starve people to death because he or she cannot communicate their experiences to us. What is this but sheer egotism? Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, this is obviously an attempt to play God.

Not Dead Yet, an organization of persons with disabilities who oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia, maintains that the starvation and dehydration of Terri Schiavo will put the lives of thousands of severely disabled children and adults at risk. (The organization takes its name from the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail in which a plague victim not dying fast enough is hit over the head and carted away after repeatedly insisting he is not dead yet.) Not Dead Yet exposes important biases in the “right to die” movement, including the fact that as early as 1988, Jack Kevorkian advertised his intention of performing medical experimentation (“hitherto conducted on rats”) on living children with spina bifida, at the same time harvesting their organs for reuse.

Besides being disabled, Schiavo and I have something important in common, that is, someone attempted to terminate my life by removing my endotracheal tube during resuscitation in my first hour of life. This was a quality-of-life decision: I was simply taking too long to breathe on my own, and the person who pulled the tube believed I would be severely disabled if I lived, since lack of oxygen causes cerebral palsy. (I was saved by my family doctor inserting another tube as quickly as possible.) The point of this is not that I ended up at Harvard and Schiavo did not, as some people would undoubtedly conclude. The point is that society already believes to some degree that it is acceptable to murder disabled people.

As Schiavo starves to death, we are entering a world last encountered in Nazi Europe. Prior to the genocide of Jews, Gypsies, and Poles, the Nazis engaged in the mass murder of disabled children and adults, many of whom were taken from their families under the guise of receiving treatment for their disabling conditions. The Nazis believed that killing was the highest form of treatment for disability.

As the opening quote suggests, Nazi doctors believed, or claimed to believe, they were performing humanitarian acts. Doctors were trained to believe that curing society required the elimination of individual patients. This sick twisting of medical ethics led to a sense of fulfillment of duty experienced by Nazi doctors, leading them to a conviction that they were relieving suffering. Not Dead Yet has uncovered the same perverse sense of duty in members of the Hemlock Society, now called End-of-Life Choices. (In 1997, the executive director of the Hemlock Society suggested that judicial review be used regularly “when it is necessary to hasten the death of an individual whether it be a demented parent, a suffering, severely disabled spouse or a child.” This illustrates that the “right to die” movement favors the imposition of death sentences on disabled people by means of the judicial branch.)

For an overview of what “end-of-life choices” mean for Schiavo, I refer you to the Exit Protocol prepared for her in 2003 by her health care providers (available online at http://www.cst-phl.com/050113/sixth.html). In the midst of her starvation, Terri will most likely be treated for “pain or discomfort” and nausea which may arise as the result of the supposedly humane process of bringing about her death. (Remember that Schiavo is not terminally ill.) She may be given morphine for respiratory distress and may experience seizures. This protocol confirms what we have learned from famines and death camps: death by starvation is a horrible death.

This apparently is what it means to have “rights” as a disabled person in America today.

Joe Ford ’06 is a government concentrator in Currier House.

RBA
04-01-2005, 12:32 AM
"Powerful and Compelling" aren't exactly the words I would use for it.

Falls City Beer
04-01-2005, 12:36 AM
Terri Schiavo wasn't terminally ill?

MartyFan
04-01-2005, 01:53 AM
Terri Schiavo wasn't terminally ill?

Nope.

Johnny Footstool
04-01-2005, 02:15 AM
What is this but sheer egotism? Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, this is obviously an attempt to play God.

So using technology to keep someone alive ISN'T "playing God"?

What a riot! :laugh:

SteelSD
04-01-2005, 02:29 AM
The reason for this public support of removal from ordinary sustenance, I believe, is not that most people understand or care about Terri Schiavo. Like many others with disabilities, I believe that the American public, to one degree or another, holds that disabled people are better off dead. To put it in a simpler way, many Americans are bigots.

"Powerful and compelling" ended right there and was replaced with something else so despicable I can't find the words to describe it.

M2
04-01-2005, 02:30 AM
Actually the Vatican and Catholic church as a whole were NOT silent on this issue...In fact, I will dig up writings by bishops, priests, cardinals and others in the catholc church dating back to around 1992 that talk about the outrage of such a situation and identify not only Terri Schiavo but several other situations in the process.

It would have to be back to 1992 because they were silent of late. Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing when the medical evidence came back that she was beyond the pale, the church reigned in its right wing. The Catholic church, even under JPII, has long held that there comes a time when you need to stop fighting God's call to the other side. Cerebral cortex liquefication might have qualified as a fairly loud call.

FWIW, my uncle's mother is a daily communicant down in SW Florida and she asked her priest how this was going over with the church (seeing that it's the same diocese). The priest said they were focused on tending to the family and making sure Terri gets her proper last rites so she can be at peace with God. That's Catholic for "We're hoping to clean up the mess."

Johnny Footstool
04-01-2005, 02:32 AM
Possible I guess, but I doubt this was the avenue that God chose...denying an invalid food and water till they starve to death.

Would it have been better if He had used an earthquake instead?

And why wouldn't God want to call home someone who was doomed to quasi-life as an invalid?


And the reason we had to do it this way was because this nation doesn't have any sound euthanasia laws? That is more sound reasoning?

I never said anything about euthanasia laws.

I said, "Maybe the lesson is for us to let nature take its course."

Seems like a simple lesson. Maybe simple enough that those people who are pontificating about this issue could understand if they would just stop and think for a moment.

And doesn't the Bible contain some mention of there being a time to be born and a time to die?



No we don't. I don't believe that this is how God wanted her to go.

God didn't want this to happen? You believe that somehow we humans made something happen that He didn't want to?

Everything that comes to pass is God's will. Even bad stuff.

traderumor
04-01-2005, 09:17 AM
While folks are disgusted by the article Marty Fan posted, they do not question Michael Schiavo. What about the report that he would not let Terri's family in for the final few minutes? Would there be anything that convinces you that this was not about someone's right to die, but the value of each and every breathing, heart beating human being.

I don't care if one says they wouldn't want to live that way, who in the world would? Yet, someone is offensive if they point out that this is a statement about the value we as a culture place on disabled individuals in our culture, with varying opinions on the brain activity, but as I've said all along, here we are making calls on how much brain activity constitutes life.

What has struck me is the primary argument that there is no hope of recovery. So what? What does that have to do with someone getting food and water? I'll go back to my example of severely brain damaged folks with cerebral palsy, which the one young man I know personally has the same vacant looks, same grunting sounds for communication, and I wonder how many people privately look at that type of individual and wonder why he is allowed to live since, in their opinion, his life sucks so bad that if he requested, he should be put to death? He has no hope of recovery and cannot feed himself, so why is he worthy of medical care? I know why, and it is the same reason that Terry Schiavo should never have been withheld food and water.

I also find it interesting that one media outlet, Good Morning America, has dropped her like a hot potato and is now turning to a dying pope as the hot story. Barely a mention of the story after months of intense coverage and years of following this case. Now, she's dead, guess there's no story until they start bickering over where and how her remains are handled.

However, I don't think that the Lord is going to let us off the hook on this and all related issues. We will be faced with these dilemmas again and there will continue to be battles as long as our laws allow human lives to be reduced to economics, expediency, and value is based on the utility of the individual.

traderumor
04-01-2005, 09:22 AM
Would it have been better if He had used an earthquake instead?

And why wouldn't God want to call home someone who was doomed to quasi-life as an invalid?



I never said anything about euthanasia laws.

I said, "Maybe the lesson is for us to let nature take its course."

Seems like a simple lesson. Maybe simple enough that those people who are pontificating about this issue could understand if they would just stop and think for a moment.

And doesn't the Bible contain some mention of there being a time to be born and a time to die?




God didn't want this to happen? You believe that somehow we humans made something happen that He didn't want to?

Everything that comes to pass is God's will. Even bad stuff.


Johnny,

God sovereignly allowing something to happen does not mean he decreed it. Your theology would have God as the author of sin. Not good. :nono:

MartyFan
04-01-2005, 10:04 AM
People are disgusted by my post??? AWESOME!!!

Hey by the way, I can't recall who asked if it was playing God to use technology to keep someone alive...I'd have to say yes if you think providing utrition to someone so their body can function is playing God...you are right.

Now in regards to the Catholic comments on life and treatment.

http://minerva.stkate.edu/alumna.nsf/pages/tauer

Carol A. Tauer

The Catholic Intellectual Tradition and the Current Consensus
about Life-Sustaining Treatment
by Carol A. Tauer
Professor of Philosophy
October 29, 1996

A little over a year ago a student in my Biomedical Ethics class brought me an article from the New Yorker magazine that she wanted to share with the class. A memoir written by a journalist, is described a family’s desperate attempts to ease the dying of a loved one (Solomon). This family encountered resistance at every turn from medical establishment that refused to listen to them, that insisted on using every technology at their disposal, and that did not even provide adequate remedies for pain and suffering. Among other culprits, the author identified the Roman Catholic Church as the organized force behind what is called a "vitalist" philosophy: the belief that life itself is an absolute value and that it must be preserved by all means and whenever possible (Soloman, p. 59).

I was astounded to read this description of Catholic belief. It is not merely a caricature, but is almost 180 degrees the reverse of the Catholic tradition and its intellectual contribution to the debate on life-sustaining treatment.

True, the Catholic tradition does oppose direct killing or euthanasia of the terminally ill, and it does consistently argue against a supposed right to take one’s own life. But the Church has the intellectual tools and a history of centuries of scholarly debate and discussion that enable it to draw lines and to make careful distinctions. When the field of secular bioethics began to develop in the 1970s, its neophytes looked for principles that could guide their work- -and they found significant guidance within the Catholic tradition.

Basic Sources
What is this Catholic tradition based on? As with all Catholic moral teaching, it has two sources: The first source is human reason, as reason observes the world and figures out how it is good for human beings to live. What is our purpose as humans, and how can we reasonably achieve that purpose? The second source of Catholic teaching is revelation as found in the teachings of Christ, in Scripture in general, and in historical interpretations of this revelation.

Specifically, these two sources lead the believer to recognize that mere life itself is not an absolute good and is, in fact, not even the highest good; that death is not the greatest evil, to be avoided at all costs; and that we must use human reason to come to understand the difference between "a time to live and a time to die." Although St. Paul was not referring to a condition of terminal illness, Paul repeatedly made statements such as: "To live is Christ and to die is gain" (Phil. 1:21); "While we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord . . . . [but] we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:7-8).

Historical Discussion
When we turn to the Catholic tradition’s efforts to apply these basic beliefs to the situation of the sick or dying person, we find that theologians for centuries sought a reasonable balance. On the one hand, a person was not morally permitted to bring about his or her own death, so a person had some responsibility to take care of life and health. On the other hand, a person was not required to take extreme measures to extend or prolong life, but could weigh other factors and responsibilities against proposed measures for extending life.

As early as the sixteenth century, Catholic moralists began to express this distinction in the terminology of ordinary and extraordinary means of treatment. Presumably extraordinary means were those extreme measures of prolonging life that one was not obligated to use.

During four centuries of discussion, up to the second half of the twentieth century, it is fascinating to see the differences of opinion that persisted in this discussion. Two well-respected theologians often specifically disagreed on a particular issue, while no ecclesiastical authority stepped in to say which was correct. Doctors and patients were allowed to act on the basis of the opinion that seemed most convincing and reasonable to them.

An amazingly wide range of factors was discussed by theologians (Kelly 1950; Kelly 1951; McCartney). Extraordinary means of treatment could include:

Leaving one’s family to move to a more healthful climate that would prolong life for a few extra years;
A surgical procedure that would save life but might involve intense pain (especially in pre-anesthetic days);
Amputation of a limb (even with anesthetic) is one had personal repugnance to living with a “mutilated” body;
Revulsion of a young woman at being treated by a male physician;
Excessive expense involved in treatment;
Uncertainty of a successful outcome.

Well-known theologians proposed these extenuating factors, among others- -while other theologians disagreed. For example, after surgical anesthetics became available, some theologians maintained that a life-saving limb amputation would now be morally obligatory. Others disagreed, arguing that the patient might find amputation of an arm or leg so repugnant that it would be an extraordinary means for that particular patient.

Several themes emerge from these discussions:
That the duty under consideration is the patient’s duty; that is, the patient is responsible for the choice.
That the patient’s choice (apart from unusual circumstances) must be respected: "One is one’s own master when it comes to parts of one’s own body" (McCartney, p. 216).
That ordinary and extraordinary means cannot be sorted into two neat categories of treatment, but they have to be considered relative to the patient’s condition. For example, intravenous fluids given to a person who will probably recover is morally different from IV’s for a person who is dying.
That subjective factors are pertinent. The patient’s own perception of the pain, suffering and mental anguish is part of the assessment.
That the fulfillment of other duties affects one’s responsibility to prolong life. For example, if a person is not spiritually prepared to die or has not resolved issues with family members, it may then be obligatory to extend life in order to take care of these matters. (From a sudden and unprovided death, O Lord, deliver us, we pray in the Litany of the Saints.)
That consciousness is significant because only a conscious person is able to fulfill responsibilities to God and to loved ones. Thus many theologians historically have argued that when a person is in “terminal coma,” there is no obligation to continue to use life-sustaining measures including artificial feeding. Gerald Kelly, S.J., who summarized the debate in 1950, says: "I see no reason why even the most delicate professional standard should call for their use. . . .The artificial means not only need not but should not be used. . . .Their use creates expense and nervous strain without conferring any real benefit" (Kelly 1990, p. 220).

In his articles in Theological Studies in 1950 and 1951, Kelly surveyed the tradition up to that time, and provided what has come to be accepted as a definitive statement:
Extraordinary means are all medicines, treatments, and operations, which cannot be obtained or used without excessive expense, pain, or other inconvenience, or which, if used, would not offer a reasonable hope of benefit (1951, p. 550).
Kelly intended this definition to express a moral norm: While ordinary means are obligatory, extraordinary means are not, although they may be used (i.e., are optional).
Authoritative Pronouncement

Still no word from the Vatican? That was to change. In the latter 1950s, Pope Pius XII was often presented with specific questions from professional societies that were granted audiences with him. In 1957 he addressed an International Congress of Anesthesiologists, who had presented to him three questions regarding the use of resuscitation and respirators, technologies that were new at the time. The Pope’s response has been published under the title "The Prolongation of Life," and includes both a general philosophy and specific guidelines (Pius XII).

The general philosophy echoes themes I mentioned earlier: While "natural reason and Christian morals" require us to accept necessary treatment to preserve life and health, "normally one is held to use only ordinary means- -relative to circumstances. . .- -means that do not involve any grave burden for oneself or another." To require more "would render the attainment of the higher, more important good too difficult. Life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends" (Pius XII, pp. 395-96).

Specific points made by the Pope:
It is up to the medical and scientific professions to "give a clear and precise definition of ‘death’ and ‘the moment of death’ " and to provide criteria for diagnosing permanent unconsciousness (p. 396).
Resuscitation and respirators may be used, but only with consent of the patient or family (p. 397).
In "hopeless" cases, including cases of permanent unconsciousness, treatments such as resuscitation and respirators "go beyond the ordinary means to which one is bound," and thus there is no obligation "to give the doctor permission to use them" (p. 397).
Stopping artificial respiration "is never more than an indirect cause of the cessation of life, and one must apply in this case the principle of double effect" (p. 397).

The Aftermath
In this allocution Pope Pius XII showed that he supported the emerging consensus among Catholic theologians; and in fact, he seemed to place himself among the more flexible of these theologians. His speech was widely quoted and extended to a variety of other situations. See, for example, the insightful discussion by Richard McCormick, S.J., "To Save or Let Die," on the treatment of impaired and imperiled newborns. McCormick used the concept of "the higher good" to show that aggressive treatment of infants who could never have any "relational capacity" was not required.

The medical profession in the United States, however, became somewhat bewitched by its newfound technological abilities. CPR followed by intubation and long-term artificial respiration began to be regarded as "medically indicated." In addition, a climate of legal litigation led hospitals and their lawyers to advise doctors to protect themselves by preserving life whenever possible.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the medical profession tended to use the terms "ordinary" and "extraordinary" in a different way from the moral tradition. Ordinary means were defined by the medical profession as those that were available, in common use, or accepted medical practice, while extraordinary means were those that were unusual, experimental, or risky. Since respirators to prolong life were common by then, and it was accepted medical practice to use them if they were necessary for survival, therefore they had to be used. Moreover, physicians widely believed that a life-prolonging treatment could never be stopped once it had been started, that by doing so one would incur responsibility for killing the patient.

These two views- -the one coming out of the Catholic tradition, the other arising from medical practice- -were on a collision course. This conflict came to a head with case of Karen Ann Quinlan in 1975-76. The importance of this case cannot be overestimated.

Karen Ann Quinlan, age 21, passed out at a party, then stopped breathing. She was resuscitated and put on a respirator, still in a coma. Eventually she came out of the coma into the condition we now describe as permanent vegetative state. In this condition, the patient has sleep-wake cycles, opens her eyes, but is completely unresponsive and remains unconscious. (Brain studies done after Karen’s death confirmed this diagnosis.)

After months Karen’s family accepted her prognosis as hopeless and began to discuss what they should do. They were a devout Catholic family who relied on their Christian beliefs. In addition, they had lengthy discussions with their parish priest, whom Julia had worked for as parish secretary. Father Tom assured them that centuries of tradition, including the statements of Pope Pius XII, supported a decision to remove Karen’s respirator (Quinlan and Battelle).

Given the high level of public controversy about the case, Father Tom wanted a confirming statement from the local Catholic bishop. Though bishops rarely make statements about individual cases, Bishop Lawrence Casey of Paterson consented. Despite his weakness resulting from progressive cancer and two surgical operations, he left his hospital bed to make a public statement:

Competent medical testimony has established that Karen Ann Quilan has no reasonable hope of recovery from her comatose state by the use of any available medical procedures. The continuance of mechanical supportive measures to sustain continuation of her body functions and her life constitute extraordinary means of treatment.

THEREFORE THE DECISION OF JOSEPH AND JULIA QUINLAN TO REQUEST THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THIS TREATMENT IS, ACCORDING TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, A MORALLY CORRECT DECISION (Quinlan and Battelle, p. 227).

Bishop Casey also stated that the Diocese of Paterson "firmly supports our beloved brother and sister in Christ, Joseph and Julia Quinlan, faithful members of the Parish of Our Lady of the Lake. . ." (p. 227).

Although Karen’s doctors at first seemed to agree, they soon backed down. The Quinlans eventually had to take their case to court. In court the treating physicians as well as expert medical witnesses all testified that "removal from the respirator would not conform to medical practices, standards and traditions" ("In the Case," p. 366), and that no ethical physician would do such a thing. The lower court heeded the expert medical testimony and refused Joseph Quinlan’s request to be appointed guardian and decision maker for his 21-year-old daughter. But the Quinlans, persuaded in conscience that they were right, appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Given the deference usually paid to expert medical opinion in such cases, it was somewhat astounding that the New Jersey Court took the side of the Quinlans. It argued that the medical profession did not have superior moral knowledge and the moral standards of a community and a family must also carry weight with the court. In this particular case, the moral standards were those of a Catholic community and a family whose values were formed by that tradition. The court’s decision allowed Mr. Quinlan to be named Karen’s guardian and permitted him to choose a doctor who would agree to follow the family’s wishes ("In the Case"). (Ironically, although the treating physicians had testified that Karen needed the respirator in order to breathe, she continued to live- -still unconscious- -for almost ten more years after the respirator was disconnected.)

Other Influences of Catholic Tradition
The Quinlan case deserves all the attention it receives as a landmark case. It integrated the basic principles of the Catholic moral tradition on refusal of life-sustaining treatment within the American legal system. Of course, many questions remained unsettled, particularly the issue of continuing artificial nutrition for a permanently unconscious person- -but the groundwork had been laid.

After the Quinlan case, the Vatican responded with a fine, well-reasoned document, "Declaration on Euthanasia," issued in 1980 ("Vatican Declaration"). While continuing to warn against the practice of euthanasia, the document carefully distinguished refusal of life-sustaining treatment from euthanasia. Possibly concerned about confusion in the use of the terms ordinary and extraordinary means, the document suggested a different language, the language of benefits and burdens, and of assessing proportionate and disproportionate means of treatment.

The techniques applied [may] impose on the patient strain or suffering out of proportion with the benefits which he or she may gain from such techniques. . . .One cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome. . . .[Refusal] should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical procedure disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community ("Vatican Declaration," p. 156).

This language was soon adopted in two sets of secular guidelines on life-sustaining treatment. The first was issued by a government body, the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine, in 1983. Not only did the Commission utilize the same language as the Vatican, but in the appendix of its report it printed large portions of only two statements on medical ethics: that of the American Medical Association, and the Vatican "Declaration on Euthanasia" (President’s Commission, pp. 300-307). The second document that explicitly used the Vatican’s reasoning is the Guidelines on the Termination of Life-Sustaining Treatment from the influential Hastings Center (Hastings Center).
Pain Control

A somewhat different area of Catholic morality that has had far-reaching application is in the area of pain-control. In order to deal with situations where a proposed action has both a good and a bad effect, Catholic theologians at least as early as St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) proposed a "double effect" principle. As developed precisely in later centuries, this principle gave conditions under which one could perform an action that had both good and bad effects: the action in itself had to be morally permissible; the good effect had to be what one intended, with the evil effect only an indirect consequence; and there had to be a good enough (proportionate) reason for allowing the bad effect to occur (Connell; Mangan).

While this principle has been applied to a variety of situations, from bombing that kills civilians in wartime, to abortion that removes a threat to the mother, it is the application to the control of pain that is of interest to us here. The Catholic tradition argues that medication to control pain may be given to a suffering person in dosages that are adequate even if increasing dosages may depress the patient’s respiration and hasten the time of death. One intends to relieve pain, and does what is necessary for that purpose. A hastened death is the indirect and not the intended effect.

While the double effect principle is still debated among Catholic theologians as to its coherence and adequacy, it seems to have filled a practical need of medical professionals, lawyers, and bioethicists searching for philosophic grounding for an intuitively acceptable practice. Patients should receive adequate pain relief, and shouldn’t be forced to suffer needlessly. A professional who responsibly provides such pain relief shouldn’t fear being accused of causing death or committing homicide. Two cases in which the medical examiner in Hennepin County brought such charges against physicians led to a position paper issued by the Hennepin County Medical Society that is essentially a statement of the Catholic principle of double effect (Hennepin County). In the wake of these events, most local hospitals have developed similar policies that encourage adequate pain control and invoke double-effect reasoning to ground the ethical prescription of adequate pain control measures.

A Turning Point
The subtitle of this lecture is, "Behind the Assisted Suicide Debate." While we have achieved a broad consensus on life-sustaining treatment, on patient and family oriented decision making, and on pain relief, we are also witnessing a new movement that breaks through the careful distinctions built up over centuries.

Jack Kevorkian regularly assists both terminally and chronically ill persons to end their lives, at their own request. Though Kevorkian has been prosecuted three times for conduct regarded as illegal under Michigan and common law, no jury seems to want to convict him. In one of his trials he turned around the statement of the double effect principle in Michigan law to his own advantage. The law states that a physician is not responsible for causing the death of the patient if the physician’s intention in providing medication is to relieve pain. Kevorkian’s lawyer argued that Kevorkian set up the mechanism for providing carbon monoxide to suffering persons because he intended to relieve their suffering, not in order to cause their death. Since the jury apparently accepted this argument, one might ask whether the double effect principle is able to do all the work we expect of it.

A more serious breach in the traditional distinctions occurred on March 6, 1996 and again on April 2, 1996. On these dates, two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals (one ruling on a Washington state law, one on a New York law) struck down state laws against assisted suicide as being unconstitutional. While juries do not have to give rational explanations for their decisions, the two appeals courts did have to. Both of them stated that, in the context of terminal illness, there is essentially no difference between ending medical treatment that artificially prolongs life, and taking active steps to bring about or hasten the moment of death. The Washington court, for example, said:

There is no ethical or constitutionally cognizable difference between a doctor’s pulling the plug on a respirator and his prescribing drugs [to] permit a terminally ill patient to end his own life (Greenhouse).

The statement that there is no ethical difference ignores a history of careful differentiation, both theoretical and practical. Dr. Ronald Cranford, neurologist at Hennepin County Medical Center, expresses a consensus view:
Contrary to recent court rulings, there are important clinical, psychological, and ethical distinctions between stopping treatment and letting patients die, and physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. (Cranford, p.1).
Cranford calls for hospital ethics committees to be proactive in continuing to point out these distinctions.

Many people believe it is too soon for the U.S. Supreme Court to take on this issue and settle it. We haven’t had enough public discussion and we certainly lack agreement. But the Supreme Court has decided to take the case, will hear arguments in January 1997 and will announce its decision by July.

Summary
The Catholic intellectual tradition has played a significant and influential role in developing a public and secular bioethics about life-sustaining treatment and the care of the dying. The principles of this tradition seem to have an intuitive appeal for persons who are searching for compassionate and patient-centered ways of caring for the dying and easing their ordeal. How will these principles stand up to the legal challenges that are now questioning their coherence and even their ethicality? Is there enough wisdom in them to meet these challenges- -or will we have to engage in a radical reevaluation?

References

Connell, F.J. "Double Effect, Principle of." New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967): 1020-1022.

Cranford, Ronald. "25 Years of Ethics Committees." Newsletter: Center for Biomedical Ethics, University of Minnesota Fall 1996: 1.

Greenhouse, Linda. "High Court to Say if the Dying Have a Right to Suicide Help." New York Times 2 Oct. 1996, nat. ed.: A1 and A12.

Hastings Center. Guidelines on the Termination of Life-Sustaining Treatment and the Care of the Dying. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

Hennepin County Medical Society. "Position Paper on Management of Pain and Suffering in the Dying Patient." Minnesota Medicine 73.6 (June 1990): 36-37.

Kelly, Gerald, S.J. "The Duty of Using Artificial Means of Preserving Life." Theological Studies 11 (1950): 203-220.

Kelly, Gerald, S.J. "The Duty to Preserve Life." Theological Studies 11 (1951): 550-556.

Mangan, Joseph T. "An Historical Analysis of the Principle of Double Effect." Theological Studies 10 (1949): 41-61.

McCartney, James J., O.S.A. "The Development of the Doctrine of Ordinary and Extraordinary Means of Preserving Life in Catholic Moral Theology." Linacre Quarterly (Aug. 1980): 215-224.

McCormick, Richard A., S.J. "To Save or Let Die." Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 229 (1974): 172-176.

New Jersey Supreme Court. "In the Matter of Karen Quilan. An Alleged Incompetent." Contemporary Issues in Bioethics. Ed. Tom L. Beauchamp and LeRoy Walters. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1982. 365-372.

Pius XII, Pope. "The Prolongation of Life." The Pope Speaks 4 (1958): 393-398.

President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine. Deciding to Forgo Life-Sustaining Treatment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983.

Quinlan, Joseph and Julia with Phyllis Battelle. Karen Ann: The Quinlans Tell Their Story. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1977.

Soloman, Andrew. "A Death of One’s Own." New Yorker 71.13 (22 May 1995): 54-69.

"Vatican Declaration on Euthanasia." Origins 10 (1980): 154-157.

GAC
04-01-2005, 10:10 AM
I wish pro-life advocates were more concerned with the quality of life of the kids who've already been born, but you don't seem to see that very often. Once they're born then all bets are off.

Got any evidence to back that up?

Do you think you, or non-believers, are any more concerned with those kids in poverty? What have you done to alleviate the situation that somehow qualifies you to make such an absurb statement? You seem to have this misguided perception that somehow evangelicals are somehow uncarrying about the poor because why? Because we don't necessarily agree with liberals like yourself, who say they are so much more compassionate, because you have tax dollars subtracted from your weekly check to support government subsidized programs for the poor? That's activism? That is getting involved?

I can point you to so many non-profit evangelical and religious charites and organizations working not only in the U.S., but around the world, that are dedicated to fighting poverty and hunger. The list would be endless. Ever listened to the testimony of a Christian missionary that has spent a good portion of their adult lives (and raising their families on foreign soil to boot) while working with the poor.... building homes, schools, hospitals, providing social services in such areas as Rwanda and the Sudan? I have many a times. And we all support their efforts the best we can via our giving.

They are out there getting involved and dedicating their lives to better others. They are making sacrifices, and asking nothing in return. And evangelicals are doing the same all over this country and in the locals where they are at. They get involved.

Jesus taught when you do your charity to be seen my men, then you have your reward. A vast majority of evangelicals practice that, and are quite generous in supporting various efforts in this country and worldwide.

My church is located in the poor section of town. We dedicate alot of our time, money, and resources to reaching out to those poor kids and families, by providing them with hot meals via food programs, and activities throughout the week to bring some sort of joy into these kids lives. And the families are very grateful for it. We personally give them money to help pay their rent and other various bills when hard times come. And some of those families have hard times because their parents are addicted to alcohol and drugs.

But we still continue to try and help, because our pastor always told us that even when reaching out to help others... it still involves risk. And the risk is worth it.

And the many other churches in this town contribute likewise. No multiply that by the tens of thousands of churches spread throughout this country that do the same.

When this area was hit with a devastating ice storm back in Janaury, and all power was out for over a week, guess who got hit the worst? The poor. And guess who donated generators and opened up their doors with clean beds, hot meals, and entertainment? All the local churches. We all pitched in.

So your contention is totally unfounded and absurb. And you should be ashamed for making such an assumption.

Besides.... that still does not justify killing an unborn child.

GAC
04-01-2005, 10:30 AM
This article poses an interesting question to those who argue the law/legality of allowing Terry to die because Micheal proved in the court system that Terry wouldn't want to live this way, and that is in ine with the law.

I'm not arguing that point and never have on this thread. I did express doubts/misgivings though about the courts allowing such "shallow" evidence (he said she said) when one examines some of the circumstances surrounding Michael over the course of this situation. But I'm not going to belabor that point because it's been argued/discussed enough on here.

If the court, in their legal decision, is honoring Micheals' right to have the feeding tube removed from Terry, then should the court also uphold this daughter's right when the mother legally designated her daughter, Carol Howe Carvitt, to act for her when she became incapacitated?

Is the law not the law then? How can a judge then overrule that Mom's wishes, when it's done legally, and the her wishes are known (unlike Terry's), and allow the hospital to unplug this woman.

We're talking about the law and the legality of such items as guardianship and living wills. Do they mean anything? Are wishes expressed through a living will or a designated surrogate to be honored.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-30-end-of-life-decisions-our_x.htm


Another tragic case casts Schiavo's in new light

If the path to wisdom begins by understanding those with whom you most vehemently disagree, everyone captivated by the Terri Schiavo case might consider the plight of a less famous patient 1,400 miles away.

Her name is Barbara Howe, and she, too, is tragically disabled and caught in a battle over whether life support should be withdrawn — only the circumstances are flipped. It is the hospital that wants to pull the plug, while her daughter, empowered to make her medical decisions, is fighting for her life.

The case, set side-by-side with Schiavo's, raises fresh questions about the state of the law, the power of doctors and hospitals in deciding the value of life, the role of money and even the consistency of President Bush's actions.

Howe's problems began in 1991, about a year after Schiavo sustained severe brain damage. She was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease, an incurable ailment that slowly decimates its victims. Eventually, they lose all ability to move or communicate, but remain conscious, locked in their deteriorating bodies. Howe, 79, is in that condition today.

Unlike the Schiavo case, there's no family dispute over the patient's wishes. Howe stated that she wanted aggressive treatment as long as she had some brain function and could still enjoy her family. She legally designated her daughter, Carol Howe Carvitt, to act for her when she became incapacitated, and Carvitt argues that her mother can still appreciate family contact and should live on.

Howe's condition couldn't be more fragile. She has been on a ventilator since 1997 and has been a patient at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston for five years. She can't eat or express pain. She cannot even blink her remaining left eye. Her right eye ruptured in 2003 and was removed. Bones have broken in the simple routine of moving of her.

Hospital officials say she couldn't have anticipated her present state. Keeping her alive, they argue, amounts to torture, not medical care, and violates the Hippocratic oath. So they asked a judge to override her daughter and allow the ventilator to be withdrawn.

The message from the courts in end-of-life cases has been that patients have the right to decide when treatment should be withdrawn. If they cannot speak, wishes expressed through a living will or a designated surrogate must be honored.

That's what a judge ruled a year ago in the Howe case. But he instructed Carvitt to base her decisions on her mother's best interests, not necessarily what she'd stated before her condition became so desperate.

Three weeks ago, Carvitt agreed that the ventilator could be withdrawn by June 30, but only because she believes the hospital will prevail in court.

There are further issues as well.

The cost of hospital care for someone in Howe's condition is $1,000 to $2,000 a day. Who should pay? The government doesn't, and only the richest patients can, adding incentives to let people die. Further, at least three states — California, Virginia and Texas — have laws allowing hospitals to deny treatment against a family's wishes in some circumstances. The Texas law was signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush, who has been prominent in insisting on Schiavo's right to live.

Is it, indeed, sometimes right to overrule the patient's will to live — or to die? Our view is that it is not, either in Howe's case or Schiavo's. No one is entitled to impose his or her beliefs on another.

For those arguing over Schiavo, all of this poses tough questions. For one, do those who think that Michael Schiavo, despite years of court review, has no right to decide his wife's fate also believe that Carvitt, backed by the courts on similar grounds, has no right to decide her mother's?

In both cases, the rule of law must prevail, not religious fervor to preserve life at any cost. But the Schiavo case is putting the law under review. Congress plans hearings, and states are tackling the issues as well.

There's much worth discussing. But the starting point should remain unchanged. The decisive factor must be the patient's will — whether it is to live or to die.

Johnny Footstool
04-01-2005, 10:43 AM
God sovereignly allowing something to happen does not mean he decreed it.

If you view God as omnipotent and omniscient, then everything that occurs must be His will.

Sin, earthquakes, starvation, and all.


Your theology would have God as the author of sin. Not good.

It's not just my theology. Isn't "It was God's will" the line that most Christians use to comfort each other in times of tragedy? That's what everyone tells you at the funeral when a loved one dies. I believe it.

The only way we can learn and grow is by enduring pain and our own mistakes. Maybe that's what God wants us to do -- learn and grow. So maybe He allows us to suffer and make mistakes because, ultimately, it makes us better. That doesn't seem so far-fetched to me.

Johnny Footstool
04-01-2005, 10:43 AM
Oops.

Johnny Footstool
04-01-2005, 10:46 AM
Oops.

flyer85
04-01-2005, 10:50 AM
Hubert Humphrey once said, "The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life ... those who are in the twilight of life ... and those who are in the shadows of life."

GAC
04-01-2005, 11:00 AM
If you view God as omnipotent and omniscient, then everything that occurs must be His will. The universe is unfolding exactly according to His plan.

That has to include the good and the bad. Sin, earthquakes, starvation, and all.

It's not just my theology. Isn't "It was God's will" the line that most Christians use to comfort each other in times of tragedy? That's what everyone tells you at the funeral when a loved one dies. I believe it.

The only way we can learn and grow is by enduring pain and our own mistakes. Maybe that's what God wants us to do -- learn and grow. So maybe He allows us to suffer and make mistakes because, ultimately, it makes us better. That doesn't seem so far-fetched to me.

One must also learn to differentiate God's active will from his permissive will.

And no, God is not the author of sin.

GAC
04-01-2005, 11:08 AM
Here poses an interesting dilemna for those who talk of the "rule of law" in the Schiavo case (and I've never argued or disputed that either).

But if Michael's contention that his wife told him at some point in the past that she wouldn't want to live in this state, and the court's accepted and uphold that via the law, then what of this case where a woman gives legal guardianship to her daughter that she be kept alive, and the hospital decides it wants to pull the plug, goes to court, and the judge says yes?

Why is not the rule of law allowed to prevail in this case when the woman's wishes are known, and it's done so via legal means?

So then, living wills, guardianships, and other legal means really mean nothing then, if the hospital decides otherwise? Slippery slope folks. ;)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-30-end-of-life-decisions-our_x.htm

Another tragic case casts Schiavo's in new light
If the path to wisdom begins by understanding those with whom you most vehemently disagree, everyone captivated by the Terri Schiavo case might consider the plight of a less famous patient 1,400 miles away.

Her name is Barbara Howe, and she, too, is tragically disabled and caught in a battle over whether life support should be withdrawn — only the circumstances are flipped. It is the hospital that wants to pull the plug, while her daughter, empowered to make her medical decisions, is fighting for her life.

The case, set side-by-side with Schiavo's, raises fresh questions about the state of the law, the power of doctors and hospitals in deciding the value of life, the role of money and even the consistency of President Bush's actions.

Howe's problems began in 1991, about a year after Schiavo sustained severe brain damage. She was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease, an incurable ailment that slowly decimates its victims. Eventually, they lose all ability to move or communicate, but remain conscious, locked in their deteriorating bodies. Howe, 79, is in that condition today.

Unlike the Schiavo case, there's no family dispute over the patient's wishes. Howe stated that she wanted aggressive treatment as long as she had some brain function and could still enjoy her family. She legally designated her daughter, Carol Howe Carvitt, to act for her when she became incapacitated, and Carvitt argues that her mother can still appreciate family contact and should live on.

Howe's condition couldn't be more fragile. She has been on a ventilator since 1997 and has been a patient at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston for five years. She can't eat or express pain. She cannot even blink her remaining left eye. Her right eye ruptured in 2003 and was removed. Bones have broken in the simple routine of moving of her.

Hospital officials say she couldn't have anticipated her present state. Keeping her alive, they argue, amounts to torture, not medical care, and violates the Hippocratic oath. So they asked a judge to override her daughter and allow the ventilator to be withdrawn.

The message from the courts in end-of-life cases has been that patients have the right to decide when treatment should be withdrawn. If they cannot speak, wishes expressed through a living will or a designated surrogate must be honored.

That's what a judge ruled a year ago in the Howe case. But he instructed Carvitt to base her decisions on her mother's best interests, not necessarily what she'd stated before her condition became so desperate.

Three weeks ago, Carvitt agreed that the ventilator could be withdrawn by June 30, but only because she believes the hospital will prevail in court.

There are further issues as well.

The cost of hospital care for someone in Howe's condition is $1,000 to $2,000 a day. Who should pay? The government doesn't, and only the richest patients can, adding incentives to let people die. Further, at least three states — California, Virginia and Texas — have laws allowing hospitals to deny treatment against a family's wishes in some circumstances. The Texas law was signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush, who has been prominent in insisting on Schiavo's right to live.

Is it, indeed, sometimes right to overrule the patient's will to live — or to die? Our view is that it is not, either in Howe's case or Schiavo's. No one is entitled to impose his or her beliefs on another.

For those arguing over Schiavo, all of this poses tough questions. For one, do those who think that Michael Schiavo, despite years of court review, has no right to decide his wife's fate also believe that Carvitt, backed by the courts on similar grounds, has no right to decide her mother's?

In both cases, the rule of law must prevail, not religious fervor to preserve life at any cost. But the Schiavo case is putting the law under review. Congress plans hearings, and states are tackling the issues as well.

There's much worth discussing. But the starting point should remain unchanged. The decisive factor must be the patient's will — whether it is to live or to die.

flyer85
04-01-2005, 11:10 AM
When in doubt between the counsels of hope and despair, between life and death, Choose life.

traderumor
04-01-2005, 11:18 AM
So, Johnny, is the triple post similar to the seraphim crying "Holy!Holy!Holy!" three times? Or a statement on the Trinity? ;)

As GAC pointed out, using the terminology "God's will" has distinctions, such as what God decrees, as dilineated in Scripture, and his secret will, which we are not privy to. There is also the "law of first causes" that GAC is alluding to with a distinction between "active and permissive will." You have to go no further than the Garden of Eden to see the implications of not making any distinction with respect to God's will, because your use of the term would mean God caused Eve and Adam to eat of the fruit. That is problematic and is not an orthodox understanding of God's interaction with the affairs of men.

Johnny Footstool
04-01-2005, 11:20 AM
One must also learn to differentiate God's active will from his permissive will.

And no, God is not the author of sin.

I think we've once again reached the point where our convictions are fully stated and any further debate would just be repetition.

This is a discussion for another time.

As always, although I disagree with some of your opinions, I still respect them and I'm glad you shared them.

Johnny Footstool
04-01-2005, 11:42 AM
Sorry about the triple post. ;)


You have to go no further than the Garden of Eden to see the implications of not making any distinction with respect to God's will, because your use of the term would mean God caused Eve and Adam to eat of the fruit. That is problematic and is not an orthodox understanding of God's interaction with the affairs of men.

I try to get out, and they pull me right back in...

You've hit upon one of my central beliefs. Why create a Tree of Knowledge unless you intend for someone to eat its fruit?

And while I know it doesn't gel with orthodoxy, I find it a lot more straightforward and less problematic than the idea that God is the creator of all things *except* bad stuff, and that he has an "active will," a "passive will," and a "secret will." That sounds like a very convoluted way to arrive at an answer that should be (and is, IMO) very simple.

Life would be meaningless if all we did was sit around the Garden. God gave us a journey to undertake.

But again, this is a discussion for another time and place.

Redsfaithful
04-01-2005, 11:44 AM
Got any evidence to back that up?

Religious fundamentalists vote Republican. Republican politicians vote against the vast majority of government funding that would help impoverished children. Icky socialism and all that.

It's great that you do charity work and that you give, but the way you vote doesn't help the people your church is trying to help.

Falls City Beer
04-01-2005, 12:18 PM
"Do you think you, or non-believers, are any more concerned with those kids in poverty? What have you done to alleviate the situation that somehow qualifies you to make such an absurb statement?"

Question 1: Yes.

Question 2: More than you imagine. In fact, it's a second job I don't get paid for.

I put my money where my mouth is for the living, the weak and despairing, so that they may be strong again. I also work and vote for justice, the rule of law in a country where difficult decisions must be made, but never at the expense of Constitutional rights.

And back to the Ford article: if you want to compare yourself to an autonomic nervous system, great. I don't see it that way. If that makes me a bigot, fine.

traderumor
04-01-2005, 12:59 PM
Sorry about the triple post. ;)



I try to get out, and they pull me right back in...

You've hit upon one of my central beliefs. Why create a Tree of Knowledge unless you intend for someone to eat its fruit?

And while I know it doesn't gel with orthodoxy, I find it a lot more straightforward and less problematic than the idea that God is the creator of all things *except* bad stuff, and that he has an "active will," a "passive will," and a "secret will." That sounds like a very convoluted way to arrive at an answer that should be (and is, IMO) very simple.

Life would be meaningless if all we did was sit around the Garden. God gave us a journey to undertake.

But again, this is a discussion for another time and place.

There was nothing inherently "bad" about the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, in fact Eve's testimony was that it was quite tasty, very pretty and greatly pleased her senses. The fruit was bad because God decreed it was bad. However, he did not shove it down their throat, but he did want his creatures to willingly obey him. So, the moral of the story is that "bad stuff" is only "bad stuff" because...God said it was bad. Also, it is often ignored, but they had everything else at their disposal and could eat freely of it, so it isn't like God set them up to fail. They did that all by themselves. His Son went through a much tougher test when tempted by Satan in the wilderness after his baptism, and he did not sin (opens another can of worms). OK, sorry, this is off subject, so if you desire, Johnny, you may have the last word or let it die here. Your choice :devil:

Johnny Footstool
04-01-2005, 01:13 PM
OK, sorry, this is off subject, so if you desire, Johnny, you may have the last word or let it die here. Your choice.

We can leave it alone for now. But I always enjoy the discussion.

M2
04-01-2005, 02:37 PM
Marty Fan, if you read that article it's exactly what I'm talking about. My guess is when Catholic scholars sit down and look at the Terri Schiavo case they see it as being awfully similar to Karen Ann Quinlan.

MartyFan
04-01-2005, 03:07 PM
RedsFaithful stated: Religious fundamentalists vote Republican. Republican politicians vote against the vast majority of government funding that would help impoverished children. Icky socialism and all that.

It's great that you do charity work and that you give, but the way you vote doesn't help the people your church is trying to help.

This one is DEEP and ya know...Christians can't stand my thoughts on this...and non-Christians can't believe I accuse them of being hypocrits...something most think is reserved only for those who profess a faith.

Ya see, I am confounded by the fact that some who follow Christ are in favor of the death penalty or in favor of war, etc.

Likewise I can't understand how some folks involved and engaged as social advocates or pro-peace/anti war can see little or nothing wrong with the slaughter of an unborn child...you see...both sides are in error and hypocritical to what they identify as their core purpose...it makes little sense to me.

I am of the thought that the word "Fundamentalist" has been hijacked. Now I know in the dictionary it talks about the religeous movement of ultra conservatives..but I ammore or less talking about the word "Fundamental" which is the essentials...the very foundations of anything...baseball drills, faith in Christ, Ala, Buddah, etc...the basics.

Too many times folks like Falwell and Robertson and any other flavor of the week evangelist on tv stomp their feet, clap their hands and scream at the top of their lungs about how they are unveiling the return path to holiness...as a born again Christian they scare the heck out of me...not in a good way.

There diatribes lead to all sorts of spiritual hoops to jump through in order to gain the favor of God.

By and large many Christians just repeat what they hear because it makes life a little less painful...Our entire culture for that matter is obsessed with "fitting in"...and that attitude pervades the church as well.

As for the way Christian vote...again...by and large they look at one or two issues and everything else is a non-issue.

I am not crazy about George W. Bush...he actually does scare me...Was John Kerry the answer to calm my fears? Not even close.

Politically we are in a really crappy place in this country..

WVRed
04-01-2005, 06:02 PM
Doesn't it ever get depressing listening to a second class Rush Limbaugh?

About the same as listening to Al Franken. :)

I will admit the shirt was probably not in the best taste, but it still doesnt take away that I still feel Michael Schiavo is not this grieving husband that many make him out to be.

Again, JMO.

MWM
04-01-2005, 08:21 PM
Heck, I think the saddest thing in this whole saga is the way Michael Schiavo's character has inexcusably been dragged through the mud. I can't possibly imagine what it would be like to lose my spouse, let alone have to make the types of decisions he had to make after having lost her. Then, to have others question my motives. I'm glad I'm not him and I feel for the guy for what he's had to endure.

Falls City Beer
04-01-2005, 08:45 PM
Heck, I think the saddest thing in this whole saga is the way Michael Schiavo's character has inexcusably been dragged through the mud. I can't possibly imagine what it would be like to lose my spouse, let alone have to make the types of decisions he had to make after having lost her. Then, to have others question my motives. I'm glad I'm not him and I feel for the guy for what he's had to endure.

As soon as the American people caught Bush and his goons in the Constitutional Cookie Jar, they had to shift their smear to Michael Schiavo. What else is new?

Yachtzee
04-02-2005, 12:39 AM
File under questionable motives

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/politics/29donate.html

I've tried to avoid passing judgment on either side in this battle, but this really bothers me. This just seems like an incredible breach of trust for the Schindlers to turn around and sell the information of their donors to make a buck. Even if they use the money to pay off debt from their legal battles, I just find it galling that they would turn around and profit off of donors without giving them the opportunity to opt out first. A person who donates to support a cause should know exactly what they are donating. Just because I send money doesn't mean I want a bunch of spam, even if it's coming from groups with like causes. Maybe I should give the Schindlers the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe they were swindled, but my feeling is that they had the opportunity to know what was going on. They did have a few lawyers hanging around.

GAC
04-02-2005, 09:54 AM
Religious fundamentalists vote Republican. Republican politicians vote against the vast majority of government funding that would help impoverished children. Icky socialism and all that.

So you define a person's merit/attitude towards poor children (and their families) purely by how they vote. I guess when you live under the misperception that has been fed you that Republicans hate the poor (along with the elderly and African-Americans) then I can see where you get such outlandish notions.

So I can see where it would make you feel good when you walk out of that polling place, and you feel you've done your civic duty to help the poor, because you voted Democratic. Man, if it were only that simple.

And religious fundamentalists (which to you is a bad thing; but it's not) comes in all shapes and sizes. I have come to know, and have close association with quite a few that are Democrat. And have known them all my life (family, church, community). They are also very staunch pro-life.

You don't judge or measure a person's approach to the poor by how they vote; but by how much they themselves get actively involved, and give of themselves in helping those in need. It is not, nor can it be narrowed done in a "box", to what a person's political persuasion is.... This person cares more because they are a Democrat, while this one obviously doesn't because they vote Republican. That is simply ludicrous!

It's real easy to pawn it off, or say that it's the government's responsibility to take care of the poor. It's real easy to do that, and there's less commitment on that individual's behalf that way. But when it comes to actually having to be giving of yourself, your time, your resources, and personally getting involved with the poor within your community, then that is where alot of people seem to draw the line, and show such indifference. It asks too much of them then.

And in my 18 years of association with those pro-lifers/fundamentalists that you so easily like to malign and wrongly label, I have seen, and been taught, more about personal involvement, and the true meaning of what sacrifice and compassion is when it comes to aiding the poor. Before that, I was pretty much indifferent towards the issue.

Jesus and the early church just didn't hand somebody a check and say "hope this meets your needs, and that everything works out OK for you". They also made the effort to become personally involved with those families because they did care for their welfare. Compassion and respect for the individual doesn't simply come from a monthly check received in the mail. Especially when that impoverished family may be in those circumstances not simply because they can't find work; but are in a broken home due to drug or alcohol addiction, or abuse, and a variety of other social maladies that plague all of society (but hits the poor harder).

It has been my experience, which I learned from these pro-lifers, that when you take the time to get involved in your community to develop those relatonships with those families, and make them apart of your "extended" family (church, synagogue, mosque, whatever), that is what matters most to them (especially the children).

And that is something that no government program does. You can't run your programs for the poor like you do the post office (cold and impersonal). And we pro-lifers are not against government programs. What we are against is the way they have been setup and managed. Decades of getting nowhere towards lifting people out of poverty, improving their lives, and giving them self-worth. And a vast majority of our government programs, while the intent may have been noble, simply entrap those families in the situation they are in, and even make them worse.



It's great that you do charity work and that you give, but the way you vote doesn't help the people your church is trying to help.

Loking at what those government programs have done for them, which they are currently on and struggling to survive, my voting Republican or Democratic isn't gonna hurt or make one bit of difference in their lives. Getting personally involved HAS.

But you keep deluding yourself that simply voting Democratic, and putting Democrats in Congress, is really what makes a difference when it comes to helping the poor. Meanwhile, us pro-life fundamentalists, regardless of how we vote, and in our various communities all around this country, will continue to do what we have been doing for quite sometime, while not relying on the federal government (Repub or Dem) to solve/handle the problem.

Because when the time comes, we will be measured not by how we voted, but by our actions. That's what faith motivates you to do.

GAC
04-02-2005, 10:03 AM
"Do you think you, or non-believers, are any more concerned with those kids in poverty? What have you done to alleviate the situation that somehow qualifies you to make such an absurb statement?"

Question 1: Yes.

Question 2: More than you imagine. In fact, it's a second job I don't get paid for.

I put my money where my mouth is for the living, the weak and despairing, so that they may be strong again.

And that's great FCB, and I commend you for that effort. It shows your concern, but not that you are more concerned then the rest of us.

What I didn't like, or care for, was RF's contention, and blanket generalization, that pro-lifers don't care for the young once they are out of the womb like they do before they are born.

That's is an absurd contention that he has yet to be able to back up.

Falls City Beer
04-02-2005, 10:05 AM
"Compassion and respect for the individual doesn't simply come from a monthly check received in the mail."

No, but in my experience money goes a heck of a lot further than good intentions. In order to teach people to fish, you gotta buy tackle, bait, extra line, a cap with an extralong bill to keep off the sun....
You get what I'm saying.

Falls City Beer
04-02-2005, 10:13 AM
And that's great FCB, and I commend you for that effort. It shows your concern, but not that you are more concerned then the rest of us.

What I didn't like, or care for, was RF's contention, and blanket generalization, that pro-lifers don't care for the young once they are out of the womb like they do before they are born.

That's is an absurd contention that he has yet to be able to back up.

I didn't mean to say that I was MORE concerned, but that this lil ole "non-believing" Democrat realizes that my life's good fortune has a responsibility to the less fortunate. And yes, cutting money to programs designed to help the poor hurts them; I see it ever Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of my life. I know there are a million "ways" to help the poor and suffering, but they all involve money.

GAC
04-02-2005, 10:14 AM
"Compassion and respect for the individual doesn't simply come from a monthly check received in the mail."

No, but in my experience money goes a heck of a lot further than good intentions. In order to teach people to fish, you gotta buy tackle, bait, extra line, a cap with an extralong to keep off the sun....
You get what I'm saying.

I'm not talking simply about good intentions. Good intentions means SQUAT if there is nothing behind it. Personal involvement means not only financial giving, but also giving of oneself in a variety of means to help that impoverished family. Ove the years I have had the extreme pleasure of working with a variety of talented church people from various areas of the state/nation, who use their individual abilities, and pool their talents/resources to help the poor...

buying groceries, helping with heating costs in winter, provide the materials and then organize the volunteers to do needed home improvements, setup and fund food programs for kids (using church facilites), put families up in your home when a disaster strikes, help out with rent/utilties, develop and run after school programs for their kids while they work, etc., etc., etc.

GAC
04-02-2005, 11:00 AM
This one is DEEP and ya know...Christians can't stand my thoughts on this...and non-Christians can't believe I accuse them of being hypocrits...something most think is reserved only for those who profess a faith.

Ya see, I am confounded by the fact that some who follow Christ are in favor of the death penalty or in favor of war, etc.

Likewise I can't understand how some folks involved and engaged as social advocates or pro-peace/anti war can see little or nothing wrong with the slaughter of an unborn child...you see...both sides are in error and hypocritical to what they identify as their core purpose...it makes little sense to me.

You bring up some very good and valid points Marty. It was ony after I read a few articles on the validity of Christians supporting the death penalty that convinced me (and it used valid, sound Christian principles too). I'll see if I can't find those articles, and you let me know what you think.

When it comes to war, I deeply respect those that are pacifists. I believe that war originality is of man. And yet, throughout the O.T. God sanctioned/utilized war when it came to upholding what HE DEEMED (not man) to be righteous and good, and to punish the evil, the wickedness, and yes, godless. I can thoroughly understand why one who is a skeptic or non-believer though can have a hard time understanding or accepting this. But IMO, I think it comes down to not really understanding the total character and nature of God, that not only includes love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness (those pleasant traits we love to hear abiut and emphasize); but also His holiness, righteousness, and justice (traits we like to deny or overlook).


I am of the thought that the word "Fundamentalist" has been hijacked. Now I know in the dictionary it talks about the religeous movement of ultra conservatives..but I ammore or less talking about the word "Fundamental" which is the essentials...the very foundations of anything...baseball drills, faith in Christ, Ala, Buddah, etc...the basics.

It has been "hijacked". There are some who have redefined i, and given it a label that comes no where near what a true fundamentalist is (as you state above). And it became even more misapplied after 9-11,a nd the label "fundamentalist" was given to the Muslim terrorists. That analogy with Christians in this country was even posted on here at one time. Totally wrong.


Too many times folks like Falwell and Robertson and any other flavor of the week evangelist on tv stomp their feet, clap their hands and scream at the top of their lungs about how they are unveiling the return path to holiness...as a born again Christian they scare the heck out of me...not in a good way.

There diatribes lead to all sorts of spiritual hoops to jump through in order to gain the favor of God.

And too mnay people form their perceptions of the Christian faith by watching these various televangelists. They see these guys selling anointed washclothes for $100, or if you'll pledge monthly to their ministry that God will heal you, and all of a sudden all evangelicals are lumped into one big pot.

I leave them alone. And I think a good reason why alot of people are swayed orf mislead by these types of ministries is because they won't take the time and effort to search out the truth for themselves... read/study the Bible. They have their own assumptions, and those too can be wrong or misguided. If one is gonna follow that path, and ignore the truth that he has already revealed, then God is not gonna force his will upon you. Not when he has already provided the truth for anyone to study/read. It involves, IMO, using s God-given ability that we all have - our intellect w/ discernment.

By and large many Christians just repeat what they hear because it makes life a little less painful...Our entire culture for that matter is obsessed with "fitting in"...and that attitude pervades the church as well.


As for the way Christian vote...again...by and large they look at one or two issues and everything else is a non-issue.

I am not crazy about George W. Bush...he actually does scare me...Was John Kerry the answer to calm my fears? Not even close.

Politically we are in a really crappy place in this country..

I voted for the lesser of two evils IMO. And I'm sure those that voted for Kerry may have felt they did the same thing. There are some things I admire about Bush, and some things that really perturb me.

RedsBaron
04-02-2005, 11:03 AM
And that's great FCB, and I commend you for that effort. It shows your concern, but not that you are more concerned then the rest of us.

What I didn't like, or care for, was RF's contention, and blanket generalization, that pro-lifers don't care for the young once they are out of the womb like they do before they are born.

That's is an absurd contention that he has yet to be able to back up.
I've not before posted on this thread, mainly because the Terri Schiavo matter involved issues about which I am personally conflicted. Exactly when someone should no longer receive certain care is a medical/legal/moral issue, and I respect those who come to different conclusions about the matter.
I have no respect for the smear that an entire group does not care about babies once they have been born, or the unsupported accusation that one's compassion can be measured by whether one votes Republican or Democrat.

MartyFan
04-02-2005, 12:01 PM
Originally Posted by GAC
And that's great FCB, and I commend you for that effort. It shows your concern, but not that you are more concerned then the rest of us.

What I didn't like, or care for, was RF's contention, and blanket generalization, that pro-lifers don't care for the young once they are out of the womb like they do before they are born.

That's is an absurd contention that he has yet to be able to back up.



I didn't mean to say that I was MORE concerned, but that this lil ole "non-believing" Democrat realizes that my life's good fortune has a responsibility to the less fortunate. And yes, cutting money to programs designed to help the poor hurts them; I see it ever Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of my life. I know there are a million "ways" to help the poor and suffering, but they all involve money.

FalssCity: Believers and Non-Believers alike share the burden of taking care of one another...unfortunately the church has really shirked its obligation in this area...there is so much we are not doing because we "believers" focus our money and talents on things that don't matter...at the root by and large the church is selfish. In large part we talk a big game, wag our finger at the rest of the world and rest on the fading reputation of those who believed before us.

traderumor
04-02-2005, 12:12 PM
FalssCity: Believers and Non-Believers alike share the burden of taking care of one another...unfortunately the church has really shirked its obligation in this area...there is so much we are not doing because we "believers" focus our money and talents on things that don't matter...at the root by and large the church is selfish. In large part we talk a big game, wag our finger at the rest of the world and rest on the fading reputation of those who believed before us.

"Million dollar churches but no room for the poor? Why, Why, Why?" sings one of my favorite artists, Steve Camp. :(

WVRed
04-02-2005, 06:05 PM
I dont know if this is legit or not, but ive seen that there are autopsy photos of Terri Schiavo floating around the internet.

If this is true...

:thumbdown

RBA
04-03-2005, 12:12 AM
I dont know if this is legit or not, but ive seen that there are autopsy photos of Terri Schiavo floating around the internet.

If this is true...

:thumbdown

They are probably fake.

GAC
04-03-2005, 08:53 AM
"Million dollar churches but no room for the poor? Why, Why, Why?" sings one of my favorite artists, Steve Camp. :(

It's all a part of that consumer-friendly Gospel that our culture craves, where such topics as sin, man's accountability, and judgment, are left out. People aren't going to be drawn to church to hear those kinds of things (though it was explicitly taught by Jesus). They have enough troubles in this world without having some church piling on more.

They want to here "pyscho babble" in church, and where it's all about them, and where Gods only reason to exist is as some sort of cosmic genie who is there to soothe them, and provide their every material need.

No conviction over sin, no repentance - none of that stuff. Don't want to hear that.

Two books that I am currently re-reading tr say alot about the Gospel that is being presented to this current American culture.... The Gospel According To Jesus and Hard To Believe (both my John McArthur). We are so consumer-driven, and so concerned about our material comforts, that many coming out of our theological institutes, wanting to have a successful church, are modifying the gospel to meet that demand.

"If anone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever oses his life for my sake will asve it. For what dos it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and is himslef destroyed and lost?" (Luke 9:23-25)

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more then me is not worthy of me. And he who oves his son and daughter more then me is not worthy of me. And he who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

These are the types of commands that people within our culture today DO NOT want to hear, when it comes to having the Gospel presented to them. They want soothing words, and to be able to say a simple, scripted "sinner's prayer", and that's it - they're in. No commitment, no sacrifice. And they are, in a large part, no different from those masses that followed Jesus, as recorded in the four Gospels. They followed, and were enamored with him, as long as he performed miracles and meet their material needs. But when he preached such sayings (as above), and many more, the crowds started to dwindle.

By the time he got to the cross.... he was abandoned and alone.

traderumor
04-03-2005, 09:02 AM
GAC,

You won't go wrong reading anything by John MacArthur. Another good one with a similar topic he wrote is Ashamed of the Gospel, which discusses the orientation toward "user friendly" churches and entertainment replacing the exposition of God's word in the worship service.

GAC
04-03-2005, 09:16 AM
I would like to know why Micheal was so vehement in wanting Terry cremated. I'm not saying he is trying to coverup anything; but would simply like to know why? I realize, from a legal perspective, that he doesn't have to explain or give any reasoning.

While cremation once was condemned by the Catholic Church, it has been routinely allowed since 1983.

The most widely accepted view within the Catholic Church is...

"The church preference is burial because it's the tradition, and Jesus was buried, and [because of] the belief in the resurrection of the body."

So I don't understand why he was so vehement on cremation. It does simply make people want to carry this controversy on even more, and ask questions.

This could have been a perfect opportunity to try and bring some sort of reconciliation (and yes, also a concession) with Terry's parents by allowing them to have a typical Catholic funeral/burial. Terry is now dead. I think he could have made a greater effort, and shown better sensibilites towards the parents. Even though I acknowledge that the parents have done some thing and made some accusations that IMO, weren't appropriate.

Originally, Micheal was going to have her buried on an unknwn location in PA, and even Terry's parents weren't going to be told. I can understand that he wouldn't want media people and seekers to know her final resting place due to all the attention this situation brought... but not her parents too? I found that to be very cold and callous on his part. I guess now, acording to the below article, he has been required (assuming the courts?) to let them know the location.

Schiavo body cremated, burial plans not yet set

Parents plan private service in Gulfport

By Vickie Chachere
The Associated Press
Posted April 3 2005

TAMPA · Terri Schiavo's body was cremated Saturday as the battles between her husband and parents continued, but plans for her burial in Pennsylvania have not yet been determined, her husband's attorney said.

George Felos said the cremation was carried out according to a court order issued on Tuesday giving Michael Schiavo the right to make decisions on his wife's burial. Bob and Mary Schindler had wanted to bury their daughter in Pinellas County so they could visit her grave.

Terri Schiavo, 41, died Thursday after the removal of the feeding tube that had kept her alive since 1990 in what court-appointed doctors determined was a persistent vegetative state.

Her parents had fought in court to keep her alive, saying she was severely disabled but not without hope.

Michael Schiavo is now required to tell his wife's parents of any memorial services he plans for Terri Schiavo and where her ashes are interred. The Schiavo family has said her ashes will be buried in a family plot in a Pennsylvania cemetery.

Michael Schiavo has not spoken publicly since his wife's death, but Felos said Saturday: "He's holding up. It's very difficult for him."

The Schindlers plan to have their own memorial service for their daughter at 7 p.m. Tuesday at Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church in Gulfport.

The dispute over her burial weighed heavy on the Schindlers, but their attorneys said Saturday that it wasn't the only setback the couple suffered after their daughter's death.

The Schindlers had sought to have independent medical experts observe her autopsy at the Pinellas County Medical Examiner's Office, but the office refused the request, family attorneys David Gibbs III and Barbara Weller said.

The autopsy was completed Friday and results are not expected for several weeks. It was ordered by the county's chief medical examiner before Terri Schiavo's body was cremated. The Pinellas County Medical Examiner's Office did not return a telephone call for comment Saturday.

The examiner's office has said it would conduct examinations on Terri Schiavo's body and look for any evidence of what might have caused her 1990 collapse, thought to have been caused by a chemical imbalance brought on by an eating disorder.

A neuropathologist was also to conduct an exam.

The Schindlers, though, do not think their daughter had an eating disorder and have accused Michael Schiavo of abusing his wife, a charge which he vehemently denies. Gibbs said the Schindlers wanted to select an outside neuropathologist and forensic expert to observe the autopsy.

Over the years, the couple has sought independent investigation of their daughter's condition and what caused it, but often turned up empty-handed.

Abuse complaints to state social workers were ruled unfounded -- although one current investigation remains open -- and the Pinellas state attorney's office did not turn up evidence of abuse in one brief probe of the case.

GAC
04-03-2005, 09:21 AM
GAC,

You won't go wrong reading anything by John MacArthur. Another good one with a similar topic he wrote is Ashamed of the Gospel, which discusses the orientation toward "user friendly" churches and entertainment replacing the exposition of God's word in the worship service.

I also like getting his free monthly audiotape messages. The guy doesn't pull any punches when it comes to the honest and simple truth of the Gospel. It gets one to thinking via his common sense approach and vast theological background.

Though I have to admit (since I'm not a Baptist), that do differ with him on election and predestination.

traderumor
04-03-2005, 09:57 AM
I also like getting his free monthly audiotape messages. The guy doesn't pull any punches when it comes to the honest and simple truth of the Gospel. It gets one to thinking via his common sense approach and vast theological background.

Though I have to admit (since I'm not a Baptist), that do differ with him on election and predestination.

I take it you are on the Grace to You mailing list. Good to hear that.

I am a baptist, I suppose, and many baptists would differ with him on the same ;) Only Reformed Baptists, which is I guess is what I come closest to, would be on the same page with MacArthur with respect to the areas you mentioned.

RBA
05-08-2005, 12:37 PM
Before Schiavo, DCF sought to let abused girl die

By Elisa Cramer (elisa_cramer@pbpost.com)

Palm Beach Post Editorial Writer

Sunday, May 08, 2005

Fifteen years after brain damage put Terri Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state, the Florida Department of Children and Families went to excruciating lengths to block the removal of a feeding tube that was sustaining her. Fifteen days after a toddler was beaten nearly to death despite DCF cataloging numerous alarming signs of abuse, the agency began seeking a Do-Not-Resuscitate order for her.

"I thought she would potentially live in a vegetative state," DCF's chief medical director told The Post two months after examining 2-year-old Moesha Sylencieux on Jan. 26, 2001.

More from Opinion•Sound off in the blog (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/blog/index.html)
• Columnists (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/columnists.html#opinion)
• Editorials/Letters (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/index.html)
• Don Wright cartoons (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/index.html)


Then-DCF Secretary Kathleen Kearney had sent Dr. Eric Handler to Palm Beach County to assess Moesha, who was admitted to Bethesda Memorial Hospital in Boynton Beach on Jan. 11, 2001, and transferred to Delray Medical Center's trauma unit the next day. She was unconscious with a swollen brain, bruised liver, broken bones and black-and-green welts. Some breaks and bruises were old — having been detected, though unexplained, during a monthlong stay at Miami Children's Hospital that had ended just weeks prior, with doctors and nurses pleading that DCF not release Moesha to her uninterested mother. The near-fatal injuries, investigators believe, had been caused by Moesha being held by her feet and shaken, possibly by her mother's boyfriend, though no one's been charged.

DCF asked a judge to appoint an attorney ad litem to pursue a Do-Not-Resuscitate order. The Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, whose attorneys are appointed by the court to represent children up to age 12 who have been abused, neglected or abandoned, opened the case on Feb. 1, 2001. Attorney John Walsh went to the hospital with his supervisor, talked to Moesha's nurses and then discussed her condition "in great detail" with her physician.

"Should I go ahead and get a DNR order?" Mr. Walsh said he asked the doctor, who replied: " 'What? What are you talking about? No, she's stable. We're not thinking about that at all.' I guess our appointment was, maybe, premature."

DCF's missteps were so obvious and horrific that a grand jury recommended the firing of nine DCF workers, and the cases of Moesha and two boys who died in 2000 became teaching tools for new DCF hires. Investigators wrote that Moesha's mother, Guerland Pierre-Louis, "appears as if she did not care about the child," rarely visiting the hospital or calling to check on her.

Investigators noted in a home study that there was no crib or anything else to indicate that a baby lived at Pierre-Louis' Lake Worth house. Investigators also noted that Pierre-Louis could not explain Moesha's broken collarbone. Investigators were told by the family of the patient in the adjacent hospital bed that Pierre-Louis spanked Moesha during her rare visits. Nurses told investigators that Moesha would cry whenever Pierre-Louis was around.

On the day Moesha was scheduled to go home, Pierre-Louis did not show up because she was, instead, trying to help her boyfriend get out of jail. Yet DCF let the girl leave with Pierre-Louis — and, while debating whether the Miami-Dade office or the Palm Beach County office should have jurisdiction, did not follow up when Moesha missed doctor appointments on Jan. 8, 10 or 12. On Jan. 11, Moesha was barely alive at Bethesda.

The girl DCF gave up on four years ago has been spending recent days in her wheelchair in Palm Beach County Courtroom 11B, as lawyers for DCF try to convince a jury that the agency should not have to pay for her continued medical care. Often referred to in DCF records as the "V/C," for "victim child," Moesha has been renamed Marissa Amora.

Ask the 6-year-old with the single dimple, the oh-so-tickled laugh and the expressive, big brown eyes who she is and she beams, "Mo-Mo." She teases her adoptive mother, Dawn Amora, when it's time to be fed PediaSure through a tube in her stomach. "Knock knock," she says, as her mother opens the shunt.

She smiles at Mary Wilson, the retired pediatric nurse she calls "May," who's been with her since she was 2, and high-fives the lawyer who years ago took her case pro bono, Joe Nusbaum, "Uncle Joe."

Like the toddler that doctors predict she mentally always will be, Mo-Mo cries "Bird!" when one flies by, shrugs when she says "all gone" and raises her arms high and round when "out comes the sun and dries up all the rain" for the Itsy-Bitsy Spider. She likes to scribble on paper and see an animated character jump when she presses buttons on a hand-held electronic game.

At 56 pounds, she wears a diaper, she cannot walk, and her brain does not tell her to swallow foods. So, she can handle Froot Loops, M&Ms and other melt-in-your-mouth treats but not meals. "She's never going to be able to have kids," her mother says. "She's never going to get married."

Legal Aid has not had a DNR case since Moesha. "They used to be fairly regular occurrences, every three or four months, say, we'd get one," said Mr. Walsh, who is now a supervising attorney with the Legal Aid Society's Foster Children's Project. "When they get that issue, they seek our appointment," Mr. Walsh said. "Do they fight us, and say, 'No'? Never. Never. Do we have Terri Schiavo-like battles about this? No."

DCF officials did not respond to two phone calls last week.

Gov. Bush has appointed two more secretaries to lead DCF since the agency initially mishandled Moesha's case under Ms. Kearney, but an unfair practice of valuing some lives more than others continues to hurt some of the neediest and most fragile Floridians. In 2003, after failing to protect a severely mentally retarded woman from being raped while in state custody, DCF fought to save the woman's fetus. Similarly, late last month, after failing to protect a 13-year-old in state custody from becoming pregnant, DCF fought to save the girl's fetus. While the state was fighting fiercely to save the unborn, it continued quietly fighting — using private lawyers — to avoid financial responsibility for a living child, one irreversibly harmed while dependent on the state for protection.

Ms. Amora deserves to know why DCF abandoned Marissa. "Is it because she was black or because she was a political embarrassment or because they screwed up?" she asks, with as much sadness as anger. "Why?"

When the agency sought to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, a DCF spokeswoman told one newspaper: "We have a duty to protect the vulnerable and investigate allegations of abuse." President Bush urged "all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others." In January, Gov. Bush vowed his all to help keep Terri Schiavo breathing: "I will do whatever I can do within the powers that have been granted to me by law and by statute. I'll do whatever I can."

Why don't they care as much for Marissa?

</SPAN>
http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif
Find this article at:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2005/05/08/a1e_elisamoesha_0508.html