My thoughts:
1. Starving somebody to death is barbaric. Nobody except for Terri knows what she can feel since the brain is still largely a mystery.
You know if somebody starved a brain damaged dog to death there would be an uproar of people upset. But doing it to a person is okay?!
2. The goverment should butt out since it is a private family matter. Those Congressmen could care less about Terri. To them she is just another photo op.
3. Nobody knows what is really going on with Terri's parents and her husband.
4. Unless you have a Living Will then it should be assumed that you consent to life support unless you are brain dead. Even if somebody expresses the wish not to be on life support, feelings can change.
Don't want to end up like Terri? Then go out and get a Living Will if you haven't gotten one already. Message board posts aren't going to help if you are in an accident.
5. Nobody knows the quality of Terri's life except for Terri. It is easy to draw your own conclusion imagining if you were in her place, however Terri is the only one that lives it.
Quote:
Originally posted by fairandcold
(
What is more natural than a life that should end naturally? |
Life support constitutes more than a feeding tube. For some it is insulin, surgery, dialysis, etc. All of these people afflicted would die a natural death if these treatments are withdrawn. Let's face it, unless you are a Christian Scientist, it is rare in an industrialized nation to die a natural death. We have all had our lives artificially prolonged by immunizations, antibiotics, etc.
The problem with technology is the fact that it is often too fast for ethics to catch up. Our society is so obsessed with perfection that if something falls outside of the norm then it is always bad. Being disabled or whatever doesn't automatically sentence a person to a long miserable life. While those protestors aren't helping anyone ,much less Terri, i do share their concern that society has begun to view life as expendable when it is inconvenient
