Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Terri Schiavo: Starving to death as we speak...

RZ:

Are you seriously arguing the sacramentality question? (I assume you are speaking about a Catholic sacramental question, and will answer thus).

That is quite bizarre argument given that (even if it were a sacramental bond about which I have no knowledge): (1) the husband does not seem to be particularly bound by these vows given that he is allegedly and openly in an adulterous relationship; (2) the nature of sacramentality is to lay down our lives for our spouses, not to kill them off through court ordered starvation and dehydration; and (3) the husband's action contravene traditional Christian morality in seeking to deprive her of even oral hydration (which she is evidently capable of receiving).

It is not against marriage to intervene if a spouse is abusing another is it? I am surprised that you are attempting a theological argument that is so far from Catholic moral principles.

GREAT PUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry.

Oh, and if I were in that state, I would rather take a bullet to the head or a less graphic shot of adrenaline, rather than starving to death.

Everything about this case is wrong, even how she dies.

Let her live.

Wrong.

He gave up his marriage rights when he committed adultery....an act he is STILL committing right now.

It is INCREDIBLY suspicious that the court would order pictures to not be taken of her. What is the judge so afraid of? Justice is supposed to be blind, not the people by a court order.

So is she alive or is she not? You seem to say she is not alive, and you blame her parents for trying "satisfy their own neurotic need to believe that their daughter is still alive", yet you speak of "the agony they are putting Terri through". Dead people don't have mortal agony, Quirtus. You are either dead or alive -- either your body is producing blood gases or it is not. You cannot have it both ways, so if she is not alive, there is no "agony" and there is no problem continuing to feed, hydrate, interact with her, and change her diaper.

Oh I know...that is just when I plan on writing a will.

Dwain, this is an unfair judgement against him. Neither you nor I know what he has been through to come to the conclusion that the women he loved and the women who side he stood by for years after she entered into a coma should be allowed to return to God.

Perhaps he is an evil man. I have seen nothing that indicates this, though. Indeed, his actions for years mitigate against this judgement.

Whatever anyone may think of the morality of his decision and the morality of this act does not give anyone the right to condemn him given all we know.

This is one best left to God to judge the morality of the decision. But it is a decision that is her husband's to make; not her parents. If marriage means anything, it must mean that one spouse has the right to make such decisions for the other spouse. She gave her life to him, as he did to her. This gives him that right and takes it from her parents. If we do not believe that, then in what other circumstances can the parents step in and make decisions for a married child?

Sorry Dwain, I didn't see your post before I said the same thing down below.

...and yes, referring to your post...it is 100%, completely, insanely MIND BOGGLING. I can't believe one human would do that to another.

Reminds me of an event that happened while I wasn't posting here a few weeks ago: A good friend of mine (a few years younger) that I used to hang out with every summer, every day...is at college in West Va, and someone broke into his house (a bunch of guys actually) and when my friend Matt woke up they beat him with a baseball bat. Crushed his skull. I hear he is still in the ICU, but will most likely be brain damaged for the rest of his life.

That was just a major story that I never shared with you all...and I bring it up, because I just can not comprehend how one human does that to another....sickening.

No, it does not do so legally or within the eyes of any Church I know of. Simply because a spouse commits adultery, the marriage does not automatically end. If it did, there would be an awful lot of marriages that are over even while the spouses live together as married couples. Which would mean they are ALL committing adultery.

Violating the marriage vows does not end the marriage nor does it deny the marital rights of either spouse.

Dwain: "And if not anything that messy, how about simple lethal injection? That way, it would seem much more peaceful, almost like she just went to sleep. But we wouldn't even do that with her, because nobody wants to be the one to actually administer death to this innocent person. Nobody wants the responsibility of having her blood, even figuratively, on their hands."

I'd happily give her a painless morphine injection, if it were legal. I agree that it is hypocritical to have to let her starve. But this is the hypocritical insanity that the anti-euthanasia people have forced the medical profession to endure. The motives and emotions you cite are yours only, and are not properly attributed to others.

RZ, Dwain put it better than I did, but you are supporting a hypocritical catch-22.

I'm not saying you are hypocritical, but you say we should support him because he is married to her with all of the sanctimonious rights that accompany it, and yet his adultery throws everything marriage stands for back into the fire. How can that be? Just because he wears a wedding right does not mean nothing else matters.

In response to Dwain Lee's post above:

1. On whether the sanctity of marriage is immediately rendered null and void as soon as a party cheat -- does that mean any one can get an immediate divorce by committing adultery? Otherwise, how do you quantify just how much right the cheating spouse lose for committing such an offense if the marriage is not immediately dissolved? The cheating spouse lose "just enough" right to now able to make the life and death medical decision but otherwise have to continue to honor all other marital obligations?

2. On lethal injection to end Schiavo's life to end her suffering -- I thought about that and I support that suggestion. Thank you for having the courage to verbalize it. Though I do wonder if Schiavo is still capable of feeling any pain or is conscious of any suffering at all, going by the medical report that she has already lost her cerebrum. If she has no capability to feel pain or feel "suffering," than it is harder to argue that something like lethal injection can "reduce pain/suffering." One cannot reduce a sensation that does not exist.

Yes, I am seriously arguing this. From everything I have seen, her husband stood by her for years and has now made a moral decision based on what he believes she would have wanted.

If she had slipped into a coma and within a month or so he began arguing to do this, I would respond differently. But this is not what he did. Not even close.

He, as her husband, has the moral right to make this decision -- whether we agree with it or not. Her parents may argue they have a legal right; but if marriage is what we say it is, they have no moral right.

This is exactly the type of situation where I believe we must allow people to make the best decision they can make, if it is made sincerely and they believe it to be right. We have no indication at all that when he made this decision a few years ago it was anything but what he believed to be the best decision he could make.

The facts of this case are so tragic, none of us can judge whether he or his parents are acting morally. Indeed, my feeling is they both are. However, because of the marriage, he is the one with the ultimate right as well as the ultimate responsibility to decide what he believes to be best for her.

I might have made a different decision. I happen to believe that the tube should have been kept in. Even so, I do not have the right to make that decision. The husband does -- because of sacramental marriage.

If he is acting immorally, God will deal with it. If he is acting morally, God will also deal with that. If our belief is what we say it is, at some point we must allow people to make their own moral decisions and then let God handle the rest.

Given your Catholic background, thumps, are you really prepared to condemn this man? In such a tragic situation, are we not called to compassion for all concerned? Are we not called to give each person the freedom to make the best decision they can in such a horrible situation?

There are good, loyal Catholic theologians who have said he has the right to do this. There are other just as good and just a loyal Catholic theologians who say he does not. This is not a black and white case. He, however, must make the decision and he is the one with the right to make it because he is her husband.

Do we not believe that ultimately it is the fate of his soul that really matters here and that only God can determine whether he has acted morally or immorally based on what God knows is in his heart?

Does adultery automatically terminate a marriage?

You know something? I don't have a clue what's going on with Terri.

Some doctors say she's brain dead. The movies say something otherwise. (I don't believe they're doctored.) But she could be showing signs of being alive without being alive, (just like a lizard's tail still wiggles after it's been detached.) She could be living happily in an incapacitated state. There's clearly bad information being given out by one or both sides.

I don't know.

And her brain functions may be gone, when measured by blips and beeps, and there may be spinal fluid where the brain should be. But I don't know where the conscious mind lies. How much of your mind can be gone and you still can function as you do. Is it a matter of cubic centimeters of brain, or a matter of "that special place"--that makes you a human?

Maybe if Terri is still "there" she's be happy to die. Maybe not. Maybe she's already dead and just waiting for her heart to stop.

I don't know. But neither does anyone else--and that's the problem.

Oh yeah, and your entire conciousness can be transferred to a super-computer or your clone and your concious mind can live forever too even if your original biological body got cremated!

I am not at liberty to comment fully on the parameters of this case at the moment. Even at this late time of night I have a lot of work to complete. However I shall try to do so once I get back home tomorrow evening. In the meantime all I’ll say is this; I could very well have been in Mr. Schiavo’s situation almost eleven years ago had things been just a little bit different. He’s endured this horror for 14 years. One way or another this case has drawn some very sharp lines through the population. There are huge numbers of people pressuring everyone to DO SOMETHING to save Terri, especially Congressmen. If you were in Congress and didn’t do anything, all those who support Terri’s parents’ position would face a very tough re-election. There are already some very shrill cries from some radical elements to storm this judge’s residence, drag him out and beat him up, etc. This case has raised emotions to a fever pitch and I do not see it calming down very soon. Should this judge’s decision prevail there will be more shrill outcries, not less. I’ve enjoyed reading all the responses and comments. There is something very important about this matter that for whatever its worth will affect people very strongly for many years to come. Will have more to say about it tomorrow.

Be seeing you…

Dear Ax,

It's just a matter of changing avatars.

Terri has been brain dead for 15 years and has no hope to recover what so ever. so, i don't know if she should be kept alive in such vegetated stage for another 15 years or so. it's not that decent to even live like that imo, but maybe there's a better way for her to die.

I have never posted on the Coffee Room but this is a hot topic for me.

Take an example. Our family dog is getting pretty old. Hypothetically, I have decided I don't want it around anymore and I have decided to starve it to death to go ahead and kill it.

My college son has told me he would like to take the dog to live with him. It would cost nothing for me, but for whatever reason, I decided no...this dog is going to be starved.

Under Texas law, I could be prosecuted for cruelty to an animal.

How can anyone not see what this says about our society?

It's a sad day.

No.

The ONLY reason he still has power to end her life is because he is scum and hasn't divorced her even though he has committed adultery, and is living with and having kids with another woman.

So in this vague case, his actions show that he isn't loyal to her in a marital sense, and her parents want to rehab her...I don't see the problem.

RZ, I do agree if it was a clear and exclusive marriage that he has the right do make the decision.

But his sinful and immoral behavior has tipped the scales of power, a shift that in my opinion nullified his decision making power with regards to Terri.