Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

Finally someone to support my view.

lol
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
To: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Cc: <billyates@billyates.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:21:46 -0500 "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> writes:
>> Withdrawing her feeding tube, in accordance with her wishes and
>> making her
>> comfortable, IS caring for her.
>>
> I've been reading the posts and the claims of cruelty and murder vs
> courts and wishes, plus the variations. I think I have some understanding
> of the situation because, to a lesser degree, I've been there. My Dad
> died of Parkinsonism. The last weeks he was totally unresponsive except
> that, when a small amount of liquid was placed in his mouth, he
> swallowed. Fortunately, he never aspirated any of the liquid. Had he, I
> don't know what Mom would have done. She continued to give him liquids
> for she could not bear to think of him thirsty, though there was no
> indication that he was aware of anything, external or internal. His
> doctor, a most caring person, determined that he was aware of nothing and
> so should be allowed to go. But he lingered for a couple weeks because
> Mom gave him liquids.
>
>>From a theological viewpoint, if I agreed with Nancey Murphy, Dad's soul
> during the last weeks and Terri's for I don't know how long, have been
> nonexistent or totally nonfunctional. This means that there is no reason
> to continue food and drink. If, on the other hand, a soul exists beyond
> the function of brain, I see two possibilities. First, the soul may have
> already departed, in which case there is no reason to keep the body
> nourished. Second, the soul may have to remain with or near the body so
> long as it breathes. In this case, the body should be allowed to expire
> so that the soul can go to a more suitable place or state. Specifically
> in this last case, it is not compassionate to prolong coma/vegetative
> state.
>
> Finally, on to the ridiculous. If a bunch of us grabbed Glenn, tied him
> to a gurney and then sat around until he succumbed to thirst, that would
> be cruel. He would be aware of thirst and hunger until coma finally set
> in. We would be more compassionate if we kept him anesthetized until he
> died. However, since Glenn is a functional human being, procuring his
> death is murder. This does not apply to those in a terminal
> coma/vegetative state and no longer able to function as human beings.
> Since they feel nothing, it cannot be cruel. Refusing medication, food or
> drink has been declared morally acceptable. Withholding, given conditions
> like Dad and Terri, seems reasonably similar.
>
> Sorry, Glenn, but I had to pick on somebody to make my point.
> Dave
Received on Fri Mar 18 22:46:57 2005