Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

As a Christian, I take offense at those comments, and to me it seems that
Jonathan Last has no idea what he is talking about.

First of all this comment, "the Schiavo case is a useful
battleground for euthanasia advocates"

Does he know what terms he is using? Euthenasia literally means good death.
There used to be a distinction between so called passive euthenasia and
active euthenasia. But those terms are not really used much anymore. No
one that is involved in the current medical ethics field would call the
Schiavo case euthenasia. It is a case of withdrawing treatment. It is a
case of upholding a patients wishes. Euthenasia is usually now reserved for
acts of commitment. Doing something to cause a person to die, comfortably.
This is what Kevorkian was about, active euthenasia, doing something to
promote a death. Most main stream medical ethicists are not promoting
euthenasia. They point to abuses of this in the Netherlands as an example
of why euthenasia is problematic.

Second this comment: "It is difficult to understand how anyone who
 has read the detailed facts of the case could be in favor of killing
 her."

Has he read the facts of the case? I have read them, and I am not in favor
of her dying, but I dont see how her wishes are being violated. Saying that
withdrawing her feeding tube is killing her is an emotional distortion of
the truth. It is not killing her. She had a cardiac arrest from an eating
disorder, and this resulted in severe brain injury. She cannot eat without
artificial intervention. It is generally accepted that feedings by a
feeding tube is just that, artificial. The dicta of the Cruzan case clearly
determined that feeding tubes are medical treatment and can be withdrawn or
withheld just as any other medical treatment can be withdrawn or withheld.
But it isnt killing her.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dozier" <wddozier@mac.com>
To: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Cc: "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>; "'jack syme'" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

> Jonathan Last has several good posts about this case at the Galley Slaves
> blog. Here is one of particular interest:
> http://galleyslaves.blogspot.com/2005/03/truth-about-michael- schiavo.html
>
> I would normally avoid off-topic stuff like this, but I am so upset about
> this I couldn't hold back. Last is right:
>
>> The fight over Terri Schiavo is one of those cultural conflicts that I
>> simply cannot understand. It is difficult to understand how anyone who
>> has read the detailed facts of the case could be in favor of killing
>> her.
>>
>> There simply aren't two sides to this story. So why the culture clash?
>> Because at a high-level of abstraction, the Schiavo case is a useful
>> battleground for euthanasia advocates and leftists who automatically
>> oppose any position the Christian right rallies around. I often wonder
>> if pro-lifers inadvertently did Terri harm by coming to her defense. If
>> not for their support, the left might have let her be.
>
> Bill Dozier
> Minister of Silly Guitar Sounds
> ------
> "All you need to know about Arafat was that he insisted on wearing a
> pistol when he addressed the UN General Assembly. And all you need to
> know about the UN, I suppose, is that they let him." -- Jim Lileks
> (lileks.com)
>
Received on Fri Mar 18 23:00:12 2005