Terri Shiave, et al

[amicus]

Terri Shiavo, et al


Terri Shiavo passed away this day, March 31, 2005.

Unknown to many, the ‘Hospice’ system, all across the country, manages the deaths of thousands of Americans each year.

I know this as a fact, as my mother, after several heart attacks, chose not to continue fighting for life. Hospice Nurses administered Morphine in increasing doses and with-held feeding and hydration tubes…until she passed away.

The recent General Election, the intense differences between political philosophies, the antagonism between the Liberal Left and the Conservative Right have seldom been more pronounced than they have over the past year; preceding, during and after the Elections of 2004.

The ‘Shiavo’ case, taken on by the Conservative Right wing of the Republican Party, is a continuing expression of the anti-abortion, right to life moral premise of some Americans. It is also related to aspects of Jack Kervorkian, ‘Dr. Death, who was convicted and jailed for ‘assisted suicide’ of those who no longer wish to live and to the Oregon Statute that permits residents of that State to take their own lives, under certain circumstances, if they choose.

Controversy between political parties in America is not a new thing. There were those at the formulation of the Constitution of the United States, who wanted a Church of American, like the Church of England. There were those who wanted a King, a Monarchy, just like the British.

There was great debate over the rights of women, Negro’s and Native Americans; that all should be given equal rights under the law.

Much of this conflict took centuries to resolve. It was 1860 when the Civil War erupted, resulting in the freedom on the slaves. It was not until the 1920’s that women received the rights to vote and own property.

Thus, controversy has long been part and parcel to the American scene.

This current upheaval between right and left over the Shiavo case, may well come and go as most things eventually do.

However, I propose that something never before considered, is now taking place.

In my opinion, a serious ‘moral vacuum’ exists in the western world, circa 2005.

There are few that would seriously debate the decline of religious influence in the modern world. Science and knowledge have replaced faith and belief in most areas; although it remains politically correct to express a ‘belief’ in God. Most thinking people no longer accept an all knowing, omniscient creator as the source of life and values.

However…Secular Humanism, that moral philosophy offered by the Liberal Left, has not filled the vacuum left by the death of God. Rather it has left an ambiguous, amorphous, relativistic moral ethic that permeates academia and the Liberal intellect.

For much of a generation and more, the Liberal Left intellectual elite have had a monopoly on matters of education and art. Now, from the religious fundamentalists of the Right, a challenge has been issued.

Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court’s edict that abortion is legal; is under fire.

Gay Marriage, in the last election went down to defeat in eleven states.

Millions of Americans and more millions around the world, for the past two weeks have followed the starvation death of Terri Shiavo to its’ ultimate, inevitable conclusion.

The debate and controversy rages and will rage; to what end?


amicus

New book to be released next week: The First Chief, Ahjeed isbn 0595350003, the first chapter should soon be posted as a tease.

 

[Couture]

Terri Shiavo, et al
There are few that would seriously debate the decline of religious influence in the modern world. Science and knowledge have replaced faith and belief in most areas; although it remains politically correct to express a ‘belief’ in God. Most thinking people no longer accept an all knowing, omniscient creator as the source of life and values.amicus

New book to be released next week: The First Chief, Ahjeed isbn 0595350003, the first chapter should soon be posted as a tease.

I tend to disagree. I think the age of reason may be on the way out. Like the Enlightenment, maybe it came a little early.

 

[cantdog]

Your usage is second rate, when it isn't third rate. You can't structure a paragraph. And your post doesn't actually say anything, except to point out that here has been partisan disagreement. Even at that, you say nothing, since you don't pin anything down. There has been such disagreement, but there has been such disagreement at many points in the past, yet you propose that there is something different about the Schiavo affair. Or I guess Schiavo; your thought wanders so much I can't be sure. Having said you think something, most likely Schiavo, is different, you abandon the post without conclusion.

I would respond, I suppose, to your post, even though you are such an insufferable ass. Unfortunately, as with the majority of your posts, there is nothing there to respond to, unless to point out a few errors of fact in your references to history. I won't do that, because nitpicking is not a response and because I wouldn't like to annoy you with nitpicking. Not when I would much rather condemn the whole thing for its vague, lumbering, ungrammatical pointlessness.

I do not understand why anyone takes up a moment of their time to acknowledge such drivel as that post. It is withal much improved from the horseshit you were writing when you first came here. Then, one was hard pressed to locate a complete sentence.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I thought it was an ad for his book.

--Zoot

 

[Pure]

Ami said //Unknown to many, the ‘Hospice’ system, all across the country, manages the deaths of thousands of Americans each year.

I know this as a fact, as my mother, after several heart attacks, chose not to continue fighting for life. Hospice Nurses administered Morphine in increasing doses and with-held feeding and hydration tubes…until she passed away.//

if the hospice workers acted on your mothers wishes, their acts, as described, were humane and proper, roughly within the legislated laws of the land (federal and state).

if you want hospices to follow the Pope's or Mr. Dobson's rules, you violate the constitution is at least two ways: contempt for democracy, and breach of church state separation.

to restrict an individual's right to die, is to violate their autonomy as individuals, which is a key principle of rational, objective, and Objectivist ethics.

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

This all goes back to each of us needing a living will. This simple, but legal paper can save families from grief and hardships if we ever become incapacitated.

Mine is written and notarized. Everyone please get yours done also. You'll be surprised how much it helps in situations such as this. Don't rely on word of mouth. Document your wishes.

 

[AngeloMichael]

The debate and controversy rages and will rage; to what end?

QUOTE]

2007?

Koran scholar: US will cease to exist in 2007

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Every day Hospice workers administer care to people. Their mandate is not to bring on death, in fact their mandate is Simply to care for the ill, who are at a point where artificially prolonging life is no longer that patient's desire. They are some damned fine people, who spend thier work days getting to know people they know they are going to have to say good bye to. They administer alevel of care, aimed only at provideing comfort and peace.

I don't want your moral values ruling my life. I don't want the far Christian right's moral values ruling it either. Luckily, I live in a country where I am free to determine my own set of moral values and live with them.

You cannot preach individual freedom and at the same time preach state sanctioned morality. The two cannot exist together. Moral decisions, loose any moral force, when you impose them by fiat. the founding fathers realized that and rejected a State Church.

Today, the battle isn't one between moral and immoral, it's one between those who would enforce their morals on others and those who still see freedom to choose as an inherent right of all people.

The "moral" crusaders of the GOP are a collection of the most immoral, hypocritical men who ever walked the earth. Greedy, grasping, arrogant prostitutes, who sell their souls for power.

Your GOP has ceased to be my GOP. My GOP was the champion of the federal system, it honored the doctrine of state's rights, it opposed big government and expanding the powers of the federal government, it demanded fiscal responsibility. In one act, your supposedly moral heros abandoned nearly every precept upon which the party they now control was established.

The debate and controversy rages and will rage; to what end?

To what end? To keep your morality out of my life, in as much as it stays out of the laws that govern my life.

People live and they die. The only sureity in your life is that it will someday end. What happens beyond is a subject almost no one goes a lifetime without contemplating. There is no moral vacum, in fact, thousands of people every day make their own moral value judgements and live or die, by the dictates of their own concience. That's where morality lives, in the individual. Morality sees expression in the actions of the individual.

So where do you really stand Amicus? Do you really favor personal freedom as you so often claim or do you stand for an enforced morality applied by government across the boards? A simple question, for which I will get no straight answer I am sure, but a question easily as pertinent as yours.

 

[amicus]

"...So where do you really stand Amicus? Do you really favor personal freedom as you so often claim or do you stand for an enforced morality applied by government across the boards?..."

Thank you Colleen, nice to see you again.

As all humanity has an innate, inalienable 'right to live', we also have that same right to die.

"...to restrict an individual's right to die, is to violate their autonomy as individuals, which is a key principle of rational, objective, and Objectivist ethics...."

And to Pure, also, thank you and hello again.

A rational person making an effort to acknowledge and comprehend an objective ethical and moral system, is faced with the whole of human history in which morality has been based on Religion.

Even the ongoing battle to teach both Evolution and Creationism in this Nation's public schools is a reflection of religious belief.

Since my first appearance on this very biased forum, I have been somewhat of a puzzling anomaly to those of the 'Left' persuasion.

I am a right wing conservative...who writes erotic stories. Anomaly number one.

I am also an atheist, a militant atheist and have often expressed the thought that of all the evils in the world, religion is the most dangerous. Anomaly number two.

My position is that there should be no 'controlled substances' not even high explosives or radioactive material or guns, let alone recreational drugs.

I am often taken to task for my 'perceived' positions on Homosexuals, Abortion and women's Lib.

Let me clarify>

An individual has the innate right to what ever sexual preference one chooses. That, however, comes with a few caveats. Namely, minor children, my children and yours, also have a right to reach an age of maturity before those rights can be fully understood. Thus the rights of children, those same innate rights of all, must be protected from both hetersexual and homosexual experience during their childhood.

A second caveat is more complex. While I defend the rights of the individual to choose their own sexual preference, I do not grant equality to all expressions. By that, I mean the convention of government sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman is the established means to protect the rights of both men and women and to provide a stable and lasting structure to nurture children.

It does not always work that way, perhaps for reasons I have debated before, but the point remains, heterosexual marriage is the standard by which the entire world (for the most part) has addressed a formal union between man and woman.

One can not rationally object should two men or two women, or even more than two, form a relationship, sexual or otherwise and choose to live together.

What one can and must object to, is the militant 'gay' movement, intended to place homosexual relationships on an equal par with heterosexual marriage.

Women's reproductive rights...a coined phrase of the Women's movement.

A rational person, respecting the rights of others, has no grounds to interfere with the sexual preferences or the expressions of those preferences of others if no other human rights are violated.

The issue is of course, taking the life of an unborn child.

The government, both Federal and State, has a very precise, due process means to clarify and justify the taking of a human life. It follows a criminal justice system that can be traced back to the Magna Carta and before.

Being an Atheist, I do not believe that life is 'sacred', created by God, in the religious sense, however, rationally, objectively, the unborn human child, from the moment of conception is afforded all the rights that each possesses innately and inalienably.

One can not rationally object to contraceptive means that act to prevent the union of egg and sperm. Although I personally object to chemicals, birth control pills, being used to prevent ovulation, one can not rationally legislate against that practice. (my objections deal with the side effects of the chemicals, and the percentage, although small, that die through the use of birth control chemicals)

Ethics and Morals have long been a contentious area of debate, perhaps that is as it should be. As much as the righteous Right, with the power of God behind them infuriate me, so does the righteous Left, the Liberal intellectual, sacrosanct behind relativism.

Watching an interview with one of the script writers for the television show, The West Wing, I was amazed to hear an admission that most Liberals had never even met a Republican. Most remain in a cloister of Eastern Liberal colleges and communities.

The difficulty arose while interviewing writers who were asked if they could portray a Republican as caring, sensitive, educated, cultured and knowledgeable. None of the writers thought they were capable of writing a 'Republican' character in that manner as they had never met one.

I too, in my efforts to accurately portray a Democrat, have never met one who meets the criteria of what it means to be human. The Liberals I have met on this forum are like those I have met in real life: Snide, superior, all knowing, jaded, cynical and lacking any expression of ethical or moral behavior. What is even more disturbing is that the majority have a litany or mantra of issues upon which they all agree, are beyond debate, so clearly truthful that no one could possibly question.

The political process, at the highest level, as portrayed on the West Wing, is a series of moral and ethical compromises in which neither side wins.

Well...this wandered all over the place...food for thought...perhaps...or just another exuse for a rant...

the anomalous amicus....

 

[Colleen Thomas]

"...So where do you really stand Amicus? Do you really favor personal freedom as you so often claim or do you stand for an enforced morality applied by government across the boards?..."

Thank you Colleen, nice to see you again.

As all humanity has an innate, inalienable 'right to live', we also have that same right to die.

"...to restrict an individual's right to die, is to violate their autonomy as individuals, which is a key principle of rational, objective, and Objectivist ethics...."

And to Pure, also, thank you and hello again.

A rational person making an effort to acknowledge and comprehend an objective ethical and moral system, is faced with the whole of human history in which morality has been based on Religion.

Even the ongoing battle to teach both Evolution and Creationism in this Nation's public schools is a reflection of religious belief.

Since my first appearance on this very biased forum, I have been somewhat of a puzzling anomaly to those of the 'Left' persuasion.

I am a right wing conservative...who writes erotic stories. Anomaly number one.

I am also an atheist, a militant atheist and have often expressed the thought that of all the evils in the world, religion is the most dangerous. Anomaly number two.

My position is that there should be no 'controlled substances' not even high explosives or radioactive material or guns, let alone recreational drugs.

I am often taken to task for my 'perceived' positions on Homosexuals, Abortion and women's Lib.

Let me clarify>

An individual has the innate right to what ever sexual preference one chooses. That, however, comes with a few caveats. Namely, minor children, my children and yours, also have a right to reach an age of maturity before those rights can be fully understood. Thus the rights of children, those same innate rights of all, must be protected from both hetersexual and homosexual experience during their childhood.

A second caveat is more complex. While I defend the rights of the individual to choose their own sexual preference, I do not grant equality to all expressions. By that, I mean the convention of government sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman is the established means to protect the rights of both men and women and to provide a stable and lasting structure to nurture children.

It does not always work that way, perhaps for reasons I have debated before, but the point remains, heterosexual marriage is the standard by which the entire world (for the most part) has addressed a formal union between man and woman.

One can not rationally object should two men or two women, or even more than two, form a relationship, sexual or otherwise and choose to live together.

What one can and must object to, is the militant 'gay' movement, intended to place homosexual relationships on an equal par with heterosexual marriage.

Women's reproductive rights...a coined phrase of the Women's movement.

A rational person, respecting the rights of others, has no grounds to interfere with the sexual preferences or the expressions of those preferences of others if no other human rights are violated.

The issue is of course, taking the life of an unborn child.

The government, both Federal and State, has a very precise, due process means to clarify and justify the taking of a human life. It follows a criminal justice system that can be traced back to the Magna Carta and before.

Being an Atheist, I do not believe that life is 'sacred', created by God, in the religious sense, however, rationally, objectively, the unborn human child, from the moment of conception is afforded all the rights that each possesses innately and inalienably.

One can not rationally object to contraceptive means that act to prevent the union of egg and sperm. Although I personally object to chemicals, birth control pills, being used to prevent ovulation, one can not rationally legislate against that practice. (my objections deal with the side effects of the chemicals, and the percentage, although small, that die through the use of birth control chemicals)

Ethics and Morals have long been a contentious area of debate, perhaps that is as it should be. As much as the righteous Right, with the power of God behind them infuriate me, so does the righteous Left, the Liberal intellectual, sacrosanct behind relativism.

Watching an interview with one of the script writers for the television show, The West Wing, I was amazed to hear an admission that most Liberals had never even met a Republican. Most remain in a cloister of Eastern Liberal colleges and communities.

The difficulty arose while interviewing writers who were asked if they could portray a Republican as caring, sensitive, educated, cultured and knowledgeable. None of the writers thought they were capable of writing a 'Republican' character in that manner as they had never met one.

I too, in my efforts to accurately portray a Democrat, have never met one who meets the criteria of what it means to be human. The Liberals I have met on this forum are like those I have met in real life: Snide, superior, all knowing, jaded, cynical and lacking any expression of ethical or moral behavior. What is even more disturbing is that the majority have a litany or mantra of issues upon which they all agree, are beyond debate, so clearly truthful that no one could possibly question.

The political process, at the highest level, as portrayed on the West Wing, is a series of moral and ethical compromises in which neither side wins.

Well...this wandered all over the place...food for thought...perhaps...or just another exuse for a rant...

the anomalous amicus....

Thank you for the clarification.

I have no wish to cover the rights of an unborn child with you, As Patton said "I don't like paying for the same piece of real estate twice."

I really don't have anything I want to argue with you about today. If you hold individual freedom to be sacrosanct, which has always been my impression, I simply couldn't reconcile that with favoring morals by legislative fiat. I'm still not sure I understand your position, but I appreciate your trying to explain it.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Colleen: "... I simply couldn't reconcile that with favoring morals by legislative fiat. I'm still not sure I understand your position, but I appreciate your trying to explain it..."

"legislative fiat." I interpret that to mean law.

All societies have many 'laws' based on moral and ethical issues. For example, human nudity is treated as a 'moral crime' in many cultures. In others, it is acceptable at certain times and places.

The enforcement of ethical and moral standards always falls upon government, laws and legislation, for enforcement. You will be penalized for jaywalking in traffic, spitting on a street, allowing your pet to defecate in public places, graphiti, many many examples of morals and ethics enforced by law.

In terms of abortion, it is the obligation to protect life, liberty and the pursuit, that is ingrained in the Constitution and in case law, that goverment must act to prevent the taking of human life, in murder, mayhem, fraud, negligence, a host of reasons emerge. I too do not wish to debate the abortion issue.

In terms of legislative fiat concerning gay marriage, a marriage is controlled by law, the government requires certain standards to be met, licenses, blood tests, and even relationships, I would think, the government, the law, would not sanction a 'brother/sister' marriage for genetic reasons.

As stated before, a rational person should not give a whit about what two consenting adults do in private. But the Gay movement has forced itself upon society in general. To seek government approval of a marriage contract, one has to meet certain standards in order to receive the benefits of that union.

Few mind that Gay people have their own Bars, Magazines, culture, et cetera; each has a right to express one's individuality as they may. But the relentless push for total acceptance has placed the entire Gay community in jeopardy and has fueled the anti-gay forces of right wing fundamentalists.

It is my conclusion that following the very liberal 1960's, this society has moved somewhat too far in one direction. History teaches us that the pendulum will swing back. It will no doubt be painful and frustrating for many. But for those who believe that abortion is murder and homosexuality a mortal sin, then the past 30 years have been excruciating.

Meanwhile, as I peck this out, the Leader of the Roman Catholic Church is apparently in his final hours and is being covered by every news channel I surf.

As if it were newsworthy.

As if the Terri schiavo(sp) starvation was newsworthy?

As if the Michael Jackson trial, the Robert Blake trial, the Kobe Bryant trial, the Scott Peterson trial were anything more than sensatiionalism, pandering to the lowest common denominator, a truly 'soap opera' society.

woe is me


amicus...

 

[Pure]

amicus, you gave the long speech and never answered Colly's question, except for abortion.

it's very simple:

Given you favor a minimum of government interference in private lives, esp. (for some reason) buying and selling,

If you do...why do you favor any legislative restrictions on how a person who's rational and competent may wish to end their life?

(Example 1 (passive):through giving, in advance or at the time [if lucid] a 'do not rescitate' or 'do not connect me to any machine that makes me breathe or keeps my heart going'.)

(Example 2 (active): through giving in advance, uncoerced, a directive to the effect that a designated agent, if seeing too much pain, no prospect of recovery, etc. can request that the dr. administer a lethal dose,to the person, of seconal and/or morphine.)

If you do... why do you favor any legislative restrictions on a person's having some assistance in suicide, provided s/he's rational and lucid.

If you do... why do you favor criminal penalities against those assisting in a voluntary, sane, deliberated, suicide.

---
Any of the above arguably count as great, governmental interference in a private sphere.

 

[amicus]

Dear Pure, I apologize if I have been unclear.

I think it is a persons right to take their own life.

I think there should be Physician assisted death for those who request it.

I think there should be no governmental interference or approval.

I advocate limited government function in all aspects of life. I accept and understand the obligation of government to protect our rights so we need not walk about with AK 47's at the ready.

I accept the obligation of government through courts, to judge and act upon violations of our rights in all areas and the existence of a police force and a military to carry out those acts.

Thank you.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

Well, ami, we get back to the beginning: Do you have a problem with hospices in general or with the conduct of Terri S's in particular?

Amicus: Unknown to many, the ‘Hospice’ system, all across the country, manages the deaths of thousands of Americans each year.

I know this as a fact, as my mother, after several heart attacks, chose not to continue fighting for life. Hospice Nurses administered Morphine in increasing doses and with-held feeding and hydration tubes…until she passed away.

In your mother's case, is there a problem? Did they not respect her wishes.?

Is the problem with hospices in general, or with particular ones ( Terri's or your mom's)--that they *ignore* people's wishes? Or that they carry them out?

Turning back to suicide and related matters,

Supposing a persons wishes are just not clear when they lapse into a dire, near death, state, (where they cannot themselves any more be consulted) but one that may linger for weeks or months without any reasonable prospect of recovery.

Do you have a problem with the person's spouse and/or relatives being able to make a decision to 'unplug'? (cease extraordinary or all medical interventions except those to relieve pain and suffering)?

Do you prefer that courts get involved to make this decision, in place of the relatives?

Who should decide between 'factions' of relatives?

Lastly, given that state courts have ruled, do you find it OK, that, on a one time basis, the federal courts are brought in by the losing faction, to try for a judgment to have the situation handled *their way?

----
By the way, I do not choose to debate the facts of the matter, on the 'net. I will simply, **for the sake of this argument** take the word of the majority of neurologists who actually examined her; no cognitive functioning; no prospect of recovery.

 

[amicus]

Hello again, Pure...

I did not go back and read everything...just keying off your past post.

I have no problems with any of it. I guess what surprised me was the lack of acknowledgement by the media, that such 'hospice' activities take place daily.

I also think the choices for both parties to use the court system is a rational one, that is what the courts are for.

I guess my interest was the political slant to the whole thing, with Republicans lining up on the 'right to life' side and Democrats opposing, its gotta be tough being the minority party...

However, as the whole world saw, it became a media circus and prompted many to explore 'living wills' as a means to resolve issues of that nature.

Where do you stand on the issue?


amicus

 

[Pure]

Hi ami,

It's not that different from yours. I think any competent person should be able to decide his or her end, or manner of it. Ideally issues like incompetence or senility (alheimers) would be dealt with by the person's direction, ahead of time.

I think a competent person, esp. a paralyzed one like Sue Rodriguez in Canada has a right to physician assistance in suicide.

Where the person does not leave directions, I think his/her relatives have to decide if there is any hope, how much suffering there is, how much cognition, or 'vegetable-like' state, etc. Then, *provided there is no reasonable hope of recovery*, they should be allowed to pull the plug or whatever, possibly including ceasing of feeding. **

I admit I have trouble with doing it through 'dehydration' though some say that's not discomforting if enough morphine is given. I favor a quicker method, but as you know, a hospices' hands are tied, and they cannot legally administer clearly fatal overdoses of morphine. By our insane laws, doctors must 'do nothing' (i.e., dehydrate a person) rather than take positive action (I'm assuming relatives wishes are respected.)
---

**NOTE: Where money is involved and the facts are unclear (as to nearness to death), I make an exception. A close relative standing to make a million bucks when my plug is pulled, should not be in charge of the decision; rather someone for whom my death is 'revenue neutral.'