i dare you to look
March 24, 2005 – 1:48 amGo here and watch these videos. If you believe Terri Schiavo is in a persistant vegitative state, and are reluctant to watch her, consider how you mendacitous you have become. She is a human being, she is alive, the divine spark is still there.
Perhaps you have not followed her case carefully; you may assume the judges and the doctors and the lawyers must know what they’re doing, and they couldn’t possibly all be wrong about Terri. They couldn’t possibly be allied together for the purpose of taking her life. But don’t sell short your own opinion. Do not follow blindly and meekly the word of the mainstream media. Go and look. Judge for yourself. Determine in your own mind, based on what you see, whether it is right to exterminate this woman, to extinguish her life, to callously take from her mother and her father and her brother this daughter, this sister, this woman. Do this for Terri, at the very least, while she is yet alive; give her this dignity of looking at her.
7 Responses to “i dare you to look”
Ok, I’ve looked. And? Pull the plug on me if all I can do for 15 years is smile at flashing lights. As far as anyone knows she felt/feels the same way.
By Worldgineer on Mar 24, 2005
World, I really thought better of you than to dismiss the contents of all of those videos as “smiling at flashing lights.” And I am saddened that you hold life in so low regard, even if it were your own, that you believe it is better to be exterminated if you can’t drive to the mall, pour half & half into your Starbucks or chat about the latest twist or turn of intrigue on “Survivor.”
What makes life worth living is different for every person. It is no act of generosity or compassion that you want for Terri what you say today, in your health, your mobility and your sound mind, that you’d want if you were in her state. There is no way for you to put your money where your mouth is, and so your “pull the plug on me” bravado is empty, false and very small of spirit.
By joel on Mar 24, 2005
//What makes life worth living is different for every person.// Exactly. If she was alert enough to make her own decisions, that’s one thing. But I think it’s quite arrogant of you to want to force someone to exist this way who doesn’t want to.
By Worldgineer on Mar 25, 2005
Did Terri tell you she “doesn’t” want to live? She made no living will. It’s not in writing anywhere. Her husband claimed she had said so in casual conversation only years after her collapse and only after he had won a hefty malpractice suit, the award for which, although it was meant for her rehabilitation (which he claimed was his intent during the suit), he nonetheless stands to collect if she dies.
World, your illogic is absolutely monumental. Do you not see the conflict of interest? Do you not see the problem in presupposing death for disabled persons just because they didn’t or can’t express in writing that they don’t want to be killed? Does it not rankle your liberal sensibilities even a little bit that the state of Florida has hereby ascribed to Terri’s husband –who already has another common law wife with whom he has children– complete ownership and rule over everything Terri has except her immortal soul?
I say, when in doubt, err on the side of preserving that which you could not give back if you took it by mistake. You say kill ‘em unless they speak up. Who’s arrogant?
By Joel on Mar 25, 2005
//(conflict of interest, etc.)// Considering we have only one person who claims to know her wishes, and this same person she trusted enough to marry, I’d say we more or less know her wishes. You may not trust him, but she did. You may not believe him, but the courts do - and they have heard more of the facts than you have.
//complete ownership and rule over everything Terri has// Who would you rather have this power? Jeb Bush? You? I think her husband would be the better choice.
//Who’s arrogant?// You, who think you know better than the court or, I argue, Terri herself.
//I say, when in doubt, err on the side of preserving that which you could not give back if you took it by mistake.// Which is why I’m in the process of setting up a living will, because I’m afraid of people like you thinking they should be in charge of my life “when in doubt”.
By Worldgineer on Mar 25, 2005
“in a persistant vegitative state”
Why did it matter?
Were you trying to convince people that it was wrong to deny her food because she was *not* in a persistent vegetative state? As if what was done to her would’ve been OK if she had been?
This is what I didn’t understand about efforts I saw (on more than just this site) to try to convince people that Terri really wasn’t in a persistent vegetative state: Why did it matter?
It just didn’t matter: What was done to her is morally wrong and an outrage, whether she was in a persistent vegetative state then or not. Withholding ‘extraordinary measures’, however that might be defined in a particular instance (I really have no idea how that would be done), is one thing; withholding basic sustenance — food & water — is quite another.
If someone put a hopelessly ill dog in a cage and left it there without food & water until it died that person would be charged with and convicted of a crime, I have no doubt. And justifiably so.
About your later post, of course it is clear to any decent and honest person that starvation would be a terrible and painful way to die — without some food I feel discomfort after only about 18 hours or so.
By eh on Apr 5, 2005
Eh: I appreciate the point you make. I also was concerned with the argument, while Terri was alive, that she should be spared starvation because of her ability to interact. That argument still leaves room to starve and dehydrate people who are even less responsive than she.
I didn’t make this point while she was alive, because I knew that people really were desperate to save her life. But we really did the “right-to-die” crowd define this argument around the PVS question. The real loser in this case is the sanctity of life.
By joel on Apr 7, 2005