One more thing.
I wonder if any of the poeple voicing opinions on each side of the Starve Schiavo arguments would change their positions if this debate were being had minus the fifteen year interim?
If she were just put into that state two months ago, and we still had the benefit of all the legal wrangling that has preceeded this point, would everybody still be of the same opinions?
Looking ahead, will it become OK to starve someone twenty minutes after they are determined to be in a "persistent vegatative state" because we will have already exhausted all of the legal arguments against feeding that type of person and set this precedent?
And if people's positions were to change with a shorter time period, who then decides what time period is appropriate?
Phew. Ethics suck.
posted by 2Evil4U | 3/23/2005 02:49:00 PM
1 Comments:
This isn't really that tough, I don't think! If her husband had made the call 15 years ago, that would have been different from waiting 15 years to pull the feeding tube, not the plug but a feeding tube. From what I've seen on TV she's seems to have knowledge of her surrondings etc. She should have been going through some sort of therapy etc. There is something really bad going on here and I can't seem to put my finger on it. But I don't think that the husband has the right to make this decision 15 years after the initial facts. So, ultimately, I guess that everyone should have a living will. There's not enough space to really mention all of my random thoughts on this one. I personally don't feel that she is a vegetable, I think that she's capable of appreciating the love that her parents have tried to give her. I'm appalled that we can treat life, in any form, in such a cavalier manner.
Post a Comment
<< Home