What The Shiavo Case Is REALLY About.

[Solomon]

It's being characterized as her "right to live", when the true issue is, does she have a right "not to live".

The bigger question arising out of this case will be, since a person has a right "not to live", they should be allowed to choose the way out. Shall I be starved for a week, or can I call ... Dr. Kervorkian?

[maveric]

1. Repub/Xtian/Bush = Good ... Dem/liberal/independant thinkers = Bad

"With US or against US". Its a Rovian "Helter Skelter".
Charlie would be proud of KKKarl.

[Solomon]

3. It's ironic. Since we find Kervorkian so repugnant, we would rather make

people suffer by "letting them die."

[hyphenate]

8. I don't find Kevorkian repugnant

at all. I think he was--and remains=--a brave man who practiced what he preached, and at least had the compassion and good sense to know that some people would prefer not to live when their options of quality of life have all gone away. As most of us know, throughout all these highly publicized media events, there is no chance of euthanasia for humans, but we can and do have our cherished pets put down as a final act of compassion for them and their suffering and loss of quality of life.

I think that it needs to be defined better, but I do think we should have that option in life as in death--to die with some small measure of dignity instead of being kept alive against our wishes. It is hubris to try and stop the natural order of things, and it is definitely a lot better to "die as a warrior" than as a "coward." Allowing us the option to end our own lives in this manner, as long as we're in our right mind, is a more noble endeavor, rather than allowing a lingering, painful passing.

[Matilda]

2. I think you've nailed it.

I've been thinking about this - it's all over the media here too -
and while I think that for Terri living is worse than dying, the
thought of slowly starving someone to death is pretty horrible,
whether they have any comprehension or not.

It's occurred to me too that here is a prime case for euthanasia -
while I have reservations about how available it should be (there
is always the possibility of someone being bumped off for an
inheritance, for example), in this instance it would be the most
humane thing to do.

[TheWraith]

4. Actually, it's painless.

For one thing, in this case there isn't a cortex attached to the nervous system: there literally is no higher thought there to experience pain. Even if there were, though, a dying person's brain releases endorphins that counter any discomfort caused by the lack of food or water, making it a genuinely peaceful way to go. It's the way our bodies are designed to shut themselves down in the event of natural or semi-natural death. I wouldn't recommend starvation if you're not already dying, because then it's rather nasty, but a dying person doesn't eat or drink anyway, even if they can.

[Mr_Spock]

5. Are you and I the only two people on the planet who understand this?

Even people on DU think that starving an unfeeling body hurts!! How insane. And my grandfather starved himself rather than live after his stroke (he was too proud to do rehab) - he never felt any pain that I am aware of - he certainly never complained. People on this earth are so incredibly self-centered that they often can't see the forest for the trees - it's awe-inspiringly illogical!

[Solomon]

6. I too understand that in this case the starving is painless. But there

are other cases where the "letting die" is not painless and one day americans will have to face giving these people a choice.

[Mr_Spock]

9. I totally agree. It is usually done with morphine now

I'm not sure why we have to change all that much - it's a known secret that people's body's are shut-down by morphine overdoses - I suppose it should be acknowledged and legalized, but it happens hundreds of times a day already in this country - and we all know it :D

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. actually, i think its more about judges and remaking the court system

they want this to go to the Supreme Court, where they will rule in the husband's favor, the Chrissy Right will get into a snit, stay motivated for the 2006 election and continue on with their goal of remaking the federal judiciary.

The GOP has nothing else to work toward other than the remaking of the Federal bench.

[Mr_Spock]

10. Then we'll have to have a civil war if they get their right-wing court

Why must they intensionally attempt to destroy our country for their own selfish little need to win? I hate right-wing Republicans - passionately

[Solomon]

11. Why remake something they already have total control over?

Have you bought thye spin that there's too many "liberal" judges on the bench?