Terri Schiavo
The first issue to be debated is the case of Terri Shiavo. The conflict had started when her husband, Michael Schiavo, wanted to get Terri's feeding tube removed because he believed that Terri would not want to live in a vegetated state for the remainder of her life. Her family lost many battles with the court to reinsert Terri’s feeding tube and ( Read more... )
Starvation is not a natural form of death, its inhumane and wrong. Humans and animals die in nature of starvation all the time, yes. But thats not at the will of someone who they trusted to love them in health AND sickness, or until Death do them part.
Her parents, in my opinion should have had final say on whether the tubes were removed. Although the courts granted Micheal Schivao the right to do so, her parents should have been involved in that descision.
This may sound hypocritical, but should I develop a disease or become completely paralized due to brain damage, I would prefer to die(as my own personal choice). The argument I've heard that her husband made was it was too painful to see her in that state any longer. But, I would think being able to see her at all would be better than having her dead.
Euthiasia is illegal and the act that was commited on her part wasn't even that. It was assisted suicide, yes...however Terri didn't even get the chance to vocalize her wish to either stay alive or be 'put down', or essentially murder. The amount of drugs that were pumped into that poor women's system during her slow decent into death are enough to call it euthinization.
Between options one and two, I voice a strong option one.
Reply
Leave a comment