Article View: us.talk.constitution
Article #1Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo
From: Tim Bruening
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:45
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:45
120 lines
7775 bytes
7775 bytes
Tom Barrister wrote: > The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those of > other people. > > Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri? > > And please don't feed us the "She didn't want to live like this," > baloney. For one, I seriously doubt that she ever said that to you or > to anybody else. You never brought that up in the first seven-plus > years after she collapsed. Why not? If that was her wish, you should > have had the figurative plug pulled back in 1990 when it happened. > Certainly no later than 1992. Why did it take you seven years to > remember that? > > I'll tell you why. Because she never said it, Mark. It's your cop out. > You couldn't take it anymore. You couldn't handle the stress of the > situation any longer. So you decided to get rid of the inconvenience. > You claim to love her. You have a weird way of showing it---starving > her literally to death. And I understand that there's another woman in > your life. Terri's being alive isn't convenient for that situation, is > it? Better off killing the old girl off and getting it out of the way, > right? > > But it wasn't that simple, was it? Many others were opposed to it, > most notably her parents. So why didn't you turn Terri's custody over > to them and be done with it? Then you could do as you please with the > other woman. Would your conscience bother you then? > > Let's assume that you're doing this because you simply can't stand to > see her in this state anymore and that there isn't any ulterior motive > involved with the other woman (or women). Don't you understand that > there are still people who love your wife and want to see her continue > to live? Why can't you turn her over to them? They'd take care of > her. Assign guardianship to them. > > Instead, you've gotten stubborn about it. You're bound and determined > to have her killed off----and make no bones about it, that's exactly > what you're doing. This isn't a case of a person who has no brain wave > activity, who will die within seconds or minutes of a heart-lung > machine being disconnected, and who won't even know that it happened > because his/her brain is already dead. We're talking about a person > whose body is still functioning with the aid of feeding. True, she has > to be cared for, but so do millions of other people. Many elderly > people are that way. Most infants are that way. Should we kill all of > them, too? > > Please don't feed me the "She's in a persistent vegetative state." If > that doesn't matter to her parents, and if the state and/or private > sectors are willing to take care of her and relieve you of all > responsibility, why would it matter to you? > > I see that some experts think that she might be in a minimally > conscious state. Shouldn't that be looked into? Why are you so > insistent about killing Terri off? You've waited fifteen years. Why > would another few months matter? > > I understand the the courts have ruled that you're her guardian and can > decide matters such as removing her feeding tube. But just who > appointed you God here to decide whether she lives or dies? What's she > guilty of? Not being able to function normally on her own account? If > so, how about killing off all the learning-challenged people? How > about killing off all the elderly who need care? Why not end the lives > of all infants under the age of two? Most of those can't care for > themselves, either. > > What's the hurry, Mark? > > I've read that you haven't left her bedside since the feeding tube was > removed. Is that supposed to be a final gesture of love? Or are you > staying nearby to make sure nobody sneaks her food or water until she > dies of a lack of both? > > Whether you realize it or not, her death won't bring you peace. Far > from it. It will make things worse. You won't understand that until > after she's gone though. But trust me on this, Mark: I've been through > your situation twice with loved ones who were (in each case) in > supposedly irreversible states. I wanted to take the easy out like > you're doing. But I stuck it out both times. Once it worked out well > and the person came back to us and lived a reasonable life for a few > more years. The other time it didn't and the person passed on. It's > tough, but in retrospect, I realize that I made the right decision both > times. You haven't----yet. You seem so obsesed with ending this that > you won't listen to anybody who has an opposing view. You won't just > turn your wife over to your parents and be done with it. They'll love > her. They'll care for her. If they pass on while Terri's still alive, > others will gladly continue her care. > > In other words, Mark, you're not going to be out anything or > inconvenienced in any way by turning Terri over to your parents. By > not doing so and forcing her death, you're alienating not only Mr. and > Mrs. Schindler, but literally millions of others. I doubt anybody > would be majorly angry at you if you let Terri's feeding tube be > reconnected. But I shudder to think of all the people who will be very > unhappy with you if she dies from your imposed starvation. Or what > those people might do. > > If none of the above makes any sense to you, remember your marriage > vows that stated: > > "....to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, > for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to > cherish, till death do us part" > > "Better or worse", Mark. Not just "better". "Sickness and health". > Not just good health. In other words, you were supposed to stick it > out, even though times are bad. Not get rid of what you probably > perceive to be a problem and/or inconvenience because things aren't all > that rosy. > > Oh, and "till death do us part," doesn't mean that you're supposed to > hasten her death. Because you're essentially her executioner here. > And it just doesn't make sense to me no matter how its sugar > coated----it's still murder. > > (apologies if this appears more than once in any newsgroup) Does he surf the Internet?
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4244BEC9.BB27A80D@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.omsoft.com!news.omsoft.com.POSTED!not-for-mailReferences:
<1111727379.834493.215530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: 1423f7,c5873760619e804b X-Google-Thread: 1042ac,c5873760619e804b X-Google-Thread: 103275,c5873760619e804b X-Google-Thread: fe7be,c5873760619e804b X-Google-Attributes: gid1423f7,gid1042ac,gid103275,gidfe7be,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.omsoft.com!news.omsoft.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:47:20 -0600 Message-ID: <4244BEC9.BB27A80D@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:45:45 -0800 From: Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: us.talk.constitution,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.democrats,bit.listserv.autism Subject: Re: An open post to Mark Schiavo References: <1111727379.834493.215530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 121 NNTP-Posting-Host: 168.150.192.112 X-Trace: sv3-LwXxUSYKXTJXd4V9OB5VSRKUi0NZHFjqVzSztY23dsOChH7T1hkr011jxa7DdTs9AHQGiB/w2E1ymmR!t6JEhChHkMQlM1ejfJJ3MbbgGoMTTEnSuyflce9zhszUeQhm9SByUuVh8YbNKxaNB9RBDZBYY/E/!Tq2X X-Complaints-To: abuse@omsoft.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@omsoft.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32