The Schiavo case and the right to die or live: should a government intervene?

xm15e3

She died last night, apparently Mikie denied her family access during her final hours.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152015,00.html

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, is the legal fallout.

WHEELER4

It is a shame that Terri Schiavo died. It is a great travesty.

What I want to do here is put a little historical context here about federal government intervention. I know the the left and the media are excoriating President Bush and the Republican Congress over its role in this matter.

Let me point out to you the a Democratic President, sent troops to Little Rock Arkansas to push the desegregation of the schools. Federal troops were sent many places in America to push the leftist/marxist sociology of diversity.

I just find it a bit hypocritical that it is alright for the Left in America to use Federal troops to enforce its political ideology but if the Republicans do it---It's a major crime. The Left used to decry "States Rights" and now wants to uphold "States Rights" in this matter.

The purpose of government is to (A) do good, and (B) punish evil. That is the purpose of government. In the Terri Schiavo case, it has done a great evil!

BEAT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/?GT1=6305

wow, here it says that the husband denied access to the parents and siblings as she was dying, they asked to be there when she died and he denied them access...I was on his side until I read that, what kind of monster doesnt let the parents be there whenher last breath leaves her body, they were afterall there when she breathed her first breath.
I am glad its over when all is said and done.

Sparks

TomF wrote:

I just read another very sobering column about the Schiavo Case. This one is in the "Village Voice" newspaper (New York City) and is written by a well-known columnist for that paper, Nat Hentoff. He claims to be an atheist, but he writes so intelligently and so well that I find that claim hard to believe.

Well I personally take offense at that insinuation.

"Ignoring the absence of complete neurological exams, supporters of the deadly decisions by Judge Greer and the trail of appellate jurists keep reminding us how extensive the litigation in this case has been—19 judges in six courts is the mantra. And more have been added.

There couldn't be complete neurological exams, the woman had no cortex. There were CT scans and an MRI. What else would be suggested for a case where the cortex has necrotised?

valor

Athiests cannot write intelligently and well !?!

paulcr

WHEELER4 wrote:

It is a shame that Terri Schiavo died. It is a great travesty.

What I want to do here is put a little historical context here about federal government intervention. I know the the left and the media are excoriating President Bush and the Republican Congress over its role in this matter.

Let me point out to you the a Democratic President, sent troops to Little Rock Arkansas to push the desegregation of the schools. Federal troops were sent many places in America to push the leftist/marxist sociology of diversity.


There is a big difference....you are talking about equal protection under the law in the matter of desegregation. It's not a leftist/marxist anything. It's providing the same quality of education that the blacks in america were deprived of.

How does this case address anything other than a new venue for ROe v. Wade?

Sounds like you'd like to go back to the good old days when blacks knew their place.

WHEELER4

I don't want to sidetrack this thread into another element. But segregation was the policies of many states. The Federal government came in and FORCED the issue and FORCED people to adopt.

No religion teachs that segration is bad or evil Where is this "equality" taught in any religious text?

But in Terry Schiavo's case, it is in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill". We are prevented from murdering another human being. To segregate or not to desegregate is not a moral issue. (And the case to "desegregate" can be shown to be morally wrong.) Giving food and water to an alive human being is. To purposely withhold is wrong.

So I beg to differ with you. The Left have no problem enforcing their agenda and their morality. They use federal troops to do it. It is the same basis of union strategy: to make the boss give concessions. To use force in this context is alright but not alright if the opposition wants to use the same.

Sparks

No offence Wheeler, but the ten commandments also include thoughtcrimes and are explicitly against the idea of religious tolerance, among other faults. They are not usable in a straightforward, use-them-directly fashion for judicial reasons. "Thou shalt not kill", for example, would make killing in self-defence a sin. Frankly, I don't even think they can be used for day-to-day moral judgements, let alone leglislative policy decisionmaking.

And frankly, if you think that using federal troops to enforce an equal standard of education for children is morally reprehensible, I think you need to go find a quiet room somewhere and spend a while thinking about your ethics!

sceptre

WHEELER4 wrote:

I don't want to sidetrack this thread into another element.

Good. Don't then. Start a new thread if you want to talk about educational segregation and people might be willing to discuss it (though I'm not too sure if it would really belong on this particular board given that, considered on its own, it's a historical discussion at this point). I can see that you're offering this as another example of the federal government interfering (as you might put it) in states' rights but as you're using it as the only example it either deserves a thread of its own or no thread.

beer enigma

BEAT wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/?GT1=6305

wow, here it says that the husband denied access to the parents and siblings as she was dying, they asked to be there when she died and he denied them access...I was on his side until I read that, what kind of monster doesnt let the parents be there whenher last breath leaves her body, they were afterall there when she breathed her first breath.
I am glad its over when all is said and done.

I'm glad that she's finally at peace for her own sake - for what its worth I fully support her husbands position on this.

I heard part of an interview on Fox tonight where her husband issued a statement saying that he wanted her last moments to be peaceful & that he felt if her parents & siblings were in the room with him during her last moments, it would erupt into a row, which he didn'nt want for Terry......

Sparks

BEAT wrote:

wow, here it says that the husband denied access to the parents and siblings as she was dying, they asked to be there when she died and he denied them access.

Gee, it's almost like he's annoyed at them over something, isn't it? I wonder what that could be?

And frankly, I hate the way that they keep referring to the parents as the family and not him - she chose him, don't forget, he's as much family as any of the rest, more so in law in fact.

xm15e3

Sparks wrote:

Gee, it's almost like he's annoyed at them over something, isn't it? I wonder what that could be?

And frankly, I hate the way that they keep referring to the parents as the family and not him - she chose him, don't forget, he's as much family as any of the rest, more so in law in fact.

Frankly, under Florida law he would have lost guardianship for melting down her wedding ring and making a ring for himself and mismanagement of financial resources of at least $700K, denial of treatment for 11 years (that was paid for by a court awarded settlement). Not to mention the 30 some accusations for abuse and neglect(that the court refused to hear), and two possible attempts at homicide. Not to mention two live-in girlfriends on the side, and a pair of bastard children.

The guy has a right to the last two, but had Florida law been upheld, he would no longer been a legal guardian. At a certain point he is no longer equally "family".

Sparks

First off, melting down a dead spouse's wedding ring is neither illegal nor unethical.
Secondly, prove the mismanagement. From what I can see, it was spent on the 24-hour professional medical care her body received for nearly 15 years.
Thirdly, the court awarded settlement was from the medical malpractise suit he brought against the doctors for not diagnosing her bulemia correctly (the condition that dropped her potassium level and caused her heart attack, which killed her).
Fourthly, the accusations of abuse never passed scrutiny. Do you think the doctors who treated her and who were later sued for malpractise had some sort of motive to hide physical abuse?
Fifthly, you can attempt homicide on a person in PVS, but it's a legal technicality. The fact is, she - the person, that is to say, all she was, hoped, dreamed, believed, felt, all of that - was mostly dead ten minutes after her heart attack, and the rest died over the next year or three. And that was 15 years ago.
Lastly, the girlfriend didn't appear until a decade after all his wife was had died, which is pretty faithful in my book (and nice Kevin Myers touch with the bastard children, by the way).

The guy's just fought off the whole USA to ensure his wife's wishes were followed, he's turned down millions of dollars to do so, and ensured that the vast braying masses will merrily express their desire to lynch him. Takes a lot to do that.
And frankly, that's why he's her family.

BTW, florida law was upheld.

xm15e3

Sparks wrote:

First off, melting down a dead spouse's wedding ring is neither illegal nor unethical.

She wasn't dead. It is still considered theft, and a tasteless (albeit minor) violation of Florida Statute 744.474(7)

Sparks wrote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
Secondly, prove the mismanagement. From what I can see, it was spent on the 24-hour professional medical care her body received for nearly 15 years.

He, with help from Greer, put her in a hospice and build medicaid for it. Which constitutes fraud. The award was for therapy and continued care, it was spent on legal fees. It would be interesting to see if it was charged to the hospice, since Felos is a board member.
Quote:

Sparks wrote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
Thirdly, the court awarded settlement was from the medical malpractise suit he brought against the doctors for not diagnosing her bulemia correctly (the condition that dropped her potassium level and caused her heart attack, which killed her).

Again, it didn't Kill her. Starvation killed her. BTW Try proving she had a heart attack.

"In the Emergency Room, a possible diagnosis of heart attack was briefly entertained, but then dismissed after blood chemistries and serial EKG's did not show evidence of a heart attack. Similarly, a pulmonary or lung cause of the disorder was ruled out in the Emergency Room after normal blood gases and Chest "

http://www.tblog.com/templates/inde...2&static=424311
Quote:

Sparks wrote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
Fourthly, the accusations of abuse never passed scrutiny. Do you think the doctors who treated her and who were later sued for malpractise had some sort of motive to hide physical abuse?

Scrutiny by who?

Sparks wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
Fifthly, you can attempt homicide on a person in PVS, but it's a legal technicality. The fact is, she - the person, that is to say, all she was, hoped, dreamed, believed, felt, all of that - was mostly dead ten minutes after her heart attack, and the rest died over the next year or three. And that was 15 years ago.

Pure conjecture, but gives us an idea of what you base your value of human life on. (That's not an insult, simply a philisophical observation)

Sparks wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
Lastly, the girlfriend didn't appear until a decade after all his wife was had died, which is pretty faithful in my book (and nice Kevin Myers touch with the bastard children, by the way).

Try a year and a half.

http://hyscience.typepad.com/hyscie..._schiavo_1.html

And Bastard children is simply by definition.
Quote:

Sparks wrote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
The guy's just fought off the whole USA to ensure his wife's wishes were followed, he's turned down millions of dollars to do so, and ensured that the vast braying masses will merrily express their desire to lynch him. Takes a lot to do that.

Profit Motive, actually. Otherwise, he'd simply turned her over to her real family. This being "her wishes" is not proven, and contradicts depositions from several witnesses. Google is your friend on that one.
Quote:

Sparks wrote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
BTW, florida law was upheld.

Sure it was, the only question is which law, and at the expense of which other laws.

Blub2k4

Well she's gone now and her husband did a very brave thing in carrying out her wishes in the face of such adversity.
Her parents had selfish motives in wanting her to be around, if she had already expressed a wish not to be kept in a vegetative state then they were attempting to oppress her rights, then there motives were purely selfish, her husband upheld her wishes and is to be commended for this.
With regard to her husband wanting the money I am inclined to agree with Bonkeys assessment that he indeed took the harder path despite a businessman offering him a clean break. If he did indeed not care about her then he would have taken the money and left her , and here is the key, against her wishes to be taken care of by her parents.

bonkey

xm15e3 wrote:

Profit Motive, actually.

How? didn't third parties offer to match the money he notionally stood to gain by her death if he instead filed for divorce and allowed her parents to be the resultant guardians?

If this is the case, then surely by not handing her over, he stood to risk his profit, not maximise or guarantee it in any way.

This being "her wishes" is not proven

Does it matter whether or not it was her wishes? Was the decision not based on the fact that she was determined to be in PVS, without written instructions to cover the event, and therefore all decisions by default are the responsibility of the relevant guardian.

If she had spent her life fighting against this type of situation, but still had no written instructions herself, wouldn't he still have the right to make those decisions as her guardian?

Google is your friend on that one.

Google seems to indicate in this, as in most of the aspects of this case that its purely and solely a case of who you decide to listen to. You can get both versions of pretty much everything - she did, and did not express these wishes. There are CAT scans which some claim are genuine and others claim are bogus and which no-one can agree on the interpretation of anyway and so on and so forth.

Interestingly, I've only seen anything stronger than second-hand testimonial in blogs, or heard it being referenced in mainstream-media by clearly-partisan opinion-givers. Not once have I seen anything I'd consider as being somewhat credible media giving this stuff a serious analysis....generally they just report that others have produced what alleges to be blah blah blah. I'd appreciate any links which provide what I'm missing.

Oh - neither of your URLs appear to be set up correctly either....

jc

Blub2k4

Blub2k4 wrote:

Her parents had selfish motives in wanting her to be around, if she had already expressed a wish not to be kept in a vegetative state then they were attempting to oppress her rights, then there motives were purely selfish, her husband upheld her wishes and is to be commended for this.

Are you just going on what the husband said ? is that all ? Given that he is already in another relationship and estranged from his wife, you'll forgive me if I dont just take his word on that.

he indeed took the harder path despite a businessman offering him a clean break. If he did indeed not care about her then he would have taken the money and left her , and here is the key, against her wishes to be taken care of by her parents.

The money was offered in the month of march , this year so the "hard path" was already taken.
Theres no doubt in my mind that the husband would have had medical advice as to how long she would last with the tube out,even if it was put back in a week or so later.She only lasted 13 days, it's not inconceivable that doctors might have suggested less or about the same or that her husband would have been able to frustrate the parents attempts to get the tube reconnected for long enough.

For the record, I thought 13 days starvation was a horrible way to die and the doctors must have been of the view that she was in pain as they administered morphine.I'll go with what Billy said earlier, if you did that to a cat or a dog, you'd face the law.

ArthurDent

I thought that I fully supported "the right to die" idea and would certainly like my husband to take a decision for no heroic measures if my life was being supported by machines. But I really feel very squeamish about the idea of withdrawal of food and water. I don't think withdrawal of food and water is "heroic measures" and is a bad precedent. very difficult topic and very difficult to legislate for. I'm glad Terri Schiavo is finally at peace, but if she had been my wife I wouldn't have taken the decsion to remove feeding tubes. If I truely felt she woud not have liked to live as she was I would have taken a much more proactive role to prevent her suffering - and put up with what ever laws I would have broken. I would not let her starve over 13days. JMHO

Blub2k4

Earthman wrote:

Are you just going on what the husband said ? is that all ? Given that he is already in another relationship and estranged from his wife, you'll forgive me if I dont just take his word on that.

Given that she is braindead and has been for 15 years estranged is a strange choice of words.
Who elses word are you to go on? Her legal next of kin or her sentimental parents? He says they discussed this, her will was done, I dont see the problem.

Earthman wrote:

The money was offered in the month of march , this year so the "hard path" was already taken.
Theres no doubt in my mind that the husband would have had medical advice as to how long she would last with the tube out,even if it was put back in a week or so later.She only lasted 13 days, it's not inconceivable that doctors might have suggested less or about the same or that her husband would have been able to frustrate the parents attempts to get the tube reconnected for long enough.

He still had the oppurtunity to bail and leave others with the "inconvenience" of having to look after her, why would he not take the money and wash his hands of her if he did not feel strongly about having her wishes carried out?
Please explain why you think his motives were so money related? Surely there was a possibility of further legal costs etc that could potentially have eaten further into the money he would inherit? It's not unfeasible as Jeb Bush had already intervened in an unconstitutional manner.
I think he had ample oppurtunity and he did not take the easier option. He is already being villified by the Christian right, what capital had he in changing the focus group that hated him, it would only have moved the ire elsewhere not mitigated it?

Earthman wrote:

For the record, I thought 13 days starvation was a horrible way to die and the doctors must have been of the view that she was in pain as they administered morphine.I'll go with what Billy said earlier, if you did that to a cat or a dog, you'd face the law.

For the record she was braindead and did not feel pain, your sentimental assessment has no basis in medical fact. It is indeed true that a dog would not be allowed to die in this way but a dog would have been taken out the back and shot, assisted suicide would have been the ideal way but that is another legal can of worms altogether. I'll go with the doctors and her 15 year state of PVS rather than some heartfelt schmalz that has no basis in science.

<edit> I think you'll find the morphine was administered as it would be standard practice in the throes of death for any living person, braindead or otherwise, it is not an admission that pain was experienced but rather heading off any possible criticism or doubt that any pain may have been felt.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

For the record, I thought 13 days starvation was a horrible way to die

There was no other legal option other than allowing her to live indefinitely, suffering more and more problems on account of her condition (didn't she have a toe amputated or something, for example, as a result of a "dropped foot" condition), while her system slowly, slowly failed.

I'd say thats a particularly horrible way to be kept alive, personally, and it would have lasted a hell of a lot longer than 13 days.

This is all assuming she was actually in PVS, I admit...but if she wasn't then the tragedy/crime was allowing her to die at all, not how it happened. And if she was in PVS, then she didn't suffer.

nd the doctors must have been of the view that she was in pain as they administered morphine.

If they were of the view that she was in pain, then they would also have had to be of the view that she was not in PVS.

I'm no doctor, but I was always of the belief that the body's nervous system can react to pain-receptors firing - y'know....like reflex action where your body reacts without your brain even being notified. So I can see why there could be a reason to use drugs which suppress the receptors and/or reactions, regardless of whether or not the brain was fucntioning (fully or at all).

if you did that to a cat or a dog, you'd face the law.

Thats because the law doesn't count the alternative option as murder or manslaughter when its done to an animal.

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Thats because the law doesn't count the alternative option as murder or manslaughter when its done to an animal.
jc

I'm wondering would it have been possible to move Ms Shiavo to a country that doesn't? The medical award would have covered the expenses for this early on in the campaign-perhaps thats what her husband should have been going through the courts to insist on as her guardian and not simply the tube withdrawal.

Blub2k4 wrote:

Given that she is braindead and has been for 15 years estranged is a strange choice of words.
Who elses word are you to go on? Her legal next of kin or her sentimental parents? He says they discussed this, her will was done, I dont see the problem.

sentimental parents? I see so you discount a parents love for their child-ok thats your perogative.
But again theres no proof other than what her husband says, that it was her wish.

For the record she was braindead and did not feel pain, your sentimental assessment has no basis in medical fact. It is indeed true that a dog would not be allowed to die in this way but a dog would have been taken out the back and shot, assisted suicide would have been the ideal way but that is another legal can of worms altogether. I'll go with the doctors and her 15 year state of PVS rather than some heartfelt schmalz that has no basis in science.

Well we will have to agree to disagree on that,I'm entitled to have my heartfelt schmalz as you put it :rolleyes:

uberwolf

the following quote from the House Majority Leader worries me though

"we will look at an arrogant and out-of-control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president"

Surely the courts are only there to determine what the laws of the land state, to their best interpretation of the situation at hand, what this man seems to expect though is the sentiment of the legislature to guide the hand of the judiciary - and there'll be hell to pay when they don't.

Which suggests to me that the court system may as well be disbanded altogther?

Memnoch

uberwolf wrote:

the following quote from the House Majority Leader worries me though

"we will look at an arrogant and out-of-control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president"

Surely the courts are only there to determine what the laws of the land state, to their best interpretation of the situation at hand, what this man seems to expect though is the sentiment of the legislature to guide the hand of the judiciary - and there'll be hell to pay when they don't.

Which suggests to me that the court system may as well be disbanded altogther?

each day that this fundamentalist government remains in power, america's hard fought freedoms are further eroded. No doubt the fanatics in all their wisdom are going to use this incident to further their control and reduce civil liberties.

"Oh no, those courts won't let us impose our religion and fanaticism over everyone... remove them!"

Blub2k4

Earthman wrote:

sentimental parents? I see so you discount a parents love for their child-ok thats your perogative.
But again theres no proof other than what her husband says, that it was her wish.

I see their parents motivation as being self-serving and not in the best interests of their daughter, they sought to prolong an empty husk who had as a person with an opinion asked not to be left in this state. Even if the husband was lying in the absence of a will he made the correct and humane decison. I believe they think that they were acting in her best interests but in fairness they were being led by the heart and not the mind. I believe that her husband had the benefit of both heart and mind and voiced the wish of his braindead wife.

Earthman wrote:

Well we will have to agree to disagree on that,I'm entitled to have my heartfelt schmalz as you put it :rolleyes:

It is not purely yourself that I was referring to on this point, it is a general point, the whole issue is being clouded by misplaced emotion, if you analyse this empirically she is dead, they are only finishing the act.


In any case we are straying off-topic as the question is whether or not the government should intervene and I would say no, not under these circumstances.

Sparks

xm15e3 wrote:

She wasn't dead.

Her body was still alive. She was dead. Which raises an interesting point on the disparity between law and reality when it comes to death.

He, with help from Greer, put her in a hospice and build medicaid for it. Which constitutes fraud.

How, exactly? Was she not entitled to it?

The award was for therapy and continued care, it was spent on legal fees.

Actually, it was legally ruled that it could be spent on legal fees. But it does raise an interesting point - if you spend the money on legal fees to see her wishes relating to medical care are fulfilled, does that constitute "continued care"?

Again, it didn't Kill her. Starvation killed her.

No, dehydration killed her body. She was killed by anoxia following a bulemia-induced heart attack.

BTW Try proving she had a heart attack.

I don't have to, it was proven in the medical malpractise suit which granted the million dollars for "therapy and continued care".

"In the Emergency Room, a possible diagnosis of heart attack was briefly entertained, but then dismissed after blood chemistries and serial EKG's did not show evidence of a heart attack. Similarly, a pulmonary or lung cause of the disorder was ruled out in the Emergency Room after normal blood gases and Chest "

See the definition of "malpractise".

Scrutiny by who?

By the court who ruled on the malpractise suit. Malpractise requires that you prove the doctor's diagnosis or prescribed course of treatment was either incorrect or negligently carried out - and this was proven, so they had to show what the correct diagnosis and course of treatment was.
In court. Not on the anonymous internet.

Pure conjecture, but gives us an idea of what you base your value of human life on. (That's not an insult, simply a philisophical observation)

And it's a valid and correct one. All that you are, all your hopes, dreams, the love you feel for family and friends, the appreciation you have for art or music or literature, the awe you feel when you study something worthy of awe, your intelligence, your fears, all of what makes you you, is all contained in the brain. We know this. It's been proven medically over the past few hundred years. You can lop off bits of the body and you remain intact; lop bits off the brain and you are often changed radically. That's why I say that she was dead, but her body was still alive.

To be honest, I think that it's a valid metric.

Try a year and a half.
http://hyscience.typepad.com/hyscie..._schiavo_1.html

Try three years before he started dating again. And try there being at least two other women that he dated before he met Centonze. And try having the Schindlers urging him to start dating and saying that they wanted to meet the girlfriend, when one showed up, because they wanted him to move on as well. Then the malpractise suit was won, the money showed up, and next thing you know he's being charged with adultery...

And Bastard children is simply by definition.

That's exactly what Myers said too

Profit Motive, actually.

Doesn't hold water. He stood to make a lot more money by giving up and walking away.

This being "her wishes" is not proven

It was proven in a court of law.

and contradicts depositions from several witnesses. Google is your friend on that one.

Actually, Google shows that the people she spent the most time with testified that she didn't want to be kept alive on machines like that.

Sure it was, the only question is which law, and at the expense of which other laws.

At the expense of no other laws. Remember that this case went through the entire Florida legal system, with several appeals. It wasn't just one guy's back-of-an-envelope idea, it was reviewed by several professional legal judges.

Sparks

Earthman wrote:

I'm wondering would it have been possible to move Ms Shiavo to a country that doesn't? The medical award would have covered the expenses for this early on in the campaign-perhaps thats what her husband should have been going through the courts to insist on as her guardian and not simply the tube withdrawal.

Probably wouldn't have been. Rendition is only for terrorists, don't forget! :rolleyes:

sentimental parents? I see so you discount a parents love for their child-ok thats your perogative.

It's not necessary to say that their love is discounted. Just that that love does not override the rights given by being married to a spouse.
Seriously, if you let a parent's belief that their now-adult child is in error be a legally binding thing, we are all in trouble...

But again theres no proof other than what her husband says, that it was her wish.

Actually, what happened was that there was a court hearing over a decade ago. The parents put their side forward, the husband put his side forward, and the court ruled that her wishes were that her body be allowed to die in the event of injury leading to PVS.

Well we will have to agree to disagree on that,I'm entitled to have my heartfelt schmalz as you put it :rolleyes:

Yup, nothing wrong with that. Same way there's nothing wrong with religion if it's all kept in someone's head. But Holmes' maxim applies here - your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of the other guy's nose. So when your "heartfelt schmalz" is used as the reason to interfere in another person's life... well, expect to have to defend your position with something more substantial than schmalz!

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

Yup, nothing wrong with that. Same way there's nothing wrong with religion if it's all kept in someone's head. But Holmes' maxim applies here - your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of the other guy's nose. So when your "heartfelt schmalz" is used as the reason to interfere in another person's life... well, expect to have to defend your position with something more substantial than schmalz!

I take it then you would limit peoples rights to vote according to their concsience then? Because I'm sure a lot of people would walk into a ballot box referendum on Euthanasia or abortion with exactly what you've just argued that they shouldnt have.
I'll defend their right and mine to do exactly that thanks.

Sparks

I take it then you would limit peoples rights to vote according to their concsience then?

No, because that would be breaking Holmes' maxim. Your vote is your vote. If you're voting with your opinion, you're doing it right. It's when you're directed by a religious figure to vote a certain way that I'd want to see intervention take place.

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

No, because that would be breaking Holmes' maxim. Your vote is your vote. If you're voting with your opinion, you're doing it right. It's when you're directed by a religious figure to vote a certain way that I'd want to see intervention take place.

But you see if I vote against abortion/Euthanasia because of a religous belief/concscience , aren't I defacto interfering with someone elses life which is something to which you object?
Isn't that defacto whats happened with all abortion referenda to date?
Quick answer please,as I've declared war on off topicness

Sparks

It's a messy question earthman. If you vote to restrict what someone does with their body because of your religious beliefs, that's wrong. But if I were to stop you voting because of this, that'd be wrong also. And no, I don't have an answer to it.

bonkey

uberwolf wrote:

the following quote from the House Majority Leader worries me though

"we will look at an arrogant and out-of-control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president"

And so it should.

He would seem to have his order of precedence incorrect - he should be concerned about the out-of-control Congress and President who thumb their nose at the judiciary and thus the Constitutional seperation of powers.

Then again...there's still a cynic in me who says "but this is partly why they got into this....to weaken the judiciary".

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

And so it should.

He would seem to have his order of precedence incorrect - he should be concerned about the out-of-control Congress and President who thumb their nose at the judiciary and thus the Constitutional seperation of powers.

Then again...there's still a cynic in me who says "but this is partly why they got into this....to weaken the judiciary".
jc

Essentially I agree with you but given that Bush got 3 million plus more votes than his rival,I guess the U.S people gets what they voted for and religous fundamentalism seems to be their thing to a large extent.

Sparks wrote:

It's a messy question earthman. If you vote to restrict what someone does with their body because of your religious beliefs, that's wrong. But if I were to stop you voting because of this, that'd be wrong also. And no, I don't have an answer to it.

Well I'd have to disagree with you there also as no one should in my view be telling people that they shouldnt bring their religous views or any other views with them to the ballot box.
They should perhaps try to persuade them to change their view but anything like saying they shouldn't bring their religous views if they have them with them when voting would be argueing for something fundamentally undemocratic in my view.

paulcr

Earthman wrote:

Essentially I agree with you but given that Bush got 3 million plus more votes than his rival,I guess the U.S people gets what they voted for and religous fundamentalism seems to be their thing to a large extent.
Well I'd have to disagree with you there also as no one should in my view be telling people that they shouldnt bring their religous views or any other views with them to the ballot box.
They should perhaps try to persuade them to change their view but anything like saying they shouldn't bring their religous views if they have them with them when voting would be argueing for something fundamentally undemocratic in my view.

You need to remember that Bush had help from the Republican Party and not just religious fundamentalists.

By all accounts the Republican Party is trying to disassociate itself from the extreme views that Sentators like Tom Delay espouse.

Its no secret that there are many in the US that would love to see Roe v. Wade reversed. This is the decision that essentially gives a women the right to have an abortion.

While to a certain extent the Terry Schiavo case borders on the premise that all life is sacred (regardless of quality) it would certainly be a strong foothold for those wishing to revisit the Roe v. Wade decision.

Being Catholic myself, I should then be against abortion. Yet, although I do not wish for people to have abortions, I can not legislate another persons right to have an abortion. Nor could I go against Terry/Husband's wishes for a right to die.

Does this make me a hypocrite?

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

Well I'd have to disagree with you there also as no one should in my view be telling people that they shouldnt bring their religous views or any other views with them to the ballot box.

You can tell people what you think they shouldn't do all you like...but Sparks did say that you shouldn't prevent them from voting in a manner against that advice.....so I don't think you're really disagreeing, unless you're saying that Sparks shouldn't be expressing that view at all...which it seems you might be:

but anything like saying they shouldn't bring their religous views if they have them with them when voting would be argueing for something fundamentally undemocratic in my view.

Why is it undemocratic? Its an argument about how you should make up your mind, and perhaps why. You have the freedom to disagree, and the freedom to cast your vote in a manner which is contrary to that advice.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

You can tell people what you think they shouldn't do all you like...but Sparks did say that you shouldn't prevent them from voting in a manner against that advice.....so I don't think you're really disagreeing, unless you're saying that Sparks shouldn't be expressing that view at all...which it seems you might be:

I was referring to this bit

It's a messy question earthman. If you vote to restrict what someone does with their body because of your religious beliefs, that's wrong.

Who is sparks to say it's wrong(or anyone for that matter), he can have that opinion sure but it's only an opinion to which he is entitled as is the person who is bringing the opposite opinion to the ballot box.

Why is it undemocratic? Its an argument about how you should make up your mind, and perhaps why. You have the freedom to disagree, and the freedom to cast your vote in a manner which is contrary to that advice.

What I am saying is, it would be undemocratic to restrict people to making up their mind with only the parameters that you choose.
Argueing for it isn't what I said would be undemocratic,but implimenting it would be, but quite how you would impliment something like that is beyond me,you would need to be able to read minds.
I suppose you could try to restrict churches from preaching how they believe members following the rules of their church should vote in line with their teachings, but then you would be restricting another fundamental democratic freedom, the right to practice your religion.

paulcr wrote:

You need to remember that Bush had help from the Republican Party and not just religious fundamentalists.

By all accounts the Republican Party is trying to disassociate itself from the extreme views that Sentators like Tom Delay espouse.

I know but they must have been aware of what he was like, given they had just had 4 years of him

Being Catholic myself, I should then be against abortion. Yet, although I do not wish for people to have abortions, I can not legislate another persons right to have an abortion. Nor could I go against Terry/Husband's wishes for a right to die.
Does this make me a hypocrite?

Nope,it makes you an ala carte Catholic which is what most catholics are to varying degree's.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

I was referring to this bit
Who is sparks to say it's wrong(or anyone for that matter),

No different to any of the rest of us who say something else is wrong...like not permitting euthenasia in exceptional circumstances f'r example...

he can have that opinion sure but it's only an opinion to which he is entitled as is the person who is bringing the opposite opinion to the ballot box.

And did he not acknowledge that by admitting it would be wrong to try and prevent someone from voting in a manner he considers wrong and they consider right?

But we're getting off the point, and I'm being a pedantic git again.

Argueing for it isn't what I said would be undemocratic,but implimenting it would be,

I was more pointing out that you made this point in disagreement with Sparks, who had just said exactly the same thing.

Like I siad...I'm a pedantic git (and I was bored at work). I'll stop now. I promise.

jc

Nightwish

its not the governments place to intervene IMO. Jeb bush's ill-fated attempt to become her legal guardian was laughable at best and poltically motivated at worst. The interventions of both president and governer bush in a right-to-die case is so deeply ironic, as GW was the most murderous governer in the history of texas.
it should be left to the doctors, professionals who know what quality of life, if any, a person in a permanent vegetative state is in. Apparently Terri Schiavo had to have toes amputated during the course of her treatment. The question must be asked though, as there was no hope, according to doctors, of Mrs Schiavo ever regaining conciousness, at what point do you let her die? is it when she reaches the age of normal life expectancy, even if that meant keeping her hooked up to machines and having to take drastic measures (like the toe amputations) in order to continue to keep her body alive for 40-50 years?

Sparks

Earthman wrote:

Who is sparks to say it's wrong(or anyone for that matter), he can have that opinion sure but it's only an opinion to which he is entitled as is the person who is bringing the opposite opinion to the ballot box.

The point was that following Holmes' maxim means that both those scenarios imply wrongdoing.
If you vote to restrict what someone else can do with their body because of your beliefs, that's an example of your beliefs impacting someone else's nose, and according to Holmes, that's wrong.
If, however, you restrict how they vote to prevent this, you're also letting your beliefs impact their nose and that's also wrong. See what I mean?

What I am saying is, it would be undemocratic to restrict people to making up their mind with only the parameters that you choose.

Actually, it would be the very definition of democracy - each person making up their own mind rather than having a priest tell them how to vote - an act which is an undermining of the democratic principle if you think about it.

I suppose you could try to restrict churches from preaching how they believe members following the rules of their church should vote in line with their teachings, but then you would be restricting another fundamental democratic freedom, the right to practice your religion.

I'm not sure it would be. The right you're thinking of (and it's a civil right, not a democratic one) is for religious tolerance, not the right to carry out any religious practise - human sacrifice, for example, wouldn't be permitted, but that's not necessarily a violation of someone's civil rights.

Nope,it makes you an ala carte Catholic which is what most catholics are to varying degree's.

I'd say it was more accurate to say he was a Christian rather than a Catholic...

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

The point was that following Holmes' maxim means that both those scenarios imply wrongdoing.
If you vote to restrict what someone else can do with their body because of your beliefs, that's an example of your beliefs impacting someone else's nose, and according to Holmes, that's wrong.

I doubt many people(if any) go around each day and say to themselves" I'd better not do or think that, it's against Holmes maxim" they wouldn't give a hoot who Holmes was and rightly so

Actually, it would be the very definition of democracy - each person making up their own mind rather than having a priest tell them how to vote - an act which is an undermining of the democratic principle if you think about it.

I would have said they would have democratically decided to practice their religion, the priest is only the teacher of that religion

human sacrifice, for example, wouldn't be permitted, but that's not necessarily a violation of someone's civil rights.

Whilst actual physical Human sacrafice might be part of some religion somewhere, it's not permitted in law, you're right there, its one exception unless of course you're a practicing catholic when its committed every sunday at the alter

Nightwish wrote:

its not the governments place to intervene IMO. Jeb bush's ill-fated attempt to become her legal guardian was laughable at best and poltically motivated at worst. The interventions of both president and governer bush in a right-to-die case is so deeply ironic, as GW was the most murderous governer in the history of texas.

I don't know if its common knowledge, but Jeb Bush is a practicing Catholic which probably drove him to his views on the subject,indeed he may have got a few emails ...

Sparks

Earthman wrote:

I doubt many people(if any) go around each day and say to themselves" I'd better not do or think that, it's against Holmes maxim" they wouldn't give a hoot who Holmes was and rightly so

I doubt they'd know who Holmes was; but as to whether or not you need to have known who he was in order to know that you don't have a right to dictate someone else's life to them, that I disagree on. It's a pretty basic rule. I know I was following it for over 20 years before I found out who codified it like that, it was just called ethics where I grew up...

I would have said they would have democratically decided to practice their religion, the priest is only the teacher of that religion

No, you can't democratically decide to practise your religion. It is by definition a personal choice, not a group choice. And that's why religion and state are supposed to be seperate - the choices your religion makes may well be unacceptable to those mine makes. So if people all vote according to their religious instruction (rather than according to their own rational reasoning), what you get after time is a religious state like we had here with the Catholic church enjoying a rather "special" relationship with the state (and we've all seen how much damage that arrangement can cause).

This is the crux of my problem with the idea of voting according to your religious beliefs - they're your religious beliefs, but the rules will end up applying to me. And frankly, if the state's going to interfere in my life, I want it to be able to prove to me that it's for the greater good. It can do that with everything from firearms law to traffic law to taxation to policing to social welfare - but with religious laws like those on abortion, banned books, divorce and so on, it couldn't and can't. That's the problem - they're your beliefs, not what you can prove to be true.

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

I doubt they'd know who Holmes was; but as to whether or not you need to have known who he was in order to know that you don't have a right to dictate someone else's life to them, that I disagree on. It's a pretty basic rule. I know I was following it for over 20 years before I found out who codified it like that, it was just called ethics where I grew up...

I doubt even You Sparks could contend your entire life so far excluded choices that impacted on other peoples lives-even though you wouldnt accept it(:p) I'd be nominating you for sainthood...

No, you can't democratically decide to practise your religion.

Well my initial line would be that you can bring it with you to the ballot box and your opinion that its wrong to do so is your opinion.

This is the crux of my problem with the idea of voting according to your religious beliefs - they're your religious beliefs, but the rules will end up applying to me. And frankly, if the state's going to interfere in my life, I want it to be able to prove to me that it's for the greater good.

Well you see this is what happens when you share the planet with other human beings, you have to succumb to a society determined by whose beliefs are of the greatest number.You may say they are wrong, but when your opinion that they are wrong becomes a majority opinion and its implimented, your opinion would in fact be doing what you say you wish not to do, ie you would be interfering with their view of the world and how it should be.
I dont envy you for the things you worry about

Now that we have had this interesting discussion,I think its time to go back to the topic at hand(I'll split off this if you want to continue it,just pm me).