The Right to Life and Terri Shaivo

The Right to Life is Absolute

Published on March 22, 2005 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

The parents of Ms Terri Shaivo are on perfectly sound legal and moral grounds when they say the they want their daughter to be kept alive. The wishes of the parents cannot be set aside just because the person concerned is not in a position to excersise her "will and judgement". Allowing a human being to die by the removal of the feeding tude ammounts to murder andthe US Congress has rightly stepped in to assert the right to life. It is unfortunate that the right to life has to be backed by a Bill in Congress when in that the US Constitution states that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" are inalieanable rights, which meanns that in the exxersis of these rights there are no limiting conditions. If thecourts start deciding when an individual can no longer control his/her will then it is entering the grey zone in which judicial pronouncemnts can strat eroding the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

The argument that they would like to determine what Ms Shaivo would have decided had she a will of her own is an extremely specious argument because there is no way one interpretation can be admitted over another. If Quality of Life and absence of will are taken as the determining factors then a whole pandora's box of moral issues can be unleashed. For instance, in cases of car crash the injured have come out of coma after nearly 8 years. This being the case how can the Courts set a time limit and order the removal of the feeding tube.

Let Terri Sahivo live until the very end. She does not lose her right to life because of her medical condition"

Comments

Zoologist03

on Mar 22, 2005

Don't people have a right to die? Would you like to sit around, kept alive with a feeding tube living a meaningless existence? I think they should let nature take it's course and stop her suffering....how happy can she be like that? I know people have a hard time accepting the inevitable but this is a case in which they should just step aside.....maybe I sound like Kevorkian, but that's what I think on the whole topic.

~Zoo

Bahu Virupaksha

on Mar 24, 2005

think they should let nature take it's course and stop her suffering....how happy can she be like that? I know people have a hard time accepting

This argument is a dangerous one in that it presumes that one has a right to decide the fate of others. All of us are concerned and also worried about her condition, but let us not play GOD. Her eventual life or death is to be decided only by a higher power not by a Ciorcuit Court Judge.

Zoologist03

on Mar 24, 2005

but let us not play GOD.

Weren't they playing God already by keeping her alive?

~Zoo

Bahu Virupaksha

on Mar 25, 2005

No. She has a right to life and no one not the courts or the Congress can take that right away.

Zoologist03

on Mar 25, 2005

So, keeping her alive artificially is not playing God...but removing the machines and allowing her to die naturally somehow violates the right to life? What about liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Those two rights don't appear to be enforced in this....by upholding one right, life, they are repressing the other two....you can't be happy and free with a quarter of your brain gone and hooked up to machines.

Somehow I don't see how artificially keeping someone alive is not playing God and letting them die naturally is....the logic escapes me.

~Zoo

ParaTed2k

on Mar 25, 2005

Now this is just braindead logic.

If we can't be guaranteed one right, the others should be forgotten?

Ok, using your logic, let's forget medicine completely, since those who are too sick to enjoy life can't be quarateed their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Zoo, you usually make more sense than this!!!

ParaTed2k

on Mar 25, 2005

Agreed, this is not a right to die case!

Terri Schiavo is NOT terminally ill (unless terminally ill people now have a longer life expectancy than death row inmates).

What this is, is a redefining life to "can eat on their own and communicate".

What next, life being defined as "able to enjoy liberty and pursue happiness"???

ljandmewt

on Mar 27, 2005

Bravo! You are so right!

ljandmewt

on Mar 27, 2005

Bravo! You are so right! It is not up to us to play God. It is up to Him when she dies, not us. We have the ability to sustain her life until that time. Unfortunately, her case is being used just as the Roe v. Wade case was, to push the liberal agenda. At that time, it was the legalization of abortion. Now it is the legalization of euthanasia. The targets are all those drawing off of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, the disabled and the elderly. (This agenda is like a page taken directly from 'Mein Kompf'). For those who think letting Terri Shaivo die is a good thing, remember this: You too will be old or may be disabled some day, dependent upon others for your life and wellbeing. The events happening now will impact whether you will be allowed to live or not in the future, regardless of your feelings on the subject then. Be glad your mother decided to allow you to live, because thanks to the pro-choice attitude and so-called 'right', she could have had you legally murdered. This is bigger than just Terri Shaivo.

Bahu Virupaksha

on Mar 28, 2005

It is up to Him when she dies, not us. We have the ability to sustain her life until that time. Unfortunately, her case is being used just as the Roe v. Wade case was, to push the liberal agenda. At that time, it was the legalization of abortion. Now it is the legalization of euthanasia. The

In fact this case is far worse than Wade vs Roe because here it is aliving persons right to live that is being set aside agaist the wishes of her parents. If vegetaive state is taken ass the basis for ordering her death by starvation, what about the 2000 cases in the USA already. Will they also be disposed of the same amnner by ther trmoval of life support. Terri Schavio is being murdered by the JUDICIARY.

bakerstreet

on Mar 28, 2005

People who leave legally binding directions have the right to die. The default when there is a lack of such shouldn't be to starve them to death...

Ashley Loyd, NC

on Mar 28, 2005

Terry Shaivo is a human being!!!!!!!! This is an outrage that her husband wants her dead. If Terry dies her husband and everyone who helped him should be tried for FIRST DEGREE MURDER!!!!!!! Her husband has planned to kill her. If Terry Shaivo dies her husband will be able to marry his girlfriend (mother of his children, while married to Terry) He will also collect a large sum of money almost 10 million dollars that was granted to Terry for medical care and rehabilitation ( for which medical care has been provided but no rehabilitation at her husbands request) Also money would be collected from any insurance policies that Murderer Michael Shaivo has carried on his WIFE Terry. This all boils down to Money And Greed. It is Murder and I can't see how any JUdge on a bench would allow a murder to take place if it could be stopped. Starving Terry to death is a cruel and unusal way to day. If someone was to do that to an animal they would be arrested. Why should Michael Shaivo be allowed to PUBLICLY MURDER HIS WIFE? WIFE, INTEGRITY, HONESTY, FREEDOM amongst other things are not something that Michael Shaivo or any of these JUDGES know anything about.

Bahu Virupaksha

on Mar 30, 2005

I think you have apoint, but what can one say...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!