Go to Editormum's Oddments
- Add a comment
- Go to Thinking About Terri Schiavo
Invitation
Since you're part of this wonderful cause, I'm leaving you one of my invitations to visit the following blog entry I made called
Being Kept Alive By "Artificial Means"
When you find time and want to, please read it and let me know what you think.
No matter what, don't give up this fight--a fight not only for Terri (important enough even if the sole reason) but for countless others!
Peace!
AJ J
posted by
Ainsley_Jo_Phillips
on January 15, 2004 at 9:27 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm Definitely Pro-Terri!!!
Nice to read something from yet another member of Terri's ever-growing dream-team!!!
Hugs!
AJ 
posted by
Ainsley_Jo_Phillips
on November 14, 2003 at 3:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Argee
that should say "Terri's plight is" (not "if")
posted by
Inkling
on November 1, 2003 at 1:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Argee
It may very well be a case of semantics. What you call a "platform," others might refer to as an illustration. Terri's plight if part of a larger ethical dilemma, not just euthanasia, but the sanctity of human life. Society often uses individuals as "poster children" for particular issues, but I don't think such "using" has to be a bad thing. Frequently, the individuals themselves volunteer for the role. Obviously that's not true in this case, but I do see a striking similarity between the injustice of Terri's situation and that of unborn children--neither has a voice to defend themselves, so others are left to decide what is best for them.
posted by
Inkling
on November 1, 2003 at 1:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Inkling, I wasn't making a value judgment...
...I was suggesting that it is not right to use this patient as a platform for agendas, by anyone, even if I agree with one or the other agenda.
I clearly said that it appeares that the husband's actions may require investigation, but his actions in no way change the patient's actual condition.
You just wrote a blog wherein you eloquently pleaded for accuracy in using words. You and I are on the same wavelength here. I just want to ensure that that same principle plays out here as well.
posted by
arGee
on November 1, 2003 at 1:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Well, it's nice to think and talk about such things as if one cares,
but I copied one of the articles here and sent it to Jeb Bush, and the next thing I heard, he was ordering Terri's feeding tube returned. Who says JB doesn't listen?
posted by
TARZANA
on November 1, 2003 at 12:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Argee
but what about the fact that her husband used none of the award money allotted for her rehabilitation toward that purpose? Clearly he has been mismanaging his role in this situation all along, and everything points to his own selfish agenda. Had he been a devoted husband, he would have done everything possible to help his wife regain her life, since she was not physically dead, nor even brain-dead. I think it may have been ccnews who had a thought-provoking post about the quality of life vs. the value of life. I shall try to dig it up, if you think it's relevant...
posted by
Inkling
on November 1, 2003 at 12:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Here is some food for thought
This issue has become polarized, and people have lined up behind one or the other position. Both sides are using spin and word doctoring to make their point, and the patient is getting lost in the process. Here is an example: Referring to removing the patient's intravenous feeding tubes as "starving to death," is not descriptive of the situation, but puts forward a specific agenda. Most medical people would define starving to death as a condition where an individual who is capable of eating, doesn't, won't, or can't. This is very different from removing intravenous feeding tubes.
I gather from your post that there is little hope for a normal recovery of this patient. You imply that there may be a nefarious reason for her condition, and if this is so, then this should be investigated. In fact, it should have been investigated long ago, and perhaps even this delay should be investigated. But lacking the patient's expressed desires, our system clearly directs the court to make the appropriate decision.
Nobody gains anything when people line up behind one or another agenda, using the patient as an excuse. And the situation is only exacerbated when each side spins the situation to their own benefit, and uses words and phrases out of context in order to make a point.
From a completely different arena, here is an example of how this works: You’re NOT pro-choice, you’re pro-abortion. You’re NOT pro-life, you’re anti-abortion.
Kapish?
posted by
arGee
on November 1, 2003 at 12:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Editormum
I wish EVERYONE would read this. Thank you so much for taking the time to assimilate and write such a thought provoking post. I hope it is also action provoking.
posted by
Inkling
on October 31, 2003 at 10:40 AM
| link to this | reply