[extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo

[Mike Lorrey]

Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Terri Schiavo's responsiveness is
no less than the responsiveness of Stephen Hawking. Stephen just has a
lot of high tech gizmos he's had years to learn to use to make himself
useful in the world. Terri has been denied the same opportunities by
her husband and remains in a condition that Stephen would be in today
given a similar level of neglect.

Now, this being established, if we imagine instead that Stephen Hawking
were in that hospital instead of Terri, what would you do about what is
being done to him?

--- Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> My first reaction when I first heard of the Schiavo case was outrage
> at the Christian Right's insistence on still considering Terri as a
> thinking and living human being who should be kept on life support at
> all costs even if there is no chance that she may recover any mental
> functions. I think a "person" is a thinking and feeling entity, or
> someone who may someday recover the status of thinking and feeling
> entity, and that biological samples which do not and cannot think and
> feel (embryos, cells, ...) are not persons. This is, after all, the
> basis of our support for abortion and stem cell research: no harm is
> done to persons. So I thought that the proper thing to do was
> switching life support off.
> 
> Then when I saw her pictures on television I realized that the fact
> that she moves her eyes can give a very strong impression that she is
> at least feeling something. Someone emotionally involved, like her
> parents, is not likely to believe any medical statement that she is
> does not, and never will, think and feel. So I ask myself what I
> would
> feel if I were in the place of Terri Schiavo's parents. Would I feel
> that society is murdering my daughter? Perhaps I would. Why shouldn't
> Terri Schiavo's parents be allowed to keep the hope, or the delusion,
> that their daughter may wake up smiling? Is it because taxpayers are
> paying for life support? Would things change if they were paying for
> it themselves?
> 
> Doctors say that Terri Schiavo will never think or feel anything. But
> most doctors also say that today's cryonics patients will never be
> revived, and that life extension technology will never work. Does
> this
> mean that we should give up on cryonics and life extension? Does it
> depend on who is paying? It seems reasonable to think that those who
> can pay for cryonics and life extension should be allowed to do so,
> but that taxpayers' money should be spent wisely and focused where it
> can be effective. But how do you explain that to Terri Schiavo's
> parents? And how do you explain it to those who will want to try
> experimental deep life extension therapies without being able to
> afford it?
> 
> All questions and no answers: these are difficult issues.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/