[extropy-chat] Thoughts on Schiavo

[Samantha Atkins]

On Mar 27, 2005, at 11:33 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Firstly, I have always supported the right to die.
>
> The sole legitimate purpose of government is to help individuals defend
> themselves against force or fraud. If they are incapable of doing so,
> they must be the ward of another individual, or the state, which must
> be held responsible for any force or fraud that befalls them.

Her husband is such an individual.As others pointed out he spend years 
clinging to hope.  as others pointed out there is no money that he is 
selfishly attempting to do her in for.  He finally came to the point of 
letting go.  By rights it was his sad decision to make.  Why are his 
rights being ignored?    Why are you here heaping aspersions and 
contempt on this man you do not know?

>
> Contrary to claims by some here, Terri never was witnessed by anyone
> but her husband to have expressed a desire to not be sustained in the
> sort of condition she is in, and even he never mentioned such a desire
> until she was a good ten years into her current condition.

None of that is at all uncommon.

> As there
> were no other witnesses, and no signed contract in the form of a living
> will, the default choice should be to sustain her life and provide as
> much therapy to improve her condition as possible, therapy that her
> husband has steadfastly denied her, if only to determine what her true
> intent is.


For what purpose?  She is not here.  She has been gone a long time now. 
  Only a vegetative state supporting remnant of a brain that makes a 
human being human remains along with the rest of the flesh that was her 
own.  But she is not here and is never ever coming back, not even with 
the finest tech we around here dream up.   Her condition cannot improve 
in any substantial way.  All basis for such improvement is missing. So 
how does what you are saying make any sense?   it looks to me like a 
cruel parody of rights and hope.

- samantha