Comments on: Thoughts on the Terri Schiavo Case

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:01:24 +0000

You are basing your statement on information released to the press by the parents.

Multiple courts have heard these arguments in their entirety and have completely rejected them.

Stan

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 05:02:39 +0000

Actually, Stan, it is absolutely not true that “there is no reason to believe that the Husband is not carrying out the wishes of his wife in determining whether artificial means be used to preserve her life.” There are clear conflicts of interest with regard to Michael Schiavo. He is engaged to another woman, has fathered children with her, and could be suspected of wanting Terri out of the way so he can marry again. In addition, he stands to inherit what’s left of monies awarded in a malpractice lawsuit. How much more of a conflict of interest do you need?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:28:05 +0000

You are missing the point.

This is not an issue of religous law, but of religous freedom.

There is no reason to believe that the Husband is not carrying out the wishes of his wife in determining whether artificial means be used to preserve her life.

Whatever your religous beliefs are is irrelevant.

The religous beliefs of Terri Schiavo clearly allow for no artificial means of life support, which was her stated wish

I remember seeing someone handing out literature about the cruelty of circumcision. They were making the claim that it was child abuse, and were specifically targeting Jewish laws and tradition.

I am thankful that I live in a society that allows me my religous freedom to be a Jew. I do not want someone elses beliefs to dictate to me whether I can have a brit for my child. I am also grateful that I have the right to choose whether I want to be kept alive by artificial means.

So, the issue here is not what you believe, but the rights of people to follow their beliefs.

Stan

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:09:44 +0000

“Various polls indicate that a majority of people favor the removal of Terri’s feeding tube, leading to certain death.”

May be because of compassion. Or, perhaps, it may just be that’s so easy to craft a poll to endorse about everything.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:19:22 +0000

This is outright murder – plain and simple – especially according to Jewish Halacha.

What next? Alzheimer sufferers who cannot feed themselves can also be left to rot to death because their family or an institution thinks that’s what’s best?!

How about severly retarded babies? Or maybe we let them live until we can measure their IQ and anyone below a voted upon score is put 6 feet under?

And why not inject them right away with cyanide instead of killing them softly over 10 days or more?

And where’s PETA in all this? It shouldn’t happen to a dog, right?

Hey! This is just what the Nazis did with the mentally ill and handicapped. Great going, world!

Have you all gone insane?!

I hope some brave soul breaks into the hospital and either reattaches the tubes or puts a gun to someone’s head to do it. This is first degree murder.

Shy Guy, Jerusalem

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:06:16 +0000

I find this situation very disturbing. She's not hooked up to a machine that's beating her heart or breathing for her. She's alive and awake and was being fed just as anyone would be who is unable to feed themselves, whether someone ill in the hospital, someone who has suffered a severe stroke, or a baby for that matter. If the family, doctors, and courts were to determine ending her life would be the best thing, they should do it in the most humane way possible, not starve her to death. People wouldn't do that to their sick pet.MatzahNacho

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:37:19 +0000

Ok, but in Judaism there is also a difference between causing a death (murder) and removing an impediment to death (not murder). As the classic case goes: If a person on their death bed asks to be moved to another place so that they may die–you cannot do it because it is an “active” movement and would be killing them. But, if a person on their death bed tells you to shut the window because the noise from outside is preventing them from dying–then you may do it because it is “passive” and is merely preventing the person from dying on their own. I wouldn’t be surprise if you found just the opposite from what you claim– Many orthodox Jews would claim that the feeding tube should not have been placed from the very beginning.

Anyway, this is just what I remember from a course on Orthodox Jewish Ethics.