Mar 27 2005
Why Daniel Medley is Still One of the Best
I must have said this about a thousand times, and now I’m saying it again.
Daniel Medley is one of the best bloggers in the world.
Why?
Because he, like myself, and unlike so many others, is not afraid to speak his mind.
Witnesseth:
Twisted Irony
I find twisted irony in that as a society, apparently, we are willing to let Terri Schiavo starve to death–in fact we’re being told that death by starvation is downright fun–while at the same time five elk are shot rather than be allowed to starve, presumably so they would not suffer.
I’ve been on the fence concerning this whole Terri Schiavo thing but now I’m gettin’ off the fence.
I think it’s bullshit and the feeding tube should be put back in. Now, just to be sure, I’m all for one’s right to die if they so choose and in such a case I don’t think that government should give a damn one way or the other. The problem I have with the Terri Schiavo case is that no one knows what she wants. Her husband says she wants to die and her parents say she doesn’t want to die. It’s all hearsay and circumstantial at best. There is no proof positive that Terri’s wishes are to be allowed to starve to death. Under such circumstances it’s best to err on the side of letting her live.
Under these circumstances Federal Government has every right to get involved. The first tenant of the Constitution is life, followed up by liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since no one knows really what Terri Shiavo wants we must assume that she wants to live. The will to live is the strongest human instinct. I’d also opine that the will to eat is a close second.
To claim that this is a state’s rights issue is preposterous. Using that rational, slavery should still exist because, after all, it was a state issue. Slavery was legal in many states via state law and we are, after all, a nation of laws. Who is the government to get involved in the private matters of states?
Remember, Germany rounded up 6 million Jews and gassed them all under rule of law.
Like I said, Terri, you or I all have the right to make our own decisions as to how, and to some extent when, we die. But I’ll be damned if we should take hearsay as evidence enough to starve someone all in the name of compassion.
It doesn’t fucking compute with me.
I may not want to live under such circumstances, you may not want to. That’s understandable, but that’s you and me.
I can’t shake the feeling that we’re being sold a bill of goods that’s as rotten as the day is long. We’re told that Terri Schiavo’s condition is such that she can’t feel anything, is not aware of anything; that she’s no more than an empty shell. Because of this we are sold the notion that her death by starvation will be no problem for her. In fact Terri is, by all accounts, not even a “she” but rather an “it”; a shriveling pile of mindless flesh and bone with no mind and no awareness. All of this while at the same time we are sold the notion that she should be allowed to die so as to end her suffering.
I just as soon return the goods and cancel the bill.
I love you man. In a completely platonic way, of course.
Choose life.
March 27th, 2005 at 10:39 am
One other thing: medicine/science is making great strides in gene therapy, some of which should revolutionize treatment of injuries previously thought irreversible. If I were her family, I would want her kept alive to see what may come along that would restore her to viability.
March 27th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
Hmmm…
There is no real reason that they cant put the tube back in….that much has to be obvious.
I’m one of those ’states rights’ people…I think that this decision is the state’s because of the 14th Amendment….but I have changed my mind about one thing….I have come to the conclusion that the federal legislature did NOT overstep it’s bounds….it merely reinforced the already-existant appeal process that exists for case review.
Reason? Well, even at the SCOTUS level, they look only at the constitutionality of the case, not the evidence. If a court on the state level is found to have made a decision that is outside the COTUS, then the federal courts can order a retrial…at that point, the feeding tube would have to be reinserted, right?
I’m a housing inspector in Columbus, Ohio….I am in a federal trial that started in 1999. It’s a civil rights trial…like the one that the Schindlers and Schiavo’s are in, but this has to do with the 4th Amendment, not the 14th or Article III. In short, we (I)was invited into the home, and found that the conditions inside were unsafe. I ordered the women that were living there to leave, on the authority I had under the city codes…it was an emergency situation.
Well, they sued me in the local court, and lost….then, they sued me in federal court…the federal court in Columbus found that we acted properly…..and then, they appealed the case to the 6th Circuit.
Well, the circuit ordered a full-blown trial over this case, and it happened in 2003. The City won, because we established that there were circumstances that warranted us acting immediately, and the act to preserve their safety trumped the perceived laco of due process.
So, it looks as if the Schindlers have had this option open alerady…and the SCOTUS has refused to hear it…..the Florida Code is pretty clear (Section 765)….there must not be a Constitutional issue here, because teh federal court option has always been there….right? Maybe what the Congress did was symbolic….?
March 28th, 2005 at 8:26 am
Vinny, I understand that you’re quoting someone else in this post, but I’m assuming you agree with what was said. With that in mind, do you really see a viable connection between the removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube and the deliberate murder of 6,000,000 people in Nazi Germany? Isn’t that at least a little bit overwrought?
March 28th, 2005 at 8:43 am
Not in the context he uses it in.
He’s using Nazi Germany to demonstrate how just because something is the law, doesn’t always mean it’s right.
The round up of Jews in Nazi Germany was 100% legal, as is the starvation of Terri Schiavo, following the letter of the law.
You’re focusing on the difference in magnitude in the number of people who died. The author is obviously only talking about the legality of both.
March 28th, 2005 at 9:11 am
Just wanted to step in for a second. I DID NOT equate the murder of 6,000,000 Jews with starving Terri Schiavo to death per se. Vinny has it right. The connection I’m making is that both cases have been perpatrated under “rule of law”. Meanig that just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.
March 28th, 2005 at 10:24 am
Before Hitler turned his attention to the Jews, he started off slowly by exterminating the retarded and disabled. His reasoning was that these people were not complete, and did not fit in with his vision of a “perfect Arian race”. I would bet that if Terri Shiavo was in the same “vegetative” state, only she had retained her good looks, there would be a lot more people against removing her feeding tube.
March 28th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
Clinton wasn’t impeached over a blowjob. He was impeached because he perjured himself in testimony to a federal grand jury.
Now, if you want to make the case that just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s wrong, I’m all for it. I think pot being illegal is stupid. That’s a much better example.
March 28th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
I am not too sure how many of you have seen this but thought I would add it here Mercy or Murder
March 28th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
My husband is German - his parents and grandparents all grew up in Nazi Germany and continued to live there during PostWar. What Hitler did under his regime was considered legal. Citizens were told that Jews were being deported, yes, but that was to keep control and lessen the chance of a full blown uprising. New laws were made every week to gain more control over the masses. They started out small and then gradually became life and death issues. It started out with small laws condemning to death the disabled, the retarded, the blind, the deaf… eventually it came to all Jews. It was all legal.
I think you, Rama, are the one that needs to brush up your history, including the history of the US.
March 28th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Rama,
I apologize for the spelling error, and stand corrected.
Regarding my comments, I didn’t comment on the legality of Hitler’s atrocities. That was Vinny’s comment, so please read the name at the bottom before attributing it to me. Thank you!
The fact stands that many turned their heads in regards to his atrocities, LEGAL or NOT!
My point was that it’s easier for us as a people, to “pull the plug” on people who aren’t deemed complete by our superficial standards. That’s all!