The Right To Die...Humanely
So, there's this brain dead woman in Florida whose husband has been dying (wink-wink) to pull the plug on. Now, I'm extremely libertarian when it comes to the right to die and abort babies.
But, I have to say, isn't there a more humane way to die than what they plan for this Florida lady?
Right now, her choices are: A. Live as a vegetable and make religious people happy. Or, B. Slowly starve to death after dear hubby pulls the feeding tube.
Keep in mind, that just two weeks ago this country's highest court ruled that the killing of murderers sentenced to die as teenagers *was* inhumane. How can letting a man starve his wife to death be tolerated? I mean, have the court order a lethal injection, a pillow smothering -- anything! But starving? Ugh. So much for "dying with dignity."
But, I have to say, isn't there a more humane way to die than what they plan for this Florida lady?
Right now, her choices are: A. Live as a vegetable and make religious people happy. Or, B. Slowly starve to death after dear hubby pulls the feeding tube.
Keep in mind, that just two weeks ago this country's highest court ruled that the killing of murderers sentenced to die as teenagers *was* inhumane. How can letting a man starve his wife to death be tolerated? I mean, have the court order a lethal injection, a pillow smothering -- anything! But starving? Ugh. So much for "dying with dignity."
7 Comments:
I think the answer is pretty obvious. Because we have enough people who believe in Right to Die we get the right to take someone off their machines. But because we have enough people opposed to Right to Die we aren't able to let them die humanely or painlessly (this goes back to my previous point about putting pets down) and we have to let them die "naturally," by starving and dehydration. It's sort of a worst of both worlds thing.
And oddly, we are kinder in death to convicted criminals than innocent brain death vicitms. Though I guess its arguable if it makes a difference to the brain dead person.
"starving to death" is a rethug luntzian spin point that has no basis in the reality of what actually occurs.
I think what's also really messing everything up here is that this woman can breathe on her own. She's not on technical life support, but is rather incapable of functioning as a sentient person and is unable to feed or hydrate herself.
Also, the whole lack of a living will and the fact that it's her hubby's words against her family's further makes this thing a disaster.
Don't you just love how this country can never have a goddamn black and white issue? It's always so impossibly gray.
As for the starving thing...
Well, the mainstream AP stories talk about how it's going to take her body seven-odd days to die. If that's not a protracted death, I don't know what is.
Maybe her husband doesn't want her to die... he just thinks she needs to lose a few pounds.
I think we can all agree, that's a cause worth supporting.
Court ordered weight-loss...
Oh, I did some reading regarding the starving, and apparently from a scientific perspective it actually isn't that bad. The gist of it is that she's brain dead. Her cerebral cortex has been replaced with fluid. That, of course, is the reason why the husband won his court case in Florida. She'll starve to death over a period of 7-10 days, but she won't feel a thing.
Yes, strangely enough, O'Reilly (!) was making this point on his show today.
Then he vibrated a woman.
Post a Comment
<< Home