No, it's not the last time
Currently Playing: Fall Out Boy - Dead on Arrival
**If you were expecting an update about my life, then you will be disappointed by this entry. This is a fairly long rant and delves into philosophical topics, so if you don't feel like reading, then DON'T. You have been warned**
I have been following the Terri Schiavo story recently because last quarter I took a philosophy class on contemporary moral issues, and the "Right-to-die" was one of the topics.
I think the fact that Congress and President Bush tried to intervene is ridiculous. And in this article here, House majority leader (a Texas Republican) Tom DeLay is quoted, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." How can he justify saying that? He can believe in whatever he wants, but he should not be condemning someone else for not believing in what President Bush calls a "culture of life."
I can understand how Terri Schiavo's parents protested so strongly against taking her off the feeding tube, and how they are mourning her death now, but what I do not understand is all the other people who are mourning her death as if she were a precious loved one. How could someone in a persistent vegetative state - someone who cannot talk, move, think, feel, or even eat anymore - have "touched" so many people as deeply as they claim? Did they know her personally? Did they have any idea what her life was like at all? How did the life (and death) of this one woman turn into such a public spectacle?
As my Biology of Cancer professor jokingly put it, "'Pro-choice' cells are normal, and 'Pro-life' cells are cancerous." If you don't get it, normal cells are programmed with the choice to die if they lose function through a process called apoptosis. Cancer cells do not die, and grow uncontrollably until they form tumors.
This, of course, is not supposed to represent how we are supposed to act, but it does give some insight to how I feel about the subject.
I should distinguish between the "Right-to-die" argument and the "Physician-assisted-suicide" argument. While the two may seem identical or at least similar, they are two completely different (though interconnected) concepts. In one, the physician is letting the patient die, and in the other, the physician is in essence killing the patient.
There is a difference, believe me. That's why there is a distinction in the law between accidentally killing someone with your car and running away and intentionally murdering someone with your car. It is never morally permissible for a doctor to kill a patient. The Hippocratic Oath they take does not allow it. It is a doctor's moral obligation to save lives, never to take it away. That is why physician assisted suicide should not be allowed.
However, a person does have the right to refuse treatment. A person does have the right to choose to not be a patient. If that person chooses to no longer be a patient, then the doctor is no longer morally obligated to save that person's life, and should step back. Take away that choice and you are taking away a person's right to self-determination. Our society (at least, I think so) believes in an ideal of personal sovereingty and autonomy, in which each person should be left free to do whatever they choose provided they do not wrongfully harm others.
In Terri Schiavo's case, she did not have the chance to make that choice, so that choice should be left to whoever knew her best. I'm not sure how all the legal stuff works out here, but I am going to assume her husband had the right to make that choice, and that he did in fact know what his wife's wishes were, since he was able to convince the Supreme Court and all.
This is getting a little long and I'm tired, so I'll end with this: imagine a soldier who is gravely injured in battle. He cannot move, but his company must move on to survive and they cannot spare any men to carry him. He decides to sacrifice himself for the good of the rest of the men in his company. Why are his actions considered heroic and why is he considered a hero by the very same people who believe that life is sacred and everyone is morally required to "strive for life"?
**If you were expecting an update about my life, then you will be disappointed by this entry. This is a fairly long rant and delves into philosophical topics, so if you don't feel like reading, then DON'T. You have been warned**
I have been following the Terri Schiavo story recently because last quarter I took a philosophy class on contemporary moral issues, and the "Right-to-die" was one of the topics.
I think the fact that Congress and President Bush tried to intervene is ridiculous. And in this article here, House majority leader (a Texas Republican) Tom DeLay is quoted, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." How can he justify saying that? He can believe in whatever he wants, but he should not be condemning someone else for not believing in what President Bush calls a "culture of life."
I can understand how Terri Schiavo's parents protested so strongly against taking her off the feeding tube, and how they are mourning her death now, but what I do not understand is all the other people who are mourning her death as if she were a precious loved one. How could someone in a persistent vegetative state - someone who cannot talk, move, think, feel, or even eat anymore - have "touched" so many people as deeply as they claim? Did they know her personally? Did they have any idea what her life was like at all? How did the life (and death) of this one woman turn into such a public spectacle?
As my Biology of Cancer professor jokingly put it, "'Pro-choice' cells are normal, and 'Pro-life' cells are cancerous." If you don't get it, normal cells are programmed with the choice to die if they lose function through a process called apoptosis. Cancer cells do not die, and grow uncontrollably until they form tumors.
This, of course, is not supposed to represent how we are supposed to act, but it does give some insight to how I feel about the subject.
I should distinguish between the "Right-to-die" argument and the "Physician-assisted-suicide" argument. While the two may seem identical or at least similar, they are two completely different (though interconnected) concepts. In one, the physician is letting the patient die, and in the other, the physician is in essence killing the patient.
There is a difference, believe me. That's why there is a distinction in the law between accidentally killing someone with your car and running away and intentionally murdering someone with your car. It is never morally permissible for a doctor to kill a patient. The Hippocratic Oath they take does not allow it. It is a doctor's moral obligation to save lives, never to take it away. That is why physician assisted suicide should not be allowed.
However, a person does have the right to refuse treatment. A person does have the right to choose to not be a patient. If that person chooses to no longer be a patient, then the doctor is no longer morally obligated to save that person's life, and should step back. Take away that choice and you are taking away a person's right to self-determination. Our society (at least, I think so) believes in an ideal of personal sovereingty and autonomy, in which each person should be left free to do whatever they choose provided they do not wrongfully harm others.
In Terri Schiavo's case, she did not have the chance to make that choice, so that choice should be left to whoever knew her best. I'm not sure how all the legal stuff works out here, but I am going to assume her husband had the right to make that choice, and that he did in fact know what his wife's wishes were, since he was able to convince the Supreme Court and all.
This is getting a little long and I'm tired, so I'll end with this: imagine a soldier who is gravely injured in battle. He cannot move, but his company must move on to survive and they cannot spare any men to carry him. He decides to sacrifice himself for the good of the rest of the men in his company. Why are his actions considered heroic and why is he considered a hero by the very same people who believe that life is sacred and everyone is morally required to "strive for life"?