Dear Pro-Life Friend,
I'm taking the unusual step of emailing the entire pro-life blogs mailing list because of a critical situation that has developed in the case of Terri Schiavo.
Today, the courts rejected the pleas of Terri's parents to stop her husband, Michael, from withholding food and water from her. He has promised to begin starving her tomorrow [Tues 02/22] at 1 pm.
Most of you are aware that Terri is not a "vegetable" or "brain-dead" as Michael and his lawyers claim, but responds to others and is aware of her surroundings. She laughs, smiles and, according to her nurses, has a small vocabulary.
Terri is not on life support and is healthy. She needs help eating and is fed through a tube (helping someone eat and drink who is impaired has never been considered artificial life support).
While Michael asserts he is carrying out Terri's wishes, he waited until after he received a large sum of money from a lawsuit against her doctors before making this claim . During the lawsuit, he alleged negligence and motivated a financial award with the potential cost of Terri's rehabilitation.
However, Terri has been denied rehabilitation that experts testify could allow her to eat and talk. The courts in Florida have consistently blocked appeals to give Terri proper tests and therapy that would improve her life.
Terri may not have the capabilities she once had, but she is no less valuable and no less a person.
Here is what you can do to help Terri:
- Pray for Terri and her family.
- Blog - communicate the truth about what is going on and rally support for Terri and the Schindlers.
- Visit BlogsforTerri ( http://www.blogsforterri.com) for information and to join the team of blogs for Terri.
- Deluge Gov. Jeb Bush with emails and phone calls. He has the power to intervene. Here is his contact information:
Governor Jeb Bush
jeb.bush@myflorida.com
850 / 488-4441
850 / 487-0801 (fax)
- Support HB701(click here).
- Important - Bypass the Mainstream Media - pledge support a paid advertisement in the St. Petersburg Tribune to inform its 450,000 paid subscribers about what is really happening to Terri. [http://www.blogsforterri.com/pledge.php]
Your participation in help is desperately needed.
Thank-you for standing-up for Life.
Tim
prolifeblogs@gmail.com
http://www.prolifeblogs.com
P.S. I’ve set-up a special aggregator that displays only posts about Terri Schiavo. You can see what our 200+ members are saying here [http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/aggregator.php?schiavo=1]
More Information at
Death by tarving and dehydration is painful and cruel. If you don't know what's entailed, I suggest reading this description of Terri's exit protocol.
UPDATE:
Terri
Schiavo's Feeding Tube Remains, Husband Can't Starve Her Yet
by Steven
Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor
February 21, 2005
Clearwater, FL (LifeNews.com)
— A local judge has ruled that the estranged husband of Terri Schiavo cannot starve
her to death tomorrow and has set a hearing this week to determine if he should
be prevented from doing so while her parents continue their legal battle to save
her life.
Funky Dung
Comments 11
According to Fr. Rob Johansen, the reports of a stay being issued were wrong.
+0
Posted 22 Feb 2005 at 5:39 pm ¶Lord, have mercy.
+0
Posted 23 Feb 2005 at 6:54 pm ¶If biblically we are all to be resurrected like Christ was, why devote so much time and energy to keep some of us biologically alive a little longer?
We need to ask how we are advancing the kingdom of God here in all of these questions and surely err on the side of life and not let it detract us from the many other pressing concerns that face us today.
dlw
+0
Posted 27 Feb 2005 at 1:56 am ¶Someone mentioned the Bible?
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Matt 25:41-46 KJV
Another unfortunate corrosive byproduct of modernity: Hell just really isn't scary anymore…
+0
Posted 27 Feb 2005 at 11:59 pm ¶Thanks for the reminder about the reality of hell and the consequences of how relate to others, steve.
Now, how is keeping Terri alive on support going to save her soul for the rest of eternity? And how is our witness to others going to be affected when we get huffed up about this and neglect the many other serious issues that deserve far more of our attention?
Being a Christian doesn't mean one has the right answer for what should be done in every conceivable ethical situation, and it isn't worth elevating our fallible traditions to maintain as such…
dlw
+0
Posted 28 Feb 2005 at 12:06 am ¶I read your post in which you "call me out". Sorry it's taken so long for me to respond. Despite your description of me as super-blogger-stud, blogging is a hobby that takes a back seat to higher priorities.
Anyhow, you asked why are we fighting so hard to save her when we expect she'll go to Heaven when she dies. We're protecting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. We are defending a woman who cannot defend herself. We are trying to keep a person from suffering a cruel, painful, and slow death. We stand in opposition to utilitarian measures of a life's worth. To stand idly by while her life is ended for selfish reasons would be a grave injustice.
Terri is poor in spirit and meek. We seek the justice (Matthew 5) of not killing a woman who is not in the permanent vegetative state her husband claims she is in. She is one of the least of Christ's brethren (Matthew 25).
I'll give this some thought and if I have time I'll expand on these thoughts.
+0
Posted 28 Feb 2005 at 2:38 pm ¶I read your post in which you "call me out". Sorry it's taken so long for me to respond. Despite your description of me as super-blogger-stud, blogging is a hobby that takes a back seat to higher priorities.
understood.
Anyhow, you asked why are we fighting so hard to save her when we expect she'll go to Heaven when she dies. We're protecting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.
Can we really call it natural when the point and manner of death is affected so much by the technology that we have developed? That seems like a misnomenclature.
We are defending a woman who cannot defend herself. We are trying to keep a person from suffering a cruel, painful, and slow death.
How do you know that she doesn't want to die? From what I've read, I would never want to end her life if I were her husband, but I am not in that position.
We stand in opposition to utilitarian measures of a life's worth. To stand idly by while her life is ended for selfish reasons would be a grave injustice.
I am also not a utilitarian. I am a consequentialist, but I do not presume that there is anything "natural" about how the effects of actions are weighted. One can still glorify God even with much reduced functionality.
Even if her life is ended for selfish reasons, we know that this life is not the end and that there will likely be ultimate consequences for Michael's actions.
Terri is poor in spirit and meek. We seek the justice (Matthew 5) of not killing a woman who is not in the permanent vegetative state her husband claims she is in. She is one of the least of Christ's brethren (Matthew 25).
I can see the "I was hungry" parallel. I mean I do agree that it is wrong what Michael is trying to do. I think it is legal, though, and think there have to be limits to what we do to try and stop him.
I'll give this some thought and if I have time I'll expand on these thoughts.
that'd be great.
dlw
+0
Posted 28 Feb 2005 at 4:22 pm ¶For me, my concern stems more from my consequentialist(not utilitarian) fear of Christian Churches losing their autonomy from the State, as they make a power grab to impose as law some of their communal standards of morality.
dlw
+0
Posted 28 Feb 2005 at 4:26 pm ¶I think there are secular reasons for not giving Michael Schiavo the final say.
1) There is no living will. It's his word against her parents'.
2) A husband is presumed to be acting in the best interests of his wife. Michael has demonstrated on numerous occasions callous disregard for her well-being.
3) Terri does not meet Florida's legal definition of permanent vegetative state. Michael's whole case is based on assumption that she does. He, of course, won't allow medical professionals to reevaluate her case to prove this point. The courts should step in and order additional medical opinions.
+0
Posted 28 Feb 2005 at 7:09 pm ¶"Can we really call it natural when the point and manner of death is affected so much by the technology that we have developed? That seems like a misnomenclature."
She's not on any fancy machinery. She's feed and hydrated by IV because her esophagus is too constricted for her to swallow.
+0
Posted 28 Feb 2005 at 7:33 pm ¶good points all.
God Bless!
dlw
+0
Posted 28 Feb 2005 at 9:10 pm ¶Post a Comment