All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Harsh economics of Terri Schiavo

jdavidb on 2005-03-28T18:01:14

This article is very harsh, and he manages to launch accusations at both sides. It will, however, definitely make you think.

Dang

Ovid on 2005-03-28T18:53:34

I can't say that I agreed with everything in there, but it was a great article. Thanks for the link!

Re:Dang

jdavidb on 2005-03-28T19:15:26

I doubt there's a human being on earth other than the author who agreed with everything in there...

That's one view

btilly on 2005-03-29T03:47:42

I'm not even of the opinion that his view is particularly indefensible. Except the big part where he says that this is why a large group of people choose what they choose.

He's clearly wrong about that. Many of those people don't feel that way, and I'd wager that the vast majority don't. At least the vast majority of the ones that I've seen talking about it don't.

For instance I look at the situation and I say to myself, If I'm ever in her position, I want people to admit that I'm dead, hold a decent funeral, and move on. It isn't a question of resources. I don't care if you can keep me "alive" for a thousand years. It is that I'd be gone and my strong preference is to let people get on with the grief process sooner rather than later. I abhor the idea of causing people that I care about extended pain when there is no hope for me.

I know that I'm not alone. Plenty of people in hospitals have made the decision to be DNR and/or DNI. I'm sure that they have different reasons for so deciding, but I've never had a conversation with a friend who says that they would choose that who cite economics as a factor. Therefore I suspect that economic considerations, implicit or explicit, are not a major cause.

And when people who come at this from my point of view look at the situation, we see a valid non-economic reason to end the semblance of life in someone who really died a long time ago.

Regards,
Ben

PS His 50 million unborn children figure? That's less than the number of potential children who are lost each time the average man masturbates! It is also too low. Far more potential babies than that are lost to natural miscarriages, mostly before 2 weeks of age. However the fact that he would cite that when it has nothing to do with the rest of what he writes strongly suggests certain biases on his part. That someone with those biases would make nasty insinuations about people who want to let Schiavo finish the business of dying surprises me not at all.

Re:That's one view

jdavidb on 2005-04-04T14:47:44

Except the big part where he says that this is why a large group of people choose what they choose.

He actually manages to misrepresent both sides. I think he's trying to play psychologist (or economist) and get at people's alleged underlying unspoken motivations. Whether or not those motivations are truly there and are truly as he describes is an interesting thought to ponder.

For instance I look at the situation and I say to myself, If I'm ever in her position, I want people to admit that I'm dead, hold a decent funeral, and move on.

I have no problem with that at all. If you truly own your life I think you have the right to do whatever you want in it and I don't get a say whatsoever.

I have no problem with DNR, etc. So long as everything is specified legally and in writing. I do have a problem with people making that assumption for me since I have not filed such paperwork (and in fact feel differently and have instructed my family otherwise).

His 50 million unborn children figure? That's less than the number of potential children who are lost each time the average man masturbates!

Do you want to truly understand the pro-life side and disagree with it, or would you prefer to misrepresent it and disagree with it? The pro-life side generally believes that a fetus is a human being, while a spermatazoa is not. The pro-life side generally could not care less about "potential children"; the concern is for what the pro-life side believes are actual children. The problem is that the two sides disagree on whether or not, if you'll let me use my terminology, an unborn baby is a human being or not.

Now, I understand that the pro-choice side believes that a fetus is not a human being, or merely a potential human being, and I strenuously disagree. Theoretically, it should be possible for you to understand that the pro-life side does believe an unborn baby is an actual human being and that spermatazoa are not human beings and are irrelevant, while strenuously disagreeing. And it will add a lot to your persuasiveness if you understand and do not misrepresent your opposition. Educate yourself on the opposition rather than taking pride in yourself for having the "right" view; I think you will find it feels a lot better to actually know why people feel differently than yourself.