No Water for YOU: the new Nazis

What kind of people set guards over a sick woman to ensure no-one gives her a sip of water or a morsel of food?

I have not felt strongly enough about the Terry Schiavo case to post about it, nor has my thinking been clear enough. Part of the reason for this is that I do not believe in keeping a body breathing as long as medical science possibly can. I believe that when it’s time to die, it’s time to meet your Maker, and there is no point going to absolutely extraordinary measures to avoid it.

But what kind of people starve a human being to death?

I’m a little conflicted about this, but typically my thoughts on allowing very sick people to die focus on the use of medical machinery. The standard of my heart, biased or illogical as it might be, is that unless there is well-founded hope that a person can recover, machines should not be used to prolong life indefinitely. Whether it makes sense or not, when confronted with these circumstances, I always ask myself: would this person have died 200 years ago? 300 years ago? If so, do not keep the person on the ventilator, the heart/lung machine, etc. etc.

But since when can a husband decide that his wife should no longer eat?

Life is something that should not be taken lightly. Death is the same. In the book of Job, the Bible says: “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” Under ordinary circumstances (you’re not fighting for your life, the nation is not at war, the state is not, after due process, sentencing a mass murderer to execution) this should hold true. Throughout history, whenever humans have tried to play god, disaster has ensued. And how do you play god? Most obviously, playing god is evidenced by a belief that you can determine whether or not another person should live. The judge, in this case, played god. So did the husband. So did the police officers that prevented family and friends from helping a sick woman.

In what countries of the world do police officers prevent people from humanitarian deeds?

Take her off a feerding tube? OK, I might, might be able to understand that. Take her off a heart/lung machine? I can understand that. Refuse to put a crumb of bread in her mouth? I cannot understand that. Refuse to put a cool ice chip on a dying woman’s tongue? I cannot understand that.

Or perhaps I can understand it – I just don’t want to. It’s evil, pure and simple. This woman is an inconvenience. She costs money. Perhaps her life insurance cannot be claimed on until she is dead. Obviously, she must die, so that the rest of us, and her husband in particular, do not have to be burdened wth the irritating fact of her existence. Kill her off – make more space for the rest of us.

And while you’re doing it, don’t let her have a single sip of water. Oh, and by the way, post guards to ensure that she dies. And don’t let her father, mother, family, friends be with her when she dies. Just let her estranged husband – who is now living with another woman, with whom he has two children – let him be with her when she dies.

After all, he’s the one who wanted her dead. It’s his right.


I looked for a variety of stories on Google News when writing this post. Here are two that I found helpful:

“Theocrats” for Terry Shiavo
Schiavo, America’s Call to Action

They are doubtless biased and from a certain perspective. So is my post. But they make points that need to be made.