Friday, March 25, 2005

More with Harriet McBryde Johnson...

on The Corner on National Review Online as they have a snip of the transcript of her appearance on Aaron Brown's show last night (I presume Weds.):

BROWN: Let me try and ask the question a little bit differently. No state in the country allows a non-terminally ill person to commit suicide. Every state in the country would intervene in that matter.

Ms. Schiavo clearly to me is not terminally ill in the way we think about terminal illness. So, regardless of her wishes -- and let's just accept for this moment that those in fact are her wishes -- regardless of those wishes, should -- is it appropriate for a non- terminal person to end their life or to have assistance in ending their life?

JOHNSON: Well, I think the key distinction is that we have an incapacitated person and someone else making the decision.

I would say that there are a few decisions that each of us can only make for ourselves. And one of those is to give up our lives. And here we have a substitute decision-maker claiming to have the right to end another person's life, again, based on disability, which is a stigmatized minority group. But one person says, I can end my wife's life because of her disability.

And I think, for that decision to be valid, there ought to be real solemn documents, like a properly executed health care proxy, that says, absolutely, after advice, this is what I want, because the truth is that many, many people say casually throughout their lives, I'd rather be dead than disabled. I've had people come up to me and say, I would rather be dead if I had to live like you.

But the reality is that most people adapt. Most people go on to lead good lives that they could never have imagined. And this case is a particularly tough one. But the law applies to all people. And I think it's just a dangerous idea to say that we're going to let a substitute decision-maker authorize the killing of another person based on fairly casual statements they made without any particular knowledge of what they were talking about.


Dennis Miller once said in one of his trademark rants - I can't recall the subject - "The worst day alive is better than the best day dead." and that's always stuck with me.

If this was Terri trying to punch her own ticket with the help of Dr. Jack, much of the last week's drama wouldn't have happened, but since we have the asstackler scumbag of a sh*theel husband calling for her death, I think we should be trying a little harder to make sure she's hopeless before acting as torturous contract killers for this pig.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think you bolded the wrong line. You probably meant to bold:

"regardless of her wishes"

Dirk Belligerent said...

Sorry, but the only person who knows HER wishes is currently being slowly tortured to death on the say-so of ONE PERSON, her adulterous rat bastard husband.

When the only person who claims to have known her wishes is the primary beneficiary of her murder, why are you so unquestioning of his motives other than it will allow you to stick a thumb in the eye of the Red Staters?

If a single cop was the only witness to a capital murder suspect's actions, but there was no other evidence to actually link the suspect to the crime beyond this cop's testimony, would you be comfortable with the convict's death sentence, especially if it came out that the cop had a falling out with the suspect over some personal matter?

Quit hiding behind your strawmen and simply admit that this is about sticking it to the Jesus freaks.

Anonymous said...

Why don't -you- just come out and say how you really feel-- that a person's body belongs to society and not to that individual person.

Look, we've gone over this a dozen times already. The law says your marriage partner is next of kin and they are legally able to make decisions for you. You don't like that? Change the law. Stop complaining that her husband shouldn't be able to make decisions for her just because his decision doesn't jive with your personal beliefs.

What's next-- are you going to pick a fight with every person in the country who makes the painful decision to end a loved one's life if they choose death? The only reason you're ranting about this (besides that you're just parroting what you're hearing on AM talk radio) is because there's a schism between what the parents want and what her husband wants. If they were in agreement, we'd be arguing about Social Security right now.

And for the FINAL time-- I'm not questioning his motives because if I am ever in his position I don't want you questioning MY motives. It's none of your fucking business.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Wow. Check out the wrong assumptions on Mr. Anonymous! Let's fisk this puppy!

Why don't -you- just come out and say how you really feel-- that a person's body belongs to society and not to that individual person.

BZZZZT!!! WRONG ANSWER!!! I believe that people must have control over their lives, but that's not what's happening here because it's not Terri's wishes being acted upon, it's the wishes of her husband and he's certainly commited to making sure that no one examines Terri to make sure that they aren't killing this woman wrongly.

Look, we've gone over this a dozen times already. The law says your marriage partner is next of kin and they are legally able to make decisions for you. You don't like that? Change the law. Stop complaining that her husband shouldn't be able to make decisions for her just because his decision doesn't jive with your personal beliefs.

Um, where do you draw basis to infer that my personal beliefs are such? I have consistantly mourned that for all the fumferring around of the politicians, The Starver has the upper hand legally and is getting his burden killed under color of law. Very nice for him.

I'm not sure what, if any, laws need to be changed. I'm certainly leary of letting the government have even more entre into out lives than they already are, but I'm certain that the moment an issue comes along that you care about - say, the removal of children from homes where Bibles are located - you'll be off your faux-"stay out of our lives" kick and back into your jackboots right quick.

What's next-- are you going to pick a fight with every person in the country who makes the painful decision to end a loved one's life if they choose death?

Nope. Just the next person who takes up the the "right to die" mantle as a cover to kill the helpless. I live in the same town as Dr. Jack Kevorkian and am quite familiar with the exploitation of this issue to sate a killer's need for victims. Just because they volunteer to be killed doesn't make him any less a killer. (Are you really defending the "she asked for it" defense?)

When this all (literally) dies down, I'll probably get around to post a major piece about the differences between morality, legality, decency, censorship, right and wrong.

The only reason you're ranting about this (besides that you're just parroting what you're hearing on AM talk radio) is because there's a schism between what the parents want and what her husband wants. If they were in agreement, we'd be arguing about Social Security right now.

I comment about what's on my mind and right now, this case is bugging me for reasons that you refuse to understand because you're afraid that to agree that something is seriously hinkey with The Starver utilizing the right-to-die issue as cover to snuff his wife - you know, the one he's technically married to while having another family on the side (isn't that illegal somehow?) - would weaken your sanctimonious claims which mask your abject hatred of people of faith and non-liberals.

And for the FINAL time-- I'm not questioning his motives because if I am ever in his position I don't want you questioning MY motives. It's none of your fucking business.

So, if you want to kill your spouse, you want to be left alone too and for that privilege, you're willing to allow an ill woman to be killed?

Wow.