Death by starvation a self-indulgent way to die without dignity. January 22, 2010

Was the decision made by Terri Schiavo’s husband to remove his wife’s feeding tube and let her die a slow death by starvation a decision made out of love and respect for his brain damaged wife’s desire to die with dignity? 

I would have to say no because it took him 15 years and not two or even three years to announce to her family and to the courts that his wife expressed to him that she would rather die than live in a permanently vegetative state.   

While no one would choose to live a life confined to a bed and having to be fed through a feeding tube, I see his choice to end her life and deprive her of the nutrients she needed to continue living not as the actions of a heroic, loving and supportive husband, but one based on his own personal motives and desires.  

In my opinion he was not in the right frame of mind to make such an important decision for his wife because his mind was clouded with thoughts of the new woman in his live and the children that they had together. He conveniently remembered a conversation that he claims he had with Terri prior to her accident and used it as a legal way out of a relationship that was keeping him from marrying his live-in girlfriend and moving forward with the life he felt he deserved.  He was putting his own personal needs ahead of caring for his brain-damaged wife.  

Going back to this conversation that he remembered having with his wife, I have to question whether or not he was remembering the actual details of the conversation as told to him by his wife prior to the accident or did he invent certain details that were not part of their conversation because he is telling himself that is how the conversation took place and that he would be doing his wife an injustice if he did not act upon her wishes.  

In the end I believe that Terri’s husband deprived her of a peaceful death and in turn did not allow her to die with dignity but rather destined her to die a slow painful death as a result of starvation, which is a horribly inhumane way to die.  In my mind I relate the inhumane way she died from starvation as being similar to the horrible way that many Jews starved to death during the war.  Was it wise to allow a man with such clouded judgment to make such a life changing decision over another person’s life?  Have we not learned anything from the sufferings of many at the hands of Hitler?  Are we allowing history to be repeated by killing off people that are no longer deemed useful?  As hitory has shown us, Hitler killed massive amounts of people and I’m left to wonder if we could we be doing the exact same thing by killing one person at a time over a longer period of time?

Human Nature – Unconsciously Good, Consciously Bad January 22, 2010

I am of the opinion that human beings enter this world as innocent individuals and are hard-wired to being good because I feel you make a conscience choice to become a bad person.   

A child can be born into the most loving and nurturing family environment but end up choosing to make bad choices and consequently becomes labeled by society as being a bad person.  Of course, there is always the flip side of that where a child has a terrible family life and then against all odds becomes by societies standards a good and moral human being.    

Take Kip Kinkel for example who by all accounts was born into a loving family, but opted to kill both his parents and then go on a shooting rampage at his school.  By contrast his sister, who was raised with the same beliefs and values as her brother, did not end up taking that same path in life.    

Taking into consideration this example it is evident to me that Kip’s bad behavior was not something he was born with but resulted from a decision he made to be bad.  When all’s said and done, what it comes down to is being bad is a personal choice and ultimately people are responsible for their destinies, good or bad.

Texting and Talking on a Cell Phone While Driving January 22, 2010

I am in agreement with the recent law that has been passed in Oregon making it illegal to talk on your cell phone without a hands-free device or texting while driving because it will allow the driver to be more focused on the road, reduce traffic accidents and ultimately safe lives.

While I see the intent for preventing potential traffic accidents or deaths, I find myself resisting the change, choosing to chat on my cell phone without a hands-free device and continuously doing it every time I am behind the wheel. Choosing to change is challenging for me right now.

However, I cannot afford to pay the price of a ticket should I get pulled over by a police officer so I really do need to retrain my brain and change.

All this change has me wondering how enforcing this new law is impacting our local police departments and courts who are already operating on tight budget restraints and under staffed as it is.

It also has me thinking about whose struggle to change their way of doing things might be greater, mine or the police officer who needs to decide who to pull over; a speeding driver, a suspected drunk driver or a mother who receives a call from a child in crisis and reaches for her phone and answers before putting on her hands-free device.