Monday, March 21, 2005
IF IT WERE MY WIFE?
Carl G Loy
Mar 21, 2005
First of all my wife and I have both long agreed that we do not want to be sustained beyond a quality of life that allows us to make decisions for ourselves. So, if it was my wife I would give her up to a 'better life' beyond this world just as she would wish. I hope she would do the same for me. Hopefully, no court, no politician, no lawyer, no organization will intervene to prohibit the carrying out of our wishes.
I do not know the motives of Terri's husband, (in name only), in his quest to allow Terri to perish from her condition. Some have said it was because of a trust awarded Terri, while still others say that money is long ago spent. Supposedly, the husband was offered 10 million dollars to allow her to live, but the media seems unusually quiet about his response to that, or even to the fact that such an offer was made. He claims it would be Terri's wish; others claim not. I do understand the parents desire to keep their daughter alive, although I wonder if it is not somewhat selfish on their part. I do understand that the state has been brought into this fray by the parties disagreement and both of whom seek redress from the courts. The state should not be involved, but the parties involved, required their involvement. Obviously, one party has to be disappointed in the end results. We do not have the wisdom of Solomon available to us in our present day state environment and needless to say, the state will have its own agenda at play, and about which we may never know, regardless of how this plays out. The rewards already realized are to the benefit of the lawyers and politicians. A precedent setting decision could very well bode ill for the future of those who would want to live under these circumstances, as well as for those who would not. As is said, 'careful what you ask for, lest you get it.'
Generally, even if it may not be so related to this particular case, we could say that if not for socialism, this would not be an issue at all in the public arena, unless from a charitable perspective by individuals or private groups who wanted to assist in the expense involved to keep someone in this condition alive. If it were my wife, I could not afford to maintain the cost requirements and I would not be seeking government to rob others by force to do so on my behalf. Most of us are not able to afford extreme and lengthy medical costs, even with some amount of insurance protection, and just because technology has found new, but expensive ways of treating conditions and / or keeping one breathing, does not entitle us to benefit from it if we can't pay for it. The guy who offered the 10 million exemplifies the role of charity in such cases. I don't know if other motives were at play here, but I'm suspect. If I should require extensive, but expensive treatment for a condition that might render me well again, I wouldn't be able to afford it, nor would I think others should be made to afford it for me. Neither would I allow such expenses to drain our assets whereby leaving my wife destitute because of it. Of course, on the other hand, I would spend all I had to save her health and allow her some quality of life.
I'm just sorry that a husband, who obviously cares not about his wife, is the one who has brought this to state involvement by not honoring her parents wishes. I'm also sorry that the parents must expect that the expense at some point will be born by all of us thru socialism and are willing to involve the Federal government and its legislature, it's judicial, and its Executive to fulfill their wishes. They apparently could not pursue this if they alone had to bear the expense. Regardless, we will all be affected in ways beyond the socialistic expense already endured and to be endured. We seek to make government a god when we seek government's benefits in the form of life meaning decisions. At this moment, we await that god's decision about the life of Terri.
I don't know if Terri is suffering as we would think of suffering. I hope not. This will probably drag out until it is no longer a case of life or death and that may be the hope of the court. Meanwhile the politicians have distracted us from real issues, and made themselves out to be something else they are not. Some, such as Bush, have gained mileage from this and now I'm sure he and such others are just as wishful that it will go away. They've gained all they will get at this point. The dialectic seems to be well working and much in use. Anytime the state is involved, there are winners and losers; the state always wins. When you think they don't, that is your strong delusion.
I for one, think we are asking all the wrong questions and seeking the wrong source for our relief. Because that is the case, the noose will tighten just that much more, and soon we too will recognize that, afterall, government is god. Should we bow now, or wait for the 'mark?' On second thought, we've already been bowing for a long time and we use a mark in one form or another. Maybe we should be on our knees deciding which god we shall honor and obey.
Mar 21, 2005
First of all my wife and I have both long agreed that we do not want to be sustained beyond a quality of life that allows us to make decisions for ourselves. So, if it was my wife I would give her up to a 'better life' beyond this world just as she would wish. I hope she would do the same for me. Hopefully, no court, no politician, no lawyer, no organization will intervene to prohibit the carrying out of our wishes.
I do not know the motives of Terri's husband, (in name only), in his quest to allow Terri to perish from her condition. Some have said it was because of a trust awarded Terri, while still others say that money is long ago spent. Supposedly, the husband was offered 10 million dollars to allow her to live, but the media seems unusually quiet about his response to that, or even to the fact that such an offer was made. He claims it would be Terri's wish; others claim not. I do understand the parents desire to keep their daughter alive, although I wonder if it is not somewhat selfish on their part. I do understand that the state has been brought into this fray by the parties disagreement and both of whom seek redress from the courts. The state should not be involved, but the parties involved, required their involvement. Obviously, one party has to be disappointed in the end results. We do not have the wisdom of Solomon available to us in our present day state environment and needless to say, the state will have its own agenda at play, and about which we may never know, regardless of how this plays out. The rewards already realized are to the benefit of the lawyers and politicians. A precedent setting decision could very well bode ill for the future of those who would want to live under these circumstances, as well as for those who would not. As is said, 'careful what you ask for, lest you get it.'
Generally, even if it may not be so related to this particular case, we could say that if not for socialism, this would not be an issue at all in the public arena, unless from a charitable perspective by individuals or private groups who wanted to assist in the expense involved to keep someone in this condition alive. If it were my wife, I could not afford to maintain the cost requirements and I would not be seeking government to rob others by force to do so on my behalf. Most of us are not able to afford extreme and lengthy medical costs, even with some amount of insurance protection, and just because technology has found new, but expensive ways of treating conditions and / or keeping one breathing, does not entitle us to benefit from it if we can't pay for it. The guy who offered the 10 million exemplifies the role of charity in such cases. I don't know if other motives were at play here, but I'm suspect. If I should require extensive, but expensive treatment for a condition that might render me well again, I wouldn't be able to afford it, nor would I think others should be made to afford it for me. Neither would I allow such expenses to drain our assets whereby leaving my wife destitute because of it. Of course, on the other hand, I would spend all I had to save her health and allow her some quality of life.
I'm just sorry that a husband, who obviously cares not about his wife, is the one who has brought this to state involvement by not honoring her parents wishes. I'm also sorry that the parents must expect that the expense at some point will be born by all of us thru socialism and are willing to involve the Federal government and its legislature, it's judicial, and its Executive to fulfill their wishes. They apparently could not pursue this if they alone had to bear the expense. Regardless, we will all be affected in ways beyond the socialistic expense already endured and to be endured. We seek to make government a god when we seek government's benefits in the form of life meaning decisions. At this moment, we await that god's decision about the life of Terri.
I don't know if Terri is suffering as we would think of suffering. I hope not. This will probably drag out until it is no longer a case of life or death and that may be the hope of the court. Meanwhile the politicians have distracted us from real issues, and made themselves out to be something else they are not. Some, such as Bush, have gained mileage from this and now I'm sure he and such others are just as wishful that it will go away. They've gained all they will get at this point. The dialectic seems to be well working and much in use. Anytime the state is involved, there are winners and losers; the state always wins. When you think they don't, that is your strong delusion.
I for one, think we are asking all the wrong questions and seeking the wrong source for our relief. Because that is the case, the noose will tighten just that much more, and soon we too will recognize that, afterall, government is god. Should we bow now, or wait for the 'mark?' On second thought, we've already been bowing for a long time and we use a mark in one form or another. Maybe we should be on our knees deciding which god we shall honor and obey.
