Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

I'm sure some of you have been paying attention to this as it unfolds down in Florida. So what are your thoughts?

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

I had a rather long post, but due to forces beyond my control it was lost. Let me just run the main points across.

1) Yes they should let her die
2) It's very hypoctritical to let her live. These same people who are against cloning because it is, "playing god," want to keep this woman hooked up to every machine known to man. Isn't that playing god?
3) People don't seem to realize it costs alot of money to keep someone on 24 hour watch and keep this feeding tube in her.
4) She said if she was ever in this position that she wanted to die.
5) I'm sorry, but really, is that any sort of life? She can't think. It's like being a fern plant.

That's just my liberal opinion.

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

I'm of two minds about this. As a person who is exceptionally into personal liberty, I think it's fine that her life be ended. I trust her husband to know what her wishes would have been, and if he says that she would not have wanted to be kept alive (and especially if she said it outright to him) and especially to be the center of this issue, I believe him. Sure, he could have ulterior motives, but those who blindly assume that is the case have just as much chance of being wrong as those who naively feel it's not possible.

Where I get concerned is where the government gets involved. I'm sure it's abhorrent to the religious right that this woman's life be ended. If God had wanted her dead, he would have killed her at the start, right? Honestly, I can understand that viewpoint. What I don't understand is how the government can take the stance that it is their job to save her. The precedent that is being set by Congress and the President will be used later to deny others the right to die, even in cases where it is not ambiguous what the person's wishes are.

There's no right answer to this. And what it's taught me is that if you're a legal adult, you should most certainly have a living will drawn up.

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 21st March 2005 14:54

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

They'll remove her feeding tube because of her right-to-die, but can't use lethal injection on her because that's unethical. Only in America can a person's life be in the hands of a judge even though they didn't commit a crime, can't defend themselves, and rely on a he said/she said match between their family and a spouse that's been with someone else for about 10 years.

--------------------

</technology>

The comment to answer 2 is "it's unacceptable to die in this fashion".

I personally think it's unacceptable to "live" in this fashion. If there's anything I hate, it's striving for liberty and rights, that iterferes with liberty and rights, and this is the case.
For all we know, she never wanted to be hooked up like that. Plus, she's hooked onto machinery that could actually bring someone back to life (and I mean LIFE).

--------------------

"I fell off the mountain of words at around the 10,000ft mark. Tell my family...they owe me money." -Narratorway

"If you retort against this, so help me God I'll shove any part of your anatomy I can find into some other part. Figuratively, of course." - Josh

"We have more, can deliver tuesday." - Del S

Good old CoN

I haven't actually been following this too closely, but it was my understanding that she hadn't wanted to live if it came down to this scenario. That being the case, they should definitely remove the feeding tube. I know that I wouldn't want to be kept alive in that scenario. I don't want to live my life as a vegetable--didn't the doctors say that there was virtually no chance of coming out of the coma. Anyways, let her die, it is her right.

Pull it out. It may sound cruel, but keeping her in a position like that is beyond cruel. Honestly, could anyone honestly say I want to have no control over my life? Keep her hooked up to all these devices, wasting valuable resources to keep a woman alive who probably has no chance of making a comeback. Why deny the inevitable... let her have some dignity. Why would her loved ones allow her to suffer like that? She can't do anything... I hate to say it, but she might as well be dead. What benefits come from her being alive? Are her friends and family really better off like this? Instead of knowing she has past on, they must stare at a grown woman who basically has the mindset of an infant child. From shots I've seen on the news, all she could really do was smile and move her arms. Who would allow someone to live like that? It's disgusting...

--------------------

This is my world: (Got my second chapter up, 3rd Chapter about 80% complete)
http://www3.sympatico.ca/daniel876/homepage.html

Quote

2) It's very hypoctritical to let her live. These same people who are against cloning because it is, "playing god," want to keep this woman hooked up to every machine known to man. Isn't that playing god?

the differences between *creating* life and *preserving* life are myriad in number. it is no ignoble thing to use what God has given/allowed to be developed to rehabilitate and preserve His children. also i will address something else along with this:

Quote

For all we know, she never wanted to be hooked up like that. Plus, she's hooked onto machinery that could actually bring someone back to life (and I mean LIFE).

see like, you people just hear sh~t and put 1 and 2 together and get 7 and all of the sudden you're authorities on the subject arguing x should be y because z when z isn't even something that ever happened in the first place...case in point being that **terri schiavo is *not* hooked up to any sort of life-support machine whatsoever.** a feeding tube is NOT a life-support machine.

Quote

The precedent that is being set by Congress and the President will be used later to deny others the right to die, even in cases where it is not ambiguous what the person's wishes are.

sounds like you've been listening to npr. the bill that was signed by president w only transfers the jurisdiction to the us court system and out of the state court system, doing no more than allowing the federal court system to reinstate the feeding tube if, after hearing arguments, they find it to be prudent. the whole point here was that it *is* ambiguous in this case what mrs schaivo's wishes were. w: "in cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society; our laws; and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life." so i doubt the government has any interest in denying people their right-to-die. what we are given in this case is a woman with a husband who has constantly changed his story, who has resorted to personal attacks when unable to discredit his wife's family in another way, who has withheld therapy since 1991, who has lied on television concerning his spouse and her family, who has payed his lawyer one third of the malpractice award that his wife was awarded, who tried to withhold from his wife a necessary antibiotic treatment -- apparently with the intention to kill her (the hospital intervened) -- there is nothing i can see in him that would make me believe his side of the story. mrs schiavo purportedly told her husband AND his brother and sister-in-law that she would not want to survive in such a state, but never told anyone else? no close friends, nor other family?

furthermore, mr schiavo has been doing his best to sidestep the law and kill his wife since the start. recall she collapsed in 1990. in 1991 -- during which physicians assessed terri's condition as improving -- he ordered rehabilitation efforts stopped (for one year only rehabilitation efforts were ongoing [and have been since absent], yet mr schiavo loves to remind that his wife has been incapacitated for 15 years). florida state law ch744§3215(1)(i) declares that "A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right...To receive necessary services and rehabilitation. " it would seem that court proceedings siding with mr schiavo are indeed in violation of terri's rights. in 1993, he ordered hospital staff to withhold antibiotics as treatment for a possibly fatal bacterial infection. florida 765§309(1): "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying." again, his actions would seem to be in direct contradiction to the state law. in 1998, he tried to make a deal with schiavo's parents: he would donate the remaining $800 000 in her malpractice fund to charity -- *iff* her parents would agree to removal of the feeding tube. i'm sure there are others.

what i see in this case is yet another group of judges with a political agenda overstepping their bounds and using their office to push their agenda sans checks-and-balances. let's take, for example, the court-appointed guardian ad litem selected BY THE COURT to investigate schaivo's case. after the gal suggested that mr schiavo's petition that the court allow him to order terri's death be rejected, he was discharged from participation by the very court that appointed him! sickening.

Quote (gozaru~ @ 21st March 2005 13:24)

sounds like you've been listening to npr.

Yes, you're right. I heard about ten seconds of it as pulled into the parking lot at work - they were doing a news update. I'm sure they had more commentary, but I didn't hear it; lo and behold, I formed an opinion of my own - hence saying that I was of two minds and not blindly spouting off the "party line."

I am confident that this could (perhaps "will" was too strong a word) be used as a precedent to restrict rights in the future. This bill WOULD not have existed if not for the fact that the last one, in the Florida state legislature, was ruled unconstitutional by the Florida supreme court. The reason that this bill was put into place was because the majority party did not like the outcome of Florida's supreme court and wanted to make sure the issue did not die there. It's not a Republican thing, it's a political thing that would have been possible under either party, and that makes me sick.

I'm not sure why you had to quote that one line when I actually say I understand the viewpoint just beforehand. The only point I really wanted to make is that I don't believe in government interference here on either side, and that everyone should have a living will. I'll say again, there is. no. right. answer.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Quote (gozaru~ @ 21st March 2005 13:24)

...case in point being that **terri schiavo is *not* hooked up to any sort of life-support machine whatsoever.**  a feeding tube is NOT a life-support machine.

Then perhaps she'd like to feed herself?
Ya know. Since it isn't sustaining her life in anyway.

This post has been edited by MogMaster on 22nd March 2005 04:36

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

I've only heard a few things about the case.
Her husband wants her to die and her parents want her to live
Her husband says she's non-responsive and brain-dead, while her parents say she is responsive and understands what's going on around her (doctors are split on this question).
She told her husband (and apparently only him) that she would want to die, and I think I've heard she told her parents she would want to live in that situation.

I think her husband should get the final say-so because he's her husband, even though I disagree with his decision and I'm happy the parents have decided to take a stand against letting their daughter die.

My attitude towards mercy killing/euthinasia/suicide is that it's the coward's way out. Hold on to life as long as you can, and go down fighting.

Quote (MogMaster @ 21st March 2005 23:36)

Quote (gozaru~ @ 21st March 2005 13:24)

...case in point being that **terri schiavo is *not* hooked up to any sort of life-support machine whatsoever.**  a feeding tube is NOT a life-support machine.

Then perhaps she'd like to feed herself?
Ya know. Since it isn't sustaining her life in anyway.

Semantics and changing of defenition isn't going to help your arguement.
Also, being unable to feed yourself and being legally dead are pretty far apart.

--------------------

"I had to write four novels before they let me write comic books."
-Brad Meltzer

Quote (Dark Paladin @ 22nd March 2005 00:26)

Quote (MogMaster @ 21st March 2005 23:36)

Quote (gozaru~ @ 21st March 2005 13:24)

...case in point being that **terri schiavo is *not* hooked up to any sort of life-support machine whatsoever.**  a feeding tube is NOT a life-support machine.

Then perhaps she'd like to feed herself?
Ya know. Since it isn't sustaining her life in anyway.

Semantics and changing of defenition isn't going to help your arguement.
Also, being unable to feed yourself and being legally dead are pretty far apart.

For one thing, the crow oughtn't be calling the raven black.

And I never changed the definition of anything. I am just of the opinion that since pulling the tube out of her will kill her, it is therefore supporting her life. This must be true, otherwise they could just pull the tube out and leave it there without her dying, no?

This post has been edited by MogMaster on 22nd March 2005 14:43

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

I'm not religious, and don't feel morally constrained by this "creation of God" mumbo-jumbo. My belief is that a good thing will ultimately benefit a person, and a bad thing will ultimately leave them worse off. There is no rational, in any shape or form, which can justify that being in a state of unending suffering is in any way positive to someone, therefore out with the tube, I say. For all we know, she's either not even conscious anymore, and life without consciousness is being dead with a body that still operates. On the other hand, she may be conscious, making this even worse for her as she is aware of every moment of her suffering.

Either way makes keeping her alive cruel and inhumane.

People are afraid of death because we've had it drilled into our skulls repeatedly that death == bad thing. Even if avoiding death means unending suffering and pain. Hrm. Sounds like mankind's priorities are a little whacked, aren't they?

And from a religious point of view, God's good, right? Would God want one of his creations to suffer like this? Probably not. One would argue that if God wanted things to end, he'd pull the plug, but let's not kid ourselves. God isn't going to split the heavens open, descend in a fiery chariot of gold and silver, walk up to her, and say, "Yo. I'm here to pull the plug; who do I see about this?" She's suffering. Everyone, be they professionals or not, can see it. Maybe THAT'S God's way of saying, "Hey, time to pull the plug"?

Seriously. Let's not take this to extremes. Preserving life's cute and everything but this is just ridiculous. I would quite happily (relatively speaking) pull the plug on my own mother if she were in this situation, because I'd rather give her peace than a life of pain and suffering in a vegetative state.

Edit: By the way, I have NO idea what this is about, other than what I've loosely gathered from the posts here. Any blantant ignorant statements on my part can be blamed on the weird grey stuff growing on my desk.

This post has been edited by Silverlance on 22nd March 2005 06:06

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Ugh..


1.) She is not in a coma.


2.) She is not an unresponsive vegetable.



I hope to never be in that kind of situation involving a loved one. How terrible.

--------------------

The clouds ran away, opened up the sky
And one by one I watched every constellation die
And there I was frozen, standing in my backyard
Face to face, eye to eye, staring at the last star
I should've known, walked all the way home
To find that she wasn't here, I'm still all alone

-Atmosphere "Always Coming Back Home to You"

Quote (MogMaster @ 22nd March 2005 00:43)

I am just of the opinion that since pulling the tube out of her will kill her, it is therefore supporting her life.

she is *not* hooked up constantly to the feeding tube. it is only inserted at mealtime and periodically for hydration. the feeding tube is by medical definition not life support, because that term is reserved for the group of machines to which a patients needs be constantly hooked up to survive (e.g., can't breathe without respirator). this is not a question of opinion; mrs schaivo is medically *not* on life support. and anyway, you said earlier

Quote

this woman hooked up to every machine known to man

it's not even remotely the case.

edit: wanted to add this:

Quote

And from a religious point of view, God's good, right? Would God want one of his creations to suffer like this? Probably not. One would argue that if God wanted things to end, he'd pull the plug, but let's not kid ourselves. God isn't going to split the heavens open, descend in a fiery chariot of gold and silver, walk up to her, and say, "Yo. I'm here to pull the plug; who do I see about this?" She's suffering. Everyone, be they professionals or not, can see it. Maybe THAT'S God's way of saying, "Hey, time to pull the plug"?

this is a fault-ridden conception of the almighty good of God. God allows his children to suffer here in this temporary realm -- the devil controls the world; it is our price for free will. however, suffering can also bring a believer closer to God. well, i don't want to digress. the OT book of job covers the topic of believer suffering in great detail. just, the point is that God did not want us to live trial- and tribulation-free lives here on earth.

This post has been edited by gozaru~ on 22nd March 2005 08:45

I know they already pulled the plug but I was for that. I mean come on, I don't know about ya'll but I hate causing trouble for others and having them go hand and foot for me. If I wasn't able to do anything on my own without having someone helping me I'd pull the plug on myself, but I wouldn't be able to! You call that living? If it was my daughter, son, wife (assuming I had any of the first three), brother, sister, mom, dad, dog or anyone else in my family I'd be the first to suggest it. I may not be religous but I have moral as well as anyone else.

--------------------

The Cait Sith Avatar has Returned!

Check out my DeviantArt profile! ....If you don't mind that is

I find it ironic that after the big deal that was made by the media over Bush and company leaving their Easter vacations to have emergency legislation passed to take this issue to a federal judge.... that that judge ruled to not reinsert the tube.

The government should not be involved in any way shape or form. If the matter can't be settled by a living will, then the state laws delegate who the one to make the decision is. In the case of Florida law, it is the spouse, then next in line are adult children, and then finally parents. That has been my understanding of it, at least. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

Most importantly, we know that from a legal standpoint this should be her husband's decision. Based on conversations with Terri prior to her heart attack, Mr. Shiavo says she did not want to live this way. He has not decided this after he found another woman, but has maintained this stance throughout. I believe that his decision should be honored, and I am really amazed at the audacity of the government with the measures that they have taken in this case. Individual rights and state's rights are being circumvented here. It will set a precedent for this type of thing to continue in the future, as well.

I wish I could find it now, but an article on Yahoo yesterday had a survey indicating that the majority of Americans, regardless of what they thought should be done concerning Terri, did not agree with the government intervention that was taking place. I definitely fall into that category.


--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

First of all, when people say the "government" shouldn't have gotten involved they forget that the courts are *part* of the government. In my (neo-conservative Bush-loving) opinion, the legislature had no right to get involved in a judicial matter, and as I understand every judge up to this point has affirmed the original judge's ruling or abstained from hearing the case.

But I digress, my opinion is that she should live. She appears to be responsive on video, her eyes following opjects placed in front of her, etc. And there is no medical consensus that she is a lost cause either, despite widespread public belief.

Also, the husband is currently engaged to be remarried (yes, while his current wife is dying) and has two children with this new woman. But alas, he cannot marry her while Terry is still alive. Conflict of interest anyone? Also, Terri's family believes that the original injury may have been caused by foul play and they suspect the husband. They are on public record saying that were it not for the statute of limitations they would press homicide charges on the husband.

So let's review: He has an ongoing relationship with someone else, whom he cannot marry unless Terri is dead. Her parents suspect him of foul play, and Terri is the only other witness. Michael controls her life and thus the outcomes of both of those situations which clearly benefit him if she is dead...

In any case, without a living will I think it is bizzare (legally) that only one person has the right to make that decision. If she had a will saying that Michael could authorize it, fine, but without one I feel like it is a decision that should be made by the entire family. Most if not all of her direct relatives want to keep her alive, Michael appears to be the only one who wants to "let her die" (i.e., kill her)

Still in my opinion, in any ambiguous situation such as this, I always err on the side of life. You can criticize me on "quality not quantity" grounds, but I believe very strongly in the sanctity of life regardless, and I would not want to be deprived of a chance to recover from illness, despite even the most overwhelming odds. I love life, I believe in life, and I would want the chance to go down fighting.

Personally, I only heard of this case in bits and pieces over the evening news. I could kinda figure out why her parents wanted her alive (duh); whatever reasoning I know of, that her husband had for wanting her dead, I've picked up from these above posts.

My opinion: probably, she should live.

Comments:
1.

Quote (MogMaster)

2) It's very hypoctritical to let her live. These same people who are against cloning because it is, "playing god," want to keep this woman hooked up to every machine known to man. Isn't that playing god?

Very good observation, MogMaster.
2.

Quote (gozaru~)

sounds like you've been listening to npr.

Interestingly, I listen to NPR (albeit, not that much), but I also knew that the bill wasn't a statement of opinion but simply a statement of policy.

However, I've heard enough of Scott Peterson. Then suddenly this pops up. And people are suing this left and right.

And somehow, as if Florida isn't screwed up enough (I love my now-former (because my dad got a new job in Connecticut) home state, but that's 'love' in the form of caring about it, not liking how it is now), this has to happen.

Guess what my final opinion of this is? I DON'T CARE. Stop reporting on it like it's more important than a lot of other things, such as what's going on in Iraq. It's NOT more important than those things, even if people think it is.

And keep in mind that my opinion of saying that she should probably have her feeding tube reinserted comes not from believing in 'right-to-life' doctrine or from being religious (I'm almost a completely secular person), but rather from my reading that her husband stands to benefit from her death and already has had an affair with another woman, and my wanting to see that he offer himself responsible for his bad personal judgement.

(As a sidenote and a reference, I'm a moral conservative who strongly dislikes killing, but I cannot be easily labeled with the term 'pro-life' either. If you want to talk politics with me, I'd love to; feel free to PM me or e-mail me (glennmagusharvey[at}gmail{dot]com) or talk to me on my IRC channel (#darkmyst on irc.darkmyst.org).)

This post has been edited by Glenn Magus Harvey on 23rd March 2005 04:06

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

First: she might not be on life support as a strick definition, but she will die should the feeding tube be removed.
Second, Mr. Shiavo was pushing for the removal of the tube long before he got with this other woman.
Third, she's been like this for years now. If she was going to recover, it would have happened by now. Even if she is lucid, she must be in pain.
Fourth, I don't think this should have ever been a federal issue. Possibly a state issue since the parents are makng a big issue and no official statement was made as to whom Terri wanted to decide and what she would have liked. What she may have said won't hold up in court unless there was a witness, and even then it might not hold water since it's easy to change your mind. I was required to make a similar statement prior to deplyment, and it requred two witnesses and a notary. In any case, the closest living realative gets to choose by default, and the choice was made. Simple as that.

Now, whether it's right or wrong, I say she should be allowed mercy. I say that the husband has the right to choose (legally so, despite any conflicts of interest, since she did not designate anyone else as the executor of this decision).

--------------------

M777: lightweight 155mm howitzer
3/11 rules over all artillery!

As Rangers said, there really is no right answer. Regardless of her husband's possible ulterior motives, however, I still see the coup de grâce as necessary.

This post has been edited by The_Pink_Nu1 on 23rd March 2005 06:28

--------------------

SPEKKIO: "GRRR...That was most embarrassing!"

Possibly she IS in a position that death may be better for her. But the fact is that her scoundrel husband is trying to murder her (in a manner of speaking) just so he can obtain money.

Years ago, when she was still on therapy, she was starting to be able to move and somewhat speak. After she started making progress, her husband demanded that the therapy be stopped, which it did. Ever since then he's been asking and demanding that she be killed, in which case her parents are debating heavily. If he hadn't ordered therapy stopped, she could well be on her way to a gradual recovery.
So no, she shouldn't die in this fashion, not when the man who "loves" her is trying to get rid of her.

--------------------

I fear my heart and fear my soul
Life goes on, it surely will,
Without me and I wonder:
Will I ever see light again?

Life goes on...

Quote (The_Pink_Nu1 @ 23rd March 2005 01:28)

As Rangers said, there really is no right answer. Regardless of her husband's possible ulterior motives, however, I still see the coup de grâce as necessary.

On the other hand, if she is still conscious and even if she is suffering, I would believe that she would rather stay alive than die if only to keep her husband from cheating off of the entire medical/insurance/political system, herself included.

Or it's just that I tend sometimes to think in terms of vengeance.

Therefore, my actual answer would be 'No, it is unacceptable to let her die in this fashion, this fashion being the reasons and steps taken by her husband to dispose of her.' (As opposed to 'O cruel nurses/doctors/judges', which I strongly do NOT believe to be the case.)

This post has been edited by Glenn Magus Harvey on 24th March 2005 00:34

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Yes, her husband is very cruel and heartless. But, today, three kids and their mother were arrested for trying to bring water to Schiavo. They were trespassing.

--------------------

Yunalesca: "Hope is...comforting. It allows us to accept fate, however tragic it might be. "

Yunalesca: "Poor creature. You would throw away hope. Well... I will free you before you can drown in your sorrow. It is better for you to die in hope than to live in despair. Let me be your liberator. "

The heck? They arrested them for that?! I would have resisted. (Well, I would have, if I were there, and if I either (1) didn't have anything to lose (i.e. if the cops didn't throw people in jail for that) and/or (2) had 1337 magical powers by which I could successfully resist the physical strength of the police.)

What a triumph that would be, for the liberty to help others in need.

(And it was just water! Water, the most basic compound and solvent of life!)

*read the above post and was immediately outraged*

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Quote (imperialstooge @ 22nd March 2005 22:01)

Also, Terri's family believes that the original injury may have been caused by foul play and they suspect the husband. They are on public record saying that were it not for the statute of limitations they would press homicide charges on the husband.

If this were the case why didn't he remove the tube years ago? Why did he seek countless cures and remedies at his expense?

Quote (noonchild @ 23rd March 2005 23:18)

If this were the case why didn't he remove the tube years ago? Why did he seek countless cures and remedies at his expense?

uhm, he's been trying to get rid of her from the start (see my post) -- and he ordered these "countless remedies" STOPPED after her condition was reportedly improving way back in 91.

to expland on what imperialstooge was saying about foul play, schiavo's husband has always maintained that her collapse was due to cardiac arrest following a pottasium imbalance. note, however, that reputable news organisations (ap, reuters) ALWAYS use the phrase "possible potassium imbalance" when referring to the reason behind her collapse, because *doctors have long since ruled out the possibility of a potassium imbalance leading to her collapse* -- there was no heart attac nor cardiac arrest, say mrs. schiavo's medical records! on the other hand, bone density scans conducted in 1990 (the year of her collapse) *do* exhibit bone trauma and broken bones, as well as rigidity in the neck (which at least one [court-appointed and nobel-nominated] neurologist has said is consistent with strangulation). a court-appointed forensics pathologist said a criminal investigation should be opened to probe possible reasons for her collapse. both physicians' testimonies were discarded by the court.

i'm not really sure, myself. i don't think openly allegating criminal activity on the part of mr schiavo is especially judicious, at this point. when i think about it, i consider that he *has* been trying to kill her from the start, and i consider further that perhaps he didn't want her to recover because she might one day open her mouth and snitch. but still, to me, that's not the great issue at hand -- instead of throwing blame around, it is more imperative to explore the florida judicial code, take note of recorded instances in which it has been broken by mr schiavo, and defer his guardianship to someone more suitable, and who actually cares about preserving her life. it is really quite impossible now to conduct a proper attempted homicide investigation, and it's a good bet that no convictions could be made anyway. instead, mr schiavo's obvious intention to kill his wife in her vegetative state -- by a number of methods -- and his withholding of therapy for her -- in violation of florida law -- and his imprudent use of her medical malpractice fund should be weighed appropriately by the courts, which, thus far, have made a very poor showing.

It is hard for me to say but I believe she should be allowed to die but not in the method she is currently undergoing. Of course none of us can understand or comprehend what she is going through but if she is "brain dead" as they say she is and no hope of recovery then she should be allowed to die but not the way they are doing it. It should be a quick death where she dies instantly. Of course if there is a way for her to recover then I would want her to survive and live. It is a complicated matter though and unless you have been through it, in my opinion, you cannot really throw an opinion.

--------------------

War is for the participants a test of character; it makes bad men worse and good men better. - Joshua Chamberlain

U sir R a n00b >:-( - Cactuar

I stopped to reconsider this issue yesterday afternoon. I'm still no closer to deciding what's right, and I'm glad I'm not a judge. I still feel that the parents are clinging to a vain hope, and having learned more about the husband here (and on NPR, by God ^_-), I can safely say that he is indeed a bastard. But there's still no right answer.

My thought is, "if only there was a way to dissolve the marriage." It's clear that the husband either can't handle or doesn't want to handle the responsibility any more; either of those is not exactly the strong thing to do, but it's true, so might as well move on from it. If the marriage was no more, the husband could move on and do whatever he wants with his life, and the parents could have their daughter hooked up to a feeding tube until they die, after which she could become a ward of the state (who would probably quite quickly remove the tube under public pressure to not shoulder the expense). It seems like everyone wins there but Terri, and I don't think anyone involved cares about her "winning" at this point anyway.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

In response to Glenn Magus Harvey:

She couldn't have drank the water anyway, had they got it to her. She swallows about 1.5 to 2 liters of saliva a day, but she can't swallow actual fluids or any type of solid, even puree, without potentially choking to death. I think the act of taking her water was more of an attention getter (though for who I'm not sure) than a legitimate attempt to help Terri.

Today (thursday, march 24th) is her seventh day without food or water. Reports from her parents say that her lips are dry and chapped, and that her eyes are dark and starting to sink in. They also say that she is becomming "less responsive", but I find this hard to believe, as she wasn't "responsive" to begin with. The hospice is going to great lengths to make sure that she would be comfortable, if she was able to feel anything at all that is. She is in no pain. Experts are saying that she will most likely expire during this next week, if the tube is not reinserted.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978