The parents are her family, aren't they? And I'm sorry, bringing it into the public forum makes it the public's business. You can't try and milk the media to make a political point and then turn around and say it's no one else's business.
I'm sorry, but she just isn't suddenly going to wake up one day and be better. Her soul died years ago. Putting things in captial letters isn't going to change that.
yes her parents are family, of course, however i was reading the family to incorporate both sides of the debate. i wasnt trying to be argumenative. the thing is the parents have tried to make the husband seem like a peckerhead and we dont know...we just dont...we dont know his agony or theirs. i can guess. but i am not them so i dont know....i just feel for the husband who has to deal with the agony of the situation and also people stoning him.... and wow, you hear about this in australia?
I think the family comment is to my chosen family comment. when one gets married, the spouse takes legal prominence over parents.
Ah.. ok. Yeah.... it's all over the news here, too. Not surprising, Australia is on it's way to becoming the 51st state of America.
Reward for the MOST STUPID argument for Domestic Abuse heard yet! Yeah, she knew, when she married him that she would become brain damaged and have him make decions for her, it's HER fault. MY GOD! Do you have an ounce of logic in your head? Why not blame ALL abused womyn, aftere all they "choose" their abusers. Shit.
One, this is AGAINST the law. Imagine if YOUR husband (especially one who has an other womyn and a couple of kids with her) got to say if and when to do this for YOU. And TWO, it is against the Catholic Faith, whether YOU or anyone else here has respect for the Catholic Faith isn't the issue. TERRI DID, and was a strong Catholic, and Euthenasia is NOT allowed under this faith. YOU and everyone who wants her killed can disagree until they are blue in the face. It was TERRI'S faith, and she still has a right to that faith. That isn't the point. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can GUESS what Terri wanted. She had nothing in writing, and her husband has other reasons for saying that she "wanted" to die if she was "in this state." People who have recovered from PVS claim little or no discomfort, (but I doubt Terri would recover, in part, because her husband REFUSED to let her have therapy. He had his agenda set from the beginning.) ALso, as I said before, people of MANY faiths simply do not beleive in "Mercy Killing." YOU may want, although, unless you live in Oregon, it is illegal in your state. But, if Terri was a Catholic, her faith forbid it. You can rail against Catholocism all you want, but people of this faith, and quite a few others, simply DO NOT beleive in "mercy killing." I have to agree with this, NOW. At this point, her organs are irrpairably damaged. I hope she does die soon. As I feel she IS suffering. She is not sedated. She had ONE 5 mg morphine suppository on Friday, and one Saturday night. That isn't much morphine, folks. Not much at all. She is FAR from being sedated. And if they were SO sure she wasn't "feeling anything" why did she get the mophine in the first place? This womyn is suffering, and as it stands now, she has been too damaged by the dehydration. I do hope she passes quickl;y. I have learned something VERY significant. MOST people are so medically ignorant of the way the human body and mind work, that it makes discussions like this almost impossible.
A feeding tube is NOT an "artificial" way of keeping someone alive. It is NOT the same as a respirator, MANY people, (including most severely preterm babies,(most of whom will live and recover) people who are parapalegics like Christopher Reeves, people with diseases like severe MS, and people like MY Father in Law, who has esophageal cancer, but is wholely alive and deserves to be so) are on feeding tubes. Saying a feeding tube is "artificial way" of keeping someone alive is like saying a fork is. (That is, if you rely on one to EAT!)
Terri is NOT in a Coma. A Persistant Vegetative State (or perhaps Minimally Conscious) is NOT a coma, nor anything like it. Most people are only in coma for a matter of hours or days. People rarely if ever stay in actual "Comas" for years. MANY people in comas recover, and do so fully. Coma does not mean BRAIN DEAD. NO HOSPITAL in the country can take organs from you UNLESS you are brain dead, We don't take organs from people in comas, they are taken from people who are brain dead to the extent that they cannot breathe on their own, they have NO brain activity, and they have NO responses, and they will be dead within minutes of being taken off of the RESPIRATOR. Terri Shaivo's state has NONE of these conditions. And neither would YOURS if you were in a PVS, Minimally Conscious, or were truely in a COMA!
If God exists, he called Terri home long ago. Those that prevented her going will be accountable to Him.
interesting article..... Nazis Used Starvation to Kill Newsmax | March 28 2005 Confounding all conventional wisdom and human experience, many liberal groups and even some medical experts have argued for Terri Schiavo’s death. They claim that starvation and dehydration are not painful or discomforting for her or anyone undergoing the experience. In fact, they allege that such victims begin to experience "euphoria" as the victims draw close to death. If such claims are true, we may have to rewrite the history of such notorious events as the Holocaust – where starvation was the key process by which millions died and were later placed in crematoriums. The internationally accepted Geneva Convention – which identifies starvation as a war crime – also will have to be rewritten. Ditto for many statements made by reputable organizations, many of them liberal, that have condemned the practice for decades. Strange Bedfellows Remember that statement about politics making strange bedfellows? Perhaps such is the case with liberal activists who want Terri to die from starvation and the Nazis who killed 13 million people. As it turns out, starvation was the primary means of killing unwanted peoples. Shortly after World War II, a U.S. congressional committee investigated the Nazi Holocaust and found that starvation was the main instrument of torture in the concentration camps. The Committee notes the prisoners' daily diet "consisted generally of about one-half of a pound of black bread per day and a bowl of watery soup for noon and night, and not always that." The report continued: "Notwithstanding the deliberate starvation program inflicted upon these prisoners by lack of adequate food, we found no evidence that the people of Germany as a whole were suffering from any lack of sufficient food or clothing. The contrast was so striking that the only conclusion which we could reach was that the starvation of the inmates of these camps was deliberate." If we believe the New York Times, what’s so bad about the Nazis' starvation tactic? A Times article relating to Schiavo’s death cited several "experts” who offered the new view on starvation. "From the data that is available, it is not a horrific thing at all," Dr. Linda Emanuel, the founder of the Education for Physicians in End-of-Life Care Project at Northwestern University, told the New York Times. The Times also cites Dr. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, who insists that starvation victims "generally slip into a peaceful coma." "It's very quiet, it's very dignified – it's very gentle," he adds. Despite the Times' desire to turn the truth upside down, the facts speak for themselves: To begin with, there is the long-standing and internationally accepted Geneva Convention: "The prohibition to starve civilians as a ‘method of warfare’ is included in Article 54 of Protocol I and Article 14 of Protocol II." According to the International Criminal Court, starvation as a means of killing is a war crime. The Court noted: "Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions' is a serious violation of the laws and customs of war [52]." The liberal human rights organization Amnesty International has long cited starvation as inhumane. For example, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the group claimed that "scores of civilian deaths, predominantly among children, from starvation and injuries [were] sustained during the conflict." Amnesty International stated at the time that it "condemns in the strongest terms the use of starvation as a weapon of war against civilians as a clear and serious violation of Geneva Conventions that Laos has ratified." Amnesty International also blasted North Korea after the U.N. reported that some 2 million North Koreans have died from starvation, adding that in total, 50 percent of the population doesn't have enough to eat. Work And Progress, a liberal Web site, was critical of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in 2001, and even claimed the U.S. military action there had caused up to 7.5 million Afghans to be threatened with starvation. The site went on to note: "Starvation is, quite literally, torturous. And the equation will seem just about right to many people: the atrocity that the U.S. government is willing to subject a handful of people to on U.S. soil, it is willing to subject millions to in some far off land." In 2001, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, offered up House Resolution 102, backed by three other lawmakers, noting that during World War II, many of the 18,745 American soldiers captured during the war "were subjected to barbaric prison conditions and endured torture, starvation, and disease" by the Axis powers, Germany, Italy and Japan. The treatment of American POWs "violated international human rights principles," said the resolution. In a report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, regarding the "Definition of the Right to Food," the commission recommended "the right to food and nutrition was a human right." The commission also advocated "the right to food in emergency situations" should "be taken into account," to "include the obligation of states to grant access to impartial humanitarian organizations to provide food aid and other humanitarian assistance." The New York Times may well be remembered as the newspaper that was most outraged over photos of Iraqi terrorist suspects being mistreated by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison – but claimed that starvation was a benevolent way to die. Of course, if the Times is right – and starvation causes "little discomfort" – the paper may have uncovered a valuable new tool in the war on terror. One wonders how the Old Gray Lady would react if U.S. interrogators began to starve terrorist suspects in a bid to extract information.
These are some comments I posted on another thread, but I got no thoughtful replies, so I'll try again here. I think there is a clear distinction between basic nutrition/hydration (which everybody needs to survive) and artificial life support such as a mechanical respirator. A feeding tube is not an extraordinary medical intervention, and nobody should be deprived of food and water without having explicitly stated a desire to withhold them. Michael Schiavo’s credibility seems highly suspect to me. If Terri had truly expressed a desire not to be kept alive in a condition such as hers, then why did he allegedly seek rehabilitation therapy for the first 5 years? Moreover, since he has started a new family with another woman, why hasn’t he simply divorced Terri? It’s difficult not to believe that he’s got his eyes fixed on a life insurance payoff. In a case like this with conflicting testimony about Terri’s wishes and medical condition, an estranged husband with dubious motives, and an immediate family of parents and siblings willing to care for her, I think the legal presumption should be on the side of life. (Interestingly, nobody here has mentioned that the medical expert cited most often by Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo is an outspoken pro-euthanasia activist. By itself, this proves nothing, but it certainly calls his objectivity into question.) Some people scoff at the suggestion of any link between the euthanasia movement and Nazi atrocities, but the historical and philosophical connections are hard to ignore: http://www.nightingalealliance.org/pdf/Lessons_from_History.pdf Finally, some have remarked that the executive and legislative branches of government have wrongly usurped judicial authority in this case. I find this idea ludicrous. The job of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law, not to make it. “Terri’s Law” was an effort by duly elected officials to change public policy in order to protect the lives of vulnerable citizens such as Terri Schiavo. By invalidating this law, the (unaccountable) court essentially decreed that it alone should decide such matters. Now that is a flagrant disregard for the “separation of powers” concept!
I don't really know what to think at this point...but if her feeding tube is not put back in, I hope she goes as peacefully and painlessly as possible.
Maggie, to everything there is a season. Natural as sun and water. Terri 'died' almost fifteen years ago. Without aid, direct sustained human intervention, she'd be 'dead.' Her doctors describe her condition as a 'persistent vegetative state.' You don't have to be an academic to digest that one. It's a shame in a century, about to endure the financial crisis of longevity, that a solution for cases like this hadn't been secured long ago. In Canada, education competes with health care for scarce investment dollars. Cases like this remind us why the former is losing.
You could say that about a lot of people. My paternal grandmother is 100% atrophied and unable to MOVE by herself from Multiple Sclorosis. If my aunt and uncle (who live with her) and the nurses that come by EVERY DAY didn't feed her, didn't move her, she'd die from starvation, dehydration, and bed sores that would get all infected and eat her alive, literally. She doesn't really communicate, I mean it takes a lot out of her to put a couple of words together... but we're certainly not going to stop feeding her.
By Mal Wade 3-30-5 Last night attorney, for Michael Schiavo, George Felos appeared on CNN to announce that Terri Schiavo was 'resting comfortably,' in no pain and looking "beautiful". In another Rense.com article today Felos stated: "I saw no evidence of any bodily discomfort whatsoever. (http://rense.com/general63/forced.htm). Felos seems to have a way of convincing listeners to be gullible to his statements; however, how does he explain the actions of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast administering "morphine suppositories" to Terri Schiavo? Morphine is not administered to a patient for "resting comfortably" nor "looking beautiful"! Morphine is administered to patients who are in pain or seem to be in discomfort - strange that the Hospice should be able to recognize this fact about Terri at these last minutes of her life. Was a doctor called in to witness this pain of discomfort or was there a standing prescription if the condition was recognized? - this condition, we are told, does not exist since Terri is, supposedly, unable to feel pain nor discomfort. Pastor Chuck Baldwin's article, today, in NewsWithViews.com suggests more HYPOCRISY! Excerpt: Oh! I'm sure readers will be pleased to know that the same State of Florida that has given its blessing to the slow starvation death of Terri Schiavo has just arrested a rancher in Immokalee, Florida, for starving his cows. According to press reports, his remaining cows were seized and fed by Domestic Animal Services. (The man faces up to FIVE YEARS in prison for animal cruelty.) How comforting! The President of the United States, the Federal Legislature, the Governor of Florida nor the State of Florida Legislature have been able to muster the will or humanity to save Terri Schiavo from this unconventional form of death through starvation. QUESTION: Has any convicted criminal or anyone else ever been sentenced to death by STARVATION in the United States of America? Will convicted criminals on Death Row now be starved to death? - it would be much cheaper and doctors would not be required. Terri Schiavo was not even allowed a choice between "Lethal Injection" (which would have been more humane - and much quicker) or starvation. Domestic Animal Services should have been contacted to handle Terri's case - that department seems to get results - more HYPOCRISY.
You don't know a fucking thing about me. I am a Health Care Provider. I have the "academic" education and experience to digest this situation, and also to know that the diagnosis is a subjective one. Do you? Your replies suggest NO. If you think PVS is a steadfast diagnosis, and that people who suffer from this state should be murdered by starvation and dehydration. She did not "die" fifteen years ago, she is still alive. Maybe we should start killing the mentally defective, as the Nazi's did, hmmm. It would save money I guess. (HEAVY SARCASM.)
