Terry Schiavo

Well, her family and friends, and even her husband (initially) said she would not want to die like that. Actually, I believe her husband said initially he did not know what she wanted. No surprise, since she was only 26 at the time. Several of her friends also said that she expressed a great deal of concern about a similar case that occurred in New Jersey (Karen Ann Qunilan) a few years prior to her injury. In that case the woman was more severely injured than Terri is, was actually on life support, and was killed, which Terri strongly disagreed with. Several of her friends and co-workers attested to this. As far as spouting nonsense--at least I don't base my world views upon Metallica videos.

 

The point is that allowing her to suffer from starvation and dehydration is cruel. Even animals on the brink of death are put out of their misery by more humane procedures in a veterinarian's office.

 

She is in a hospice facility, not a hospital. IOW, a place people are sent to die. Mainly nurses are caring for her, and she has very little interaction with doctors, as she is receiving no treatment to speak of, only "care". The money from the settlement is funding her care and has been earmarked for that purpose, not government $$. No part of it would ever go to "find a cure for aids or fight global warming" or whatever other abstract notion you may have in mind. The remainder of the money would go into her husband's pocket. If her husband had done the honorable thing, divorce her, instead of try to cash in, this would not be tied up in court. And besides, by your reasong, people with aids, certain cancers are doomed to die, anyway, they have no chance of living, so why not just pull the plug on the lot of them. There are many people who are neither a benefit to themselves or to society in general, including many who are able-bodied. Should they be killed? In fact, we're all going to die anyway, so why not just commit mass suicide and get it over with? Reductio ad absurdum.. "Death is final, and everyone is so quick to be the executioner." Mark Tygart
"delete yourself" -ATR

 

I guess they should do what the cowboys used to do with a fallen horse.

 

This is just sad, is this the only thing they can talk about in the news? I miss the good old days, when elian gonzalez and monica lewinski were important.

 

If they are sent there to die, shouldn't they just let her die? Or help her along. And if she wasn't there, someone else could be...that's my point.

My point is...those nurses could be spending time with other patients...

Who earmarked it? And I'm not saying that the government is spending money directly on her...although the courts have appointed doctors to look at her condition to determine her state. I'm saying that government money is being spent on legislation...

Don't assume anything, first of all. Second of all, the husband is spending money out of his own pocket to take care of her. And who should be making her decisioins? Her parents? She's not a minor anymore...she married her husband, therefore, her husband makes her decisions when she is incapable. Sanctity of marriage my ass, GWB.

My point is...if they find a CURE for something they won't die FROM IT? Get it? That's the point! When someone can't function why spend time on them? Would YOU like to suffer for fifteen years?

And you want to know something? IMHO, the world would be better off without the human race...so maybe Mother nature should just shake us off like fleas...but that's besides the point.

You sure seem to think you know a lot, brother.

 

I said veterinarian's office, Ryan, not twentieth century old west.

 

In this case the only thing that matters is her wishes. Otherwise it's a death sentence. And the nurses would just be spending time on other "hopeless cases" so what would it matter to you? BTW there's a doctor who is up for the Nobel Prize in medicine this year who is convinced the treatment he developed, for which he is up for the Nobel Prize, for anoxic brain injuries, could substantially help this lady recover. Her husband's motives are highly suspect, that is not in dispute. He said one thing before, and now he's essentially saying the opposite. Her husband was the one who put her into the hospice, against medical advice, rather than a hospital where she could get some treatment, and maybe recover fully. And the only money out his pocket that is being spent is in a trust set up by the court, after the malpractice suit award. Much of that has been spent on legal fees, rather than care or treatment. And I just want to get this straight- quadriplegics, severely autistic people, severely retarded, developmentally disabled and other people who subjectively can't function-they're a waste of time and resources, and shouldn't live, right? That's what you're saying? Adolf Hitler was a big proponent of that belief. And you sure seem to think you know a lot too, sis'.

 

Ah, HA, I don't know everything, and I certainly don't claim to. No one does...but at least I KNOW I don't know everything...

However, I do have certain beliefs about things...and I believe that the human race is destructive to the planet, and if you're just sitting around using up resources that just makes you even more destructive. Call me harsh, but people can't go on and keep destroying things...and robbing resources from those who could benefit more from it.

I can't assume things about her husband. After 15 years, things change. Feelings change. The man is dealing with his wife being practically a vegetable...how would YOU feel? How would YOU react?

Her brain is mush...there's nothing left of her...her soul needs to be put to rest.

What was the question again?

 

can we say hypocrite??

 

Feelings may change, but facts don't. He said at the malpractice hearing that his wife would not want to die by physician's assistance, so he needs a lot of cash to care for her. Then he gets said cash, and all of a sudden, whoa, she said she would never want to live like this. That's what I call dramatic recall. I guess all that cash helped him remember what his wife really said. And you ARE assuming her brain is mush, just as I assume her husband was only interested in cashing in, I guess.
On another note, where's the cut-off? At what point is someone worthy of life, in your august, learned eyes? Paraplegics? Low IQs? Drug addicts? Welfare recipients? Who shall live and who shall die? Or should I just consult "Mein Kampf"? I would argue that most people who have aids have gotten it through their own doing, and their treatment and care drains a lot of resources away. But, they are somehow more worthy of life than this lady, who's only mistake was having bulimia, getting anoxic brain damage, and being married to a greedy jerk? Or people born paralyzed, retarded, or autistic? Sure, I guess it makes sense to me?!? I also never said I know everything, but I guess I just have a different opinion of the value of life than you do. It is obvious we will not agree on this, so we can either keep taking potshots at each other, or agree to disagree, since it doesn't matter anyway.

 

I don't know. I'm actually surprised you can spell it.

 

There is a rather large difference between those you mention and Mrs. Schiavo. She is a vegetable with no mental capacity. Those you mention have one of two things: (at least limited) mental capability and the ability to care for themself. For 15 years she has had neither and despite this has been kept alive against her wishes. It was a good attempt to link these views with Hitler, though. You may have even swayed someone!!

The fact is she did not want this to happen, and I can't blame her. No one in their right mind would want someone to care for them for 15+ years in this manner. Here's another thought: In a few years when her parents die, who is going to take care of her?

Responsible euthanasia is long overdue.

 

I do have value for life...that's why I say she shouldn't be suffering.

And by the way, I never called you George W. Bush, so why would you compare me to Adolf Hitler?

So, GWB, what if you were in Terry's situation? Huh? What would YOU want?

 

DancerAnnie was stating that people who drain resources and who do not contribute to society should not live (I think). Hitler also not only believed this but put it into action. That is my point, where does it stop? Autistic, severely retarded, many have the same level of functioning as her. Should they be killed? I don't think so. And when her parents die, her brother and sister have already said they would take care of her. She could, arguably, get to the point of being partially independent, according to many doctors. Responsible euthanasia? Have at it. As for me, I'll die when it's my time. It is a very slippery slope once people start deciding who should live and who should die. Parameters have a way of expanding, to include more and more people who are no longer subjectively "useful" to society. People playing god, deciding who lives and who dies? Sounds like a great world to live in.

 

I won my class spelling bee in more than one year.

 

there is a huge difference between hitler and euthanasia my friend. hitler killed people that functioned! he committed genocide. we are talking people that cannot function without life support here.

 

I never called you hitler, I merely pointed out that Hitler was a big proponent of euthanasia for those who no longer contribute to society. That's all. No offense, but it's the truth. Many democrats also supported the congressional action, it's not only republicans (very little difference between the 2 anyway, really). In case you haven't been able to tell, I would want treatment for my injury, rehabilitation. This injury is not necessarily a death sentence. I would at least want to be given the chance, something denied to Ms Schiavo. And I would want to die when it is my time, not by mandate of a court, my essentially estranged husband, or anyone else. I would not want to be treated as a piece of property, or garbage. I would just want a chance. No one has the right to decide someone is unworthy of life. Who is capable of that decision? Who is qualified?

 

In nature, the strong survive, yes? Why are we so far removed from nature that we think we are above that? I'm not saying go around and pull handicapped people out of their homes and kill them. You're extrapolating what I said pretty severely and twisting it in all sorts of directions. I think that if people aren't able to function in society and they've spent 15 years in a hospice/hospital/whatever...it's time to let go. And those who are keeping her alive are being selfish, because Terry can't be happy in the situation she's in. I mean, who would?

As far as playing god....isn't that what we've been doing for 15 years with her??? Putting her on a feeding tube, prolonging her life? Talk about playing god...sheesh...We do it on an everyday basis with medication, life support, feeding tubes, etc...

 

Wrong. They have a considerably higher level of function than she does. As I said, the people you mention have one of two things: mental capacity (at least minimal) and/or the ability to take care of themselves. She has NEITHER!

She's had 15 years and she hasn't reached "partially independent" therefore it is highly doubtful that she ever will. And how do you know she wants to be partially independent? It sounds to me like she doesn't.

Um...her heart stopped and her brain was severely damaged. She damn near died. It sounds to me like her parents are deciding she should live, despite her wishes.

You are beginning to contradict yourself, so I'd stop now if I were you