Terry Schiavo

interesting site

that's my whole thing, the PVS is not agreed on. Seems like the first step would be to determine that

 

both websites seem to have some bias

 

why did an issue like this cause quite a controversy, especially here......... seems like most people here are divided, and alot of people are attacking each other!! odd!! over one woman!

 

because at the base of it, this debate is about the definition of "life"
and everyone has their own

 

You are overstating how "conscious" she is. They have shown scans of her brain that indicate how little is really going on in there. She would "die in agony" if she were aware of her own existence, and I don't believe that she is. I believe that she has lived for fifteen long years in a state like she has, and deserves to be freed from the burden of that kind of life. It is NOT a "life"! Can you imagine being imprisoned in your own body like that? I hope to god she is NOT conscious, and has not been conscious for these last 15 years, because it must be fucking HELLISH to live that way. If I were her, and could communicate in the slightest with my family, I'd be begging them to let me die.

She is not "paralyzed from the neck down," she is virtually brain dead.

Her husband, and two others, have testified that she had expressed, prior to this condition occurring, that she would not want to be kept alive by artificial means.

Try basing your side on FACTS, man.

WHAT?! "Estranged husband"? Where the fuck are you getting your MISINFORMATION?! He is not her "estranged husband." And what money?! I am not aware of any money that is sitting around waiting to be given to him when she dies. He got a million dollars when this first happened, due to malpractice and a misdiagnosis.

Truth be told, she got herself into this mess. She had an eating disorder so bad that it actually caused her heart to stop. That's why she ended up with brain damage. DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING FACTUAL ABOUT THIS CASE?!

As I am informed of it, he is not remarried. I could be wrong, but I do not think he is. IF HE WAS, HE WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SAY IN HER TREATMENT, AS HE WOULD NOT BE HER FUCKIN' HUSBAND ANYMORE! TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND THINK ABOUT THIS SHIT, MAN! The whole reason there is any controversy is because he REMAINS HER HUSBAND and as such, has a legal right to determine the course of her care!

Fuckin' DUHHHH!

What's sick is that you would open your fuckin' mouth about this when you obviously don't know jack shit about it.

 

This is a sad sad story. The moral is that everyone should have a living will, because if I ever end up like that I would not want to burden my partner with years of hardship and having my mom try to keep me alive even if my mind was long gone.

 

I think that the parents are just selfish, here. I think that the reason they are trying to keep her alive is because they need to see her. They can't handle the idea of her dying. They are not thinking at all about what SHE would want! Can they honestly say they believe she wants to go on living like she is, assuming she's even aware that she's alive?!

Maybe they're guilt-ridden because they never got her help when she was having the eating disorder that put her into this state in the first place. So now they're trying to make up for not helping her by "helping" her now. If they're supposedly god-believing people (as are so many of the people who want to keep her from being allowed to die), why the fuck can't the be happy that SHE'LL DIE AND GO TO HEAVEN NOW?! I mean really! The woman is at death's door, not living any kind of a life worth living, and all that stands between her and being with GOD forever is a bunch of fuckin' busybodies who won't simply let her have her right to die! You'd think that people who believe in the paradise of heaven would not stand in the way of someone's getting there!

Bunch of fuckin' hypocrites. This is what religion makes people do. Makes them epitomize hypocrisy.

-Jeffrey

 

What's truly sick and scary is the mannar in which you attack Pressed_Rat's opinion and his intelligence concerning the case. He has a different opinion than yours. Why not just state your difference of opinion in the case in a civil manner instead of acting like a dickhead? There's no need to attack the opinion of someone else with such malice. Doing so doesn't make your opinion seem any stronger, it just makes you look like dickhead and if anything it weakens your stance.

And by the way, her husband is indeed estranged. He has been involved in another relationship for years, even has a child with the woman I believe. The only reason he has not filed for divorce is so he has the legal right to make this decision regarding Terri's life.

For the first few years, he made every effort to seek treatment for his wife. If he truly respected her wishes, he would have fought for her right to die from the very start - the moment she went on the feeding tube and stopped responding to stimuli. He claims he said she would not want to live in a vegetative state with a machine keeping her alive, yet he allowed it to happen for a number of years. I doubt she said, "do what you can for me for a certain amount of years and if nothing works, then let me die." In a sense he didn't respect her wishes, he was respecting his own wishes in trying to seek treatment and keep her alive. Now that he believes that all medical options are exhausted, he feels that she should be allowed to die. Sounds to me like someone who has their own agenda and was not true to his wife's wishes from the very start. In my opinion, his failure to be true to the wishes of his wife from the very start, strips him of the legal right to make a decision regarding her life now.

In the end, it has always been about what her husband has wanted, not what he claims Terri said she wanted.

 

What's wrong with the man holding on to hope for a few years. I do beleive I would have done exactly what he has done. I can't see I would have done anything differently. And as I said I love my wife, I would die for her.
As for the money. He has said that he would donate it to charity.

 

The question is simple: what does/did Terry want? I can tell you honestly that were I in her place and completely concious, I'd still want to be let go. What would be the point of continuing to live like that? What torture to be entombed inside ones own body, unable to communicate. What torture to see the ones you love put through the trauma and suffering of having to witness you merely existing in this state, unable to know if you are even in there. How frustrating to live like that for 15 years... If she really said that she didn't want to live under such circumstances (a prefectly reasonable thought), then her wishes should be respected. According to the rule of law that we have established in this country to see to it that such things taken into account, her wishes are just that. The court must be consistent in it's rulings or the law becomes a travesty. Her legal next of kin (in this case, her husband) is expected to be acting in her best interests - he claims this is what she wants and we must accept that. Period.

My only objection is that they really ought to have made every effort to keep her comfortable in this ordeal. Seeing as there is a remote chance she might be in some pain, I would think that a steady morphine drip would be in order, here. Then we could be certain that she wasn't suffering. That makes sense, doesn't it? You'd think that even the doctors attending her would have at least suggested that.

Apparently, either people believe that her husband loves her and wants what she wants (which is that she not be forced to continue to live as she has been living), OR they think he's in it for the money. Why would he stand to get more money from her death at this point? What are the facts here - not rumors, the actual facts. Well, let's face it: At this point, everyone on both sides of the family who are in it for the money have the opportunity to make a mint by selling their stories (I'm sure that many of them will do just that - it's the American Way, after all). If it were money, there would be no conflict at this point.

I can understand her parents concerns, it is a terrible thing to lose a child. But this 15 year long wait, knowing that they will most likely outlive her regardless of the courts decision is only making it worse for them. They aren't wise enough to simply let it go and start the grieveing process which they have been putting off for so long. It's inevitable and prolonging it will only cause themselves and others to suffer needlessly.

In the meantime, she is being used as a pawn in a political and religious battle which, should her parents be successful. will mean that the Executive and Legislative branches of this country will no longer need to heed the rulings of the court and we will have made yet another step toward dimantleing the series of checks and balances so carefully set in place by our founding fathers. On step closer to tyrrany.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this situation. One on hand I feel that it is a horrible thing to starve her to death if she is responsive. How terrible would it be if you were in the same place as that poor woman. What if you couldnt speak, but could feel yourself slowly dying? ..... I just don't know

 

AND, if these people were successful at getting food or water to her, they would kill her! She can't ingest food or water - she will aspirate them into her lungs. Yet, they in their ignorance, think they are trying to save her.

 

It seems pretty clear that this is a purely symbolic act. They know that she has to recieve her nourishment through a tube, but trying to bring the correct equipment would be too expensive, since it would be confiscated by the police when they were arrested. The paper cups of water were never meant to actually reach her.

 

Tut, tut, TARABELLE!!! Don't go confusing the chil'ren with the facts when their minds are made up!:X

 

haha luvn and tara...

 

So is she dead yet?

 

How else will they make them into proper fundies?

 

you said it best..i agree with you completely..they have turned this into a fucking freak show...her parents only want her to live in this way for theirselves..it makes me sick...anyways..i should just say fuck all of you and what you care after all that is basically what you said about pervs fucking little girls.http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76088

 

Here are my replies to various issues that have been raised on this thread, in no particular order.

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 here 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, someone 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!

 

yes but what about kids that are been raped everyday?