Terri Schiavo

[vidcc]

Sorry for those outside the US for yet another USA thread.

The Terri Schiavo question and the federal role.

Firstly the debate is not about the rights or wrongs of removing the feeding tube. It is about and connected to the views of state rights.
A lot has been said about the roe v wade case and complaints about state rights being "overruled" and that the decision should be left to the "individual state". Yet it seems to me that proponents of this theory are now the ones wishing the feds to step in.

Please try to stay away from the circumstances of Mrs. Schiavo and the difference between this and abortion..I only raise it because of the "taking life" part and .and concentrate on state rights iv's fed.

Should the right to "pull the tube" be a state issue only


just opinion needed...not an essay on the law as it stands

[Busyman]

Yes.

Furthermore (off-topic) this issue all about Republican face time. I don't normally rag on Republicans but feeding tubes are pulled all the time.

If the Republicans are going to jump on this, they better be ready to go all the way. That means ALL folks on feeding tubes shouldn't have the plug pulled.

I'm amazed that they bring up "right to life" when a machine has to keep you going. :lol: :lol:

[fkdup74]

IMO, it should be niether's decision
it should be up to the individuals (in this case the Schiavos)
unfortunately, Terri cannot express her wishes
that failing, it should come down to her next of kin
i mean, after all, who are the expenses going to fall on?
not that i am trying to put a price on a life, dont take it that way
but she is not living any kind of life, not that i can see anyway
if it were me in that condition, i would be praying for them to pull the plug

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Yes.

Furthermore (off-topic) this issue all about Republican face time. I don't normally rag on Republicans but feeding tubes are pulled all the time.

If the Republicans are going to jump on this, they better be ready to go all the way. That means ALL folks on feeding tubes shouldn't have the plug pulled.

I'm amazed that they bring up "right to life" when a machine has to keep you going. :lol: :lol:

I agree with you on this. No selectivity should be allowed. But The machine is not keeping her alive. She can breathe on her own, is on no medication, with the exception of the feeding tube, she is as normal as any severly brain damaged individuals.

[Busyman]

IMO, it should be niether's decision
it should be up to the individuals (in this case the Schiavos)
unfortunately, Terri cannot express her wishes
that failing, it should come down to her next of kin
i mean, after all, who are the expenses going to fall on?
not that i am trying to put a price on a life, dont take it that way
but she is not living any kind of life, not that i can see anyway
if it were me in that condition, i would be praying for them to pull the plug
I see your point but the state law IS the husband or whom ever the dying person previously designates.

[SideSwiped]

Although feeding tubes ARE pulled, it is usually NOT the state's decision to do it. There is a general agreement of all parties involved, or there is a living will that speaks for the ppl which are no longer able to speak for themselves.

The laws, however, governing such an act, should remain solely in the hands of the state in which one resides.

[RPerry]

My feelings on this are as follows:

If Terry was completely brain-dead ( on total life support) I woud probably back her husband. This is not the case. I have seen pictures of her smiling and so forth, and just tonight I have seen pictures of her looking sad and weak. Her husband has no proof that she chooses not to live this way. If she had a will, I would say go by the will, again, no will to fall on. Her husband has chosen to go on with his life, and she still has her parents there to care for her. I say let him divorce, and let the parents be responsible.

[fkdup74]

I see your point but the state law IS the husband or whom ever the dying person previously designates.

so the state is at least half-right in the matter,
but what of an un-wed individual that enters a vegetative state before designating?

-edit- good point RPerry

[vidcc]

Although feeding tubes ARE pulled, it is usually NOT the state's decision to do it..
It's not been said that the sate makes the decision..... what we are talking about is the state's right to choose if it should be legal in that state or should it be "fed" law.
That's what the whole abortion on demand arguement was about.

[Skiz]

Even her Dr. that knows her quite well has said, "This is what she would have wanted." No necessarily my opinion, just the facts. Either way, the House is going to vote on the after midnight tonight.

[Arm]

The womans dead in the brain. Now let her body follow.

The worst thing about this issue is how it distracts from real problems. But of course thats probably the point. The Florida legislature has more important issues to debate about than wether not to allow a dead woman to die completly. Remember the hurricane(s)? Dont you "lawmakers" gotta pass some legislation related that and other real issues? Yeah. Well go do it and quit being a moron. :ph34r:

[ruthie]

jWhat a fiasco. How is it that when Bush was Governor of Texas, he signed into law the right for hospitals to disconnect someone's life support if the hospital says the person is terminal (http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php). So, they removed life support form a six month ole, against the mothers wishes. They are threatening to remove life support in ten days from another man, against the family's wishes. This has to do with who has the money, as well as right to lifers and their agenda. This is going to spin out of control. funny, though..Bush sure sang a different tune in Texas.

[MagicNakor]

I heard on the news the President cut his vacation short to argue on the behalf of the parents. Is that true?

:shuriken:

[lynx]

Almost 230 years and you still haven't worked out who runs your country. It's hardly surprising other countries question your actions when you interfere in the running of their business. Still, that's another subject altogether.

One thing is for certain, politicians should not be getting involved in this sort of action, no matter whether it is a state or a federal issue. If necessary, that's for the courts to decide, they are specifically there to act independently of partisan one-off decisions. If politicians act in individual cases you can be almost certain that the outcome will be bad law, and subject to countless appeals and counter-appeals. Who will decide these appeals - the courts. So let the courts get on with it now.

Should she be kept alive? I doubt whether any but a select few know her true condition, and certainly not any of those campaigning for or against. But I fail to see the logic of those who are campaigning for her to be kept alive on religious grounds. They seem to be saying that someone's body should be kept alive because we have the capability to do so. When the equipment comes marked "Made in Heaven" I will consider they may have a valid case, until then only medical arguments should be considered.

[Busyman]

Almost 230 years and you still haven't worked out who runs your country. It's hardly surprising other countries question your actions when you interfere in the running of their business. Still, that's another subject altogether.

Agreed...that's another subject altogether. Your potshot at my country means shit and doesn't have to do with shinolah but I guess you couldn't help yourself. Our country has been run well enough to get along just fine in 230 odd years, you know, since becoming independent of yours.

Fuck, your country isn't perfect either so go analyze that. It just it doesn't really make the news and we don't pay attention to it over here. :dry:

[bigboab]

I think in cases like this the United States should have the final say. What is the point in becoming part the United States then deciding to make major decision on your own. I also think that the death penalty should be treated the same way. Why should a jumped up cinema cowboy or similar have the final say on whether a person should live or die. All these final decision should be made by a Supreme Court Committee or whatever they call them in the USA.:(

[manker]

Agreed...that's another subject altogether. Your potshot at my country means shit and doesn't have to do with shinolah but I guess you couldn't help yourself. Our country has been run well enough to get along just fine in 230 odd years, you know, since becoming independent of yours.

Fuck, your country isn't perfect either so go analyze that. It's just it doesn't really make the news and we don't pay attention to it over here. :dry:I see, so you get on your high horse about lynx taking a potshot at your country and say that it doesn't mean shit - then you take a potshot at his.

Busyman pseudo-logic strikes again :blink:

[RPerry]

I still say its a matter of what she really wanted, and the proof of it. Under normal circumstances I would believe her husband, but he basically left her side already :dry:

[Busyman]

I see, so you get on your high horse about lynx taking a potshot at your country and say that it doesn't mean shit - then you take a potshot at his.
You're a genius. :dry:

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Almost 230 years and you still haven't worked out who runs your country. It's hardly surprising other countries question your actions when you interfere in the running of their business. Still, that's another subject altogether.

Seriously, there is no need for this.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

The womans dead in the brain. Now let her body follow.:

Umm, hmm, last I recall people who are brain dead tend to need to be on breathing machines. And they have a tendency not to move. Neither of which applies to her.

[vidcc]

I still say its a matter of what she really wanted, and the proof of it. Under normal circumstances I would believe her husband, but he basically left her side already :dry:
I agree fully, her wish first and her husband stopped being that when he started a new relationship.......
however the wishes aside I am asking about state rights to rule over fed rights to dictate. This is after all close to the euphanasia debate as much as the abortion debate as to if it should be up to individual states to decide to allow or deny the individual "choice"
I purely used this case because it seems that the ones wanting federal intervention are the same people (mostly) wanting to overturn roe v wade.

[Busyman]

Wtf!!! I just saw Terry Shiavo and she's alive. I mean she isn't brain dead from what I see. :blink:

I would have thought that she would not be blinking and (seemingly) smiling or at the very least making sort of facial expressions and is somewhat responsive. She reminds me of a person with a lobotomy.

The problem is that I liken this to the gentlemen that might be implaled and when you remove the impaling instrument, he dies.

[RPerry]

this is the other part of the problem, she is not brain dead. Terry is severely brain damaged

[SideSwiped]

To the original topic. I stand by and say it SHOULD follow state law.
But, this is a tricky case. Since, the husband no longer wants her alive and the parents are willing to take responsibilty, he should put an end to all the debate and sign a divorce decree so that he is no longer responsible for her in any way shape or form.

[Snee]

To the original topic. I stand by and say it SHOULD follow state law.
But, this is a tricky case. Since, the husband no longer wants her alive and the parents are willing to take responsibilty, he should put an end to all the debate and sign a divorce decree so that he is no longer responsible for her in any way shape or form.
Yes, but what would people think of him if he divorced his poor, damaged wife? :dry:

Better then to kill her off and make himself a widower, maybe. :unsure:



Too cynical? :ermm:

[RPerry]

Yes, but what would people think of him if he divorced his poor, damaged wife? :dry:

Better then to kill her off and make himself a widower, maybe. :unsure:

guess your not following the story, he is already screwing someone else, which is why I believe he is wanting so badly to have this over

[Snee]

guess your not following the story, he is already screwing someone else, which is why I believe he is wanting so badly to have this over
Well, I am, sort of, as much as is possible, but the point was that it might be even more frowned upon if he just leaves her, whereas if he does things "according to her wishes", he gets to be all noble in the eyes of certain people.

[RPerry]

I guess its cause I'm not so sure what her real wishes were. would have been much easier situation if there was a will on record.

[Snee]

She isn't dead.

Unless you waste every patient with advanced alzheimer's in american hospitals, she shouldn't be terminated either.

Is it even certain that there isn't some part of her in there that has a grasp on what is happening around her? The impression I have is that she has retained some kind of awareness of the world around her. Maybe she just can't communicate. The brain is a strange organ, we don't know what it can compensate for by using alternate neural pathways and suchlike.

The way medical breakthroughs sometimes pop up today, it wouldn't be unimaginable that there'll some day be a means to reconnect her to the world if so.


Any wishes she might have made in event of brain-death don't apply here.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Is it even certain that there isn't some part of her in there that has a grasp on what is happening around her? The impression I have is that she has retained some kind of awareness of the world around her. Maybe she just can't communicate. The brain is a strange organ, we don't know what it can compensate for by using alternate neural pathways and suchlike.

She has the mental capacity of a 10 or 11 month old according to the doctors.

[Snee]

I spoke fluently when I was eleven months old. :unsure:

All they have to go by are external data like responses and eyemovements, they can't actually read her mind, so it's just an approximation.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

I spoke fluently when I was ten months old. :unsure:

All they have to go by are external data like responses and eyemovements, they can't actually read her mind, so it's just an approximation.

I am sorry Snny, but I find extremely hard to believe you spoke fluently at 10 months of age.

[Snee]

Just edited.

I skipped babytalk, and went right to speaking proper swedish before I was a year old. (Had the grammar and full sentence-structure completely sorted at maybe eighteen months according to my journal, was prolly a bit elliptic and whatnot before that, but I didn't do any of that baby gibberish thingie babies do).

Sry.
Checked some papers, and it turns out I was a bit early in doing that.


The point is that ten-eleven months isn't a very good measurement of mental capacity.



But even this description


Ten to Eleven Months

Your baby may:
* Understand simple directions
* Look at and follow pictures in a book
* Point to body parts (e.g., nose, ear, mouth, arm, etc.)
source (http://health.state.ga.us/publications/growthdev/topic3.asp)
Points to a certain grasp of reality, and like I said, this is only the outward signs of what she can do, she may have retained certain areas of ability that doesn't show up in an exam, just like it's possible for someone with aphasia to know the language without being able to pronunce it.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

The point is that ten-eleven months isn't a very good measurement of mental capacity.

Actually it is a good measurement. As it shows the brains developement (if testing a child). For example, a one month old will realize that it has been left alone. A six month old is able to recognize faces other that it's parents.

In Terry's case, it shows her capable of recognition of faces, emotional displays of happiness or distress, her inability of speech, and so on.

[Snee]

Actually it is a good measurement. As it shows the brains developement (if testing a child). For example, a one month old will realize that it has been left alone. A six month old is able to recognize faces other that it's parents.

In Terry's case, it shows her capable of recognition of faces, emotional displays of happiness or distress, her inability of speech, and so on.
Yep, but an adult with a brain-damage is different. So while it does show her external functioning, it doesn't show anything about her perceptions of causality, deductive ability and suchlike.

There may be fully functional but disconnected areas in a damaged adult brain. Whereas a baby's brain is evolving, and developing the pathways that have already been established in her brain. Thus making her perception of reality a different matter.


Sorry 'bout the millions of edits, 'tis late and I'm very tired.

[RPerry]

In Terry's case, it shows her capable of recognition of faces, emotional displays of happiness or distress, her inability of speech, and so on.

its this that bothers me so much in this case. I have seen her smiling, and in the days since her tube has been emoved, she looks sad and weak :(

[Arm]

Umm, hmm, last I recall people who are brain dead tend to need to be on breathing machines. And they have a tendency not to move. Neither of which applies to her.
Her brain stem works. The part of the brain that controls her breathing and heart. But now the part of her brain thet controls thought. The so-called "new brain," as opposed to "old brain" as ive heard them be called. :huh:

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Her brain stem works. The part of the brain that controls her breathing and heart. But now the part of her brain thet controls thought. The so-called "new brain," as opposed to "old brain" as ive heard them be called. :huh:

Sorry kid, the brain stem does not control recognition and emotions.

[UKResident]

A US federal judge today refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, prompting an immediate appeal by the parents of the severely brain-damaged woman.

The ruling by district judge James Whittemore follows an intervention by President George Bush and the US Congress to try to prevent a hospital from allowing her to die.

The judge said Ms Schiavo's parents had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial on the merits of their arguments.


Source and full article. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1443417,00.html)

[Arm]

Sorry kid, the brain stem does not control recognition and emotions.
:blink: Correct. I should menction that now was a typo for not. :w00t:

[3RA1N1AC]

guess your not following the story, he is already screwing someone else, which is why I believe he is wanting so badly to have this over
it's easy to throw stones at the man from afar, but how many of the people saying how bad he is would be willing to prove their own goodness by marrying and remaining faithful to a drooling turnip for 15 years? we're having quite enough trouble remaining faithful to spouses who CAN feed themselves and hold a semblance of a conversation.


more to the general topic:
it seems to me that the "save terri schiavo's life" argument depends very much on framing this as an act of killing, or an act of deprivation, when the action is really in creating this food-tube, sticking it in her, filling and refilling it. neglecting to feed her is inaction, as ugly as the results may be since euthanasia is such a taboo in the u.s.

it's sad and grotesque, the extent we'll go to nowadays to keep a person barely hanging onto a minimal quantity of life (a pulse, the ability to digest food that's pumped in through a tube) without any of the real qualities that distinguish human life from the plant kingdom. at any other point in human history people would have said "terri is severely and irrepairably brain-damaged, immobile, oblivious, unable to eat... she's dying and she'll soon be dead." but in the modern period we say "let's stick a tube in her and keep her in a perpetually catatonic condition," and we have this new appendix to "life" (as commonly understood).

perhaps if we as a whole society were to take up the practice of writing living wills, make sure that everyone knows that they can write them and knows how to write them clearly & unambiguously, and treat living wills with all seriousness and respect in the legal & medical fields (perhaps keep them filed confidentially in people's medical records?)... then there'd be much less controversy, and much less reason to make it the government's business. "if this should happen to me, then yes i'd like to be tube-fed, plugged into a machine, whatever's necessary, and kept that way for as long as possible" or "no, i don't consider that 'life' and i want to be unplugged or euthanized if i show no potential for recovery after x amount of time"... something along those lines.

edit: most u.s. states do have laws regarding living wills, but it seems there's still a lot of openness-to-interpretation and hemming & hawing when it comes to actually using these wills.

[Busyman]

I wonder how many people there are that say, "If I'm a vegetable, keep me that way."

I know none.

[RPerry]

it's easy to throw stones at the man from afar, but how many of the people saying how bad he is would be willing to prove their own goodness by marrying and remaining faithful to a drooling turnip for 15 years? we're having quite enough trouble remaining faithful to spouses who CAN feed themselves and hold a semblance of a conversation.


You have to ask yourself why after 15 yrs is he all of a sudden saying his wife didn't want to live this way. thats a hell of a long time to wait :dry: I know this is a hot topic on several forums, its also hot at work, and even amongst family members too. there all all kinds of idea's going around about what happens with insurance money, etc. All I'm sayingis that there is probably more to this that it appears :unsure:

[3RA1N1AC]

All I'm sayingis that there is probably more to this that it appears :unsure:
i can't disagree with that. surely there must be a lot that we don't know about these people. :P

[vidcc]

You have to ask yourself why after 15 yrs is he all of a sudden saying his wife didn't want to live this way. thats a hell of a long time to wait :dry: I know this is a hot topic on several forums, its also hot at work, and even amongst family members too. there all all kinds of idea's going around about what happens with insurance money, etc. All I'm sayingis that there is probably more to this that it appears :unsure:
It didn't take 15 years, it has been in the courts over 7 years. that leaves the time it takes to accept reality in that she isn't going to get better and the the medical and family discussions that led to the courts needing to be involved.

The husband stands to gain absolutely nothing from this. He has turned down an offer of millions of dollars to stop his pursuit and any money that was received in damages (I'm not sure why) has gone long ago. He doesn't have to worry about the cost of keeping her alive either. All of this does make me think he "probably" is telling the truth when he said she told him she wouldn't like to be kept like this.

All that said I think he should have lost his rights as husband when he took up with the other woman. This is not a moral judgement suggesting he should have been loyal (despite my views on loyalty) I just think that you are either a spouse for better or worse or you are not a spouse.
@ all
I understand fully how her parents feel. Your children will always be just that and a parent should never have to bury their child.
I don't believe Terri knows she is breathing, by all accounts the only part of her brain that is working is the bit that tells the body to breathe etc. and harsh as it may sound the feeding tube is no different in reality to a life support machine.
But as a parent that sees their child visually appear alive rationality and reality of a situation like this mean nothing.
A while ago we had a thread asking if we would give our lives to save a loved one and while I was reading the thread I was looking at my youngest daughter. I couldn't imagine not giving up my life for her. If anyone has seen John Q you will know what I am talking about.
I don't know if this is instinct protecting my children or just selfishness on my part because of the fact that my heart would stop beating if I ever lost them (figuratively speaking).

I don't believe Terri would have asked to be kept this way however as I believe that "she died" when the brain was damaged I don't see that she would suffer if the organs are fed. If her parents can pay to sustain the body they should be allowed to.

This body stopped being Terri 15 years ago.

[UKResident]

A point not mentioned here is the way Terri is now being 'put to death'. She is not being given an injection to end her life, she is being starved to death. If this were to happen to a murderer on death row there would be outrage.

This is an excerpt from an article in today's Guardian, the full story is here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1445522,00.html)


It happens to be a good day for contemplating how we die and watch others die as the US courts finally let Terri Schiavo go. She has been 15 years a-dying in a persistent vegetative state, probably beyond pain, though not beyond reflex responses. But if there is still suffering to be had, now in her seventh slow day without water or food, the law inflicts death by slow dehydration in the name of "ethics". It's a shocking spectacle that could be stopped with one merciful injection.....

... What kills you in the end if you have cancer or other terminal diseases? Not often the cancer itself. Nor the morphine that people innocently imagine will one day waft them away on a cloudy pillow of dreams to some opium-fuelled nirvana. What people actually die of, like Terri Schiavo, is dehydration when they can no longer swallow enough water to live - and it takes time. Enough morphine to die quickly is very rarely administered these days.

[RPerry]

A point not mentioned here is the way Terri is now being 'put to death'. She is not being given an injection to end her life, she is being starved to death. If this were to happen to a murderer on death row there would be outrage.

This is an excerpt from an article in today's Guardian, the full story is here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1445522,00.html)

Don't get used to it, but you have finally said something I totally agree with :blink:

[Busyman]

Well then...

I hope whoever feels this unjust that they don't bullshit around and agrees that EVERYONE should be kept alive that is brain damaged.

Furthermore, even a person that wishes to go has to be labeled part of euthanasia if death is carried out.

Have it one way or the other. No bullshitting. No outrage because this is "popular" in the media.

[RPerry]

Well then...

I hope whoever feels this unjust that they don't bullshit around and agrees that EVERYONE should be kept alive that is brain damaged.

Furthermore, even a person that wishes to go has to be labeled part of euthanasia if death is carried out.

Have it one way or the other. No bullshitting. No outrage because this is "popular" in the media.

And why should I agree with anything you just ranted ? I take all issues I look at on a one by one basis. If I saw any kind of proof, and I mean proof, not hear-say, that Terri wanted this, I might feel a bit differently. I might even feel differently if Terri was hooked up to life support, but I feel totally different when a person is starved to death.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7287950/


This might make you think a little, even if you don't believe it with 100% accuracy

[Busyman]

And why should I agree with anything you just ranted ? I take all issues I look at on a one by one basis. If I saw any kind of proof, and I mean proof, not hear-say, that Terri wanted this, I might feel a bit differently. I might even feel differently if Terri was hooked up to life support, but I feel totally different when a person is starved to death.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7287950/


This might make you think a little, even if you don't believe it with 100% accuracy
Feeding tubes are removed everyday. It seems media attention has made this story "unique" when it is not.

I could care less about his motivations for removing her tube. It sounds like he's a scumbag. However, if the husband has the right to have her tube removed, so be it.

Change the law.

Not feeding someone that needs it is not killing them. It sounds to me that if she didn't want to be this way that it still would amount to starvation.

What's the difference between life-support and a feeding tube?

It seems they are both.....life support. :huh:

edit: I do hate the thought of starvation. It's a slow death. :(

[ruthie]

I watched my mother-in-law die..from cancer. It is almost the first year anniversary of her death. she stopped eating and drinking. She eventually wnet into a coma. Before that, she said she was not hungry, did not want food, water, etc. Her body was dying, and when the body starts to die, many mechanisms shut down. I can certainly say in our own personal story, the pain she suffered was from the cancer, and she had morphine for that. Scroff was there to give her her dose every 2 hours..he stayed at his parents during her final weeks.
I resent the way the religious zealots have presented this entire case, calling it murder. I resent even more the comparison of how Terri looks..to someone in a Nazi prison camp. The feeding tube has been out for a week. Is there really any comparison, and therre should be no comparisons anyway. Each life, as well as each death is unigue to the individual. Death is part of life, and is an uncomfortable topic for people to ponder, let alone discuss.
I had long talks with my mother-in-law while she was dying. We talked about her life, and we talked about her dying...her thoughts, her feelings, her concerns, etc.
This should have stayed a private affair within the family. Politicians have made it their own circus. It is a shame and a disgrace, and if nothing else, does a last injustice to the life of Terri

[vidcc]

The starving to death does seem cruel, however she would not be aware of it as the part of her brain that would make her realise is dead. All that is left is a body that is breathing on auto pilot. She died 15 years ago, her body just doesn't know it.


I have heard people argue that if you did this to a dog you would be put in prison, but a dog you can have put down by leathal injection. The fact is that the law prohibits humans being "put down".

Busy is right, feeding tubes are removed all the time and George Bush signed into state law in Texas the right for hospitals to remove life sustaining treatment even against the will of the family if they consider it futile to continue or the family is unable to pay for "futile treatment".
Where was the outrage at the six month old baby having his breathing tube removed even though he was awake, aware and responsive to his mother. Where was the outrage and the supporters when this mother pleaded not to let her son die?

As i stated the husband should have lost his rights when he took up with this other woman, the law sees it different though. It is not Terri on that bed, it's just a body so she would not suffer from having the tube removed but she would not suffer from her body being fed....she wouldn't know either way... she died 15 years ago

[ziggyjuarez]

The starving to death does seem cruel, however she would not be aware of it as the part of her brain that would make her realise is dead. All that is left is a body that is breathing on auto pilot. She died 15 years ago, her body just doesn't know it.


I have heard people argue that if you did this to a dog you would be put in prison, but a dog you can have put down by leathal injection. The fact is that the law prohibits humans being "put down".
ago
Thank you.I'v been trying to tell people this.

[dwightfry]

I made a realization today. The family isn't thinking about their daughter, they are thinking about themselves. The mother refuses to visit her daughter because she can't stand seeing her daughter like that. If she honestly believed that Schiavo is conscious why would she abandon Schiavo in the final days? That seems cruel and selfish to me. A decision that she will most likely regret later.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Well, she is no longer with us, RIP Terri, you're troubles are over.

[Skiz]

Yes RIP...hopefully with this thread as well