:blink: Correct. I should menction that now was a typo for not. :w00t:Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
Printable View
:blink: Correct. I should menction that now was a typo for not. :w00t:Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
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.
I wonder how many people there are that say, "If I'm a vegetable, keep me that way."
I know none.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC
i can't disagree with that. surely there must be a lot that we don't know about these people. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Don't get used to it, but you have finally said something I totally agree with :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by UKResident
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
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. :(
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
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
Thank you.I'v been trying to tell people this.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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.
Well, she is no longer with us, RIP Terri, you're troubles are over.
Yes RIP...hopefully with this thread as well