The Terri Case - this is ridiculous

[The Edge]

Tensions run high among supporters on both sides of the Terri Schiavo case.
From CNN.com

This is ridiculous. This friggin' case has become the most retarded media circus I ever saw. This is a private family matter that the whole country and court system does not need to be involved in. This is a waste of the judges' time. Waste of the president's time. And poor Terri! She had a living will and her husband has authority.

This crap will never end. And our media will continue to find stupid things to tell us and waste our time with. And Terri's parents are just sick, sick people. Let the poor woman die with dignity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bang:

I tried to avoid the story as long as I could because it's not my business; this family's issue is not my business and it doesn't belong in the nation's courts! This burns me up.

[drbrumley]

From CNN.com

This is ridiculous. This friggin' case has become the most retarded media circus I ever saw. This is a private family matter that the whole country and court system does not need to be involved in. This is a waste of the judges' time. Waste of the president's time. And poor Terri! She had a living will and her husband has authority.

This crap will never end. And our media will continue to find stupid things to tell us and waste our time with. And Terri's parents are just sick, sick people.

This burns me up.

She has a living will? Where? The husband has no authority once he, and soon after Terry collapsed, had another woman thereby committing adultry. We can see plainly what his vows meant to him.

And to say the parents are sick sick people, just shows your ignorance in this matter.

[The Edge]

My ignornace becuase I distance myself from the "news that doesn't need to be in the news"

I should have no knowledge of the case at all!!!! It's a private, family matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's my point.

[The Edge]

and i have every right to say her parents are sick for making their child go through 17 years of misery and force her husband to grieve so long. he's been through enough.

[drbrumley]

My ignornace becuase I distance myself from the "news that doesn't need to be in the news"

I should have no knowledge of the case at all!!!! It's a private, family matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's my point.

It becomes Public when the no good husband is trying to kill her. Your point is not taken.

[drbrumley]

BChristianK is right on the money here.

From the act now to save Terri's life thread

It appears that Judicial tyranny has triumphed over the will of the people and the constitutional right of a woman, depriving her of her fundamental right to life without the due process of law.

Terry Shiavo has committed no crime, she has not been found guilty of any crime that would warrant the sentence of death. There is no document that explicitly communicates Terry Shiavo’s desire in her current condition. The only evidence introduced was the hearsay testimony of a man whose dedication can be measured by the fact that he is now shacking up with another women with whom he has children.

The fact that he stands to gain financially from her death has been ignored. The fact that there is affidavit evidence from those who have had conversations with Michael Shiavo saying that he in fact did not know what Terry’s wishes would be in her current situation have been ignored.

The testimony of Dr. Cheshire from the Mayo Clinic that Terry Shiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state has been ignored.

And a judicial tyranny of only 9 people has ignored a bill passed by congress and signed into law by the President of the United States.

A few men have overridden the will of the people and their elected officials in order to ensure that Michael Shiavo has the pleasure of seeing Terry Shiavo starve to death.

If an unjust judge can ignore congress and the President and then mock the chief executive of a state by tying his hands all for the purpose of depriving a woman of her constitutionally protected right to life on the hearsay testimony of an adulterer, then we have come to a time when the bill of rights is nothing more than a relic in a museum and the rule of law is governed by the predilections and judgment of a few judicial tyrants; then this is the end of more than Terry Shiavo’s hopes.

[drbrumley]

So before you insert your foot in your mouth Edge, get the facts. Cause by your logic, the Nazi's would have loved you in Germany and they love you here.

[drbrumley]

And I expect you to apologize to Terri's parents.

[Wamba]

:nono: So it's okay to help someone kill themselves? You are supporting assisted suicide.

[drbrumley]

This is what Christianity has become folks. It's up to us to get it back. I call for a national boycott of National Right to Life being it seems thier judgements are convoluted and compromising.

[Wamba]

This is what Christianity has become folks. It's up to us to get it back. I call for a national boycott of National Right to Life being it seems thier judgements are convoluted and compromising.


:up:


I concur; National Right to Life is horrible... they compromise on Do Not Murder

[BillyBob]

If Terri had a living will agreement with her husband, why did he wait 7 years after she fell ill to mention it?

[drbrumley]

Cause she didnt for starters, and even if she did, you still dont kill her

[elected4ever]

It makes no deference at all what anyone, even Terry Shiavo herself, thinks or has given permission too. Assisted suicide is wrong. Killing the innocent is murder. No one has the right to kill the innocent. Not even the courts. I have seen hundreds if not thousands of people who were for some tragic reason unable to care for themselves. Their families were to say the least, devastated but supported the life that was there because that life belonged to the one who possessed it and they defended that life through many hardships. They did not take it. The right to life movement has terned into the the Right to death movement. They are saying that Terry Shiavo has a right to have court assisted suicide. Think about it If you are in a condition of not being able to speak for yourself then the court has the right to sentence you to death upon request. Weather they put a needle in you arm or starve you to death, the outcome is the same. It is a death sentence. It is murder made legal. Hitler had nothing on this God forsaken country!

[BillyBob]

Cause she didnt for starters


Exactly!

[The Edge]

i'm no nazi and i'm offended by you calling me one. you don't fool with naziism

all i know is she had a living will. everyone i talked to told me that. the woman did not want to be alive in the state she is in, so she has the right to have her wish carried out. that's all. that's all i know.

and even if there are more facts that i overlooked before stating my opinion, I don't want to know them. this case does not need to be broadcast to the american public. it's not our business. my opinion for or against assisted suicide is not what i was writing about. i was writing about the fact that we don't need to hear about this case.

i'll take your apology at any time

[BillyBob]

i'm no nazi and i'm offended by some fool calling me one

I don't blame ya!



all i know is she had a living will.

She did? You KNOW that?

everyone i talked to told me that.

Not everyone on this website!

the woman did not want to be alive in the state she is in,

Says who? What state? Florida isn't so bad.

so she has the right to have her wish carried out.

What wish?

that's all. that's all i know.

Are you sure you know this?



and even if there are more facts that i overlooked before stating my opinion, I don't want to know them. this case does not need to be broadcast to the american public. it's not our business. my opinion for or against assisted suicide is not what i was writing about. i was writing about the fact that we don't need to hear about this case.

What else don't you want to know about? You wanna just let the government start killing people based on their spouses hearsay? I hope you never make your wife angry....



i'll take your apology at any time


What apology?

[Sozo]

What else don't you want to know about? You wanna just let the government start killing people based on their spouses hearsay? I hope you never make your wife angry....




I would suggest, to The Edge, that he never steps foot in Florida, knowing that they kill those whom they think are brain dead.

[Crow]

i'm no nazi and i'm offended by you calling me one. you don't fool with naziism

all i know is she had a living will. everyone i talked to told me that. the woman did not want to be alive in the state she is in, so she has the right to have her wish carried out. that's all. that's all i know.

and even if there are more facts that i overlooked before stating my opinion, I don't want to know them. this case does not need to be broadcast to the american public. it's not our business. my opinion for or against assisted suicide is not what i was writing about. i was writing about the fact that we don't need to hear about this case.

i'll take your apology at any time

This case belongs in the public. Even if you ignore the woman who is being starved to death, this is the kind of case that sets legal precedence. This is the most imporatant case since Rowe vs Wade that affects the protection of innocent human life.

The woman had no living will. If you believe that you have evidence to refute this, let us know. What everyone you talked to says does not change fact. The fact that the woman had no living will has been uncontested in the legal hearings.

If you are overlooking or ignoring facts when you take a stance on a discussion board, you are doing battle as an unarmed man.

[Wamba]

i'm no nazi and i'm offended by you calling me one. you don't fool with naziism

all i know is she had a living will. everyone i talked to told me that. the woman did not want to be alive in the state she is in, so she has the right to have her wish carried out. that's all. that's all i know.

and even if there are more facts that i overlooked before stating my opinion, I don't want to know them. this case does not need to be broadcast to the american public. it's not our business. my opinion for or against assisted suicide is not what i was writing about. i was writing about the fact that we don't need to hear about this case.

i'll take your apology at any time


Who have you been talking to? How would they know?

So if someone wants to commit suicide you'll gladly help them? Will you give them the rope when they go to hang themselves?! I'm not seeing your logic. :madmad:

[drbrumley]

Edge, no apology is forthcoming. Until you wake your a** up and pay attention, you have no leg to stand on. You know Edge, when you die, I'm going to court and tell the court you said I can have your house. Ricidiolous isnt it? That the evidence the COURT accepted. So this should be public cause the rules being applied in this case have alot to do with every American. Face it.

[drbrumley]

And Im waiting on your public apology for offending me saying the parents are sick, sick people.

[Crow]

BTW, I'm living in Ohio. A living will in Ohio, and advance directives only are applicable if one is certified by a physican to have a condition which is terminal. Advanced cancer. Advanced heart disease. A living will was not intended to allow people to be denied treatment unless they were terminally ill. Terri is not.

[Christine]

Edge, this article might be quite helpful to you, and others, in learning the truth about Terri.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

[The Edge]

I been watching Fox News tonight.... just to get a little insight. Fascinating case actually....all the legal stuff, though I don't understand most of it, is pretty interesting.

I retract the harsh statements I made, but not because of any flames I received from you all but because this is such an unusual case with all kinds of complicated legal rigamarole associated with it.

I am no medical or legal expert. I can provide no educated opinion. All I think is this poor woman and this family has been through enough. Somehow we need to get some closure, but I'm not sure any more the right way to do that. Starving her to death is cruel. I'm hearing questionable things about Michael and his character. I no longer know the right thing to do; either way, the outcome will be sad.

But I'm not a communist, a nazi, or a heartless person. I sympathize with those on both sides of this case, but I don't think this needs to be in the media so much. It's all that's on now, and there's more important things happening in the world.

T.E.

[Sozo]

I sympathize with those on both sides of this case, but I don't think this needs to be in the media so much. It's all that's on now, and there's more important things happening in the world.

T.E.Yeah! Like the latest U2 single, right dude? :thumb:

[The Edge]

U2 is my favorite band. But rock music is not more important than life.

[Sozo]

U2 is my favorite band. But rock music is not more important than life.


Apparently, just about anything is more important to you then the life of a young girl who is being murdered by her husband with the endorsement of the government you are serving.

I'm guessing that if you happen to be sent to Iraq, you have already made provisions to be starved to death, by your family, in the event that you are not able to feed yourself as the result of some misfortune. Is that correct?

[The Edge]

Apparently, just about anything is more important to you then the life of a young girl who is being murdered by her husband with the endorsement of the government you are serving.

I'm guessing that if you happen to be sent to Iraq, you have already made provisions to be starved to death, by your family, in the event that you are not able to feed yourself as the result of some misfortune. Is that correct?
:rolleyes:
you know what happens when you "assume"

[Sozo]

:rolleyes:
you know what happens when you "assume"

I know what happens when the courts assume, and I know what happens when you assume that the media and your friends are telling you the truth.

[The Edge]

right. so go back and read my other posts and settle down please. i retracted my assumptions. quit attacking me.

[Ninjashadow]

From CNN.com

This is ridiculous. This friggin' case has become the most retarded media circus I ever saw. This is a private family matter that the whole country and court system does not need to be involved in. This is a waste of the judges' time. Waste of the president's time. And poor Terri! She had a living will and her husband has authority.

This crap will never end. And our media will continue to find stupid things to tell us and waste our time with. And Terri's parents are just sick, sick people. Let the poor woman die with dignity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bang:

I tried to avoid the story as long as I could because it's not my business; this family's issue is not my business and it doesn't belong in the nation's courts! This burns me up.

First of all, she didn't have a legit living will otherwise her "husband" would have been showing it to every one. Secondly, you are right, it is a family thing, except the courts and all the dirty, stinking liberals aren't letting her family decide. Her "husband" is NOT part of her family because he gave up that right when started shacking up with the woman who is now his common law wife. That's right, he is a polygamist. If it were trully up to her family, this wouldn't be in the news because her family (father, mother, sister, brother) don't want her to die.

[Sozo]

i retracted my assumptions.




there's more important things happening in the world.

:liberals:

[The Edge]

i am not a liberal. not even close.

[Delmar]

From CNN.com

This is ridiculous. This friggin' case has become the most retarded media circus I ever saw. This is a private family matter that the whole country and court system does not need to be involved in. This is a waste of the judges' time. Waste of the president's time. And poor Terri! She had a living will and her husband has authority.

This crap will never end. And our media will continue to find stupid things to tell us and waste our time with. And Terri's parents are just sick, sick people. Let the poor woman die with dignity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bang:

I tried to avoid the story as long as I could because it's not my business; this family's issue is not my business and it doesn't belong in the nation's courts! This burns me up.when your wife decides to smother you with a pillow, just remember it's a family matter!

[BillyBob]

Yep, all she has to do is tell a judge that she remembers you requesting to be smothered.......

[Sozo]

Yep, all she has to do is tell a judge that she remembers you requesting to be smothered.......
:chuckle:

If only O. J. had used this defense, there never would have been a trial.

"Yes, officer, she told me to stab her several times, and I had to stab Mr. Goldman because he was preventing me from carrying out her living will"

[Crow]

Advance directives. living wills, etc, are an example of laws that were intended for good being used for a wicked purpose.

These insturments were intended to spare people who were close to death and unable to be healed the opportunity to die without the pain and indignity of a battery of futile treatments to prolong the process of death. To allow a man or woman with a terminal disease to not be subjected to pointless, expensive, extrodinary, and often agonizing procedures that would not restore or maintain their health. It was a means of allowing people to die with some semblance of dignity; a way of promoting comfort over an attempt to prevent what is ultimately the fate of all of us and a natural end to life--death.

Living wills were not intended as a means to kill those members of society who were handicapped and needed assistance with basic human needs--food and water. They were not intended as instruments for to be wielded to effect the suicide or murder of "defective" humans.

I was raised to be proud of my country--a serviceman's kid who respected and loved my country. I was raised to appreciate the freedom, opportunity, and ideals of my country, even when those goals could not be acheived perfectly by imperfect human beings.

Today, I am ashamed of the direction my country is headed in. A woman's life is being taken by good laws perverted to exploit the weakest and most defenseless of human beings--a helpless woman who is considered to be unworthy of her own life. An woman who has not commited a capital crime is being put to death by a means that would not be tolerated if one chose to apply them to a dog. She is being executed barbarically by deliberate starvation.

Some say the law has no right to intervene. Since when is killing another human being not a concern of the law? Since when is a person's decision to kill another member of their family sacred--a personal matter that does not bring detriment to society as a whole?

Since 1973, when Rowe vs. Wade opened a Pandora's box that made it acceptable to cull our ranks of those who are unwanted and inconvenient. It became acceptable to assign an arbitrary value to the life of another human being, and end that life based not upon just cause but upon "choice."

Who will be the next group of people to be relegated to the delete bin? The feeble-minded? The crippled? A troublesome ethnic group?

Maybe it looks familiar. It should.

[The Edge]

when your wife decides to smother you with a pillow, just remember it's a family matter!
I need to write a living will, so this horrible madness doesn't happen to me should i have an accident like that.

[Sozo]

I need to write a living will, so this horrible madness doesn't happen to me should i have an accident like that.Didn't I already suggest that to you?

I'm guessing that if you happen to be sent to Iraq, you have already made provisions to be starved to death, by your family, in the event that you are not able to feed yourself as the result of some misfortune. Is that correct?

[The Edge]

An woman who has not commited a capital crime is being put to death by a means that would not be tolerated if one chose to apply them to a dog. She is being executed barbarically by deliberate starvation.
I agree. It should not have come this far. This should have been settled 17 years ago. but now the only way out either way has a bad outcome...either they kill her slowly or prolong her meaningless life. this situation exists because of mistakes and heresay. it is unfortunate.

[Crow]

I agree. It should not have come this far. This should have been settled 17 years ago. but now the only way out either way has a bad outcome...either they kill her slowly or prolong her meaningless life. this situation exists because of mistakes and heresay. it is unfortunate.

So what, to you, should be the default scenario? Preserve a woman's life, which may well and does indeed appear to be meaningful to her? Or starve her to death just in case she would want to die?

[Sozo]

...either they kill her slowly or prolong her meaningless life.

The hole you are digging yourself, is just about deep enough to bury an eternity of stupidity! :dunce: :grave:

[aikido7]

Advance directives. living wills, etc, are an example of laws that were intended for good being used for a wicked purpose.

These insturments were intended to spare people who were close to death and unable to be healed the opportunity to die without the pain and indignity of a battery of futile treatments to prolong the process of death. To allow a man or woman with a terminal disease to not be subjected to pointless, expensive, extrodinary, and often agonizing procedures that would not restore or maintain their health. It was a means of allowing people to die with some semblance of dignity; a way of promoting comfort over an attempt to prevent what is ultimately the fate of all of us and a natural end to life--death.

Living wills were not intended as a means to kill those members of society who were handicapped and needed assistance with basic human needs--food and water. They were not intended as instruments for to be wielded to effect the suicide or murder of "defective" humans.

I was raised to be proud of my country--a serviceman's kid who respected and loved my country. I was raised to appreciate the freedom, opportunity, and ideals of my country, even when those goals could not be acheived perfectly by imperfect human beings.

Today, I am ashamed of the direction my country is headed in. A woman's life is being taken by good laws perverted to exploit the weakest and most defenseless of human beings--a helpless woman who is considered to be unworthy of her own life. An woman who has not commited a capital crime is being put to death by a means that would not be tolerated if one chose to apply them to a dog. She is being executed barbarically by deliberate starvation.

Some say the law has no right to intervene. Since when is killing another human being not a concern of the law? Since when is a person's decision to kill another member of their family sacred--a personal matter that does not bring detriment to society as a whole?

Since 1973, when Rowe vs. Wade opened a Pandora's box that made it acceptable to cull our ranks of those who are unwanted and inconvenient. It became acceptable to assign an arbitrary value to the life of another human being, and end that life based not upon just cause but upon "choice."

Who will be the next group of people to be relegated to the delete bin? The feeble-minded? The crippled? A troublesome ethnic group?

Maybe it looks familiar. It should.

Very well expressed....!

[Zakath]

I need to write a living will, so this horrible madness doesn't happen to me should i have an accident like that.
The wife and I already have...

[Poly]

I been watching Fox News tonight.... just to get a little insight. Fascinating case actually....all the legal stuff, though I don't understand most of it, is pretty interesting.

I retract the harsh statements I made, but not because of any flames I received from you all but because this is such an unusual case with all kinds of complicated legal rigamarole associated with it.

I am no medical or legal expert. I can provide no educated opinion. All I think is this poor woman and this family has been through enough. Somehow we need to get some closure, but I'm not sure any more the right way to do that. Starving her to death is cruel. I'm hearing questionable things about Michael and his character. I no longer know the right thing to do; either way, the outcome will be sad.

But I'm not a communist, a nazi, or a heartless person. I sympathize with those on both sides of this case, but I don't think this needs to be in the media so much. It's all that's on now, and there's more important things happening in the world.

T.E.
I think the thing that disappoints me the most is that you assumed something to be true when it was nothing more than what you had been told. This is such a dangerous thing to do. We have no hard concrete proof in all of this. But we do have some big time evidence that Michael does not care for Terri and that he's never had her best interest in mind. Did you bother to read any of this before you made up your mind before that Terri should die?

[Servo]

I like what Columbine dad Brian Rohrbough said, "There’s no such thing as assisted suicide, its murder when you kill an innocent person."

[The Edge]

I think the thing that disappoints me the most is that you assumed something to be true when it was nothing more than what you had been told. This is such a dangerous thing to do. We have no hard concrete proof in all of this. But we do have some big time evidence that Michael does not care for Terri and that he's never had her best interest in mind. Did you bother to read any of this before you made up your mind before that Terri should die?
Poly, I corrected my mistake. I admited to assuming and repented. Be disappointed no more. ;)

[wholearmor]

I need to write a living will, so this horrible madness doesn't happen to me should i have an accident like that.

What if you change your mind and can't tell anyone?

[Zakath]

What if you change your mind and can't tell anyone?
It's too late, then...

It's kind of like agreeing to gall bladder surgery. If you wait too long to change your mind you'll wake up with a changed mind and a missing gall bladder.

Free will does not guarrantee unlimited ability to change one's mind and affect a different outcome in an event.

[wholearmor]

It's too late, then...

It's kind of like agreeing to gall bladder surgery. If you wait too long to change your mind you'll wake up with a changed mind and a missing gall bladder.

Free will does not guarrantee unlimited ability to change one's mind and affect a different outcome in an event.

Exactly. That's one reason why the practice of a living will is ridiculous. You cannot know what you would want until you find yourself experiencing the situation. It reminds me somewhat of a scene from the movie, Young Frankenstein, where Gene Wilder's character told his assistants not to let him out of the room with the monster for any reason. Of course, shortly after entering the room and being locked in, he changed his mind and begged and pleaded to be let out.

[Zakath]

Exactly. That's why the practice of a living will is ridiculous. You cannot know what you would want until you find yourself experiencing the situation. It reminds me somewhat of a scene from the movie, Young Frankenstein, where Gene Wilder's character told his assistants not to let him out of the room with the monster for any reason. Of course, shortly after entering the room and being locked in, he changed his mind and begged and pleaded to be let out.Having worked for a couple of years in a hospital emergency room and frequently visiting the poor souls in the ICU and CCU, I would say that the practice of a living will is a wise decision if you do not want to leave important decisions about your care to squabbling family members or strangers like hospital administration or insurance providers.

It's not perfect, no. But it's better than the potential of being left to the wolves... :think:

[wholearmor]

Having worked for a couple of years in a hospital emergency room and frequently visiting the poor souls in the ICU and CCU, I would say that the practice of a living will is a wise decision if you do not want to leave important decisions about your care to squabbling family members or strangers like hospital administration or insurance providers.

It's not perfect, no. But it's better than the potential of being left to the wolves... :think:

So considering Terri Schiavo specifically, if she had left a living will stating she didn't want to be kept alive with a feeding tube, would you consider it a tragedy for her if she didn't feel that way in the state she finds herself in?

[The Edge]

What if I change my mind and can't tell anyone? I'll have to place my trust in God that He will take care of me or cause the family members to make the decision they know I'd want. But while I am able, I better get a living will done. As Zakath said, it's not perfect but it's better than the squabbling family members doing what is happening to Terri.

Terri's case is just so strange and full of so much rumor and speculation, it has caused me to say things I was not sure about. A very touchy issue and people seem to be very passionate about it. I dismiss the matter; it does not affect me. It's not right to kill her, and it's not right to force her to live the way she is. I wash my hands of the case. Hope it turns out for the best, and soon. If anything, if this case affected me somehow, it brought to my attention the importance of a living will. I will be writing one so this does not happen to me.

[wholearmor]

What if I change my mind and can't tell anyone? I'll have to place my trust in God that He will take care of me or cause the family members to make the decision they know I'd want. But while I am able, I better get a living will done. As Zakath said, it's not perfect but it's better than the squabbling family members doing what is happening to Terri.

Terri's case is just so strange and full of so much rumor and speculation, it has caused me to say things I was not sure about. A very touchy issue and people seem to be very passionate about it. I dismiss the matter; it does not affect me. It's not right to kill her, and it's not right to force her to live the way she is. I wash my hands of the case. Hope it turns out for the best, and soon. If anything, if this case affected me somehow, it brought to my attention the importance of a living will. I will be writing one so this does not happen to me.

What if she wants to live the way she is? Don't you consider a living will premeditated suicide?

[Zakath]

What if she wants to live the way she is?
Her window for making such decisions closed when she lost brain function. From what I understand, she is in her current condition mostly as a result of her lifestyle for a number of years prior to her heart attack. She is, sadly perhaps, having to accept the results of her previous poor choices over a number of years...

Like a mountain climber falling from the rock face to his doom after his rope breaks, it's too late to decide then that he didn't really want to go mountain climbing that day...

[wholearmor]

Her window for making such decisions closed when she lost brain function.

Like a mountain climber falling from the rock face to his doom after his rope breaks, it's too late to decide then that he didn't really want to go mountain climbing that day...

That's a terrible analogy. Mountain climbers know full well the risks of mountain climbing. Terri Schiavo never had any idea what the risks would be of completing a living will. Also, Terri has not lost all brain function, correct?

[Zakath]

That's a terrible analogy.Not really, no.

Mountain climbers know full well the risks of mountain climbing. In general, that's true. Though a specific climb may be much riskier than a climber realizes until they're too far committed to turn back.

Terri Schiavo never had any idea what the risks would be of completing a living will.

So considering Terri Schiavo specifically, if she had left a living will stating she didn't want to be kept alive with a feeding tube, would you consider it a tragedy for her if she didn't feel that way in the state she finds herself in?
I combined your two posts here. I missed this last paragraph in my previous example. I think her condition and position are tragic, yes. But I still think she is where she is, at least partially, as a result of her own choices and actions.

It's not like she was a vicitim of an automobile accident over which she had no control...

Also, Terri has not lost all brain function, correct?So far as I understand, that is correct. She had the ability to randomly vocalize (make sounds, but not words) and her eyes would respond to light. She does not, according to physician reports I've read, respond to direct stimulus in Her lower brain stem functions (breathing, heartbeat, some autonomic nervious functions) also appeared to be intact.

[The Edge]

Don't you consider a living will premeditated suicide?
No I do not. I consider a living will to be a preparatory document outlining what you want done if you should lose the ability to communicate medical decisions after a catestrophic medical event in your life. Writing a living will should not be done lightly, but should reflect a lot of thought and prayer beforehand.

[wholearmor]

Zakath:
In general, that's true. Though a specific climb may be much riskier than a climber realizes until they're too far committed to turn back.

WA:
In that case, you described the person incorrectly. That person would be a fool, not a mountain climber in the true sense of the words, which would follow that a person completing a living will would be a fool not knowing what they may be getting themselves into.

[Skeptic]

Terri has been essentially dead for some time know.

Twenty percent remaining brain tissue, a heart beat, meaningless responses to stimuli, with no chance for improvement, does not make for a life.

If I were Terri, I would have wanted my spouse to end my life years ago.

Time to get out the video camera and invite multiple witnesses for the taping of me completing a Living Will (http://dying.about.com/cs/glossary/g/g_LivingWill.htm), Advanced Directive (http://familydoctor.org/003.xml), and Durable Power of Attorney (http://familydoctor.org/003.xml#3) regarding health care. Make sure you get everyone on tape. Then, make multiple copies of the video tape and the documents.

...

[wholearmor]

Terri has been essentially dead for some time know.


Your opinion. Not the opinion of many others.

Twenty percent remaining brain tissue, a heart beat, meaningless responses to stimuli, with no chance for improvement, does not make for a life.

I don't believe what you stand for makes a life. Can I starve you to death?

If I were Terri, I would have wanted my spouse to end my life years ago.

You have no way of knowing that.

Time to get out the video camera and invite multiple witnesses for the taping of me completing a Living Will (http://dying.about.com/cs/glossary/g/g_LivingWill.htm), Advanced Directive (http://familydoctor.org/003.xml), and Durable Power of Attorney (http://familydoctor.org/003.xml#3) regarding health care. Make sure you get everyone on tape. Then, make multiple copies of the video tape and the documents....

You don't have a clue what the future of indigent care technology is going to bring to the world. If you follow through with those plans, you are a fool.

[The Edge]

WA,
You should not call someone a fool for having an opinion. It's wrong, just as I was wrong for calling Terri's parents sick people. I'm sorry for what I said. Now you should apologize to Skeptic.

You should state your opinion, but dont' insult people.

[wholearmor]

WA,
You should not call someone a fool for having an opinion. It's wrong, just as I was wrong for calling Terri's parents sick people. I'm sorry for what I said. Now you should apologize to Skeptic.

You should state your opinion, but dont' insult people.

I didn't call Skeptic a fool for having an opinion. In fact, I ddin't call him a fool at all. I told him if he followed through with his plan then he would be a fool. I would consider him a fool not for his opinion, but for his actions.

[The Edge]

hmmmm...

[wholearmor]

hmmmm...

hmmmm...?

[BillyBob]

If I were Terri, I would have wanted my spouse to end my life years ago.
.


We can arrange that........

[drbrumley]

We can arrange that........
:darwinsm:

[Stelakh]

I'm new around here, but I'm wading in anyway, simply because it seems so few actually understand the American system of government and the United States Constitution.

Firstly, I'd like to address the concept here of "judicial tyranny". The truth in this matter, despite the situation with Mrs. Schiavo, is that it was an unconscionable violation of our own Constitutional Process that Congress, the Senate, and the President got involved. Their attempts to circumvent the courts is in direct violation of the Three-Part system established in the Constitution.

The Legislative branch (Congress and the Senate) writes laws, the Executive Branch (the President) enforces the laws, and the Judicial branch (the courts) interpret the laws.

The Constitution's establishment of a three-part government was made so that no one branch of government could become too powerful. It is a system of checks and balances that was created to ensure that the governemnt of the country could not be powerful enough to turn into a despotism or tyranical regime (such as the card I have seen played so very often here - Nazi Germany. And really, it's a card played so often it's like there's whole decks with just the one. Give the Nazi cry a rest. People who demand that their beliefs be forced onto others are the fascists. I encourage you to consult a dictionary and thesaurus for definitions and synonyms.).

Before going off about tyrranies and despotic groups of people, I suggest one actually reads the Constitution. It's there for a reason, and foisting any kind of morality on the populace is not that reason. It's there to limit governmental control over the people.

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Agape4Robin]

Hey Skeptic-
Would you want your wife to be engaged to another man and have children with him too? Would you trust her if she couldn't honor her marriage vows? :think: Remember those? :idea: For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health until DEATH DO YOU PART?

Any one who believes this man is "devoted" to his wife is a :dunce: :duh:

TTFN :wave2:

-Robin

[keypurr]

My ignornace becuase I distance myself from the "news that doesn't need to be in the news"

I should have no knowledge of the case at all!!!! It's a private, family matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's my point.

I agree. There no hope for her or her family as long as she is being kept breathing. From what I hear her husband stood by her side for a long time. Any money he got paid her bills. His life has been on hold for 15 years. On the other side, parents see hope where there is none. They do not wish to accept what is happening. We are in no position to judge. And it is not a issue to play politics with. It's time to let God take her and get on with life. Then they all can start over again.

[wholearmor]

...His life has been on hold for 15 years....

Really? How do you father 2 children by a different woman with your life on hold?

[Poly]

His life has been on hold for 15 years.
He shacked up with another woman and had 2 kids by her.

Oh yeah, his life is really "on hold". :rolleyes:

[Mr. 5020]

I'm new around here, but I'm wading in anyway, simply because it seems so few actually understand the American system of government and the United States Constitution.I can think of two people off the top of my head that are going to truthsmack back into reality for this statement. Would you like a soda?

[julie21]

This has only hit the news here on TV since the court stepped in..before that , there was nothing. I have given the background to the story from looking on here and in the American papers, and so many people say the same thing about her husband - jerk!
Why can't he just concede to parental control...leave it to those who truly do love her...and just back off right out of it and live his new life!!!

[Mr. 5020]

This has only hit the news here on TV since the court stepped in..before that , there was nothing. I have given the background to the story from looking on here and in the American papers, and so many people say the same thing about her husband - jerk!
Why can't he just concede to parental control...leave it to those who truly do love her...and just back off right out of it and live his new life!!!
Amen, sist-a, preach it!!!!

[Agape4Robin]

From what I hear her husband stood by her side for a long time. Really?? :confused: Any money he got paid her bills. HIS LAWYERS got about $650,000.....so that Terri can be starved to death....NONE of it went to pay for HER lawyers! :nono: His life has been on hold for 15 years. You are mistaken. Michael has a fiancee and has been living with her for many years and they have children together!! :baby: Doesn't look like his life is on hold to me!! On the other side, parents see hope where there is none. Your opinion. It's time to let God take her and get on with life. Then they all can start over again.She is NOT termianlly ill....no reason to let God "take" her. She is BEING STARVED TO DEATH!!!!!!! Who will start over again? Can her sister and brother "start over"? Can her parents make another one just like her? :confused: :nono:

You are :kookoo:

[Poly]

:BRAVO:

Now there's a post deserving of some Rep points!

[wholearmor]

keypurr:
...His life has been on hold for 15 years....

WA:
Really? How do you father 2 children by a different woman with your life on hold?

Poly:
He shacked up with another woman and had 2 kids by her.

Oh yeah, his life is really "on hold".

WA:
Great minds think alike!

[The Edge]

Stelakh

Beautiful! You are correct. There are other ways that the courts are violating the constitution as well. But your post hit the nail on the head. And as a military officer I swore an oath to "support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."

[wholearmor]

Stelakh

Beautiful! You are correct. There are other ways that the courts are violating the constitution as well. But your post hit the nail on the head. And as a military officer I swore an oath to "support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."

Then hustle on down to our border with Mexico, will ya'?

[Stelakh]

Just idle thought here, but I'm wondering about Michael Schiavo and the vilification he's received.

I've seen so many posts about how he's "shacked up with another woman and has two kids by her", and any variation on that theme, all of which are said to show he doesn't love his wife, is only in it for money and to kill her, etc, and shows a complete lack of devotion to her.

There are options that he could have taken if he has been so totally and completely "non-devotional" where his wife is concerned. Not the least of which is divorce. Which he has not done.

I've seen posts here referencing the over $650,000.00 paid to his attorneys during his fight. We all know that Mrs. Schiavo received cerebral insult over 15 years ago, and yet he's still involved.

Whether or not I agree with his actions where Mrs. Schiavo is concerned, he could have simply walked away. For fifteen years he could have simply walked away, and he obviously hasn't. I'm wondering why, and I'm thinking it can't be that he's just a jerk.

Yes, he is currently living with a woman he calls his fiancee. Yes, he has children with her. But again, I wonder. How would YOU want him to handle his life if you were Terri Schiavo?

If it were me, in a state where my cerebral cortex had 80% degradation, I can say that I wouldn't want to be kept alive by extraordinary means. But, aside from that, I'd want my wife to move on in her life, to live her life for HER, and not for me. I'd want her to be happy and to have someone to grow old with, and if that person couldn't be me because I was in a state like Mrs. Schiavo, I'd hope she'd find someone who would be.

I don't think we should be coming down too harshly on Mr. Schiavo for trying to move on with his life. Fifteen years is a long time, and none of us know him personally.

None of us have been talking to him for the past fifteen years. None of us have been close enough to her parents. None of us knows the whole story.

[Sozo]

It's too late, then...

Free will does not guarrantee unlimited ability to change one's mind and affect a different outcome in an event.

Unrelated, but... :D

[Nineveh]

Any money he got paid her bills.

Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)

Atty Gwyneth Stanley $10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell $65,607.00
Atty Steve Nilson $7,404.95
Atty Pacarek $1,500.00
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) $4,511.95
Atty George Felos $397,249.99

1st Union/South Trust Bank $55,459.85
Michael Schiavo $10,929.95

Total $545,852.34

Not to mention in November of 1992 "Michael Schiavo awarded $600,000 in malpractice trial." Three months before: Michael Schiavo denies recommended rehabilitation treatment in February of 1993.

All information taken from here (http://www.terrisfight.net/)

[Nineveh]

he could have simply walked away. For fifteen years he could have simply walked away, and he obviously hasn't. I'm wondering why, and I'm thinking it can't be that he's just a jerk.

If I'm not mistaken there is still a life insurance policy on her. Obviously $600,000 just isn't enough to pay off greer. Check out the time line (http://www.terrisfight.net/) of events. There is a reason people who have been with this event for a while feel like they do about this guy.

[Crow]

If I'm not mistaken there is still a life insurance policy on her. Obviously $600,000 just isn't enough to pay off greer. Check out the time line (http://www.terrisfight.net/) of events. There is a reason people who have been with this event for a while feel like they do about this guy.

Even if he were the nicest guy in the world, nice isn't what this issue is about. Even nice people do wicked things. Even nice people have mistaken concepts.

Killing an innocent person deliberately has always been inherently wrong.

[Nineveh]

Amen, Crow.

[Stelakh]

If I'm not mistaken there is still a life insurance policy on her.

Which may or may not be in effect if he were to divorce her. It depends on the laws of the particular state, as well as the policy's declarations of insurance.

Since the life insurnace has been mentioned here several times too, I'd really like to see the policy. I know that my father's "rock solid" life insurance wasn't paid when he died because the company said his policy didn't cover natural causes, just accidental death.

I've seen a lot of things thrown around here that are conjecture and heresay. And, frankly, if Mr. Schiavo REALLY wanted to make money, all he'd need to do is come here, read the posts and then sue for libel and defamation of character.

My point is that the only person who knows his true motives are him. It's convenient to make him a monster (even if he really is), but it's wrong to do so unless you have the entire story (something I don't think anyone will ever have).

[Nineveh]

My point is that the only person who knows his true motives are him. It's convenient to make him a monster (even if he really is), but it's wrong to do so unless you have the entire story (something I don't think anyone will ever have).


Looks like he's building his own reputation. Did you bother to look at the timeline from people who have been with this from the beginning? Or are you merely going to remain content supporting the murder of handicapped folks?

[BillyBob]

I've seen a lot of things thrown around here that are conjecture and heresay. And, frankly, if Mr. Schiavo REALLY wanted to make money, all he'd need to do is come here, read the posts and then sue for libel and defamation of character.

From the same guy who wrote this:

Originally Posted by Stelakh
I'm new around here, but I'm wading in anyway, simply because it seems so few actually understand the American system of government and the United States Constitution.


:doh:



My point is that the only person who knows his true motives are him. It's convenient to make him a monster (even if he really is), but it's wrong to do so unless you have the entire story (something I don't think anyone will ever have).

This isn't a matter of convenience. :nono:

[avatar382]

Stelakh,

I agree that the actions of the executive and legeslative branches have been nothing short of reprehensible in this case. In particular, I hope that this whole case costs Gov. Bush dearly politically. He needs to be defending our Constitution, and standing up for the State of Florida, instead he's been doing everything possible to sidestep the state judiciary.

I've come to realize that the Christian fundamentalists around would see their views upheld, no matter what the cost, even if it means the dismantling of our cherished Constitution. You should see some of them (theonomists) go on and on about theocracy and how it is their mandate to set up a theocracy in the United States. In fact, I beleve the pastor of the Church many here follow has such a view. It's no wonder they could care less about the Constitutional implications of this case and the actions that have transpired.

[Crow]

I believe that it's not just Christian theonomists who hold the opinion that this woman should not be starved to death. It crosses all faiths, and even into some who have no religion.

Plenty of different people on both sides of the argument.

[BillyBob]

You guys keep screaming that Congressional intervention is unConstitutional, yet have failed to explain why. For that, you get 'Bad Rep Points'!

[avatar382]

I believe that it's not just Christian theonomists who hold the opinion that this woman should not be starved to death. It crosses all faiths, and even into some who have no religion.

Plenty of different people on both sides of the argument.

Crow, one can disagree with the court descisions, yet still respect the authority of the State courts who made them - and see that this should never have become a federal matter.

Anyone who has understanding of the Constitution should be able to see the clear violations in the events that have transpired...

[BillyBob]

Yep....more blather.

[Crow]

One can see court decisions and see them to be morally wrong.

Dred Scott Decision (http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htm)

[avatar382]

You guys keep screaming that Congressional intervention is unConstitutional, yet have failed to explain why. For that, you get 'Bad Rep Points'!

C'mon BillyBob, it has been said why, you just stick your head in the sand and say "You're wrong" without disproving or refuting the arguments.

These are the facts:

Congress orders a federal court to re-open a state court's final judgment on a family law issue.

Do you know what Federalism is?
Do you know what separation of powers is?
Do you agree federalism and separation of powers are Constitutional concepts?
Do you agree that the legislature is charged with creating laws, while the judiciary is charged with interpreting them?
Do you agree that once a matter has been ruled on, it's not merely "creating" laws if the only purpose of new legislation is essentially to get another court to overturn it?

[Agape4Robin]

The hospice nurse who took care of Terri was on Hannity and Combs last night. She said that before he got the idea :idea: that Terri didn't want to live this way, he confided to her that he didn't know what to do about Terri, :nono: that she and he NEVER talked about it.

Makes sense.....not many 20 somethings think about those things. I figured that Michael has been making it up the whole time, and that's not all, Terri's best friend was also on and talked about how she and Michael were not the happily married couple :nono: :straight: everyone thought they were, and she often came to work with bruises. There is even xrays of Terri having broken, untreated bones. And yet Judge Greer refuses to see. :bang:

[Agape4Robin]

Avatar-
This is MORE than a family issue............this is about LIFE OR DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you get it? A woman lay dying at the wishes of her husband..... :rain:

[avatar382]

One can see court decisions and see them to be morally wrong.

Dred Scott Decision (http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htm)

This isn't the same kind of case Dred Scott was. This is a case that is decided by evidence, not philosophical questions such as who is a citizen and who is not...

Simply put - most would agree that:
1.) IF Terri Schaivo is in a PVS
2.) IF it is true that she would not want life support in her current state

Then the court's decision would be the correct decsion. Does anyone disagree with that? Would anyone out there have a problem removing the tube if god came down and revealed that the woman is for a fact in a PVS, and for a fact would not want life support in her state?

Unfortunately, if there is a god, he has not come down and revealed anything for fact. Thus, we must rely on courts and on doctors. We have courts for the very reason of deciding difficult cases such as these. 23 or so courts so far have found that 1 and 2 are true, beyond a reasonable doubt.

No one is saying the courts are perfect. The courts do condemn innocent people to death as criminals. In this case, given that so many courts have unanimously ruled in favor of the husband, the rational conclusion is that the evidence must be very strongly in his favor, and the chance of the courts being wrong is very, very slim.

[Delmar]

I agree. There no hope for her or her family as long as she is being kept breathing. From what I hear her husband stood by her side for a long time. Any money he got paid her bills. His life has been on hold for 15 years. On the other side, parents see hope where there is none. They do not wish to accept what is happening. We are in no position to judge. And it is not a issue to play politics with. It's time to let God take her and get on with life. Then they all can start over again.Terry is not being "kept breathing" are you unaware of the facts or are you a liar?

[Crow]

Terry is not being "kept breathing" are you unaware of the facts or are you a liar?

Perhaps that's another way of saying "Hasn't been killed yet."

[wholearmor]

This isn't the same kind of case Dred Scott was. This is a case that is decided by evidence, not philosophical questions such as who is a citizen and who is not...

If it were truly decided by evidence, who's evidence? There are many conflicting opinions concerning Terri's condition.

Simply put - most would agree that:
1.) IF Terri Schaivo is in a PVS

She doesn't appear to be.

2.) IF it is true that she would not want life support in her current state

How would she know ahead of time and even if she did, it wouldn't matter since suicide and assisted suicide is illegal.

Then the court's decision would be the correct decsion. Does anyone disagree with that?

I do for my reason stated last.

Would anyone out there have a problem removing the tube if god came down and revealed that the woman is for a fact in a PVS, and for a fact would not want life support in her state?

god or God? Which are you referring to? If you're referring to the one true God, he's already come down and given us the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Unfortunately, if there is a god, he has not come down and revealed anything for fact. Thus, we must rely on courts and on doctors. We have courts for the very reason of deciding difficult cases such as these. 23 or so courts so far have found that 1 and 2 are true, beyond a reasonable doubt.


See my last statement.

No one is saying the courts are perfect. The courts do condemn innocent people to death as criminals. In this case, given that so many courts have unanimously ruled in favor of the husband, the rational conclusion is that the evidence must be very strongly in his favor, and the chance of the courts being wrong is very, very slim.

The rational conclusion is that the courts OK'd killing the most innocent among us in 1973 and cannot be trusted.

[BillyBob]

C'mon BillyBob, it has been said why, you just stick your head in the sand and say "You're wrong" without disproving or refuting the arguments.

First of all, I am not the person making a particular claim, you are. Therefor, the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders. I have simply asked you to prove your assertion that what Congress did last week in this case was unConstitutional as you keep claiming. So far, the only head in the sand is yours.



These are the facts:

Congress orders a federal court to re-open a state court's final judgment on a family law issue.

Congress simply allowed a Federal Judge the right to take a look at the case and make sure there wasn't something wrong with the judgement. Show me where that is unConstitutional. Be specific, show me which article disallows it!! Until then, your blather about the unConstitutionality of Congress' recent action will fall on deaf ears.



Do you know what Federalism is?
Do you know what separation of powers is?
Do you agree federalism and separation of powers are Constitutional concepts?
Do you agree that the legislature is charged with creating laws, while the judiciary is charged with interpreting them?
Do you agree that once a matter has been ruled on, it's not merely "creating" laws if the only purpose of new legislation is essentially to get another court to overturn it?


:yawn:

I'm still waiting.........waiting.........waiting.........

[I'll give a a hint where to start...try reading Article III......]

[elected4ever]

Sense when is the right to life guaranteed by the constitution not a federal matter?

[BillyBob]

Exactly.

[Stelakh]

Looks like he's building his own reputation. Did you bother to look at the timeline from people who have been with this from the beginning? Or are you merely going to remain content supporting the murder of handicapped folks?

Let's get something straight right off the cuff. I'm really sick to death (ha!) of seeing the phrase "supporting the murder of handicapped folks".

My mother, who died under two hours ago, has spent the last three years in a nursing home after suffering four major strokes. Don't you dare even think about accusing me of "supporting the murder of handicapped folks".

I support the rights of individuals. I don't attempt to force my morals on others. I'm not a fascist. I don't easily sling such inflammatory comments at others. I don't use religion as a sword. I don't use the bible as a bludgeoning tool.

I DO believe that nobody knows the full story, despite the timeline from people who have been with this from the beginning, just like you didn't now MY story before you made your wild, inflammatory, and uncalled for remark.

And if this post seems a little gruff, it could be a combination of being sick of the stupidity of prhases like the one you used, with a bit of emotional upheaval from having my mother just die. Perhaps I'll recant later, but I don't think so right now.

[Stelakh]

And, while I'm about it, I think it's important to note that I haven't given an opinion one way or another as to my own personal beliefs regarding whether or not the decision to remove Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube was right. And yet I've already been accused of supporting that decision. Astonishing.

[Crow]

Let's get something straight right off the cuff. I'm really sick to death (ha!) of seeing the phrase "supporting the murder of handicapped folks".

My mother, who died under two hours ago, has spent the last three years in a nursing home after suffering four major strokes. Don't you dare even think about accusing me of "supporting the murder of handicapped folks".

What does any of this have to do with whether it is right or wrong to withold nourishment from a woman? And why would your mother's death have anything to do with whether or not you support murdering the handicapped?

I support the rights of individuals. I don't attempt to force my morals on others. I'm not a fascist. I don't easily sling such inflammatory comments at others. I don't use religion as a sword. I don't use the bible as a bludgeoning tool.

I support the rights of individuals too, the most basic of which is to exist.

I DO believe that nobody knows the full story, despite the timeline from people who have been with this from the beginning, just like you didn't now MY story before you made your wild, inflammatory, and uncalled for remark.

Nineveh made the observation that there is reasonable cause to suspect Terri's husband's motives based on the way this case has played out. Questioning the credibility of a player in a very public issue based on past actions and current attempted actions is fair game.

And if this post seems a little gruff, it could be a combination of being sick of the stupidity of prhases like the one you used, with a bit of emotional upheaval from having my mother just die. Perhaps I'll recant later, but I don't think so right now.

Forgive me, but you just lost your mother and you're posting on a message board less than 2 hours later? Can you see how that bit of info would make people question your credibility, just as Michael Schiavo's is being questioned? When a person's actions do not fit with what they are saying, one could not be human and but help to think something isn't right.

[BillyBob]

Forgive me, but you just lost your mother and you're posting on a message board less than 2 hours later? Can you see how that bit of info would make people question your credibility, just as Michael Schiavo's are being questioned? When a person's actions do not fit with what they are saying, one could not be human and but help to think something isn't right.

Yep.

[Sozo]

Advance directives. living wills, etc, are an example of laws that were intended for good being used for a wicked purpose.

These insturments were intended to spare people who were close to death and unable to be healed the opportunity to die without the pain and indignity of a battery of futile treatments to prolong the process of death. To allow a man or woman with a terminal disease to not be subjected to pointless, expensive, extrodinary, and often agonizing procedures that would not restore or maintain their health. It was a means of allowing people to die with some semblance of dignity; a way of promoting comfort over an attempt to prevent what is ultimately the fate of all of us and a natural end to life--death.

Living wills were not intended as a means to kill those members of society who were handicapped and needed assistance with basic human needs--food and water. They were not intended as instruments for to be wielded to effect the suicide or murder of "defective" humans.

I was raised to be proud of my country--a serviceman's kid who respected and loved my country. I was raised to appreciate the freedom, opportunity, and ideals of my country, even when those goals could not be acheived perfectly by imperfect human beings.

Today, I am ashamed of the direction my country is headed in. A woman's life is being taken by good laws perverted to exploit the weakest and most defenseless of human beings--a helpless woman who is considered to be unworthy of her own life. An woman who has not commited a capital crime is being put to death by a means that would not be tolerated if one chose to apply them to a dog. She is being executed barbarically by deliberate starvation.

Some say the law has no right to intervene. Since when is killing another human being not a concern of the law? Since when is a person's decision to kill another member of their family sacred--a personal matter that does not bring detriment to society as a whole?

Since 1973, when Rowe vs. Wade opened a Pandora's box that made it acceptable to cull our ranks of those who are unwanted and inconvenient. It became acceptable to assign an arbitrary value to the life of another human being, and end that life based not upon just cause but upon "choice."

Who will be the next group of people to be relegated to the delete bin? The feeble-minded? The crippled? A troublesome ethnic group?

Maybe it looks familiar. It should.

And you think that I am the one who should write a book?

:sam:

[Crow]

And you think that I am the one who should write a book?

:sam:
Yup. Sozo. I honestly do.

[BillyBob]

You are both good writers. :up:

[Ninjashadow]

Why don't you two just write a book together? Movie scripts have been written by two people on each coast via fax machines and emails many times before. I don't see why you two couldn't do that for a book. Plus, you'd each only have to do half the work.

[cattyfan]

I've been away from here for a few days and during that time pages have been written here on the Terri Shiavo case.

I am weighing in with my opinion.

I think starving a woman is abhorrent. In one breath they tell us Terri won't feel a thing becauses she's a vegetable...in the next doctors testify starving to death is a euphoric experience.

If starving is euphoric, why aren't children in the Sudan dileriously happy? And if Terri can't feel, how can she be euphoric? And if she really isn't feeling any pain, why aren't they showing us pictures?

Michael Shiavo is a heartless, cowardly, son-of-a-b***h. I understand the legality of Michael making decisions for her, although he obviously abdicated hi role as a husband immediately after Terri became incapaciotated (or before, as some have said.)

I pray she really can't feel anything...we can't be sure, no matter how much some will pretend otherwise. I pray for her family. And I pray someday Michael will face the consequences for the evil and pain he has inflicted in his torture of a woman he swore before GOd to love, cherish, and protect until death do they part...not until he decided to move on. He's killing her for his convenience and for the money.

[Sozo]

Why don't you two just write a book together? Movie scripts have been written by two people on each coast via fax machines and emails many times before. I don't see why you two couldn't do that for a book. Plus, you'd each only have to do half the work.
:thumb:

Crow can make the points, and I'll just write the insults!

[keypurr]

Really? How do you father 2 children by a different woman with your life on hold?
How long did he wait? How old are the children?
Is he entitled to a life? Did he do everything he could to bring her back to A LIFE?
I don't know that, do you? If not, then why do you judge him? I don't.

[keypurr]

He shacked up with another woman and had 2 kids by her.

Oh yeah, his life is really "on hold". :rolleyes:
Does this mean you will not give me a vote? I guess no body likes me anymore. :rain:

[keypurr]

Really? How do you father 2 children by a different woman with your life on hold?
I'll ask you how old are the children? Is he entitled to a life? Are HER parents entitled to a life?
I know I will not get the votes, but I have no problem with that. That is not my adgenda.
:rain:

[keypurr]

Really?? :confused: HIS LAWYERS got about $650,000.....so that Terri can be starved to death....NONE of it went to pay for HER lawyers! :nono: You are mistaken. Michael has a fiancee and has been living with her for many years and they have children together!! :baby: Doesn't look like his life is on hold to me!! Your opinion. She is NOT termianlly ill....no reason to let God "take" her. She is BEING STARVED TO DEATH!!!!!!! Who will start over again? Can her sister and brother "start over"? Can her parents make another one just like her? :confused: :nono:

You are :kookoo:
If she is NOT termianlly ill....God will not "take" her. Thaqt is the point. :bang:

[keypurr]

Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)

Atty Gwyneth Stanley $10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell $65,607.00
Atty Steve Nilson $7,404.95
Atty Pacarek $1,500.00
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) $4,511.95
Atty George Felos $397,249.99

1st Union/South Trust Bank $55,459.85
Michael Schiavo $10,929.95

Total $545,852.34

Not to mention in November of 1992 "Michael Schiavo awarded $600,000 in malpractice trial." Three months before: Michael Schiavo denies recommended rehabilitation treatment in February of 1993.

All information taken from here (http://www.terrisfight.net/)
How about Medical fees?

[Delmar]

How long did he wait? How old are the children?
Is he entitled to a life? Did he do everything he could to bring her back to A LIFE?
I don't know that, do you? If not, then why do you judge him? I don't.What he should have a right to is a fair and speedy trial for attempted murder.

[Ninjashadow]

I'll ask you how old are the children? Is he entitled to a life? Are HER parents entitled to a life?
I know I will not get the votes, but I have no problem with that. That is not my adgenda.
:rain:

The thing is, he has been cheating on his wedded wife for twelve years. The woman he has been living with is his common law wife. He took vows and he is not "entitled" to a life until the divorce or she dies. Remember, "til death do us part." He doesn't care for her because if he did he would have spent the money that he spent on attorney fees on rehabiliation care like he originally said he was going to.

[Zakath]

How about Medical fees?
And, in the interest of full disclosure...

1. What about an accounting of the money her parents have raised using the case? Any mention of funds they've raised is omitted from the web site you listed. Add that to the fact that they're recently affiliated with morally questionable characters like Randall Terry and it makes one wonder just who is actually running this dog and pony show and for what reasons...
:think:

2. Aren't many of the legal fees paid my Michael Schaivo in response to litigation initiated by Terry's parents and Gov. Jeb Bush? It's not as if he's running ads in the paper looking for attorneys to hand money to, is he? ;)

[Agape4Robin]

If she is NOT termianlly ill....God will not "take" her. Thaqt is the point. :bang:

:thumb: I get the point....that's exactly what I was saying!!! :rolleyes: :sozo:

[cattyfan]

If she is NOT termianlly ill....God will not "take" her. Thaqt is the point. :bang:

you're a blithering freaking idiot. I'm not terminally ill, but if you take away my food and water, I would end up dead, too...starved and dehydrated, just like Terri.

[cattyfan]

I think starving a woman is abhorrent. In one breath they tell us Terri won't feel a thing becauses she's a vegetable...in the next doctors testify starving to death is a euphoric experience.

If starving is euphoric, why aren't children in the Sudan dileriously happy? And if Terri can't feel, how can she be euphoric? And if she really isn't feeling any pain, why aren't they showing us pictures?

Michael Shiavo is a heartless, cowardly, son-of-a-b***h. I understand the legality of Michael making decisions for her, although he obviously abdicated his role as a husband immediately after Terri became incapacitated (or before, as some have said.)

I pray someday Michael will face the consequences for the evil and pain he has inflicted in his torture of a woman he swore before GOd to love, cherish, and protect until death do they part...not until he decided to move on. He's killing her for his convenience and for the money.

this is part of my post from yesterday, and I thought it bore repeating. Shiavo went on his merry way committing adultery and ordering the defacto murder of his lawful wife. He's torturing Terri and sacrificing her on the altar of his debauchery.



by the way, keypurr...I forgot it was fellowship week. I am forced to rephrase...please change, "You are a blithering freaking idiot," to "I'm very sorry to hear you are having difficulty thinking rationally and with clarity...I hope you seek assistance with your intellectual shortfall soon. Kindest Regards."

[keypurr]

you're a blithering freaking idiot. I'm not terminally ill, but if you take away my food and water, I would end up dead, too...starved and dehydrated, just like Terri.
Are you brain dead? Terri is. That is a big differance. There are things worst than death. Would you like to live if you were like her? If you said yes, tell me why. I hope she can come out of her condition, I want the best for her, not the best for her husband, Mom and Dad or you.

[cattyfan]

But it's not up to us to decide she should live or die...and in denying her food, her husband made the decision. He will to live is evident: look at how many times she survived them starving her before...look at all the infections she's recovered from...look at the fact she healed from the initial incident which placed her in this position.

We can't know absolutely what she wants or what she's thinking. Why is starving her, then, an acceptable thing to do?

As for what i would want or not want, it doesn't have any relation to Terri's case, but I'll tell you. I wouldn't want to have been allowed to heal physically if there had been the high probability that I would end up minimally conscious or in a vegetative state or in a coma. I have discussed this with my husband, my family, my friends, and I have an advanced directive. My worst fear is to be trapped in a body where I can't communicate but my mind is whirring away with thoughts...and no one knows it but me.

But that's me...not Terri. She left no living will, no instructions, no will...her husband, and I use the term loosely, now claims they once had a conversation about with-holding food and water in a situation like this...that she wants to have all nurishment and sustenance kept from her so she can die a slow, painful death. It took him seven years to have this relavatory memory...a memory which is completely at odds with the well-known fact she was a devout Catholic.

Yeah...sure, he's credible.

[jeremiah]

And, in the interest of full disclosure...

1. What about an accounting of the money her parents have raised using the case? Any mention of funds they've raised is omitted from the web site you listed. Add that to the fact that they're recently affiliated with morally questionable characters like Randall Terry and it makes one wonder just who is actually running this dog and pony show and for what reasons...
:think:

2. Aren't many of the legal fees paid my Michael Schaivo in response to litigation initiated by Terry's parents and Gov. Jeb Bush? It's not as if he's running ads in the paper looking for attorneys to hand money to, is he? ;)


Zakath, if you are interested in following the money trail on both sides, have you seen this article yet? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?Article_ID=43510
Also why is Randall Terry a morally questionable character?

[Imrahil]

But that's me...not Terri. She left no living will, no instructions, no will...her husband, and I use the term loosely, now claims they once had a conversation about with-holding food and water in a situation like this...that she wants to have all nurishment and sustenance kept from her so she can die a slow, painful death. It took him seven years to have this relavatory memory...a memory which is completely at odds with the well-known fact she was a devout Catholic.

Yeah...sure, he's credible.

Even if she does want to die, should we kill her? She isn't a terminal patient that we can simply allow to die. She's a handicapped woman that is being starved to death. If she had left a written directive, is there any Biblical basis for killing her?

[cattyfan]

Even if she does want to die, should we kill her? She isn't a terminal patient that we can simply allow to die. She's a handicapped woman that is being starved to death. If she had left a written directive, is there any Biblical basis for killing her?

You are absolutely right.

What Michael Shiavo is doing to her is absolutely barbaric.

[Imrahil]

You are absolutely right.

What Michael Shiavo is doing to her is absolutely barbaric.

One of the most frustrating things about this case (other than the obvious evil and cruelty) is that even the pro-life Christians seem to be pro-suicide. One of their main arguments is that Terry should live becasue we don't have evidence that she wants to die. In other words, "If we knew that she wanted to die we would have no problem with killing her but until then, let's keep her alive." :sigh:

[jeremiah]

Even if she does want to die, should we kill her? She isn't a terminal patient that we can simply allow to die. She's a handicapped woman that is being starved to death. If she had left a written directive, is there any Biblical basis for killing her?

Your question reminded me of the death of King Saul. He wanted to die, because he had lost the battle and all hope of surviving, and ordered his armor bearer to kill him and yet he refused. Saul then fell upon his own sword! An Amalekite who was passing by, saw that Saul was not yet dead, and Saul let him know, by a verbal request, that he wanted to die now, and not suffer any more. The Amalekite obliged the King. When he told King David what he had done, David had him executed for the murder of God's annointed.
So according to 1Sam. 31 and 2Sam. 1, even if the King wants to die, and begins his own suicide, and asks someone to finish his job for him, and he does , that person is still guilty of the shedding of blood. How much less validity would a written directive from a woman who is not the annointed {KING} of God, have if one were to help her carry out her wish to commit suicide, in a condition from which she is not dying?
That would be my biblical example and answer.

[Yorzhik]

Also why is Randall Terry a morally questionable character?
Having helped Randall Terry with a campaign and talking with him personally on a number of occasions, I can vouch for Randall's lack of character. He has a problem admitting when he is wrong. And that snowballs into much greater problems. I can say, though, that he is right on many issues, and so far has been a great spokesman for the Schindlers. Caveat: I haven't kept up with Randall for many years and he may have repented and I don't know about it.

So I'm not sure if Zak is a worse person than Randall. Randall should know better, but makes his mistakes and then makes them worse - a bad Christian is worse than a bad non-Christian. However, Zak is a hypocrite extrordinare for bringing up Randall's sins with no basis to say what is right or wrong in the first place.

[Yorzhik]

On a moral level it doesn't matter what the law says. And morally it is wrong to starve the handicapped.

But even on a legal level, this is wrong. When Greer did not allow Terri to divorce Michael, he just plain ignored such a gaping conflict of interest that it is very convincing evidence that Greer is clearly focused on murdering Terri. For the money for the euphoria? Why is Greer doing it? We'll find out later.

Let me guess, Terri mentioned to Michael in casual conversation that if Michael ever lived and had children with another woman that it would be okay with her.

[Yorzhik]

Your question reminded me of the death of King Saul. He wanted to die, because he had lost the battle and all hope of surviving, and ordered his armor bearer to kill him and yet he refused. Saul then fell upon his own sword! An Amalekite who was passing by, saw that Saul was not yet dead, and Saul let him know, by a verbal request, that he wanted to die now, and not suffer any more. The Amalekite obliged the King. When he told King David what he had done, David had him executed for the murder of God's annointed.
So according to 1Sam. 31 and 2Sam. 1, even if the King wants to die, and begins his own suicide, and asks someone to finish his job for him, and he does , that person is still guilty of the shedding of blood. How much less validity would a written directive from a woman who is not the annointed {KING} of God, have if one were to help her carry out her wish to commit suicide, in a condition from which she is not dying?
Great example.

[wholearmor]

How long did he wait? How old are the children?
Is he entitled to a life? Did he do everything he could to bring her back to A LIFE?
I don't know that, do you? If not, then why do you judge him? I don't.

You're the one who said his life is on hold and it isn't. And yes, he's entitled to a life, as a husband to Terri Schiavo as he promised before God. For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

[wholearmor]

...Would you like to live if you were like her?...

Nobody knows. That's the whole point. Plus, it doesn't matter anyway. Suicide and assisted suicide are illegal. Besides, I wouldn't want to live if I were like you, so can I starve you to death?

[Sold Out]

I don't think terribly highly of Michael Schiavo, but I do think it's time to stop postponing the inevitable.

Consider this: If this had happened to her 100 yrs ago, medical science at that time would have had no way to sustain her life and she would have died. It would have been merciful. This is a clear-cut case of the pros and cons of our modern medical science. We have the capability to keep a person alive, but why? It has caused all of us to question whether or not WE would want to be kept alive in a similar situation. Most say no they would not, so why do you think Terri would? I think her parents are being selfish by trying to keep her alive. She has no quality of life.

[elected4ever]

I don't think terribly highly of Michael Schiavo, but I do think it's time to stop postponing the inevitable.

Consider this: If this had happened to her 100 yrs ago, medical science at that time would have had no way to sustain her life and she would have died. It would have been merciful. This is a clear-cut case of the pros and cons of our modern medical science. We have the capability to keep a person alive, but why? It has caused all of us to question whether or not WE would want to be kept alive in a similar situation. Most say no they would not, so why do you think Terri would? I think her parents are being selfish by trying to keep her alive. She has no quality of life.Wromg, No one, not even myself has the right to choose to die under any condition and no one has the right to end life because of inconvenance. :madmad: ops, this is fellowship week :straight:

[Crow]

I don't think terribly highly of Michael Schiavo, but I do think it's time to stop postponing the inevitable.

Consider this: If this had happened to her 100 yrs ago, medical science at that time would have had no way to sustain her life and she would have died. It would have been merciful. This is a clear-cut case of the pros and cons of our modern medical science. We have the capability to keep a person alive, but why? It has caused all of us to question whether or not WE would want to be kept alive in a similar situation. Most say no they would not, so why do you think Terri would? I think her parents are being selfish by trying to keep her alive. She has no quality of life.
!00 years ago, spinal bifida babies inevitibly died. 100 years ago, premies regularly died. 100 years ago, people did the best they could to keep those who they could save alive.

The principle is that one preserves life to the best of our capacity.

In 1920, 20% of all babies born did not survive their first year. That is not an excuse or reason to let 20% of babies die in their first year.

[avatar382]

Forgetting about the Schiavo case for a moment: It seems most of you agree that refusing life support/medical treatment is the same as suicide?

Does a patient have the right to refuse medical treatment?

[Crow]

Forgetting about the Schiavo case for a moment: It seems most of you agree that refusing life support/medical treatment is the same as suicide?

Does a patient have the right to refuse medical treatment?

I believe that they do in some cases. If they are terminally ill, then they are dying, and cannot be saved. All that can be done is prolong their life a few weeks, or days. That is not suicide--that is accepting that medical care will not cause them to survive an illness, and that the priority is shifted to making the remaining time they have left as pain-free as possible.

But say someone is starving themselves to death--an anorexic. There are legal means by which the court can and routinely will intervene to get treatment for that person, even against their will. Just as police will try to stop someone who is attempting to commit suicide.

[Sold Out]

!00 years ago, spinal bifida babies inevitibly died. 100 years ago, premies regularly died. 100 years ago, people did the best they could to keep those who they could save alive.

The principle is that one preserves life to the best of our capacity.

In 1920, 20% of all babies born did not survive their first year. That is not an excuse or reason to let 20% of babies die in their first year.

We are speaking of a grown woman who has no chance of recovery, not about babies with spina bifida or preemies.

Why do people cling to this life so desperately?

[Crow]

We are speaking of a grown woman who has no chance of recovery, not about babies with spina bifida or preemies.

Why do people cling to this life so desperately?

Could Terri recover to be what she was? No. Could she recover to a state better than the one she is in? We don't know. She hasn't had the therapy that was recommended early on in her affliction.

People cling to life because life is precious.

[Imrahil]

Your question reminded me of the death of King Saul. He wanted to die, because he had lost the battle and all hope of surviving, and ordered his armor bearer to kill him and yet he refused. Saul then fell upon his own sword! An Amalekite who was passing by, saw that Saul was not yet dead, and Saul let him know, by a verbal request, that he wanted to die now, and not suffer any more. The Amalekite obliged the King. When he told King David what he had done, David had him executed for the murder of God's annointed.
So according to 1Sam. 31 and 2Sam. 1, even if the King wants to die, and begins his own suicide, and asks someone to finish his job for him, and he does , that person is still guilty of the shedding of blood. How much less validity would a written directive from a woman who is not the annointed {KING} of God, have if one were to help her carry out her wish to commit suicide, in a condition from which she is not dying?
That would be my biblical example and answer.
Very good example. :thumb:

[Zakath]

Zakath, if you are interested in following the money trail on both sides, have you seen this article yet? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?Article_ID=43510Not yet. Thank you for the reference... :thumb:

Also why is Randall Terry a morally questionable character?
From his former organization and his former pastor...

Please Pray for Randall Terry (http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/articles/articles/randallterryneedsprayer.html)

[Zakath]

Having helped Randall Terry with a campaign and talking with him personally on a number of occasions, I can vouch for Randall's lack of character. He has a problem admitting when he is wrong. And that snowballs into much greater problems. I can say, though, that he is right on many issues, and so far has been a great spokesman for the Schindlers.Thank you for sharing. It appears Mr. Terry may be seeking a new media venue more compatible with his present affiliation with the Charismatic Episcopal Church.

Caveat: I haven't kept up with Randall for many years and he may have repented and I don't know about it.And if he has, does that excuse everything he's done to his family and others?:think:

So I'm not sure if Zak is a worse person than Randall.Since you do not know me at all, other than from a few web posts, I find it amazing that you'd even consider comparing me to Terry.

Randall should know better, but makes his mistakes and then makes them worse - a bad Christian is worse than a bad non-Christian.So even though Terry is worse than Zakath could ever be... here comes the requisite religionist double-think and anti-atheist ad hominem...

:yawn:

However, Zak is a hypocrite extrordinare for bringing up Randall's sins with no basis to say what is right or wrong in the first place.I have a basis for judging rightness and wrongness. You mererly disagree with it. That doesn't mean such a basis doesn't exist... ;)

[Turbo]

Are you brain dead? Terri is.
:nono: No, she isn't. Get your facts straight.

[wholearmor]

I don't think terribly highly of Michael Schiavo, but I do think it's time to stop postponing the inevitable.

Consider this: If this had happened to her 100 yrs ago, medical science at that time would have had no way to sustain her life and she would have died. It would have been merciful. This is a clear-cut case of the pros and cons of our modern medical science. We have the capability to keep a person alive, but why? It has caused all of us to question whether or not WE would want to be kept alive in a similar situation. Most say no they would not, so why do you think Terri would? I think her parents are being selfish by trying to keep her alive. She has no quality of life.

100 years ago, you couldn't post on TOL. What's that got to do with anything? When most say they would not want to be kept alive in a similar situation, how do they know until they are there? I don't know why Terri would want to be kept alive but what if she does? Would you have wanted to live like Christopher Reeve? Should someone have starved him to death because, "they wouldn't want to live like that?" Face it, nobody would want to live like that or they'd all be falling off horses on purpose. Michael Schiavo is no husband to Terri and would not be trusted by anyone but a liberal, pro-abort, truly, pro-death, court system.

[Crow]

And, in the interest of full disclosure...

1. What about an accounting of the money her parents have raised using the case? Any mention of funds they've raised is omitted from the web site you listed. Add that to the fact that they're recently affiliated with morally questionable characters like Randall Terry and it makes one wonder just who is actually running this dog and pony show and for what reasons...
:think:

Zakath,

Let's take a ferinstance where Randall Terry is an A#1 bastard. And Terri's husband is a paragon of virtue, intent only on doing the very best he can for his wife.

Would this change the inherent rightness or wrongness of what is being done?

Good people align themselves with evil causes for a legion of reasons--ignorance, stupidity, being overwhelmed, and whatnot.

Good people have aligned themselves with evil ones out of desperation. Ask anyone who has had occasion to requires the services of a lawyer.

Evil people have aligned themselves with good causes to advance a plethora of ulterior motives.

Were Terri's parents to receive custody and thereby responsibility for her care, do you think that this would profit them financially? I think that it would be a huge burden.

Regardless, it is not right to starve a helpless innocent woman to death.

[Zakath]

Zakath,

Let's take a ferinstance where Randall Terry is an A#1 bastard. And Terri's husband is a paragon of virtue, intent only on doing the very best he can for his wife.

Would this change the inherent rightness or wrongness of what is being done?My complaint was about her parents' recent association with Randall Terry. Not the overarching questions about the legitmacy of their protest. One has little to do with the other...

Good people align themselves with evil causes for a legion of reasons--ignorance, stupidity, being overwhelmed, and whatnot.

Good people have aligned themselves with evil ones out of desperation. Ask anyone who has had occasion to requires the services of a lawyer.Not all lawyers are evil. I know quite a few "good Christians" who are laywers including men like Michael Ferris...

Evil people have aligned themselves with good causes to advance a plethora of ulterior motives.

Were Terri's parents to receive custody and thereby responsibility for her care, do you think that this would profit them financially? I think that it would be a huge burden.Regardless of their reasons, it doesn't change the truth of the old saw, "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."

For someone like me, what little credibility they had went out the window when I read the list of their associates and see who is being chosen as their "spokesperson".

Regardless, it is not right to starve a helpless innocent woman to death.That was not the point I was addressing.

[Chileice]

Your question reminded me of the death of King Saul. He wanted to die, because he had lost the battle and all hope of surviving, and ordered his armor bearer to kill him and yet he refused. Saul then fell upon his own sword! An Amalekite who was passing by, saw that Saul was not yet dead, and Saul let him know, by a verbal request, that he wanted to die now, and not suffer any more. The Amalekite obliged the King. When he told King David what he had done, David had him executed for the murder of God's annointed.
So according to 1Sam. 31 and 2Sam. 1, even if the King wants to die, and begins his own suicide, and asks someone to finish his job for him, and he does , that person is still guilty of the shedding of blood. How much less validity would a written directive from a woman who is not the annointed {KING} of God, have if one were to help her carry out her wish to commit suicide, in a condition from which she is not dying?
That would be my biblical example and answer.

In the midst of a very sticky ethical situation, I do appreciate the attempt to correlate it to scripture.
However, I think this case points out how far we have come since scripture was written. In Saul's day or Jesus' day or even George Washington's day or your grandfather's day, these questions would not have been able to be asked. Terry would have been dead whether we like it or not. And although she may not be technically brain dead, she certainly has led a long relatively unresponsive life.

Perhaps what this case does more than anything is force us to look at our OWN lives.
1. What would I want if I were in Terry's case?
I personally would want to be dead. I would not want to be an interminable burden for my family if I was not contributing to their well-being. Now were I an invalid, but capable of communicating of actually interacting in life, I would want to live in order to fulfill a purpose in the lives of others. I would NOT want my family rather my wife, my kids or my parents to feel like they were somehow being unloving if they pulled the plug and sent me to heaven. I would expect them to make every reasonable effort to try to help me recover, but if say, after a year there was no hope of recovery, why burden them further?

2. What if I am Terry's husband?
I would want my wife to recover. I love her more than anyone on this planet. But I would also want to respect her wishes. If she had expressed that she did not want to live on only heroic life-saving technological intervention, I would try to be brave enough to respect that, even though I would be the one experiencing the great loss.

3. What if I were the parents?
I would want the best for my daughter. If I TRULY thought there was some chance of recovery for a family member, it would be almost impossible to "pull the plug". But I would also hope that I wouldn't just keep him/her hanging on ONLY for my selfish reasons.

4. What if I am the judges, etc.?
I believe I would try to release Michael from whatever financial and legal obligations he has after this length of time. As a person I despise the fact that he has just let his wife rot. In a technical sense he has abrogated his role as husband and I think forfeitted his right to speak for her by breaking his marriage vows. However, for him, she is already dead. As a judge, I must also see that it is a bit like an MIA case, where the spouse may be declared dead for legal purposes although there is no proof that death has occurred. But I would release Terry to the parents. If there is someone willing to ta