The Terri Schiavo thing

[Villemus]

She didn\'t have what we in Florida call a \"Living Will\". It basically is a DNR order, it also can apply to life sustaining equipment. So any of you that don\'t want to wind up like her, better see what your state has something that\'s similiar.

I for one do not feel that she would not suffer if slowly starved to death, so they should put her to sleep if they\'re going to remove the tube. It would be very cruel to have her die slowly like that.

[dr.moe]

dude, let her die. it\'s just not cool digging up all this stuff about people and dehumanizing everyone involved. the decision belongs to whom ever the court gives it, and let them deal with their choice. same for mentally, physically, emotinally or otherwise handicapped people. i dont have to agree with their decision, but i will appreciate that it was a decision they made, and were able to make. if i were in her situation? i would have them remove my feeding tube. his? i wouldnt (had i been a total jerk) have spent all that time misleading people by fundraising for her experimental treatment in california or any of that other stuff. i heard about this on some show a few months ago and formed my opinions then.
its kinda like the abortion thing. mebbe they should kinda revers the time limit or something. or compare her functional brain mass to that of an infant or unborn child to make the final decision. that\'s probly the most black hearted thing i\'ve ever written. i hope i didnt offend too many peeps with that one.
i guess the main thing is that i\'ll never know enough to make the proper decision. that\'s probly why the judge granted that dude mike with the decision making \"privilege\" - not that i wouldnt know enough, but that he wouldnt. a decision this gruesome requires more than a logical view, but an emotional view and intimate experience with all the parties involved.
it doesnt matter about mike, or terri\'s parents or what they gain/lose through whatever decision arrives. it comes down to terri\'s living hell or lifeless reality. i almost found and typed a way to compare this to god and junk. man! was that too close.

[=D.C.L.I=Everest]

Villemus Wrote:I for one do not feel that she would not suffer if slowly starved to death, so they should put her to sleep if they\'re going to remove the tube. It would be very cruel to have her die slowly like that.

The thing is: does she still feel \"hunger\"? The fact that she has to be fed, and that the doctors will end her life by discontinuing the feeding efforts, makes me feel very strong about the idea that she won\'t suffer any more by so-called \"starving to death\" than she already is by \"living\" in the state she does. To put it crudely: I doubt she\'ll notice.

\"Starving her to death\" is a phrase most likely invented by right-wing medias, in an effort to discredit Mr Schiavo. It\'s not like he\'s going to go in there and cut the tube through which the food goes into Terri. If that\'d be the case, then I could consider it murder. Euthanasia has to be performed by a doctor, and discontinuing the feeding process must be the most humane way to do so. If not, all those judges wouldn\'t\'ve allowed it, don\'t you think?

[Yellowbelly]

:roll:

Starving to death is really a painless way to die and isn\'t that bad really. But the real issue is: is it wrong to let her die? I don\'t really like mentally challenged, retarded, deficient, (whateveryouwant) people. But do I think we should kill them just because they\'re too dumb to live? No. They are human beings to, and they should have rights. Especially when they had them before. If she is still alive, and she\'s consious, I don\'t see the big deal here. If we can\'t let retarded people die or if we can\'t let ppl in comas die, how is this any different. If we let this person die off, we might as well kill all other mentally retarded people as well because they aren\'t fit to live and won\'t amount to anything. Liberals want the husband to chose, which he\'d kill her, but yet they don\'t want the death penalty at all costs? I\'m baffled.

edit: I got more of the story. The husband does seem like a big jerk and has a criminal record. She should be kept alive for a chance for rehabilitation and an investigation on how this collapse happened. It sounds to me like the husband tried to kill her. If that\'s the case, they should keep her alive in spite of the husband anyways just to piss him off and/or send him to prison. Supposedly the family and friends know her too well and think she places too high of a value on life to die.

Anyways, this is a tough situation and I\'m beginning not to care anymore. Just keep here alive, make everyone happy except the husband and don\'t give him the money, and start an investigation on the husband to put him in prison. Done. Over. End.....................................................

Also, if I\'m ever in this situation and I have no chance of FULL rehabilitation, let me die will ya?

[Sgt. Boomer]

I don’t doubt Terri’s parents have tried some character assassination on Michael, but he’s certainly made it easy and I don’t think they’ve stretched the truth. Whether he tried to kill her is obviously speculation, though it wouldn’t be the first time someone has gotten away with murder. At any rate I think they’ve made the point that her life shouldn’t be in his hands.

From what I’ve read, they’ll keep her heavily sedated as they starve her so she probably won’t feel any pain. But if you tried to kill a dog, or a convict, that way you’d be in jail so fast it would make your head spin.

[*EDIT*: New information: apparently she isn’t being sedated to the point of insensibility, and dehydration is apparently one of the most painful deaths there is. Which means she is probably suffering terribly. There was an interview with a woman who was in similar circumstances as Terri (pvs or comatose- I’m not sure) and she said when she had her feeding tubes removed it was very painful. (Obviously she recovered)]

Saying you wouldn’t want to live like that – now, while you have all your faculties – is rather irrelevant. It would be like asking someone if they wanted to go on living with fleas, sleeping on the floor, licking themselves, and eating dog food. If that someone was a person, they would say no. If that someone was a dog they’d think they had it pretty good.

As I said before, it’s impossible to know what Terri wants, and odds are pretty good she’s too brain damaged to know either. It’s also very certain that Michael’s motivations are suspect – and I’m being understated here, there’s a lot more info on him if you’re still not convinced.

The question of euthanasia in this specific case is clear-cut, and it’s outrageous that the courts have made the rulings they have. There is a huge difference between unplugging a machine that keeps body functions going after the person is clearly brain-dead and deliberately killing someone because they need some help to survive. I don’t remember the public rallying support to unplug Christopher Reeve’s ventilator. When Reeve was given the choice to die, he chose to live.

As for the question of euthanasia generally, I’m against it in principle (but I suppose I’m resigned to democratic compromise :roll: ). I also believe in the “slippery slope”, and “please kill me” could quickly turn into “please don’t kill me”, like the cards they have now in Holland (If you have time, read this article [*EDIT*: I should have said Op Ed ] : Right to die turns into 'duty'). And it seems like it’s headed in that direction with Terri. It should not be up to a small group of people to decide what is an acceptable quality of life, and to have the power to kill you if- in their judgement- you don’t meet that standard.


[*EDIT*: Another good Op Ed: Key point missed in Schiavo case
excerpt: In law, spouses hold more weight over life and death issues regarding an incapacitated loved one than parents.
That\'s as it should be as long as that spouse remains devoted to that person and still adheres to the vows -- or contract -- they made with their spouse.
Surely, the time has come for governments to make a ruling that a spouse who is (in a common-law marriage with someone else) shouldn\'t be the one to make determinations over whether their former disabled spouse should live or die. ]