<p>"I don't know why courts are relying on what he says to determine whether Terri should live or die."</p>
<p>There's a little thing in court called swearing in on a Bible. It's how we trust witnesses are telling the truth. If you don't trust her husband on this one, then I guess we can throw out all witness testimony too. (See? I can use slippery-slope fallacy too!)</p>
<p>
[quote]
They may not feel it, but it is still murder, and it is still unacceptable.
[/quote]
So do you oppose Do Not Resuscitate orders? It's the exact same situation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is cruel and unusual.
[/quote]
Cruel and unusual is defined as "Punishment that is offensive to the contemporary morality or jurisprudence (as by being degrading, inflicting unnecessary and intentional pain, or being disproportionate to the offense)" As I've said before, there is a mountain of evidence that death by removal of a feeding tube is a very peaceful way to pass. Is it degrading? Haven't heard that one yet. Like I told paris23, research before you post. It makes your case much stronger.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even though a court decides she wouldn't want to live anymore, that doesn't prove a thing.
[/quote]
I completely agree. Judges are imbeciles and don't deserve to breathe. They have no competency in judging what people would want and have a personal vendetta against Terri Schiavo. Really. They want her to have a slow, painful death.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who have we heard that from? The scumbag husband
[/quote]
Not to mention numerous friends to whom she told the same thing. (I won't go into the scumbag thing)</p>
<p>
[quote]
You have a spouse with malevolent intentions
[/quote]
Gosh! Why didn't I remember that the woman I marry will constantly be looking for ways to kill me? D'oh! At the parent's forum, people have said if it came between their spouse and their parents making a decision for them, they would choose their spouse. Oh, not to mention that he is her legal guardian. </p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no doubt in my mind that it would take a very large toll on the lives of her parents and family
[/quote]
Deaths always take a large toll on the lives of relatives. A person leaves our existence. Is no longer here. It hurts. But Terri does not have a true life; she has been confined to a hospital bed in a state in which her life yields absolutely no satisfaction. It's called a persistent vegetative state. </p>
<p>
[quote]
she should be kept alive.
[/quote]
This is what I don't get. Why? Did you see the MRIs posted earlier? Her brain is wasting away. She is no longer Terri Schiavo - all of the intricacies and delights of any personality are gone. Science will NOT find a way to turn spinal fluid into gray matter. Period. It's not going to happen before her natural life is over. There is no hope.</p>
<p>This husband is a real crook. Those of you who don't think he is doing it for the money aren't seeing the whole picture. If Terry dies the husband gets rights to any book or movies made about the case. The money gained by this will exceed the million he was offered to reinsert the feeding tube. If Terry lives the potential for him to earn this money goes away. Also if she is a burden on his family, why doesn't he just divorce her. The reason he doesn't is because then he would have to split all of their stuff. Even before the accident Terries husband had another women he was seeing, and a nurse quoted him saying, "Is the B*** dead?". </p>
<p>also there is a law that states if you starve an animal it is one year in prison.</p>
<p>Amused, you aren't getting my point. The experts' testimony isn't hearsay. They aren't testifying as to whether Terri told them something or not. They are asserting their medical opinion. Terri's husband however, testified that she told him she wanted to die. This is a legal principle called hearsay and is never accepted in a court of law.</p>
<p>well, apparently it was enough for 19 judges to rule that she should have her tube removed</p>
<p>I completely agree...
<p>also there is a law that states if you starve an animal it is one year in prison.
</p>
<p>Quote from the WAshington Times</p>
<p>"The cost of care in cases such as Schiavo's has vexed governments for years. In 1999, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed a law establishing procedures for hospitals and physicians to withhold life-sustaining care from patients with conditions deemed hopeless, even over relatives' protests. The legislation affords a family 10 days' notice to find another facility. Last week, Texas Children's Hospital in Houston invoked the law to remove a 6-month-old boy from his breathing tube against his mother's wishes. </p>
<p>I don't agree with that...Saying "hopeless" is ridiculous, because they jsut don't know...No one knows what advances may be made in science the next few years...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Last week, Texas Children's Hospital in Houston invoked the law to remove a 6-month-old boy from his breathing tube against his mother's wishes.
[/quote]
Oh, the hypocrisy.</p>
<p>"I don't agree with that...Saying "hopeless" is ridiculous, because they jsut don't know...No one knows what advances may be made in science the next few years...'</p>
<p>We make our judgements based on present realities, not dreams in the future.</p>
<p>"We make our judgements based on present realities, not dreams in the future"</p>
<p>EXACTLY! Thank you!</p>
<p>In the paper it says that she wanted to die. But I don't understand how she could have possibly expressed her opinion. I think that she should live until she expresses her desire to die. Even for 'hopeless' patients, euthanasia should only be allowed when they want it. I don't think the decision of life or death is a decision that anyone else could make. Until she expresses her opinion she should live. It's her right anyway.</p>
<p>Some idiotic doctor (pro-life) is claiming that she is not in a vegetative state (after "examining her for 90 minutes without doing any reactionary tests, etc.). Excuse the pun here, but she is seriously one "couch potato". Even friggin' Jeb Bush says she is not a vegetable!
What do these two people consider a vegetable? A person who has turned orange and is sproating green hair?</p>
<p>The doctor's opinions that was considered in the courts, was a doc. that only examined her for 20 mins. and did no tests (ex-rays imcluded). How is that evidence that she wont recover.</p>
<p>You cannot say that the neurologist claiming that she is not in a persistant vegetative state is idiotic. There are medical criteria that are used to determine what kind of state a patient is in, and he must have used his experience to determine that she is in a state of minimal consciousness instead. If you want to be taken serioulsy, stop saying that she's a vegetable.</p>
<p>So I guess the one doctor that examined her for a few minutes knows more than the doctors that have been caring for her for the past 15 years, huh? If you want to be taken seriously, use some common sense.</p>
<p>Ok. I am slightly confused. All of the doctors before this new neurologist today came to the same conclusion that she was in a PVS (Persistent Vegetative State). There have been numerous doctors who have examined the videos and Terri in person, and have come to the same conclusion, before the new doctor today. The reason the courts were so sure of her condition as being in a PSV is because multiple experts have come to the same conclusion. </p>
<p>While I am not calling the new doctor idiotic, I would say that his classification of the situation is extremely wishful. I have listened to experts from USC Medical School as well as Mount Sinai in New York and both of them have come to the same conclusion. </p>
<p>When someone hasn't spoken a word or gotten out of a bed due to a lack of cerebral cortex, it is time to let go and let that person meet his/her creator. Michael Schaivo moved on with his life and is now wanting the same for Terri.</p>
<p>the new doctor did his diagnosis by watching videos and standing beside her NOT actually examining her per se</p>
<p>It was hard for me to form an opinion about this, but I've decided that this is for the parents to decide. They created her, they raised her and loved her. It's their decision. It's not up to some dude, possibly a slimeball, that she married and might very well have divorced in a few years. If he was any kind of a husband he would respect her parents, and he's still be close to them.</p>
<p>This is my opinon,
I think this case should have never made it to the federal level, this is purely a states rights issue and moreso a personal issue between Terri and her husband and not Terri and U.S. govt...let the man live his life and repect the fact that letting someone live who is truly not alive has no purpose. What irkes me most about this case is that congress and the president take deliberate and fast action on something such as this they totally neglect and fail to pass and ERA amendment, something that has been in the political agenda for almost the last 100 years. Also what confounds me more is the fact as the republican G.W. Bush is not in favor of Big govt yet in this case he finds nothing contradictory in assuming a states rights issue in the federal arena. </p>
<p>AIM- you are selfish, this man wants to live his life, his wife is DEAD, get over it, I doubt if she were alive today to see this she would prolly tell him to let her go. Plus her parents have NO legitimate control over her life she is 40 something not 14, she is not a minor, and on top of that he husband has right of attorney, it is legally and morally his decision and uh... that is HIS wife, thats all there is too it PERIOD</p>