<p>how did you guess, </p>
<p>and also, apparently afraid of looking at poll numbers</p>
<p>""apparently 82 percent of americans disagree with you as does president bush because as governor he signed a law which allows euthanasia. THis law was used by a hospital to terminate the life of a 6 month old baby a few weeks ago""</p>
<p>"Terry's husband has his own new wife, and kids with her. He just wants Terry gone because she is a burden to him."</p>
<p>If that is truly the case... give Terri life.</p>
<p>Ok. I'm going to try and elucidate the situation through legal ideals.</p>
<p>In Flordia, the legal spouse of a patient becomes that patient's legal guardian if that patient cannot speak for his/herself. Since Michael Schaivo has not remarried, he is still the legal guardian of Terri Schaivo and the legal caretaker for her wishes.</p>
<p>The fact that this case has had 20 different rulings shows that Terri Schaivo has had complete due process in her court cases. I believe that all of the rulings have been in favor of Michael Schaivo, including all of the appeals from a state court to a federal court level. </p>
<p>The case has an extremely emotional side, and no matter how compelling it may be to keep Terri on a feeding tube, Michael has the legal ability to take her off of it and let her pass away. </p>
<p>My personal opinion is that Terri should be let to die. Doctors who have examined her have come to the conclusion that she is in a persistent vegetative state and has no cerebral cortex left. The reason why she can smile on occassion, breathe and blink her eyes is because there is a basic brain stem that is still in tact, like one would find in a small baby. These reactions are not reactions from stimuli, but random responses to nerve pulses.</p>
<p>I find it depressing that Right-To-Life advocates have made Terri the poster woman of their cause. While I do not support the federal government becoming involved in this case because it is a state and personal issue, I admire President Bush (for the first time mind you) for stepping back yesterday and saying that this case must be left to the courts.</p>
<p>By the law, the courts have done the right thing, no matter what way you slice it.</p>
<p>Hopefully that can clear up some arguments or discrepancies within the conversation.</p>
<p>Did you know that in Florida, just a short time ago, a man was sentenced to five years in prison for starving a dog to death? And as the same thing is being done to a human being, the government (a Republican government) cannot do anything. I find this absurd. </p>
<p>Even though Terri is in a persistent vegetative state (she may not be, but let's assume for now she is), there is hope of recovery. Though this hope is very, very slim, people have partially recovered from being in a persistent vegetative state. </p>
<p>Second, a neurologist has stated that Terri may have been misdiagnosed and that she may in fact be in a state of minimal consciousness. This being said, even if there is the slightest doubt, we should not sentence her to a cruel death. </p>
<p>Third, there is no way to be sure this is what Terri would have wanted. Her husband's testimony to what she said is hearsay and should not have been used in court. Even though he is her legal guardian, his restating of what she said is hearsay. </p>
<p>In cases of the death penalty, whenever there is the slightest chance of innocence, a stay is issued and the matter is investigated further. In this situation, there are numerous reasons which indicated that 1) Terri may not have wanted to die, 2) Terri may not be in a persistent vegetative state and 3) Terri may in fact recover. I believe that the courts should have at least ordered her feeding tube reinsterted so a hearing could have been held in the above mentioned matters. Any responsible court would have done so, but the judges are so dead set against letting her live, they are letting past rulings cloud their judgements. </p>
<p>Finally, I believe that the Supreme Court should have heard the case. Since the judges have denied to hear the case again, Congress' intent was not followed, and the Supreme Court should have had a hearing on the matter. </p>
<p>I truly feel saddened, that in the 21st century, society can starve and dehydrate a human being to death. Terri is not brain dead, nor is she terminally ill. The way she is being treated is what I would call cruel and unusual. I truly hope that something is done to keep her alive, because this sets a very dangerous prescedent.</p>
<p>"Terri is not brain dead"</p>
<p>hmm, the entire judicial system does not seem to think that</p>
<p>If you're telling me she can regrow a vital part of her brain, I've got some magic beans to sell you.</p>
<p>Terri IS NOT brain dead. Look it up if you want. Being in a presisten vegetative state doesn't mean she's brain dead. Being brain dead means a person can't breath, can't move and can't perfom any physical functions. Make sure you look up facts before you post them.</p>
<p>Second, people in a vegetative state have partially recovered. That doesn't mean she'll just start walking and talking. It means she may be able to start following commands and show signs of thought. It is very rare, but its not impossible. People in commas have woken up after decades.</p>
<p>really I didnt know people lived in commas,,,,,,,,,,,,, can they fit in there?
"Being brain dead means a person can't breath, can't move and can't perfom any physical functions."</p>
<p>according to court documents, terri is listed as being in a persistent vegetative state and she requires the assistance of life support. she cannot perform any physical functions. It is all just the somatic part of her nervous system that is working. There is a simple test to tell if she is brain dead or not. Someone simply has to go to her and say Terri, raise you right hand or blink or do anything else to signify that you have some sort of mental capacity. Guess what, she CANT. They've examined her for 15 years.</p>
<p><em>In Flordia, the legal spouse of a patient becomes that patient's legal guardian if that patient cannot speak for his/herself. Since Michael Schaivo has not remarried, he is still the legal guardian of Terri Schaivo and the legal caretaker for her wishes.</em></p>
<p>The above statement is the downfall of the whole ordeal. What is it to him if she lives? YOU DON'T STARVE A HUMAN BEING TO DEATH! Being on a ventilator is another thing - she is being deprived of food. Terri Schiavo married the wrong guy!!!!!</p>
<p>Bottom line: I want a living will that says "DO NOT STARVE ME!" You obviously can't trust judges OR husbands! Think about what they are doing. I don't want to be a burden to anybody but at the same time I don't want to starve.</p>
<p>Alukaszewicz, while I understand your argument, you have to look at it from the legal perspective. </p>
<p>You mentioned that if there is any doubt, then she should be allowed to live. In any muder case, there will always be some form of doubt as to whether or not the defendant actually murdered the person the prosecution is saying he/she did. By your rules, any defendant should be let free. That is not how it works though. If there is very small doubt, it is seen as negligable and in that regard, juries can convict someone. In reference to this case, while there may be some doubt (although I tend to trust a bunch of doctor's opinions, not just one who is coincidentally pro-life), it has to be taken with a grain of salt. That is simply how the legal system works.</p>
<p>While the mode of Terri's death is tragic, I don't see her being in any pain whatsoever. We have a drug called morphine which can neutralize the pain suffered by a person up until the moment of death. In that regard, we can be sure that Terri will not feel any of the effects of being starved/dehydrated.</p>
<p>While Terri is not technically brain dead in the classical sense (would truly die immediately if taken off of life support), she does not have the ability to cognitavily do anything. The only things she can do are to provide responses to the small brain stem that is still active. These actions include breathing, allowing the body to go through a sleep cycle, smile at random moments and blink her eyes. This is the definition of a persistent vegitative state, a time in a person's life when they can no longer function coherently or react to stimulations from the outside world. </p>
<p>I have never heard of a case in which a person has even temporarily recovered from a persistent vegitative state. The entire point of being in PVS is that because there is no cerebral cortex left, there will be no way of regrowing those brain cells which have already died.</p>
<p>I know that you are a staunch conservative, and I respect your views as you are obviously emotionally moved by the situation, as are all of us. One must take a look at the laws of the United States and base a decision off of that. The courts and all 20 of their decisions have done so at this point. Due process has occurred repeatedly in this case, so the argument Terri's family is making does not apply in this situation. </p>
<p>Michael Schaivo has nothing to gain from this situation. He was awarded 1 million dollars 8 years ago when the court originally heard the case and that money has gone to providing legal fees for the past 8 years of appeals as well as paying for some of the medical care of Terri. Michael Schaivo moved on with his life because he understood that if he were in the position Terri was in, Terri would have done the same for him. </p>
<p>An interesting question I would like to pose is as follows. I heard this on a radio broadcast and found it to be quite striking. Have any of you met a person who has said that if they were in a similar state to Terri, that they would want to be kept alive? At the core of this case is what Terri's true wishes are. While we are never going to be 100% sure of what they would have been, they would have most likely been those that were either discussed with her husband Michael or that of the vast majority opinion who believe to be taken off of life supporting care.</p>
<p>As to Alukaszewicz's point on the Supreme Court decision, in effect what the court is saying is 2 things. First, that the claim is based on a lack of due process on behalf of Terri Schaivo, which in fact is untrue because the legal case has been going on for 8 years. Secondly, the Supreme Court is making a subtle message to the legislative and executive branches stating that they may not intervene in a state's rights issue or an issue regarding a specific family. </p>
<p>Discuss.</p>
<p>you're right, MEN ARE PIGS(note the sarcasm)</p>
<p>she cannot feel a thing</p>
<p>Tookie, while I understand what you are saying, you do realize that there are only two ways Terri can die. One is to take her off of the feeding tube and let her starve. The other is to lethally inject her with sodium pentathol to seize up her internal organs and blood vessels. The second would actually be considered murder under the law. The first would not, and it is for that reason that Terri has been let to die this way. If there was another, more humane way to do this, I guarantee that the courts would have taken that method in a heartbeat.</p>
<p>I understand what you are saying jaug, but I still think the court has a duty to hear the new arguements presented by the doctor saying that Terri is in a state of minimal consciousness. The first thing that needs to be done is MRI scans need to be taken. I think that this at least merits the reinsertion of her feeding tube.</p>
<p>How can you say that Michael Shiavo has nothing to gain. Firstly if Terri dies rather then him devorceing her he would have to theoritically split his possessions with her. Also Michael Shiavo will gain millions in the next few years if Terri dies. I can almost gaurentee you thin in the next couple of years there will be a a book and movie on this case and he will be sitting pretty.</p>
<p>Also you could almost say michael isnt really terry's husband anymore. from a legal standpoint he is but he had kids with and loves another women. why should he care if terry lives or dies if he alreay has another wife lined up?</p>
<p>I understand the legal stuff but the law can always be changed based on the mood of the era. I'm asian and have really something for loyalty to your family. Also I really don't think the legal guardian should have the right. Even they were given rights there should be more than one legal guardian to restrain each other from making decisions that benefit oneself. It's not about emotions but it's about rights. It's her right. Although FL's law may state that one's spouse can be one's legal guardian, I necessarily don't think that there should be a monopoly on the decision making of a life. I know that this isn't really cruel treatment regarding the fact that she can't perceive hunger or starvation. But she has her rights, and she can't express them right now. So practically someone else should. Her parents and husband should both have a say on what to do with her. Ideally she didn't express her desire so she continues to live. However pragmatically her parents and husband should make the decision.
I know that this is unlikely but a miracle is called a miracle because it happens. I think life is more important than money or anything else, and should be preserved.</p>
<p>Firstly, I would say to alukaszewicz, I agree. An MRI should be done, but since she cannot leave her room, that is physically impossible. The best doctors can do is to come to a decision based on previous similiar cases and the end results of those cases. All of the doctors who have testified for this case, before this new one, came to the conclusion of PVS.</p>
<p>Ah good points socal. Here is what is to be said to your argument.
If Terri dies, then Michael does not have to divorce her. You are right about that. The reason he has not remarried his new girlfriend is because if he were to do so, he would not be able to carry out Terri's wishes. Michael is spending his own money on legal fees to carry out her wishes. In fact, he is losing money because he only wants to do what Terri requested of him. </p>
<p>I am sure that there will be a movie, and both Michael and Terri's immediate family will become wealthy because of it. It goes on both sides of the street.</p>
<p>You could say that Michael is in theory divorced, but by a legal standpoint he is not. One must follow the law at all times. If we did not, what kind of society would we live in? I recently went to a lecture by Professor Alan Dershowitz, and he made the comment that a society must follow the laws as they are constructed, no matter what that outcome may be.</p>
<p>alukaszewicz: "Terri IS NOT brain dead. Look it up if you want. Being in a presisten vegetative state doesn't mean she's brain dead. Being brain dead means a person can't breath, can't move and can't perfom any physical functions. Make sure you look up facts before you post them.</p>
<p>Second, people in a vegetative state have partially recovered. That doesn't mean she'll just start walking and talking. It means she may be able to start following commands and show signs of thought. It is very rare, but its not impossible. People in commas have woken up after decades."</p>
<p>"following commands"? lovely. Clinging to the hope, which doctors say is unreasonable, that she might be able to follow commands. . .</p>
<p>She is obviously not herself any more. They would be letting her die, not putting her to sleep. This is natural. Don't you think that's better?</p>
<p>"he would have to theoritically split his possessions with her"</p>
<p>oh and I'm sure she'll know what to do with it. A new yacht, some jet skis and maybe a nice plasma tv. THE WOMAN has the mental capacity of a head of cabbage. just because a quack doctor is willing to submit an affidavit saying that he watched some videos and thinks she may be minimally conscious does not mean she should be allowed to live.</p>
<p>btw, it is unethical for doctors to make a diagnosis of patients by watching a videotape therefore, bill frist's and this quack doctor's license is in jeopardy. </p>
<p>here is what people should do, send a picture of a mole to frist and ask him if he thinks it is cancer. Apparently he has the divine power to discern medical knowledge which others havent found out for years. If he is incorrect then you can sue him for medical malpractice</p>
<p>imiracle, the idea behind a legal guardian is so that cases like this don't develop. In essence, what is happening here is that Terri's parents are trying to become co-guardians with Michael and in doing so have a say in what should be done with Terri's life. The fact is that the law doesn't allow that. You and I may not like it, but the law is the law.</p>
<p>She isn't brain dead, that's true, I never said that. I did, however, say that she had no cerebral cortex. Look it up. Tell me how she's going to recover from that.</p>