NationStates Jolt Archive

Terri Schiavo. You may have heard of her case in the US or you may have not. Look it up on your news groups. Basically, she is in a vegitative state and has been for the last 15 yrs or so. Her husband has said that she did not want to live by artificial means and her parents are dead set against the removal of her feeding tube which has been done so twice already in the past and now currently for the last 2 days. This has become a major court battle and now the US govt. is getting involved to the point where Pres Bush is willing to support a bill to stop her deaath and they are trying to rush as many represenitives back to vote on this at 12:01 a.m. on monday morning.

So what do you think? Should someone have the right to choose death?

For the sake of maintaing talk on just this issue, please, NO POSTS ON THE ABORTION ISSUE.

Thank You...

Yes, people should have the right to die, but only if they express it themselves.

It depends on the individual. If the person is suffering, death is inevitable, and it has been made clear by the sufferer that enough is enough, then that is their choice.

you didnt decide to be here, so you should have the choice to leave whenever you like


edit: just as i hit submit, the song im listening said "I was born for dieing", which was strangely appropriate

I also think people should have the right to die (not suicide mind, just in case someone calls me on it). But Potaria mentions that the person should express it themselves. And I totally agree.

Except that I have witnessed a situation where the person could not voice their wishes. He had brain cancer and that affected his speech. Fortunately, he still could express himself in other ways. And in the end, it got what he wished and that is what is important. I just feel for the ones who can't.

I believe that a person who is terminally or hopelessly ill has the right to end their life - and suffering - in order to die with dignity.

They way I see it, except for those necessary Amendments to our Constitution, the government doesn't acknowledge your rights, per se - the more it stays out of the private citizen's life, the better. I don't consider it so much as a 'right to death' as just government not interfering

But yes, the government should nott but into these things - if the individual wants to die then the government cannot stop them. HOWEVER, if that individual is incapable of rendering that decision, the responsibility shifts to the nearest relative (IE Spouse, father, etc)

No, people are only allowed to die for their country....But I picked yes so...yeah

HOWEVER, if that individual is incapable of rendering that decision, the responsibility shifts to the nearest relative (IE Spouse, father, etc)

And that is where the problem lies. Her husband has said that she had expressed the idea of no arificial life support to him many, mnay years ago. But her parents say that this is a lie and they are trying desprately to keep her alive. So who would you believe?

I believe that if the person does not have a chance for recovery for improvements, then he has the right to die. In the case of Terri, I believe that the parents need to stop being selfish and think about her. I mean shes been in a personal hell for the past 15 years. Her body has become a prison for her, and the only escape is through death. I realize that as a parent this is hard, I symptize with them on that, I really do. However, as a parent you need to do whats in the best intrest of the child, and the best intrest for Terri, is death.

I was so upset by that subject today !
Sure you have the right to die.

Living 15 years in coma isn't living. Her husband is very courageous because people proposed him 1milion dollar to keep her in life and he refused.

You have the right to die <<correctly>>, décemment i would say in french. And this is not decent...

I was so upset by that subject today !
Sure you have the right to die.

Living 15 years in coma isn't living. Her husband is very courageous because people proposed him 1milion dollar to keep her in life and he refused.

You have the right to die <<correctly>>, décemment i would say in french. And this is not decent...
Exactly! I think that in this case, she isn't living any kind of life. Without the machines she would be dead, that's no kind of life. I think it's rediculous that Bush is trying to step into something where he has no place. Sure, life is important, but fifteen years in a vegetative state. Let's be realistic, with a machine, you can keep someone alive nearly indefinatly. It's a shame, but that woman has the right to die, with dignity (decently).

Terri Schiavo. You may have heard of her case in the US or you may have not. Look it up on your news groups. Basically, she is in a vegitative state and has been for the last 15 yrs or so. Her husband has said that she did not want to live by artificial means and her parents are dead set against the removal of her feeding tube which has been done so twice already in the past and now currently for the last 2 days. This has become a major court battle and now the US govt. is getting involved to the point where Pres Bush is willing to support a bill to stop her deaath and they are trying to rush as many represenitives back to vote on this at 12:01 a.m. on monday morning.

So what do you think? Should someone have the right to choose death?

For the sake of maintaing talk on just this issue, please, NO POSTS ON THE ABORTION ISSUE.

Thank You...
A person should not be allowed to abort a human life. Unborn children are people too.[/being a jerk]

But seriously, they should pull the plug. I'd rather someone kill me than live in a state of perpetual unconciousness.

should someone be able to sign away their life if they enter a vegitative state and have absolutly no possibility of coming back? probobly

should you spouse be able to make that decision without you concent? probobly not

Euthanasia should be legal.

Terri Schiavo. You may have heard of her case in the US or you may have not. Look it up on your news groups. Basically, she is in a vegitative state and has been for the last 15 yrs or so. Her husband has said that she did not want to live by artificial means and her parents are dead set against the removal of her feeding tube which has been done so twice already in the past and now currently for the last 2 days. This has become a major court battle and now the US govt. is getting involved to the point where Pres Bush is willing to support a bill to stop her deaath and they are trying to rush as many represenitives back to vote on this at 12:01 a.m. on monday morning.

So what do you think? Should someone have the right to choose death?

For the sake of maintaing talk on just this issue, please, NO POSTS ON THE ABORTION ISSUE.

Thank You...

Problems are the fact that feeding tubes are not exactly artificial means of survival. If she was on life support or something...I'd be inclined to say yes, but nope.

I am against this act of Federal govt growing so big by Bush. Repubs are supposed to be small govt, but not anymore I see. Hypocrisy.

Husband has both legal and biblical authority in these situations, so his words should be enough.

should someone be able to sign away their life if they enter a vegitative state and have absolutly no possibility of coming back? probobly

should you spouse be able to make that decision without you concent? probobly not
Argument goes that her wish was to die if she was in such a state. All of the courts involved in the case agreed.

Euthanasia should be legal.

euthanasia to what degree

if I feel depressed this morning should I be able to walk into the doctors office and kill myself?

Euthanasia should be legal.

That it should.

Oh, and I have a question --- Are you gonna update the NS Political Compass anytime soon?

Argument goes that her wish was to die if she was in such a state. All of the courts involved in the case agreed.

the courts have agreed that the husband has the right to off her

no one has agreed that should would have wanted to die and without her having actually adressed the issue and potential evidence is subjective

http://www.rense.com/general42/leg.htm


"And the court has other facts that it is also ignoring. Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, filed a medical malpractice suit regarding his wife's injury that caused her to be cognitively disabled. He promised that he would provide her care for the rest of her natural life because she's not on intensive care or anything of that sort. He brought to the jury a rehabilitation expert with a plan to help Terri get better, but as soon as the money was in the bank, which was $750,000 in a trust fund for Terri," he refused to allow any rehabilitative treatments whatsoever.

"He also got $300,000 more for loss of consortium, and the money went to lawyers," Smith explained.

"Not one day, not one hour, not one minute of rehabilitation time has Terri been given so she could get better. It's unconscionable.

"This despite that there are doctors testifying under penalty of perjury, not only is Terri not unconscious, but that they believe she could be better. There's a speech pathologist who has testified most recently under penalty of perjury that he believes that Terri can be weaned from the feeding tube."

And that is where the problem lies. Her husband has said that she had expressed the idea of no arificial life support to him many, mnay years ago. But her parents say that this is a lie and they are trying desprately to keep her alive. So who would you believe?

Precisely, but what motivation would he have to lie, yet continue to go through the legal process? Because if there was any money involved, I doubt he'd have this much patience. I don't believe there are ulterior motives, I just think there are two different groups who believe different things on the subject. And I can see both sides of the argument.

I'd personally lean against the idea of euthanasia in this case. If she is in as degenerated a state as to qualify for it, then I do not believe she would be aware of her surroundings (If she is, of course, she's gone insane years ago and the only humane action is a double tap.) - ergo, in the probably vain hope that she might recover to some degree, but more because without the proven permission of the persons involved, I cannot accept justification for ending a life in this instance.

Of course, the problem is there are so many variables. What did she really say to her husband? More importantly, just how aware is she?

It's a tough one, and I don't envy those making the decision. I do object to their methods of ending her life though; the idea that nature taking its course is more human than an injection is simply absurd.

the courts have agreed that the husband has the right to off her

no one has agreed that should would have wanted to die and without her having actually adressed the issue and potential evidence is subjective
No sir, the courts have agreed that her husband has that right because she expressed the wish to die if she was in that state. Read the court case.

http://www.rense.com/general42/leg.htm


"And the court has other facts that it is also ignoring. Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, filed a medical malpractice suit regarding his wife's injury that caused her to be cognitively disabled. He promised that he would provide her care for the rest of her natural life because she1s not on intensive care or anything of that sort. He brought to the jury a rehabilitation expert with a plan to help Terri get better, but as soon as the money was in the bank, which was $750,000 in a trust fund for Terri," he refused to allow any rehabilitative treatments whatsoever.

"He also got $300,000 more for loss of consortium, and the money went to lawyers," Smith explained.

"Not one day, not one hour, not one minute of rehabilitation time has Terri been given so she could get better. It1s unconscionable.

"This despite that there are doctors testifying under penalty of perjury, not only is Terri not unconscious, but that they believe she could be better. There1s a speech pathologist who has testified most recently under penalty of perjury that he believes that Terri can be weaned from the feeding tube."

That's my problem with this case. As soon as the man got money in the bank, it was time for her to die.

And that is where the problem lies. Her husband has said that she had expressed the idea of no arificial life support to him many, mnay years ago. But her parents say that this is a lie and they are trying desprately to keep her alive. So who would you believe?


The parents have said that they don't know what their daughter's wishes were and they don't care. They would not support removing the feeding tube, even if they knew that's what their daughter would have wanted.

Yes, she is reprobate, and God doesn't want her to be normal, I mean, she's being kept alive by people going against His intention of killing her.

Yes, she is reprobate, and God doesn't want her to be normal, I mean, she's being kept alive by people going against His intention of killing her.

What the fuck? It happened because of medical malpractice, not because of "god wanting to kill her". Once again...

What the fuck?

she's being kept alive by people going against His intention of killing her.

maybe God put those people on earth to keep her alive?

http://www.rense.com/general42/leg.htm


"And the court has other facts that it is also ignoring. Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, filed a medical malpractice suit regarding his wife's injury that caused her to be cognitively disabled. He promised that he would provide her care for the rest of her natural life because she's not on intensive care or anything of that sort. He brought to the jury a rehabilitation expert with a plan to help Terri get better, but as soon as the money was in the bank, which was $750,000 in a trust fund for Terri," he refused to allow any rehabilitative treatments whatsoever.

"He also got $300,000 more for loss of consortium, and the money went to lawyers," Smith explained.

"Not one day, not one hour, not one minute of rehabilitation time has Terri been given so she could get better. It's unconscionable.

"This despite that there are doctors testifying under penalty of perjury, not only is Terri not unconscious, but that they believe she could be better. There's a speech pathologist who has testified most recently under penalty of perjury that he believes that Terri can be weaned from the feeding tube."

I'm sorry, you're quoting a website that sells UFO prints, advertises 'Multi-Dimensional Meditation,' and talks about Ancient Indian Spacecraft?

No offense, but I think your source might not have the best background as an investigative journalist.

http://www.rense.com/general61/vaman.htm

Thats, my good sir, is proof that your source is completely batshit crazy.

I'm sorry, you're quoting a website that sells UFO prints, advertises 'Multi-Dimensional Meditation,' and talks about Ancient Indian Spacecraft?

No offense, but I think your source might not have the best background as an investigative journalist.

http://www.rense.com/general61/vaman.htm

Thats, my good sir, is proof that your source is completely batshit crazy.

Wow, that is bullshit. What the fuck is with those people?

What the fuck? It happened because of medical malpractice, not because of "god wanting to kill her". Once again...

What the fuck?

Actually, if we take the view that all people die 'when it is there time', then the idea that God wants her to die is entirely valid. Think about it; when a child or teenager dies, then it was all part of God's plan. It never just was. The idea that God could be so callous as to send a person to this world, to only be here for eight years or so, without any objective in their brutal death, is incomprehensable to all, myself included.

Yeah, I get it, but it's still bullshit.

Actually, if we take the view that all people die 'when it is there time', then the idea that God wants her to die is entirely valid. Think about it; when a child or teenager dies, then it was all part of God's plan. It never just was. The idea that God could be so callous as to send a person to this world, to only be here for eight years or so, without any objective in their brutal death, is incomprehensable to all, myself included.

but why the hell would we take that view into account?

There's a difference between right-to-die and starving someone to death. Give her a lethal injection of morphine or something. Even death row inmates get to die without pain. Why not Terri?

but why the hell would we take that view into account?

That's what I'm wondering.

What the fuck? It happened because of medical malpractice, not because of "god wanting to kill her". Once again...

What the fuck?

No, it was Gods intention for her to die, thats why He willed that malpractice to happen.

maybe God put those people on earth to keep her alive?


Right now they are going against Him by trying to keep her alive.

No, it was Gods intention for her to die, thats why He willed that malpractice to happen.

So, it's "God's" will for me to hate your guts?

There's a difference between right-to-die and starving someone to death. Give her a lethal injection of morphine or something. Even death row inmates get to die without pain. Why not Terri?

because then a bunch of crackpots would start talking about how she deserves better than murderers and rapists and how its inhumane to treat an innocent person like a convicted criminal.

because they're crackpots.

plus this way it isn't killing her, its letting life take its course.

because then a bunch of crackpots would start talking about how she deserves better than murderers and rapists and how its inhumane to treat an innocent person like a convicted criminal.

because they're crackpots.

plus this way it isn't killing her, its letting life take its course.

...Which is killing her all the same.

No, it was Gods intention for her to die, thats why He willed that malpractice to happen.

...so god is incompetent and does half-assed jobs?

Here is how "alive" Terri is now. X-rays of her skull show that her brain is physically gone, replace by cerebralspinal fluid with nothing remaining but the brain stem (which controls autonomic functions). She has no higher brain functions nor has any chance of recovering them, by virtue of the sections of her brain necessary for them being reduced to goop. From a scientific perspective, her continuing autonomic responses are kind of neat, but at the same time that's just morbid. If all she has left is her brain stem, then its time to let her die. I mean if all she has left is a cerebral spinal fluid, then theres no hope for recovery for this woman.

...Which is killing her all the same.

...but it makes it easier to pretend it isn't.

i, however, am all in favor of killing terri.

if you want to die, you should have the right to die painlessly, rather than going through 15 years of torturous pain just so that some doctors have a bit more work, or so the government can get that persons taxes for that 15 years. I say that heaven, or nirvana, or being reborn as a cow, is better than 15 years of painful treatment, excessive surgery, and bad hospital food any day.

Originally posted by Schrandtopia

if I feel depressed this morning should I be able to walk into the doctors office and kill myself?
Today 1:15 AM

I also believe that if doctors are to prescribe death, there must first be reasonable evidence that the person has an almost incurable disease or condition, and that both treatment and going without it would cause extreme and long lasting pain. This should be decided by the courts or by the surgeon general.

So, it's "God's" will for me to hate your guts?

No, because that has nothing to do with predestination.

I personally don't care if you hate me, hate away, I'm Elect, and I'm going to Heaven. You're reprobate and you're going to hell.

...but it makes it easier to pretend it isn't.

i, however, am all in favor of killing terri.

Yeah, that's true. And I'm in favor of "killing" her, so to speak.

No, because that has nothing to do with predestination.

I personally don't care if you hate me, hate away, I'm Elect, and I'm going to Heaven.

uh oh, guys, we're in the company of the heaven-bound.

You're reprobate and you're going to hell.

you, good sir, are officially a prat.

Differing ideas about ancient technology aside, I believe that Terri Shiavo deserves to die. Whatver the reasons of her husband or parents, she has something like a one in three hundred billion chance of recovering even a little bit, and even then would still need assistance for the rest of her life.

But I put it to both sides. Get yourself immobilized, unable to function or feed yourself. Have to rely on a feeding/hydration tube for fifteen years. Now, would keeping yourself like that, a dignified human being, in that prison, would that be compassionate? No. Neither would letting you stare to death.

The most compassionate thing to do in this situation would be an overdose of morphine. No two weeks of degenerating. No undignified starvation. Merciful death, in two minutes or less. Whatever is left of Terri probably would not even know the difference in states of being.

But if she has a soul that is locked in there, would ANY of you feel right keeping it that way?

uh oh, guys, we're in the company of the heaven-bound.

Oh noes, he's gonna condemn us! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!111!!1@!!2!@1111!

you, good sir, are officially a prat.

Whatever a "prat" is (British slang?), he's certainly... Whatever it means!

because then a bunch of crackpots would start talking about how she deserves better than murderers and rapists and how its inhumane to treat an innocent person like a convicted criminal.

If she can't feel it, it doesn't matter. Just let her die already.

No, because that has nothing to do with predestination.

I personally don't care if you hate me, hate away, I'm Elect, and I'm going to Heaven. You're reprobate and you're going to hell.
Oh no, not another one. I hope this guy turns out to be a troll like JesusSaves. Or was it VoteEarly who also claimed to be "elect?"

It might've been both, but at least Jesussaves was a troll. VoteEarly was just a headcase.

uh oh, guys, we're in the company of the heaven-bound.


Well, since you're mocking me, I'm pretty sure you're going to hell now. ta-ta

Oh no, not another one. I hope this guy turns out to be a troll like JesusSaves. Or was it VoteEarly who also claimed to be "elect?"

wait, the jesussaves website is a troll?

Well, since you're mocking me, I'm pretty sure you're going to hell now. ta-ta

Ooooh, we're soooo scared!

wait, the jesussaves website is a troll?

Jesussaves was a dork who used to post the most ridiculous bullshit here. Dunno what happened to him, either.

Well, since you're mocking me, I'm pretty sure you're going to hell now. ta-ta

uh, you were kinda rubbing your 'predestined awesomeness' in our faces, so i think thats pretty hypocritical of you.

along somewhat different discussional lines, lick my eternally condemned balls.

you didnt decide to be here, so you should have the choice to leave whenever you like


edit: just as i hit submit, the song im listening said "I was born for dieing", which was strangely appropriate

you mean like committing suicide or something? thats idiotic. i only agree on allowing death if someone is in extreme pain and it will be inevitable that they would die but will take a long time, such as a slow type of ebola. but as for being in a coma, the death should be stopped. i wouldnt want to be let die if i was still alive. (unless it was certain i wouldn't wake up)

...so god is incompetent and does half-assed jobs?

That was his intention to do that.

As for this BS about a "painful" death...

If she can't understand anything how is it painful?

If anything, she should have her working organs removed and given to people that can live normally. I don't really care what her family or some religious nutjob wants to be done, her organs would be better used in someone that can live normally.

Well, since you're mocking me, I'm pretty sure you're going to hell now. ta-ta
sure, if hes not elect then hes going to hell anyway, so he can do whatever he likes without worrying

along somewhat different discussional lines, lick my eternally condemned balls.

http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Pavilion/9373/br1.jpg

Fight the religious zealots!

It might've been both, but at least Jesussaves was a troll. VoteEarly was just a headcase.

VoteEarly is a good friend of mine, we talk all the time on MSN and AIM. He is fellow Elect, in fact, he was the one that showed it to me, and I was drawn to it.

Jesussaves was a dork who used to post the most ridiculous bullshit here. Dunno what happened to him, either.

oh, i was talking about objective.jesussave.us

along somewhat different discussional lines, lick my eternally condemned balls.

WTF? this is coming from someone who hasn't read the last pages but whats that about your balls?

you mean like committing suicide or something? thats idiotic. i only agree on allowing death if someone is in extreme pain and it will be inevitable that they would die but will take a long time, such as a slow type of ebola. but as for being in a coma, the death should be stopped. i wouldnt want to be let die if i was still alive. (unless it was certain i wouldn't wake up)
if i want to commit suicide, if i really decide that i dont want to be here anymore, then who is anybody to stop me?

thats the way i see it...you didnt decide to be here, so you should have the choice to leave whenever you like

you mean like committing suicide or something? thats idiotic. i only agree on allowing death if someone is in extreme pain and it will be inevitable that they would die but will take a long time, such as a slow type of ebola. but as for being in a coma, the death should be stopped. i wouldnt want to be let die if i was still alive. (unless it was certain i wouldn't wake up)
And I would want to die if I could not wake up ... which is why leting people have a choice is a good idea

VoteEarly is a good friend of mine, we talk all the time on MSN and AIM. He is fellow Elect, in fact, he was the one that showed it to me, and I was drawn to it.
so...basically all you have to do is read something, decide you are elect...and thats it, youre elect?

I agree death would be the better choice, but there must be a more humane way. If only they'd stop being squeamish and put a bullet in her.

you mean like committing suicide or something? thats idiotic. i only agree on allowing death if someone is in extreme pain and it will be inevitable that they would die but will take a long time, such as a slow type of ebola. but as for being in a coma, the death should be stopped. i wouldnt want to be let die if i was still alive. (unless it was certain i wouldn't wake up)

but it IS certain that she isn't going to wake up.

That was his intention to do that. I don't really care what some religious nutjob wants to be done.

THen why ar you listening to yourself?

if i want to commit suicide, if i really decide that i dont want to be here anymore, then who is anybody to stop me?

thats the way i see it...you didnt decide to be here, so you should have the choice to leave whenever you like

OK im not stopping you but im just saying i think its dumb

but it IS certain that she isn't going to wake up.

OK die then

WTF? this is coming from someone who hasn't read the last pages but whats that about your balls?

Kahta has said some interesting things about his soul's final destination.

OK im not stopping you but im just saying i think its dumb
fair enough


(im not planning on killing myself, in case youre wondering)

Oh no, not another one. I hope this guy turns out to be a troll like JesusSaves. Or was it VoteEarly who also claimed to be "elect?"


No, I'm not a troll, I'm for real.

VoteEarly is also Elect, like me, he is Calvinist.

I agree death would be the better choice, but there must be a more humane way. If only they'd stop being squeamish and put a bullet in her.

or they could silently lethal inject her or something like that

so...basically all you have to do is read something, decide you are elect...and thats it, youre elect?

Romans 11:7

So, if you are saying that I am predestined to go to Hell no matter what, fuck you and your God. If God would create me just to send me to Hell then he can kiss my shitstained cum covered balls.

Just how do YOU know that YOU are Elect, Kahta, anyway?

Romans 11:7
but who decides who is Elect?

God? how do you know what God is thinking? did he tell you?

So, if you are saying that I am predestined to go to Hell no matter what, fuck you and your God. If God would create me just to send me to Hell then he can kiss my shitstained cum covered balls.

Just how do YOU know that YOU are Elect, Kahta, anyway?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

read away.

"Vegetable" or not, everyone has the right to end their life.

This is a little something I got from some voices in my head when I was doing the dishes last night. Now bear in mind that I've never written poetry before, and these are very rough, so don't jump the gun and blast me for technical reasons.

Death isn't happy or sad
Angry or glad
It isn't darkness or sorrow
Waiting for tomorrow
It is absent
It is blank
It is nothing

I felt a need to post this, seeing as how a religious zealot is among us.

The government should butt out of this issue completely. Paternalistic, all-pervasive, bureaucratic bastards! :upyours:

No, I'm not a troll, I'm for real.

VoteEarly is also Elect, like me, he is Calvinist.

And the difference is?
Is that the difference between a real nut job and a pretend nut job?
Just wondering, please inform me for my own edification.

Death isn't happy or sad
Angry or glad
It isn't darkness or sorrow
Waiting for tomorrow
It is absent
It is blank
It is nothing
That's lovely. And it's good to know that I'm not the only one for whom doing dishes is a sacred space.

iLock pending moderator review.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation