NationStates Jolt Archive

I couldn't believe my eyes today as I read my morning paper. The USA have actually legislated a bill to prevent that poor woman Terri Schiavo from dying. Why won't they let that woman pass out of her misery? She's been in that coma for almost 15 years, she won't even recognise todays world if she ever get out of that coma. Do her parents really thinks everything will be back to normal if she recovered? The chance for a complete recovery are miniscule and doctors everywhere say pull the plug and do the humane thing. Even if she makes a recovery she will maybe have lost some of brain abilities. I thinks this is only possible in the US: Bush has no problem of sending hundreds of American soldiers to their death in a place where they shouldn't have been in the first place but for one woman he's willing to cut his vacation short. :headbang:

There are heaps of threads on this already. No one has come up with a satisfactory reason to keep her 'alive'.

In the past seven years, I've learned that my home country has done many stupid things... And, unfortunately, is continuing to do so. This is one of them.

I couldn't believe my eyes today as I read my morning paper. The USA have actually legislated a bill to prevent that poor woman Terri Schiavo from dying. Why won't they let that woman pass out of her misery? She's been in that coma for almost 15 years, she won't even recognise todays world if she ever get out of that coma. Do her parents really thinks everything will be back to normal if she recovered? The chance for a complete recovery are miniscule and doctors everywhere say pull the plug and do the humane thing. Even if she makes a recovery she will maybe have lost some of brain abilities. I thinks this is only possible in the US: Bush has no problem of sending hundreds of American soldiers to their death in a place where they shouldn't have been in the first place but for one woman he's willing to cut his vacation short. :headbang:
Because the Republicans are kowtowing to the religious right?

I couldn't believe my eyes today as I read my morning paper. The USA have actually legislated a bill to prevent that poor woman Terri Schiavo from dying. Why won't they let that woman pass out of her misery? She's been in that coma for almost 15 years, she won't even recognise todays world if she ever get out of that coma. Do her parents really thinks everything will be back to normal if she recovered? The chance for a complete recovery are miniscule and doctors everywhere say pull the plug and do the humane thing. Even if she makes a recovery she will maybe have lost some of brain abilities. I thinks this is only possible in the US: Bush has no problem of sending hundreds of American soldiers to their death in a place where they shouldn't have been in the first place but for one woman he's willing to cut his vacation short. :headbang:
You're entitled to your opinion, regardless of how demented, warped or just plain wrong it is. :)

You're entitled to your opinion, regardless of how demented, warped or just plain wrong it is. :)

Wrong? In what way, "sir"?

I can see a very good reason for keeping her alive; the only proof we have she wanted to die is her husband's word. Now, I'm inclined to believe he's telling the truth, but that is insufficient when other people are saying the opposite. I do support euthanasia, but only when there is express proof on the part of the person to die that it is indeed what they want. In the absence of such proof, I cannot condone such an action.

I can see a very good reason for keeping her alive; the only proof we have she wanted to die is her husband's word. Now, I'm inclined to believe he's telling the truth, but that is insufficient when other people are saying the opposite. I do support euthanasia, but only when there is express proof on the part of the person to die that it is indeed what they want. In the absence of such proof, I cannot condone such an action.
I'm willing to believe that everyone who has been in vegatative state over 15 years are willing (if you think they have any "will" left, which I myself don't believe) to die.

dude, if i was like that, i would want my girl to flick the switch

I'm willing to believe that everyone who has been in vegatative state over 15 years are willing (if you think they have any "will" left, which I myself don't believe) to die.

I agree, but this isn't about what we might fairly extrapolate she wants, this is about legal precendent.

Besides which, if she's in as vegetative a state as is said, then there's no need to kill her because she doesn't have any concept of time, suffering, or past and future (She doesn't have memory, apparently.). All there is is the single moment she is in at any one time. Which is ironic really, given that it is the exact case made by the people who believe she should be allowed to die.

Which brings me to an interesting question: Allowed to die. This isn't like life support, this is taking weeks to starve to death. By what standards of morality can that be considered ethical or humane?

via Digby:

"George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week."

gee, does anybody else see just a tiny, itsy bitsy smidgeon of hypocricy here?

the actions of the GOP, the President, and those fighting to take over Terry Shiavo's life for their own agendas are sickening. there are no words to describe how shameful, disgusting, and utterly horrendous their actions are.

Which brings me to an interesting question: Allowed to die. This isn't like life support, this is taking weeks to starve to death. By what standards of morality can that be considered ethical or humane?
In any sane society? None.

You're entitled to your opinion, regardless of how demented, warped or just plain wrong it is. :)

Since she's been in a coma for 15 years she is likely completely brain dead. There must be just a few automatic responses still running like heartbeat etc. If she woke up she would have almost no control over her body and be very mentally retarded. You call the opinion to let her die plain wrong? Yours is the opinion that is warped.

Letting her die would be terrible. Giving her an injection to kill her without pain, rather than starve her to death, would be a much better option.

Which brings me to an interesting question: Allowed to die. This isn't like life support, this is taking weeks to starve to death. By what standards of morality can that be considered ethical or humane?

You mean not letting her die through injection, but letting nature take its course? That is fundamental Christian ethics for instance. In that reasoning "If it is Gods Will that she dies, she dies and using medicine or technology to keep her alive or hasten her death is going against His will".

Another set of ethics that says this is ok would be one without the concept of "pity", one that says only the strong should survive.

Neither of these is very popular.

... the actions of the GOP, the President, and those fighting to take over Terry Shiavo's life for their own agendas are sickening. there are no words to describe how shameful, disgusting, and utterly horrendous their actions are.
So none of those people are at all concerned about the ethics or the morality of this case, just their own political agenda?

I agree, but this isn't about what we might fairly extrapolate she wants, this is about legal precendent.

snip

Which brings me to an interesting question: Allowed to die. This isn't like life support, this is taking weeks to starve to death. By what standards of morality can that be considered ethical or humane?
You're absolutely correct. My post was not a proper argument, just a shallow opinion.

About the method. I don't know enough about this case. Is she not connected to any other machines? Can she breathe? Because I would say that she should be disconnected from all life-supporting machines. Or give an overdose to her. I know that's not an option in USA, but that what I would consider as a humane method. ->I'm all for active euthanasia.

Do you know what this means to Americans? The government owns your body, and you can't even die respectfully without a bunch of people who don't really know you intefering in that choice.

You mean not letting her die through injection, but letting nature take its course? That is fundamental Christian ethics for instance. In that reasoning "If it is Gods Will that she dies, she dies and using medicine or technology to keep her alive or hasten her death is going against His will".

Neither of these is very popular.
I know lots of Christians and lots of people who call themselves "Christians," but I don't know of anyone who says what you quote above. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the source of this quote.

And whether ethics or morality is "popular" or not is totally irrelevant.

Do you know what this means to Americans? The government owns your body, and you can't even die respectfully without a bunch of people who don't really know you intefering in that choice.
Oh bullshit. It means nothing of the sort! Jeeze!

You mean not letting her die through injection, but letting nature take its course? That is fundamental Christian ethics for instance. In that reasoning "If it is Gods Will that she dies, she dies and using medicine or technology to keep her alive or hasten her death is going against His will".

Another set of ethics that says this is ok would be one without the concept of "pity", one that says only the strong should survive.

Neither of these is very popular.

Precisely. I just can't figure out how nature taking it's course is fine, speeding up the inevitable is one of the greatest sins imaginable, yet keeping her alive is not sinful at all, despite it going against God's apparent will.

Of course, it makes sense that if we were to actually give her something to kill her, rather than allowing her to die, then most of the opposed people would draw comparisons to the death sentence, and ask when the trial was held where she was sentenced.

So none of those people are at all concerned about the ethics or the morality of this case, just their own political agenda?
in my opinion, there may be a few people, somewhere, who actually care about Terry Shiavo. of those precious few, there may be even fewer who are familiar with the case, have thought about it thoroughly, have considered it seriously, and have concluded that they think she should not be taken off the supportive machinery. and every single one of those people, rare as they are, would still be 100% wrong for supporting the proposed law preventing Terry's right to die. whether or not they think it is the right choice or not, it's not their choice to make...and it's absolutely NOT the government's choice.

but most of the people involved in this mess, including the President and the bulk of the Republican Congress, are merely revolting vultures who are using this poor woman to forward their agendas with no regard for her. they are wrong for so many reasons i don't have time to list them all, and their disgraceful behavior is an embarassment to America.

I couldn't believe my eyes today as I read my morning paper. The USA have actually legislated a bill to prevent that poor woman Terri Schiavo from dying. Why won't they let that woman pass out of her misery? She's been in that coma for almost 15 years, she won't even recognise todays world if she ever get out of that coma. Do her parents really thinks everything will be back to normal if she recovered? The chance for a complete recovery are miniscule and doctors everywhere say pull the plug and do the humane thing. Even if she makes a recovery she will maybe have lost some of brain abilities. I thinks this is only possible in the US: Bush has no problem of sending hundreds of American soldiers to their death in a place where they shouldn't have been in the first place but for one woman he's willing to cut his vacation short. :headbang:
I'd do the exact same thing bush is doing. keep her alive. I think the husband's getting away with murder if he gets his way.

Oh bullshit. It means nothing of the sort! Jeeze!

The federal government put it's fingers into the fate on one person which was really a personal matter for the family. It could have gone to courts but congress intervened. EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT is playing God again.

Politicians don't care about her. They want political milage out of the issue.

I say pull the damned plug! Because I know that's what I would want. Free her soul, it is trapped in a useless body and mind!

I'd do the exact same thing bush is doing. keep her alive. I think the husband's getting away with murder if he gets his way.
So keep her alive as long as they can afford to and then let her die?

Wrong? In what way, "sir"?
Mostly this quote from your first post: "I thinks this is only possible in the US: Bush has no problem of sending hundreds of American soldiers to their death in a place where they shouldn't have been in the first place but for one woman he's willing to cut his vacation short."

How do you know that the President of the United States "has no problem sending hundreds of American soldiers to their death?" What makes you think that we "shouldn't have been [ there ] in the first place?" And why shouldn't the President of the US be concerned about the issue of whether this woman should live or die?

When I read the news earlier to day I just shook my head.

See, when I argued with my GF yesterday about the issue, we both came to the conclusion that, if either her or myself end up in such a situation the other one has to make sure that either her or myself die with dignity. I wouldn't want to be kept alive at all costs.

Heck, I have a little note in my driving licence (for the case of an accident) in German and English that tells doctors to use my organs in case of my braindeath. I have no problems with that, and if my organs can still be used to help somebody else, hell yes, why not. If I'm braindead then I don't need those anymore anyway.

I don't really get this decision. It just shows what happens when religious zealots jump into politics. Honestly, take her husband, I don't think it was an easy decision for him to get the tube removed, but if she wouldn't want it, he wouldn't have fought for it (hell, I know I'd have problems if I'd be in that position, but if my gf, or in this hypothetic scenario my wife, would have told me so in the past, I'd do it for her, because I love her and respect her wishes.)

I think her family are just selfcentered, egoistical bastards.

via Digby:

"George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week."

gee, does anybody else see just a tiny, itsy bitsy smidgeon of hypocricy here?

the actions of the GOP, the President, and those fighting to take over Terry Shiavo's life for their own agendas are sickening. there are no words to describe how shameful, disgusting, and utterly horrendous their actions are.

Yep as a swed I think this one thing that is fun/sad with america. If you got the cash you will get the treatment even if you may not want it. But if you don't have the cash you can't get the treatment you or the people close to you despretly need. Just fine to fight to save life so long it does't increase the taxes it seems some Americans think.

I know lots of Christians and lots of people who call themselves "Christians," but I don't know of anyone who says what you quote above. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the source of this quote.

Try a Bible belt. There are plenty of people that refuse life saving medical treatment, for instance innoculations, organtransplants or bloodtransfusions, because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

And whether ethics or morality is "popular" or not is totally irrelevant.
True. It was just added to show I understood why people would have trouble with the fact that such morals actually exist. It was not my intention to make them sound any less valid than the "more common" morals.

When I read the news earlier to day I just shook my head.

See, when I argued with my GF yesterday about the issue, we both came to the conclusion that, if either her or myself end up in such a situation the other one has to make sure that either her or myself die with dignity. I wouldn't want to be kept alive at all costs.

Heck, I have a little note in my driving licence (for the case of an accident) in German and English that tells doctors to use my organs in case of my braindeath. I have no problems with that, and if my organs can still be used to help somebody else, hell yes, why not. If I'm braindead then I don't need those anymore anyway.

I don't really get this decision. It just shows what happens when religious zealots jump into politics. Honestly, take her husband, I don't think it was an easy decision for him to get the tube removed, but if she wouldn't want it, he wouldn't have fought for it (hell, I know I'd have problems if I'd be in that position, but if my gf, or in this hypothetic scenario my wife, would have told me so in the past, I'd do it for her, because I love her and respect her wishes.)

I think her family are just selfcentered, egoistical bastards.

And I think her family have different beliefs from you and are strongly attached to their daughter. Personally, I don't know if I'd be able to have my significant other killed, even if she had said it. This doesn't make anynoe right or wrong, it just means there's a tricky situation which people have to try to come out of with a fair result, even if it hurts people.

As I'm sure you've noticed, I don't have any religious leanings; "It just shows what happens when religious zealots jump into politics." does not apply to me. I believe she should be kept alive because we have no proof she desired anything to the contrary, and this is an irreversable decision; you can always decide at a later date to kill her. You can't decide to bring her back. So these things should be perfectly legal, but only when they are decided by the person to whom it would happen. I don't see why this concept is so hard to grasp; it's not about Terri, it's about setting precendent.

I think her family are just selfcentered, egoistical bastards.

I think thats a little harsh, the parents love their child and want to keep her alive at all costs. Saying good bye to a son or daughter must be the hardest (and most unexpected) thing parents can do "No parent should bury their child".
We are seeing from an objective point of view which is not changed by emotion. I think if we were in said situation I think it would be a lot harder. Remember all they want is their kid back and they can't.

So keep her alive as long as they can afford to and then let her die?
If it's her time to go, she'd have died long ago from disease or something, or a natural disaster. However, she's still alive today, so it is our duty to care for her to the best of our abilities, until Mother Nature says it is time for the woman to go.

If it's her time to go, she'd have died long ago from disease or something, or a natural disaster. However, she's still alive today, so it is our duty to care for her to the best of our abilities, until Mother Nature says it is time for the woman to go.
Mother Nature? :rolleyes:
Mother nature would have taken her years ago. It's her relatives who act against mother nature. 15 years in life-supporting machines is not natural.

Here's the problem. As soon as you go into a medical facility, you don't really own your body. The facility is governed by various laws which it has to follow. Unfortunately, laws are contradictory depending on interpretion and moral issues cloud the issue. If you loose the ability to communicate your wishes to the doctors, your family gets involves but then the tangled web of laws also applies. Throw in interfering moral crusaders who make things public, you get a right royal mess where your fate is out of hands whether you want to let go or not.

Those with the illusion, we own our bodies - it's gone. This case highlights what can go wrong if people with different interests can do and rob you of your dignity when it comes to control of the thing that should be yours.

Ironically, 10% of human body is yours and the other 90% are parasites. The parasites outside your body are worse as we have seen.

in my opinion, there may be a few people, somewhere, who actually care about Terry Shiavo. of those precious few, there may be even fewer who are familiar with the case, have thought about it thoroughly, have considered it seriously, and have concluded that they think she should not be taken off the supportive machinery. and every single one of those people, rare as they are, would still be 100% wrong for supporting the proposed law preventing Terry's right to die. whether or not they think it is the right choice or not, it's not their choice to make...and it's absolutely NOT the government's choice.

but most of the people involved in this mess, including the President and the bulk of the Republican Congress, are merely revolting vultures who are using this poor woman to forward their agendas with no regard for her. they are wrong for so many reasons i don't have time to list them all, and their disgraceful behavior is an embarassment to America.
Well, it's not embarrasing to me. It gives me reassurance that there are still people in public office who care about those unable to help themselves.

Since you choose to single out the President and republicans in general for your apparent wrath, I have to assume you are one of those who have an agenda ... an anti-everyone-who-doesn't-agree-with-your-left-wing-politics agenda.

Try a Bible belt. There are plenty of people that refuse life saving medical treatment, for instance innoculations, organtransplants or bloodtransfusions, because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

True. It was just added to show I understood why people would have trouble with the fact that such morals actually exist. It was not my intention to make them sound any less valid than the "more common" morals.
I live in the "Bible Belt." The only Christians I have ever heard say anything even remotely resembling what you alledge were Christian Scientists. They are a very small denomination.

I don't really think that Congress should have become involved in this. Not that the issue is unimportant, but I feel that the people who passed this bill are not really doing it because they care. Just think, how many Congress members have had a personal experience with this kind of legal battle, or have a connection to the case beyond seeing it on the news?

Personally, I'd rather die than live attached to life-support equipment with no hope for recovery. It would be a constant drain on both my loved one's resources and medical resources that could be used to help someone else. But the woman in this case can't speak for herself, and her husband and family disagree on what she would have wanted. I really don't know whether she should be allowed to live or die, that's up to those who care for her. But there is no need for the highest legislative body in the land to step in and decide for them.

When I read the news earlier to day I just shook my head.

See, when I argued with my GF yesterday about the issue, we both came to the conclusion that, if either her or myself end up in such a situation the other one has to make sure that either her or myself die with dignity. I wouldn't want to be kept alive at all costs.

Heck, I have a little note in my driving licence (for the case of an accident) in German and English that tells doctors to use my organs in case of my braindeath. I have no problems with that, and if my organs can still be used to help somebody else, hell yes, why not. If I'm braindead then I don't need those anymore anyway.

I don't really get this decision. It just shows what happens when religious zealots jump into politics. Honestly, take her husband, I don't think it was an easy decision for him to get the tube removed, but if she wouldn't want it, he wouldn't have fought for it (hell, I know I'd have problems if I'd be in that position, but if my gf, or in this hypothetic scenario my wife, would have told me so in the past, I'd do it for her, because I love her and respect her wishes.)

I think her family are just selfcentered, egoistical bastards.
The husband waited seven years ... seven years, before suddenly "remembering" that Terri had mentioned to him many years ago that she didn't want to be kept alive if she were brain-dead. I wonder if this sudden memory-recall was before or after he started shacking up with his current slut?

I think thats a little harsh, the parents love their child and want to keep her alive at all costs. Saying good bye to a son or daughter must be the hardest (and most unexpected) thing parents can do "No parent should bury their child".
We are seeing from an objective point of view which is not changed by emotion. I think if we were in said situation I think it would be a lot harder. Remember all they want is their kid back and they can't.
I personally wouldn't call the parents selfish per se, but I think they are putting their own interests above what would be best for Terry. I don't blame them for it, as many parents in that situation would probably see things the same way, but I think that they have convinced themselves against all the evidence that Terry is going to recover. They seem to have based this idea on their conviction that Terry is able to respond to them and is fully aware, which is also against all available evidence.
I feel sorry for them, but I feel it would perhaps have been better for them to have said goodbye to Terry years ago and remember her as she was and not as she is.
As for Dubya, I have disagreed with a lot of the things he's done but this is the lowest thing I've seen. The point is that Bush couldn't care less for this woman, but he sees a chance to draw parallels through his rhetoric of compassion between this woman's hell and the abortion issues which among other things won him his election. It is perhaps not coincidence that this comes after his announcements to privatise social security which could potentially alienate much of this base of support.

There are heaps of threads on this already. No one has come up with a satisfactory reason to keep her 'alive'.
Because she's alive? Why does there need to be a reason? Because it isn't anyone's duty to stop people being alive?

I live in the "Bible Belt." The only Christians I have ever heard say anything even remotely resembling what you alledge were Christian Scientists. They are a very small denomination.

Which is exactly what I said in my original post ;) Including the small denomination part. Though in my local Bible belt there are also "common people" that believe this. Though it is not my philosophy I consider their faith quite admirable.

The stupidity is that people who have no idea what the situation is and have no personal connection to the case are publicly passing judgment on people they've never met.

The stupidity is that people who have no idea what the situation is and have no personal connection to the case are publicly passing judgment on people they've never met.
you mean like the lawmakers that passed that bill :p

We put down animals I honestly don't see why we don't do the same for people.If she's on a machine, turn it off, if she's not give her an injection and have done with it and stop draining resources/money on her.

The husband waited seven years ... seven years, before suddenly "remembering" that Terri had mentioned to him many years ago that she didn't want to be kept alive if she were brain-dead. I wonder if this sudden memory-recall was before or after he started shacking up with his current slut?

I may be wrong but I think the longest someone has been in a coma and woken up with more than a few mental faculties intact is 6 years. Maybe before then he still thought she had a chance of a decent life. That time is long gone now though.

... after he started shacking up with his current slut?
serious respect-drop

I may be wrong but I think the longest someone has been in a coma and woken up with more than a few mental faculties intact is 6 years. Maybe before then he still thought she had a chance of a decent life. That time is long gone now though.
ok I finally read more about this case and as I thought, it's more complex than "usually". She's not braindead. As far as I now know she's not connected to any other machine than the one that feeds her.

For the sake of her, I'd anyway let her die, with overdose. She has no hope and the parents should finally admit it.

After so many years it still proves a vulnerable point: euthanasie. First of all the chances that she'll ever get out of that coma are neglectable. So her husband has to pay all expenses (a lot of money) to keep her alive while she is as good as dead. Don't take me wrong this isn't a practical matter. Everyone who ever loved or cared for the poor woman have waited 15 years. Even her parents if they really love her should know that even when she takes that small chance of waking up that she won't have any life left. Life has continued without her for all these years. It's hard to imagine: you wake up after a sleep and all of a sudden all you know is older, nothing is the same, you might have had a dog, it's dead, if she had a daughter, she would have been a teenager, your husband has changed and you didn't knew it.

One of the reasons according to the parents to let her live is that she shows signs of live: following guests with her eyes, etc... These sort of things don't mean she's awake, scientist measured her brain activity: there was no respons in the part where we feel and experience things.

And this thread wasn't meant to have a spiritual side: in my eyes its wrong that the governement can decide who can live and those that can't. They know nothing of live and death, they are "sheltered". Only one son of a congressman is in Iraq. Maybe we're wrong that we discuss these things which actually don't concern us but that's what a democracy about, right? The right to discuss and critise certain actions. And maybe next time it will be your wive or husband lying in that bed for 15 years.

By the way leting the woman die like this, won't cause her any pain as I've read in the newspaper. The process was described by a doctor, specialised in these cases.

If those parents really love Terry, they'll let her pass away. It is true that no parent ever should have to bury their child yet...

I couldn't believe my eyes today as I read my morning paper. The USA have actually legislated a bill to prevent that poor woman Terri Schiavo from dying. Why won't they let that woman pass out of her misery? She's been in that coma for almost 15 years...
She is not and hasn't ever been in a coma. Now who's the stupid one?

After so many years it still proves a vulnerable point: euthanasie. First of all the chances that she'll ever get out of that coma are neglectable. So her husband has to pay all expenses (a lot of money) to keep her alive while she is as good as dead.
Her husband does not have to pay for the care. Hospital pays for it as a compensation for the mistake they made which lead to her current state.

Since she's been in a coma for 15 years she is likely completely brain dead.Again, she's not in a damn coma and she's definately not brain dead.

Again, she's not in a damn coma and she's definately not brain dead.
well that can be argued. Definition of brain death is not clear.

Then you, the all-mighty knower, might tell me in which state a person is as there is no activity in the parts of her brain and no motoric activity. It is true that she seems to react to company in her neighbourhood yet this happens in this sort of sleep (to not use coma). Anyhow she doesn't move, appears to be asleep, no specific mental activity, sounds like some sort of coma to me. It may have a scientific name in doctorsworld yet since I'm not one...

Again I meant this thread to have inference of the government as subject.

Then you, the all-mighty knower, might tell me in which state a person is as there is no activity in the parts of her brain and no motoric activity. It is true that she seems to react to company in her neighbourhood yet this happens in this sort of sleep (to not use coma). Anyhow she doesn't move, appears to be asleep, no specific mental activity, sounds like some sort of coma to me. It may have a scientific name in doctorsworld yet since I'm not one...

Again I meant this thread to have inference of the government as subject.
me? quess not but I answer anyway.

Here's a lengthy article about the definition of brain damage. Haven't read it myself (yet)
http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=civilliberty&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.changesurfer.com%2FHlth%2FBD%2FBrain.html

They are sure that she's in PVS (persistant vegetative state) and in most cases persons in PVS are disconnected from life-supporting machines. But because relatives disagree, they haven't done it in this sad case.

IMO keeping her alive is not good for anyone.

The stupidity is that people who have no idea what the situation is and have no personal connection to the case are publicly passing judgment on people they've never met.

Butbut.. are you saying that the US courts can actually be capable ? That they actually bothered to come to a well thought out difficult decision after taking all facts into account over an extended period of time, instead of just mindlessly following the lead of the husbands lawyer ?

Nah. Obviously the man in the street knows better. Why do those silly courts even exist I wonder. Lets just have mobrule on everything. That's democratic !

Edit: this was of course sarcasm.

Butbut.. are you saying that the US courts can actually be capable ? That they actually bothered to come to a well thought out difficult decision after taking all facts into account over an extended period of time, instead of just mindlessly following the lead of the husbands lawyer ?

Nah. Obviously the man in the street knows better. Why do those silly courts even exist I wonder. Lets just have mobrule on everything. That's democratic !
US courts have already decided that they should let her die. How many courts you need to get an answer?

I've always hated the medical industry. I don't trust it, they seem to take an almost preverse delight in prolonging the inevitable. Death is a reality, except it! It won't go aways and stop trying to hide it, to sanitize it! One thing I really repected about earlier times is that death was an excepted fact of life, neither welocomed or embraced it simply was ecepted for what it was. The people of the day approached it with a certain fatal or stoic mindset.

We in our modern age have lost this wise insight. Let her pass on. Let nature take it's course as there is nothing wrong with this.

except it!
Accept it.

I didn't sleep for at least 60 hours. That's all I can contribute for now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4371789.stm

Well ol' Georgey'd better be quick if he's gonna get another unconstitutional law passed. The courts have only got a couple of weeks.

Remember this is not the first time her feed tube has been removed, this time however it has not been put back whilst the bush family scramble to "save" her.

It looks like most of the people on this board are not educated nearly enough as to the nature of this case. Terri is not connected to anything other than a feeding tube. end of story. she is not brain dead. she is not in a coma, she is no more in a vegetative state than my cousing with cerebral palsey. If you allow her to euthanize her, there will be precedent in euthanizing other cases where treatment is not an option or probibitavely expensive. or simply somehting that can;t be cured.

I can see it now, rounding up all the people with aids, hepatitis, parkinson's alzheimer's, lou gherig's disease, diabetes, and other ailments and starving them to death.

Of course, if she lives it sets another precedent......that the gov'e can supercede your will. That is if terri schiavo actaully wanted to die. which i am not convinced she told her husband that. DAmned if you do, Damned if you don;t. If they do end up euthanizing her, it needs to be a bit more humane than staration. Murderers in this country die with more dignity.

US courts have already decided that they should let her die. How many courts you need to get an answer?

My post was sarcastic. Should have added a smiley..
Edit: fixed.

My post was sarcastic. Should have added a smiley..
Edit: fixed.
:) I wasn't sure.

Is a person living in what has been diagnosed as a persistant vegitative state really alive? Doesn't it take the very thing that this woman once had to be truly alive? Terry is gone and she will never return, she is an empty shell.

My heart absolutely goes out to both the husband and the parents of this woman but we treat our pets better than we do our own kin. If this was a dog or a cat there would be no question at all as to what the right thing to do was, the animal would be euthanized.

Allowing this woman to starve to death is the wrong way to resolve this, she should be euthanized because it is simply put, the most humane solution.

I can see it now, rounding up all the people with aids, hepatitis, parkinson's alzheimer's, lou gherig's disease, diabetes, and other ailments and starving them to death.


Thats the most ridiculous slippery slope argument I've ever heard. Just because one person is euthanised who hasnt had a life for 15 years you suddenly think they'll want to apply it to everyone without their consent? Thats murder, not euthanasia.

Like others have said, and regardless of what medical term you give to her state, it appears that she is only "alive" in the technical sense that her body is still operating... That is not life... Even though her body can support itself in every aspect except what requires voluntary motor control (which is the reason for the feeding tube... she simply can't feed herself, or swallow food fed to her), it is apparent that her sentience is gone... Her body is now just a machine that is still running, and is being fueled artificially...

What purpose is "life" if you can't live it, and it is likely that you never will?

And again, even if she were to miraculously improve (extremely unlikely, to the point of nigh-impossibility... if her body were going to repair itself, it would have done so before 15 years passed), her life would likely be terrible (for reasons stated elsewhere)...

So, why is it that people think it is "humane" to keep her "alive" only with the vain hope that she will someday "wake up" (for lack of a better term) to a horrible existence?

And if she never wakes up, then what was the point of keeping her "alive"? Just so her family can feel better that she is "there"? (when she really isn't, aside from physically)

So, I can find that the only reasonable and ethical thing to do is to euthanize her... I am not in favor of starving her body to death (even though it would seem that she'd never know it, anyways, with as little brain activity as she reportedly has), but there's really no good reason to force her to go on living...

Hell, even if she would have wanted to remain on support, there's a certain point where others need to step in and intervene... A person's choices are not always the best for them... Think of it like a drug abuse intervention... Of course, we approach a very dangerous line with this one, so I can't fully condone this line of reasoning, but it still seems rather logical to me...

And in all actuality, I guess I can't even say that the argument to let her go is even for her sake... For all intents and purposes, Terri Schiavo no longer even exists... Her body remains, but she does not... So letting her body cease functioning really has nothing to do with Terri... She's not there...

Well, the above statements depend on which doctors you believe, I suppose... But I've read more to the effect than otherwise that she has no hope of recovery, and has no real signs of higher mental activity, so that's what I'm going on...

And to round things off, it is my own belief that I'd wish to be killed in that situation... Even if I had full internal mental functioning, I'd still wish to be relieved of the horrible existence of nothing but lying there, staring at people whom I can't communicate with, and looking out a window to a world I might never see again outside of that little square... It would be torture...

So again, the only reasonable action that I can conclude is to let the woman die...

[Edit:] And precendence is of no concern... Just because this conclusion is reached in this case, doesn't mean it can be applied to all others... Every case needs to be judged independently... You can't assume that someone will say "Well, this person should be let go because that is what they did to Terri Schiavo..." That's foolishness...

And if any similar case came up where this same reasoning could be applied, it is not done so because of this case's conclusion... It is done so because it applies to that case independently...

What purpose is "life" if you can't live it, and it is likely that you never will?
<snip>
So, why is it that people think it is "humane" to keep her "alive" only with the vain hope that she will someday "wake up" (for lack of a better term) to a horrible existence?

Because some people think that life has intrinsic value, and that the actual quality, quantity, or the wishes of the person living that life are of a secondary concern. Most use religion, specifically the existance of a Soul and a divine plan, as supporting argument for this. From an objective viewpoint this reasoning is just as valid as saying that the person living the life is what is truly important. Very few advocates from "sacred life" however accept that:

a. If you think life should always be promoted, regardless of quality and quantity, you should encourage breeding without limits. Not just being against anticonception, but in favour of women being pregnant all the time. Ignoring population or foodshortage issues. In fact, you should encourage cloning. Everything to get as much humans on this world as possible. And then some more.

b. If you think only God can decide who is to live and who is to die you should not accept medical treatment that prolongs your life. There are actually some fundamentalists that do think this way, refusing operations - for which I salute them. They are at least consistent in their reasoning and beliefs.

Assuming there really is no hope of recovery for Terri only supporters of "sacred life philosophy a" should be against her death. A philosophy which is inconsistent. Philosophy B states God should decide - which means she will most likely starve. A "person-centered" life philosophy finally says one should honour Terri's wish. Which seems to have been to let her die.

I couldn't believe my eyes today as I read my morning paper. The USA have actually legislated a bill to prevent that poor woman Terri Schiavo from dying. Why won't they let that woman pass out of her misery? She's been in that coma for almost 15 years, she won't even recognise todays world if she ever get out of that coma. Do her parents really thinks everything will be back to normal if she recovered? The chance for a complete recovery are miniscule and doctors everywhere say pull the plug and do the humane thing. Even if she makes a recovery she will maybe have lost some of brain abilities. I thinks this is only possible in the US: Bush has no problem of sending hundreds of American soldiers to their death in a place where they shouldn't have been in the first place but for one woman he's willing to cut his vacation short. :headbang:I agree, that bill was completely absurd... and I think the federal government had absolutely no right to interfere with the state in this particular instance!! Also, I smell a rat... Bush's language seemed remarkably similar to the language he's used when referring to his anti-abortion stance.

Also? Apparently about 70% of the citizens think Congress overstepped its boundaries on this one! (I heard that on NPR this morning.)

Well if 70% of us think they blew it should that not be grounds for immediate dismissal from their positions so that we can get people in there that will actually follow the will of the people like they are supposed to?

Well if 70% of us think they blew it should that not be grounds for immediate dismissal from their positions so that we can get people in there that will actually follow the will of the people like they are supposed to?Well, I wouldn't exactly go that far... I think there are good reasons not to have a completely direct democracy! But I think it's a sign that Congress might want to start paying attention to the opinions of its constituency... or there may very well be a changeover, starting in 2006!

snip

I can see it now, rounding up all the people with aids, hepatitis, parkinson's alzheimer's, lou gherig's disease, diabetes, and other ailments and starving them to death.
snip

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

It's not coming out of taxpayers pocket is it?