NationStates Jolt Archive

Curioser and curioser! Now there's videotaped testimony that Terri Schiavo's husband attempted to have her injected with unneeded insulin to induce insulin shock, which is fatal if immediate emergency measures aren't taken. Is this indicative of anything, or just an interesting side note to this entire tragedy?

He seems to be a pretty weird character. It is possible that he genuinely wants to end her misery, but who knows.

How does he stand to gain from her death?

Curioser and curioser! Now there's videotaped testimony that Terri Schiavo's husband attempted to have her injected with unneeded insulin to induce insulin shock, which is fatal if immediate emergency measures aren't taken. Is this indicative of anything, or just an interesting side note to this entire tragedy?

Well, I personally would hate to be a vegitable and would rather be killed. Given the choices presented I think I would rather have the insulin. Then again it's not my choice. With that thought in mind I am not sure what to say of the husband trying to induce insulin shock. On one hand it goes against the way that she was supposed to die, but on the other hand dying in 1-2 hours is better than dying over 1-2 weeks.

How does he stand to gain from her death?
That is the question, is it not? Unfortunately, I don't have enough information to answer it with any degree of certainty. :(

That is the question, is it not? Unfortunately, I don't have enough information to answer it with any degree of certainty. :(
Well if he doesnt stand to gain in any real way, then that has to count in his favour. It's very unlikely he'd just want to kill her.

Curioser and curioser! Now there's videotaped testimony that Terri Schiavo's husband attempted to have her injected with unneeded insulin to induce insulin shock, which is fatal if immediate emergency measures aren't taken. Is this indicative of anything, or just an interesting side note to this entire tragedy?

From what I have read, I think it might be there husbands sheer desperation of seeing his wife still in a coma and wanting to end it. Therefore I would put it under sidenote for now...

Whats your thoughts on it Eutrusca?

From what I have read, I think it might be there husbands sheer desperation of seeing his wife still in a coma and wanting to end it. Therefore I would put it under sidenote for now...

Whats your thoughts on it Eutrusca?
I honestly don't know. I don't like this guy, since he shacked up with another woman while his wife was in this state, which makes it even more important that I not jump to conclusions. There are lots of possibilities: insurance, estate, just to be free of the burden, etc. I just don't have enough information.

I honestly don't know. I don't like this guy, since he shacked up with another woman while his wife was in this state, which makes it even more important that I not jump to conclusions. There are lots of possibilities: insuance, estate, just to be free of the burden, etc. I just don't have enough information.
But his wife is in effect dead, i very much doubt theres anything of the woman he married left.

And are you sayign taht after 15 years he cant fall in love with someone else. Should we all stay widows or widowers for the rest of our lives?

I honestly don't know. I don't like this guy, since he shacked up with another woman while his wife was in this state, which makes it even more important that I not jump to conclusions. There are lots of possibilities: insurance, estate, just to be free of the burden, etc. I just don't have enough information.

She's been this way for 12 years. Do you really expect him to not have a life for that long? I think that is a valid point.

Actually I heard the husband stands to gain alot from her death. He received a settlement from the whole ordeal and now he wants her gone so he can go spend it..................the medical attention costs alot for his wife and well.............figure it out. How will we ever know if she really wanted to die or not, it's not in writing. I mean she probably did want to die, or not live like this, but he is getting sick of it all and just wants it to end, whether its in his best interest or not..........will we ever know.

I still think the money has something to do with it. My opinion.

EDIT: Me myself, would NOT want to live like this........its been 12 years, let it go (my opinion again).

Actually I heard the husband stands to gain alot from her death. He received a settlement from the whole ordeal and now he wants her gone so he can go spend it..................the medical attention costs alot for his wife and well.............figure it out. How will we ever know if she really wanted to die or not, it's not in writing. I mean she probably did want to die, or not live like this, but he is getting sick of it all and just wants it to end, whether its in his best interest or not..........will we ever know.

I still think the money has something to do with it. My opinion.

You got a source for that? or is it just hearsay?

I feel that in cases of euthanasia (which to me, this case seems to be), the doctor should not be in the position of having to kill the patient.

The person in charge of making the decision should have to commit the act (providing of course, that the patient is incapable). If a terminal patient wants to die, and is capable of action, they should take a lethal dose of barbituates provided by the doctor - on their own.

A person who asks that a terminal patient under their authority be allowed to die should have to use something like a pistol shot to the head.

Anyone who doesn't have the stomach to do it should not get assistance. If he wants to fulfill her wishes, and wishes to have her die, he should not simply ask the doctors to starve her. He should be required to shoot her in the head all by himself.

You got a source for that? or is it just hearsay?
It was on the news a while back...........thats all I know, not sure how it all came about or details, sorry.

I feel that in cases of euthanasia (which to me, this case seems to be), the doctor should not be in the position of having to kill the patient.

The person in charge of making the decision should have to commit the act (providing of course, that the patient is incapable). If a terminal patient wants to die, and is capable of action, they should take a lethal dose of barbituates provided by the doctor - on their own.

A person who asks that a terminal patient under their authority be allowed to die should have to use something like a pistol shot to the head.

Anyone who doesn't have the stomach to do it should not get assistance. If he wants to fulfill her wishes, and wishes to have her die, he should not simply ask the doctors to starve her. He should be required to shoot her in the head all by himself.
Im sure he would, that however is called murder.

You got a source for that? or is it just hearsay?
http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/humaneuthinasia/a/bgTerry.htm

Terry Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 following a heart attack. The brain damage left her unable to care for herself so for the last 13 years she’s had a feeding tube in her for nutrients and fluids.

Terry was awarded a substantial malpractice settlement for the improperly diagnosed potassium deficiency that led to the heart attack and collapse which damaged her brain. The settlement was for continuation of her care and rehabilitation, among other things.

Curioser and curioser! Now there's videotaped testimony that Terri Schiavo's husband attempted to have her injected with unneeded insulin to induce insulin shock, which is fatal if immediate emergency measures aren't taken. Is this indicative of anything, or just an interesting side note to this entire tragedy?
I always knew that SOB was up to no good... :mad: :mp5: :gundge:

And who know what true or false when you hear it on the news.......right?

Regardless of all the heresay and facts of this case, I would like to know one thing: Where are all of the people who are so outraged about the "injustices" done in Iraq (the prison scandal, etc.), those who line up to protest a convicted criminal being put to death, those who are outraged by fishing, hunting, etc.
Where is the ACLU?

Unbelievable...

But his wife is in effect dead, i very much doubt theres anything of the woman he married left.

And are you sayign taht after 15 years he cant fall in love with someone else. Should we all stay widows or widowers for the rest of our lives?
No, but as I stated in another thread, there are still such things as personal responsibility, devotion to the person you married, honor, etc. I usually don't like sitting in judgement on other people, nor do I usually feel qualified to do so, but in this case I will make an exception based on my own philosophy.

Although my wife and I have been separated for over five years now, if she were to ( for example ) contract Alzheimer's, I feel very, very strongly that it would be my personal responsibility to care for her in whatever way I could. This is someone I chose to love, the mother of my children, the one who worked a full-time job so we could pay for a good life for our family, the one who cleaned my dirty laundry, who cooked for me, who still helps me when I do stupid things like break my leg in a bicycling accident. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't do everything I could to help her when she needs me.

Curioser and curioser! Now there's videotaped testimony that Terri Schiavo's husband attempted to have her injected with unneeded insulin to induce insulin shock, which is fatal if immediate emergency measures aren't taken. Is this indicative of anything, or just an interesting side note to this entire tragedy?

Well.. currently she basicly will starve to death. If she is truly a vegetable that will of course not make any real difference to her -but seeing the body get weaker and uglier every day would be an extremely unpleasant sight, tainting the memories of her her loved ones have even further. As well as resulting in many unpleasant pictures still useable by anti-euthanasia activists for years to come, regardless of the fact that people are letting her die naturally instead of actively euthanising her.

In other words: if the courts have decided that keeping her alive no longer serves any purpose, end it. Quickly. Let her keep at least some dignity. I do not know if the husband attempted to end her life for this reason, but the action itself has my support.

http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/humaneuthinasia/a/bgTerry.htm

Terry Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 following a heart attack. The brain damage left her unable to care for herself so for the last 13 years she’s had a feeding tube in her for nutrients and fluids.

Terry was awarded a substantial malpractice settlement for the improperly diagnosed potassium deficiency that led to the heart attack and collapse which damaged her brain. The settlement was for continuation of her care and rehabilitation, among other things.

You found it.

http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/humaneuthinasia/a/bgTerry.htm

Terry Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 following a heart attack. The brain damage left her unable to care for herself so for the last 13 years she’s had a feeding tube in her for nutrients and fluids.

Terry was awarded a substantial malpractice settlement for the improperly diagnosed potassium deficiency that led to the heart attack and collapse which damaged her brain. The settlement was for continuation of her care and rehabilitation, among other things.

That doesnt have anything to do with what bellesalona was talking about. He said the husband got a considerable financial settlement that only kicks in when she dies, giving him a motive to kill her or get her life support ended. That link doesnt mention anything like that.

edit: damn stupid me, didnt read the second page, sorry forget it. Although apparently there's little money to be gained and he will give it to charity if she dies.

http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/humaneuthinasia/a/bgTerry.htm

Terry Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 following a heart attack. The brain damage left her unable to care for herself so for the last 13 years she’s had a feeding tube in her for nutrients and fluids.

Terry was awarded a substantial malpractice settlement for the improperly diagnosed potassium deficiency that led to the heart attack and collapse which damaged her brain. The settlement was for continuation of her care and rehabilitation, among other things.


A potassium deficiency brought on by her own actions. Yes, she was anorexic or bulimic, you choose.
She is in the state she is today because of HER actions.

I feel that in cases of euthanasia (which to me, this case seems to be), the doctor should not be in the position of having to kill the patient.

The person in charge of making the decision should have to commit the act (providing of course, that the patient is incapable). If a terminal patient wants to die, and is capable of action, they should take a lethal dose of barbituates provided by the doctor - on their own.

A person who asks that a terminal patient under their authority be allowed to die should have to use something like a pistol shot to the head.

Anyone who doesn't have the stomach to do it should not get assistance. If he wants to fulfill her wishes, and wishes to have her die, he should not simply ask the doctors to starve her. He should be required to shoot her in the head all by himself.
From the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm." :(

Regardless of all the heresay and facts of this case, I would like to know one thing: Where are all of the people who are so outraged about the "injustices" done in Iraq (the prison scandal, etc.), those who line up to protest a convicted criminal being put to death, those who are outraged by fishing, hunting, etc.
Where is the ACLU?

Unbelievable...
I suspect it's far too close to the "Right To Life" issue for them to feel comfortable getting involved. Sad.

I also heard that the money the husband got for her health services in the settlement........well he would NOT allow any physical therapy and everyday he kept her in the dark, literally - he wanted the shades drawn in her room all the time (not sure, but I think light and the sun is better than dark for someone). Again, its what I heard.

But he wouldn't allow anything more than what he had to with the money.

I dont' trust him..........all the shady things going around.

OH and with the loyalty thing above.........yes loyalty, we do owe that, but for how long and what if there is no hope..........I know my husband would want me to go on and try to live a happy life. And he would know I still love him no matter what my decision or whatever..........IF the doctors said no hope and it went on for 12 years, my husband would understand (if he could). Heck if he snapped out of it, then hmmmmmmmmm.....this is such a touch topic isn't it?

No, but as I stated in another thread, there are still such things as personal responsibility, devotion to the person you married, honor, etc. I usually don't like sitting in judgement on other people, nor do I usually feel qualified to do so, but in this case I will make an exception based on my own philosophy.

Although my wife and I have been separated for over five years now, if she were to ( for example ) contract Alzheimer's, I feel very, very strongly that it would be my personal responsibility to care for her in whatever way I could. This is someone I chose to love, the mother of my children, the one who worked a full-time job so we could pay for a good life for our family, the one who cleaned my dirty laundry, who cooked for me, who still helps me when I do stupid things like break my leg in a bicycling accident. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't do everything I could to help her when she needs me.

But if you're wife was dead and only her body remained. Would you care for that?

From the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm." :(
And the whole euthanasia debate centers around the question if forcing someone to live against their will is not also doing harm...

In the Terri case one can even wonder if it is possible to do harm to her by ending her life. If her mind is truly gone, she will after all not notice it. But her memory may at least be preserved.

This is of course assuming the courts and doctors did their job.

Regardless of all the heresay and facts of this case, I would like to know one thing: Where are all of the people who are so outraged about the "injustices" done in Iraq (the prison scandal, etc.), those who line up to protest a convicted criminal being put to death, those who are outraged by fishing, hunting, etc.
Where is the ACLU?

Unbelievable...
What the hell does that ACLU have to do with this, exactly?

Also, I'm a vegetarian and fishing and hunting for food don't outrage me in the least. For sport, yes. As long as the animal dies and you make use of it, that's fine by me.

However, she's not getting any better, let her go.

But if you're wife was dead and only her body remained. Would you care for that?
I would certainly hope so. That would still be at least part of her, and I could no more walk away than I could cut off my own right arm with a rusty saw. :(

But if you're wife was dead and only her body remained. Would you care for that?
But where do you draw the line.........honestly? I mean I have a big heart and all but really where is it morally right to draw the line, this is way to tough of an issue. People all around the world should go out and start working on their living wills........HONESTLY. YOu can actually do it for free..........lots of websites and get a few signatures and bammm........Not sure if its that easy, but.............I sure am looking into it. Have always thought about it, but never wrote down my wishes.

I would certainly hope so. That would still be at least part of her, and I could no more walk away than I could cut off my own right arm with a rusty saw. :(
I'll hold you to that. When you're wife dies, if you're still alive, i expect you to care for, wash clean attempt to feed and entertain her corpse.

And honestly, with all do respect..........look at her. If it were me, I would be begging some how to just let me go. My life here is done, please look at me and let me be. (If I were her). Just my opinion.

I am not a cold killer..........just feel bad for her actually.........12 years guys. Wow. Have they even said that ANYTHING could be done to start with rehabilitation? Is there any hope or is it just HOPE? Honestly have you heard anything?

And honestly, with all do respect..........look at her. If it were me, I would be begging some how to just let me go. My life here is done, please look at me and let me be. (If I were her). Just my opinion.

I am not a cold killer..........just feel bad for her actually.........12 years guys. Wow. Have they even said that ANYTHING could be done to start with rehabilitation? Is there any hope or is it just HOPE? Honestly have you heard anything?

She is where she is because of stroke which starved her brain of oxygen. She is not just in a coma where you can recover.

Her parents say shes gettign better and that she somehow, i dont know how she shows this, recognises them.

However theyve been saying this for 12 years, i think its just parental optomism, which frankly doesnt have much grounding in medicine.

I'll hold you to that. When you're wife dies, if you're still alive, i expect you to care for, wash clean attempt to feed and entertain her corpse.
I suspect you misunderstand me. If my wife is totally dead, not just brain dead, she will get as good a funeral as I can afford. If she is in a vegetative state, or a semi-vegitative state, she will get the best care I can provide. She is my wife, for God's sake, and she deserves the best I can give her.

EDIT: I understand that not everyone feels this way about their significant other. I also understand that not everyone has the strength to bear this sort of burden. I don't hold this up as a standard for anyone besides myself. Call me a dinosaur if it pleases you, but I was raised to believe in things like personal responsibility, devotion to those you love, and honor. It's sometimes a difficult set of standards to live up to, but over the 62 years I have lived so far, it's worked for me.

She is where she is because of stroke which starved her brain of oxygen. She is not just in a coma where you can recover.
Heart attack, but same difference.

I suspect you misunderstand me. If my wife is totally dead, not just brain dead, she will get as good a funeral as I can afford. If she is in a vegetative state, or a semi-vegitative state, she will get the best care I can provide. She is my wife, for God's sake, and she deserves the best I can give her.
No, no, you misunderstood me. I asked if you would care for your wifes body if she were dead. Sure she was you're wife, but you have to sak yourself what part of her did you marry? Her body or her mind.

this is such a sticky situation. I genuinally feel for her.....but in my eyes, starving someone is not very nice. Not that I would want to be the one to let her go........end it for her.........I think people or family just have to realize shes already gone.....now just let her body go too. Again I am not cold, this is just my opinion. She is already gone, let her body go with her.

I would certainly hope so. That would still be at least part of her, and I could no more walk away than I could cut off my own right arm with a rusty saw. :(
And you are what? Older than dirt? The Schiavos are, or were... below 30?

Heart attack, but same difference.

Both potentially fatal. In this case, it's left a very sad legacy. Near death, but not quite.

Heart attack, but same difference.
...Neither, it was some chemical embalance thing that went wrong somewhere and starved her brain for oxygen

No, no, you misunderstood me. I asked if you would care for your wifes body if she were dead. Sure she was you're wife, but you have to sak yourself what part of her did you marry? Her body or her mind.
I married all of her ... spirit, soul and body. I have responsibility to care for her, or any part of her which still lives.

EDIT: No one made me marry her. I married her of my own free will and chose to love her and honor her and cherish her, regardless of circumstances. All my life I have tried to live up to my commitments and have no intention of changing at this late date.

And again........12 years! Not just recently. And they keep saying the same thing........but really what kind of progress have you seen in her? Anyone?

if my wife was in a car accident and nothing remained of her but an arm, i'm pretty sure that i would not be allowed to put the arm on life support.

this poor woman has had her thinking brain replaced with a lump of strawberry jell-o. what's left of it is swiss cheese. she shows the involuntary reactions of a goldfish, and her motion towards sound is no more concious than a potted plant turning towards the light.

let her rest in peace. she's been a vegetable for almost as long as i've been alive. it's really time for the parents to face the music.

their attitude on the whole subect is no different than that of a family that has recently lost a child, setting the dinner table and cleaning their room. they just can't let themselves believe that their daughter is dead.

...Neither, it was some chemical embalance thing that went wrong somewhere and starved her brain for oxygen
I believe that some drugs were wrongly administered to her that caused or failed to prvent a heart attack that starved her brain of oxygen.

if my wife was in a car accident and nothing remained of her but an arm, i'm pretty sure that i would not be allowed to put the arm on life support.

this poor woman has had her thinking brain replaced with a lump of strawberry jell-o. what's left of it is swiss cheese. she shows the involuntary reactions of a goldfish, and her motion towards sound is no more concious than a potted plant turning towards the light.

let her rest in peace. she's been a vegetable for almost as long as i've been alive. it's really time for the parents to face the music.

their attitude on the whole subect is no different than that of a family that has recently lost a child, setting the dinner table and cleaning their room. they just can't let themselves believe that their daughter is dead.

If the husband wants her to die, he should be required to shoot her in the head himself. Not this "pull the tube out and wait a couple of weeks".

If he doesn't have the balls to do it himself, it shouldn't be done.

I believe that some drugs were wrongly administered to her that caused or failed to prvent a heart attack that starved her brain of oxygen.
I'm not sure why the drugs were administered but I'm positive they have nothing to do with heart attacks. And strokes will starve the brain, I didn't think heart attacks will

If the husband wants her to die, he should be required to shoot her in the head himself. Not this "pull the tube out and wait a couple of weeks".

If he doesn't have the balls to do it himself, it shouldn't be done.
Write Florida Senators and petition to make euthanasia legal. You are quite done on this subject

I'm not sure why the drugs were administered but I'm positive they have nothing to do with heart attacks. And strokes will starve the brain, I didn't think heart attacks will
They do, thats the whole piont of a heart attack (yes i know dont tell me). The heart attack stops the heart working... no blood pumped, no oxygen for the brain. Cause and effect :P. I'll see waht the BBC has to say on the matter.

If the husband wants her to die, he should be required to shoot her in the head himself. Not this "pull the tube out and wait a couple of weeks".

If he doesn't have the balls to do it himself, it shouldn't be done.
I remember a case where the father of a dying child held hospital staff and security guards off at gunpoint while he took his son off life-support and held him in his arms while he died, then surrendered to police. I have great respect for this man. He exercised his personal responsibility toward his son and willingly accepted the possible consequences of his actions.

Ok, so I say this. if the parents want her to live, let them take the responsibility along with all the bills! (And yes I know this is what they are saying).........but do you really think we haven't put in a dime for her attention or won't? Yes if my state were MEDICALLY proven to improve and we didn't have the money, I would be so appreciative of the state to help out.........but, giminee christmas.........I still can't get past the time frame and her state and...........wow I just sound cold.

Write Florida Senators and petition to make euthanasia legal. You are quite done on this subject

No, most euthanasia legislation is written to involve the doctor as the killer.

Doctors should not be required to do anything.

If you want to kill the patient, and you have legal custody and power of attorney, and you want to end the person's life, you should be required to do it with a pistol shot to the head.

It's not quite what you think - I am saying that euthanasia should force the person asking to do something violent and non-medical.

No, most euthanasia legislation is written to involve the doctor as the killer.

Doctors should not be required to do anything.

If you want to kill the patient, and you have legal custody and power of attorney, and you want to end the person's life, you should be required to do it with a pistol shot to the head.

It's not quite what you think - I am saying that euthanasia should force the person asking to do something violent and non-medical.
Killing people doesn't always involve something violent. Your opinion is angry and rather annoying

25 February 1990: Terri Schiavo collapses at home

November 1992: Michael Schiavo wins case against doctors he accused of misdiagnosing his wife; awarded $700,000 for her care and $300,000 for himself

29 July 1993: Schindlers file petition to have Mr Schiavo removed as Mrs Schiavo's guardian; case later dismissed

May 1998: Mr Schiavo files petition to remove Mrs Schiavo's feeding tube

Well from what ive got so far :P... give me time.

Shes been like this for 15 years as i was originally say not 12, and he waited 8 years before deciding to try and have her feeding tube removed. On top of that he recieved a money for himself out of the court settlment. The money for her care is probably only usable for her care, and even if its not, it may well be nearly all gone by now.

ill carry on looking for what caused all this though.

I just say let her go in dignity, if she has any left. Boy I think I'm gonna go start my wishes now........and hope this never happens and if it does, I have my wishes in writing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3141058.stm

take a little read :D. might clear a little up. Not everything though im afriad :P.

Killing people doesn't always involve something violent. Your opinion is angry and rather annoying

It's not angry. I find that most people who, for instance, find it easy to take an unwanted pet to the vet to have it put down cannot bring themselves to kill the pet themselves.

They want an easy way out.

I'm just making sure that the person asking for the euthanasia isn't asking for an easy way out for themselves.

Read your John Steinbeck, and you'll know I'm not angry.

Yea I guess with how sticky this is, I just wasn't doing the math correctly. Thanks for the info you found, maybe he's not so cold.........but we will never know..........and maybe the money thing isn't a factor for him........honestly I think he wants to go on and not feel guilty living his life without her and she still be alive. He may have some peace if shes gone, compared to him leaving her like this. Not saying its right, wrong or whatever, but I think that is part of what he is feeling. Does that make sense.

It's not angry. I find that most people who, for instance, find it easy to take an unwanted pet to the vet to have it put down cannot bring themselves to kill the pet themselves.

They want an easy way out.

I'm just making sure that the person asking for the euthanasia isn't asking for an easy way out for themselves.

Read your John Steinbeck, and you'll know I'm not angry.
I read Steinbeck and you still have an angry unrealistic opinion. Just because people can't kill their beloved dog themselves doesn't mean the old, decrepit, suffering thing should be forced to go on

Yea I guess with how sticky this is, I just wasn't doing the math correctly. Thanks for the info you found, maybe he's not so cold.........but we will never know..........and maybe the money thing isn't a factor for him........honestly I think he wants to go on and not feel guilty living his life without her and she still be alive. He may have some peace if shes gone, compared to him leaving her like this. Not saying its right, wrong or whatever, but I think that is part of what he is feeling. Does that make sense.
Yes, it makes sense, although I have no respect whatsoever for such a position.

If you want to kill the patient, and you have legal custody and power of attorney, and you want to end the person's life, you should be required to do it with a pistol shot to the head.


You feel pretty strongly about shooting someone in the head it seems. Not sure thats a good thing.

Ok question..........if she can survive on her own.....heart, lungs and so on, just needs a feeding tube.........why is she in a hospital? Why not a home? I cared for a child who had to be tube fed and went to school and so on........of course this child had little functioning in the brain, but the only help she needed besides being mentally handicapped was the tube feeding.

why is she still in a hospital, bring her home and let her parents care for her..........after reading all that and knowing she can live on her own and just needs help eating..........let her parents take her. yes then the husband is being a bit selfish........and going against for better or worse, but you know what........that's his problem.........let them both go their ways and people can think what they want of him and the parents can do what THEY think is right. Hey maybe the parents can hire some rehabilitation and physical therapy and hope.

Yes, it makes sense, although I have no respect whatsoever for such a position.
Neither do I, I think that its wrong..........but that's what I think he may be thinking.........I never said it was right, just so you know.

I'd imagine bodily functions are completely gone. Which means cleaning her ass 1-2 times a day. Emptying the bedpan. Scrubbing her down etc.

Its a very tough job.

I'd imagine bodily functions are completely gone. Which means cleaning her ass 1-2 times a day. Emptying the bedpan. Scrubbing her down etc.

Its a very tough job.
Have you ever done it.........I have its very tough. And guess waht we do it every day for millions of the elderly, doesn't mean we can just let it go. This is not a slame on you.........just a yes it's tough.

Per the financial records on www.terrisfight.org, there's only about $50,000 of the original settlement left. Most of it has been spent on attorneys. As for his motives, I have trouble reconciling that he is doing this out of love and respect for her wishes. He's not allowed her to even be rolled out of her room to be around other residents or into the fresh air and sunshine. He says this was her wish, but no consideration is being given to her religious beliefs. She is Catholic. As a Catholic, although I wouldn't want to live in a severely limited state, as she does, I would not want extreme steps....like starvation and dehydration...to be taken to end my life. If this is her wish being carried out, in the eyes of the Church, this is suicide...a mortal sin. Along this same line, at one of her earlier feeding tube removals, he denied her a visit from a priest for last rites. It almost seems at time that he is exercising a vendetta against her. :confused:

In watching the news last night and this morning, I gathered some other interesting information. A neurologist, who has been nominated for a Nobel for his work with mentally impaired people, stated that he had examine Terri for 10 hours. In his opinion, she was in much better mental shape than a lot of his patients that he has had success with. He noted her ability to swallow, focus her attention, and attempt to verbalize, among other things. He also noted that a total of 33 experts in the field believe that she isn't in a persistent vegetative state compared to 4 doctors paid by Mr Schiavo. Mr Schiavo has not allowed any of these other doctors to personally examine her.

An interview with Terri's siblings also brought some interesting info to light. At the time of her collapse at home, paramedics called the police citing a possible domestic abuse incident. After getting her to the hospital it was found that she had a broken femur and bruising around the neck. If she were to receive therapy and be able to talk again, might he be looking at some felony charges?

Another possible motive is money. Although the settlement is almost gone, there is still real property to be considered. Also, any financial gains made in the last 15 years are half hers, as his wife. This would include real estate equity, bank accounts, investments, etc. Another question that he has refused to answer....does he have a life insurance policy on Terri with himself as beneficiary?

There are too many questions and doubts surrounding this whole affair. Unless Terri is given a thorough exam by an unbiased physician and some serious questions aren't addressed, people will always have doubts and Mr Schiavo will always have a cloud of suspision hanging over him. Why wouldn't he make every effort to avoid that?

I read Steinbeck and you still have an angry unrealistic opinion. Just because people can't kill their beloved dog themselves doesn't mean the old, decrepit, suffering thing should be forced to go on

No, he's right. Not so much because a person should have to prove anything, but more because such a thing should never be put onto other people. If it came to a case of mercy, I can only hope I'd be able to pull the trigger.

I agree with Zooke. If all that is true (which we may never know). But hey, if there is progress and an unbiased doctor prooved that.........let her be with her parents. Their are thousands and more of mentally handicapped allowed to live out their lives.....We don't know the husbands motive........but with all surrounding it........it doens't look good.......but then he is the one who will have to live with it on his shoulder.

my opinion, ONLY if I was promised to get better, would I want to live like that. Sorry my opinion, I would not want to be mentally and physically handicapped.........heck who would. Oh geesh.........enough of me - can't seem to think straight........

It sure will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

Per the financial records on www.terrisfight.org, there's only about $50,000 of the original settlement left. Most of it has been spent on attorneys.
Obviously, the parents wouldn't let it die.


In watching the news last night and this morning, I gathered some other interesting information. A neurologist, who has been nominated for a Nobel for his work with mentally impaired people, stated that he had examine Terri for 10 hours. In his opinion, she was in much better mental shape than a lot of his patients that he has had success with. He noted her ability to swallow, focus her attention, and attempt to verbalize, among other things. He also noted that a total of 33 experts in the field believe that she isn't in a persistent vegetative state compared to 4 doctors paid by Mr Schiavo. Mr Schiavo has not allowed any of these other doctors to personally examine her.
There is no need for a feeding tube if she can swallow, toss it. The court ordered physician agreed with Schiavo's experts.

An interview with Terri's siblings also brought some interesting info to light. At the time of her collapse at home, paramedics called the police citing a possible domestic abuse incident. After getting her to the hospital it was found that she had a broken femur and bruising around the neck. If she were to receive therapy and be able to talk again, might he be looking at some felony charges?
Why are the siblings the ONLY ones with this information? And her is something clever: time of her collapse. If she collaped, I would suppose she wasn't lucky enough to be lounging around in her easy chair

No, he's right. Not so much because a person should have to prove anything, but more because such a thing should never be put onto other people. If it came to a case of mercy, I can only hope I'd be able to pull the trigger.
You arn't everyone and everyone isn't you, doesn't mean everything should still only happen the way you think it should

There are too many questions and doubts surrounding this whole affair. Unless Terri is given a thorough exam by an unbiased physician and some serious questions aren't addressed, people will always have doubts and Mr Schiavo will always have a cloud of suspision hanging over him. Why wouldn't he make every effort to avoid that?

Why do so many people seem convinced the American Court system consists of idiots that have not thought about this at all for the past years, but are more then willing to believe everything a website says?

Here's a question. Life insurance......would it kick in in a situation like this? I mean if it's not an accident (her dying) or natural.......or is it natural to take the tubes away and let her die. Wonder what stipulations on life insurance.

Doctors payed by the Schindlers say they are right, doctors payed by Schiavo side with him, as well as court appointed doctors

You feel pretty strongly about shooting someone in the head it seems. Not sure thats a good thing.

I'm saying that if you're asking that someone die, and you're not willing to do it yourself, then it shouldn't be done.

No one should get off light by being permitted to ask a doctor to do it.

It should be a deliberate act on the part of the person asking for it.

If he doesn't have the balls to do it himself, without the assistance of any medical personnel, then perhaps he's not ready. Otherwise, proceed!

Doctors payed by the Schindlers say they are right, doctors payed by Schiavo side with him, as well as court appointed doctors

So who is right? It seems all like matters of opinions and each has their own facts or thoughts...........so how could a judge rule on that?

I'm saying that if you're asking that someone die, and you're not willing to do it yourself, then it shouldn't be done.

No one should get off light by being permitted to ask a doctor to do it.

It should be a deliberate act on the part of the person asking for it.

If he doesn't have the balls to do it himself, without the assistance of any medical personnel, then perhaps he's not ready. Otherwise, proceed!
Well the topic of this thread is "he tried to inject insulin." Sound like trying to do it himself to me

So who is right? It seems all like matters of opinions and each has their own facts or thoughts...........so how could a judge rule on that?
Becuase the court appointed physicians side with Schiavo that she can't recover and the only argument her parents have is she can recover maybe

It should be a deliberate act on the part of the person asking for it.

If he doesn't have the balls to do it himself, without the assistance of any medical personnel, then perhaps he's not ready. Otherwise, proceed!
Would they allow him to pull the tube himself? It's not a shot in the head, but probably the same outcome. So would it be allowed for him to be the person to pull the tube?

Would they allow him to pull the tube himself? It's not a shot in the head, but probably the same outcome. So would it be allowed for him to be the person to pull the tube?

It would have to be something quick. Pulling the tube is going to take up to two weeks.

It should also be something non-medical. It shouldn't be made any easier for the person doing the killing.

Well the topic of this thread is "he tried to inject insulin." Sound like trying to do it himself to me
If that is true though........why is he not in prison for attempted murder?

Well the topic of this thread is "he tried to inject insulin." Sound like trying to do it himself to me

He should have used a non-medical method. Quietly injecting someone is making it too easy.

If you had to kill your own animal, each time that you wanted to eat meat, how often would you eat meat?

Killing is a difficult and highly personal activity. We shouldn't make it any easier - by giving him a syringe or letting him ask a doctor.

Shiavo Update:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7254897/?GT1=6305

It should also be something non-medical. It shouldn't be made any easier for the person doing the killing.
You are a sad, obsessed little man. Your opinion is unrealistic and pointlessly spiteful and angry. Why? Because you can't come to terms with everyone isn't you or something? Honestly.

If that is true though........why is he not in prison for attempted murder?
I don't know or care, I was just making a relevant point

She is Catholic. As a Catholic, although I wouldn't want to live in a severely limited state, as she does, I would not want extreme steps....like starvation and dehydration...to be taken to end my life. If this is her wish being carried out, in the eyes of the Church, this is suicide...a mortal sin.

No, she would (most likely) die naturally due to starvation without aid. Which means her death would be the will of God. Letting her live could in fact be seen as defying the will of God. However, this is logic. Logic and religion generally don't mix well.

That aside, letting her die slowly, "rotting away" so to speak would destroy any remains of dignity her memory has left after this mediacircus.

If the husband wants her to die, he should be required to shoot her in the head himself. Not this "pull the tube out and wait a couple of weeks".

If he doesn't have the balls to do it himself, it shouldn't be done.
Legalize suicide and assisted suicide and it'd be all in the good, I'm one to believe that all laws should be based on the violation of free will, so freely choosing to do something that ensures your death, or allowing someone else to endanger your life should be perfectly legal so long as you make your intentions known in court before doing so.
Why do so many people seem convinced the American Court system consists of idiots that have not thought about this at all for the past years, but are more then willing to believe everything a website says?
Because most people seem convinced that America consists of these kind of idiots and are thus unavoidably found in the court systems as well, and let's face it, sometimes, they can be pretty stupid... :p

But, my grandmother suffered a stroke that rendered her unable to walk or speak, could not take care of herself, and could only communicate by spelling out words on a letter board. She at times would spell out "kill me." Eventually, her diabetes caused problems with the veins in her leg and they wanted to amputate her foot, but she refused, and when the doctors tried to get my mother and her father and siblings to allow them to do the operation anyways, he pretty much accused them of killing her when they refused as well, but by that point, it had already been years with no hope of improvement despite attempts at rehabilitation. My other grandmother had let cancer kill her without trying to get treatment just a few month or two later, then within another two years, a great aunt of mine let cancer kill her as well.

I know I would have wanted the tube pulled out from day one, would my mother, and my closest cousin, and if she honestly felt that way as well, why he waited 8 years to try to do this is quite questionable.

Ok guys. There has to be a motive behind the husband! How could there not be? All he has to do is divorce her and walk away and start over. Move to another country, change his name, heck plastic surgery if he thinks people will recognize him.........if he has that bad of a conciuos (sp?). I mean the parents should have the responsibility, they brought her into this world, they raised her........let the parents take her.

Beleive me, if there was money.........people will know about it later (after she dies), media is not going to let him sneak away and never find him.

Why is he so adimit to let her die? Why, really!

You are a sad, obsessed little man. Your opinion is unrealistic and pointlessly spiteful and angry. Why? Because you can't come to terms with everyone isn't you or something? Honestly.

How is it unrealistic? Pointless? Spiteful? Angry?

In Oregon, the physician can prescribe the lethal meds for you to take yourself. But he's not authorized to administer them. You have to have the balls to kill yourself.

It's a fair law. I'm only asking that in those cases where the patient is unable to take the meds themselves, that an authorized representative of the patient (relative, friend, or spouse) be required to do the deed - without benefit of direct medical assistance.

I don't know or care, I was just making a relevant point
I know..........but if it's true, why aren't they dealing with that fact or have they? I wasn't slaming you, just asking why that wasn't dealt with.

How is it unrealistic? Pointless? Spiteful? Angry?

In Oregon, the physician can prescribe the lethal meds for you to take yourself. But he's not authorized to administer them. You have to have the balls to kill yourself.

It's a fair law. I'm only asking that in those cases where the patient is unable to take the meds themselves, that an authorized representative of the patient (relative, friend, or spouse) be required to do the deed - without benefit of direct medical assistance.
Wrong. That is not my point. My point is you have been repeatedly saying that is too easy and they should be forced to shoot themselves or whomever else. Stop trying to defend yourself with things you have repeatedly spoken against in making your point

Why is he so adimit to let her die? Why, really!
Because she wants to? Who knows, we won't know until she is dead or until "The Smoking Gun" feels like digging something up

Wrong. That is not my point. My point is you have been repeatedly saying that is too easy and they should be forced to shoot themselves or whomever else. Stop trying to defend yourself with things you have repeatedly spoken against in making your point

And what's wrong with shooting someone? Does the manner of death make a difference to you, when thinking about the death of a loved one?

Or, put differently, if you were in Terri's shoes, would you rather die instantly from a shot to the head, or die over the course of two weeks by starvation?

And what's wrong with shooting someone? Does the manner of death make a difference to you, when thinking about the death of a loved one?

Or, put differently, if you were in Terri's shoes, would you rather die instantly from a shot to the head, or die over the course of two weeks by starvation?
You are warping the subject. It was original FORCE him to shoot her in the head instead of medical means. Now that I have been questioning that you are warping it to say people can do it by medical means then making up some bs about gunshot to the head being an easy way. You may be confusing other people and have them see it your way, but I won't play this sad little game any longer

Because she wants to? Who knows, we won't know until she is dead or until "The Smoking Gun" feels like digging something up
You know what, maybe she does want to die. We will never know, or yes, probably after she dies it will all come out.

I have a question, for people who attempt suicide but do not succeed (obviously they want to die themselves) why do doctors help them live? Ok, probably because they are not in their right mind.........but hey. At home we can commit suicide, but in a hospital no.

For those claiming her death would be suicide and hence against her religion:

su·i·cide (s-sd)
n.

The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself.
One who commits suicide.


Shiavo has not done anything intentionally over the past few years it would seem...if she had, this debate probably wouldn't be happening. At best one might claim this is murder...but who would the murderer really be here?

You are warping the subject. It was original FORCE him to shoot her in the head instead of medical means. Now that I have been questioning that you are warping it to say people can do it by medical means then making up some bs about gunshot to the head being an easy way. You may be confusing other people and have them see it your way, but I won't play this sad little game any longer

Why shouldn't we force him, if that's what he wants?

Why should we give *him* the easy way out, by asking a doctor to simply remove a tube?

It is not easy to kill someone, especially if it's not a clean and silent method. Most people don't have the stomach for it. And I find that the people who shout the most for euthanasia are the least likely people to be willing to do it themselves - they always want a doctor to do it for them.

BTW, if you think the Steinbeck reference is just about a dog, you didn't read the whole story.

Doctors payed by the Schindlers say they are right, doctors payed by Schiavo side with him, as well as court appointed doctors

The Nobel nominee doctor said he had not been paid by anyone. He just became interested in the case when he saw videos of her interreacting with her family. But, if Mr Schiavo does love his wife so much and wants only the best for her, why wouldn't he allow a world renowned doctor to work with her? I would think that the possibility of even a partial recovery would be wonderful news to him. It almost seems as if she stood up and started reciting the Gettysburg address he would still want her dead. Why?????

Can she blink or move a finger in response to anything? If so, ask her........ok Terri with all your might.........do you want to live this way or try to get better.........move your hand or blink. Of course she may have uncontrolable movements, so this may not work. But ok Terri do you want to let go and be with your God? Close your eyes..........isn't there any communication with her. I know someone said this but..........

If put in this situation and someone asked me about my life.........boy I would muster up any life I had to answer it in anyway I could. But then again, maybe she just can't.

Does anyone know if she can respond to anything?

You act as if she is capable of communicating with people. She is unconcious and according to her doctors, and brain scans the only part of here brain that works is the brain stem, therefore rendering her pretty much an unconcious vegtable. To keep her alive would only put more finacial and emotional strain on the family, and is absurd. She will never be normal agian and is not really alive, so why spend thousands of dollars to keep a brain dead person breathing. She will also not feel the pain of starvation or dehydration.

She cannot communicate, and her husband is probably sick of paying the medical bills. The Doctors say let her go, the courts say let her go, for gods sake let her go.

The Nobel nominee doctor said he had not been paid by anyone. He just became interested in the case when he saw videos of her interreacting with her family. But, if Mr Schiavo does love his wife so much and wants only the best for her, why wouldn't he allow a world renowned doctor to work with her? I would think that the possibility of even a partial recovery would be wonderful news to him. It almost seems as if she stood up and started reciting the Gettysburg address he would still want her dead. Why?????

Apparently, it doesn't matter "WHY" he wants her dead. Most people are simply concerned with the legal nature of the proceedings - as to whether or not the husband has legal permission to ask the doctors to legally kill her through starvation.

"Why?" does not enter into it. And if you read the opinions of most of the posters here, they don't believe the husband requires a reason. It's his choice, so let him make it, and let the doctors fulfill it - that's their take.

It almost seems as if she stood up and started reciting the Gettysburg address he would still want her dead. Why?????
Because I strongly think he's got some sort of motive, big or small........

Because I strongly think he's got some sort of motive, big or small........

It hardly matters at this point...

You arn't everyone and everyone isn't you, doesn't mean everything should still only happen the way you think it should

I'm not basing this off my personal experiences. I've had a cat put down, and I would have preferred to administer the injection myself, but I didn't get a chance to ask if that was possible or not. I'm basing this off the fact that if you feel strongly enough to allow someone to die, you ought to be able to actually kill them, because then you have to be fully aware that 'letting them die naturally' is plainly BS if they're not dying.

Or do you think it's perfectly fair for a doctor to have to kill people? I'm fairly certain this causes a thing caused 'massive psychological trauma'.

Actually I can't believe a judge ruled to take the tube out and not reinsert it. Why won't they let the parents care for her? I wonder why that is? Seriuosly.......do they say why the parents can't take over her cares?

It hardly matters at this point...
True, but what is the quality of life? Honestly, can you say you would like to live like this? Be honest, I am not slaming, just wondering?

Bonnie Erbe: Lost in the Schiavo debate is this Question: Who pays?
Naples Daily News ^ | March 15, 2005 | Bonnie Erbe


Posted on 03/15/2005 5:51:44 AM PST by The Great Yazoo


By BONNIE ERBE, Scripps Howard News Service March 15, 2005

"Love Hurts," said the Everly Brothers. And Life Costs, say I.

Florida lawmakers should bear that in mind as they conjure up a bill to keep Terry Schiavo forever alive (as opposed to productively alive). Yes, in that persistent vegetative state known as Florida, lawmakers seem to believe they have no poverty to eradicate, no children to educate, no affordable houses to build and no health care to provide to walking, talking people. So they've decided to spend their time passing a law that would make it a crime to unhitch Terry Schiavo's feeding tube.

Lost in this debate over Schiavo's future is the question: Who pays when life-worshippers, a/k/a religious zealots, cite religious mores while insisting on prolonging a barren existence? In Schiavo's case, there's no one answer to the question, who pays. Rather, her family relies on a melange of sources—-a scenario as follows.

Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, told reporters there once was a trust fund containing almost $800,000 (won in a malpractice case) to support Terry Schiavo's abundant medical expenses. That has been whittled down to near extinction. Felos says Schiavo's costs during the past few years have been borne by a confusing and twisted agglomeration of Social Security disability benefits, Medicaid and a corporate hospice fund for indigent patients. Meanwhile, her parents' legal bills have been subsidized by church groups passing the collection plate.

Whatever Schiavo's medical costs are and however much may have been sustained by private funds, there's still the inevitability we find in many religiously driven fights for life: Taxpayers and other individuals not similarly motivated are still drawn in, willing or not, to help subsidize someone else's "moral" choice. Praise the Lord and the, er, hat.

Bob Schindler, Terry Schiavo's father, sponsored as his legal fight is by church groups, has contorted his daughter's fate into his own personal Schindler's list. But the original Schindler did not force his fellow Germans to pay for the Jews he saved during World War II (and, of course, the people he saved were still very much alive). If Bob Schindler wants to keep his daughter alive without forcing others to chip in (via taxpayer-funded programs such as Social Security and Medicaid), that's one thing. It's his private right and he's free to do so. When he starts asking me to contribute, that's quite another.

Oh, I can just hear the choir of outrage now: How dare you put a price on human life? Well, honey, I'm not alone. Capitalism, modern medicine and society have all decided that insurance, medicine, surgery and hospitals cost money.

Consider this: Our collective obsession with end-of-life augmentation costs billions each year. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality released a report in 2003 showing that last-year-of-life expenses ate up 22 percent of all medical costs, 26 percent of Medicare expenses, 25 percent of the tab for Medicaid and 18 percent of all non-Medicare health-care costs. If only we could let go of our obsession with end-of-life medical heroics, think how much we could save not only in medical costs, but also in insurance and in heartache. But no, the godly among us will have none of that.

That's not to say we should not try to save lives, or even use heroic measures when necessary. But when the patient is medically dead, when the doctors give up hope, it is no longer about saving a life. At that point, it's all about saving a principle. With public money. It's easy to stand on principle when the bill goes elsewhere.

Fine, then. Let those whose mores dictate preservation of life at all costs, pay those costs. We would see feeding tubes and respirators across America not pulled but ripped out at lightning speed.

(Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and writes this column for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail bonnieerbe@CompuServe.com. )

Actually I can't believe a judge ruled to take the tube out and not reinsert it. Why won't they let the parents care for her? I wonder why that is? Seriuosly.......do they say why the parents can't take over her cares?

The courts have been over and over and over this. Legally, if you're married, your spouse has more to say about your medical care than your parents will thereafter. In a situation where there is no living will, and you are unable to communicate, the court will nearly always appoint your spouse as your legal guardian and give them power of attorney in regards to your health decisions, unless there are some special circumstances (say, your spouse is a known criminal).

It's a longstanding tradition. Your parents lose you when you get married. Completely and utterly, from a legal standpoint.

So, special advice:

1. Don't get married.
2. Get a living will.

I have seen too many patients kept "alive" by family who just don't want to let go of them.
If the husband's aim is just to get out of the marriage because of her condition then anything he does can be interpeted as murder. If he honestly just wants to end her suffering and her just laying there "existing" then I don't think that there is anything wrong with it as long as there is some sort of review of her chances of survival and recovery.

What the hell does that ACLU have to do with this, exactly?

Also, I'm a vegetarian and fishing and hunting for food don't outrage me in the least. For sport, yes. As long as the animal dies and you make use of it, that's fine by me.

However, she's not getting any better, let her go.

This person has rights, whether she is in a vegetative state or not. The ACLU seems to inject its half-baked philosophy in cases much clearer than this.

I don't know what the solution is and I feel sorry for both sides of the issue. I do suspect and predict that should Terri die as a result of these actions, or inactions, there will be many lawsuits to come.

My whole point is that whenever there is some type of human rights violation or the appearance of the same, the left-wing, radical, liberal groups seem to cry foul in very large numbers.

Why doesn't this concern them?

True, but what is the quality of life? Honestly, can you say you would like to live like this? Be honest, I am not slaming, just wondering?

IMHO, and in the opinion of her husband, and her doctors, Terri is not capable of conscious thought. She isn't experiencing anything. So, it's hard to say she's "living like this".

Essentially, though, this is entirely a legal matter - at least that's how everyone seems to want to see it. Everything is OK as long as we're legal.

So, special advice:

1. Don't get married.
2. Get a living will.
So why doesn't he just divorce her? Seriously all this has brought him in bad standings or what not.........or maybe he is HONEST and really loves her so much and wants what Terri wants and maybe she really wants to die. Do you think? Its to hard to determine.

So why doesn't he just divorce her? Seriously all this has brought him in bad standings or what not.........or maybe he is HONEST and really loves her so much and wants what Terri wants and maybe she really wants to die. Do you think? Its to hard to determine.

To paraphrase I_Hate_Cows, we shouldn't even be having this discussion, because the courts have already decided it. After all, we will never be bright enough, or knowledgable enough, to question anything done by the courts. And we should never question the authority given to a husband by the legal system, and never question his reasons for asking for having her unplugged.

The courts have spoken!

Essentially, though, this is entirely a legal matter - at least that's how everyone seems to want to see it. Everything is OK as long as we're legal.
First whats IMHO? Second, believe me I worked in the legal system and I don't agree with all the rules and laws........who does. The only question is...........who is it really up to. If her husband, well that sucks for her, if the legal system, well taht sucks again for her, if her parents, well you said they have to stand point anymore.

But again, we don't know who is telling the truth. We don't REALLY know the truth or who wants what.........we don't know what Terri wants and never will. We only know what the parents want and what the husband says Terri wants.

Honestly, I can't say what is right or wrong...........and Whispering Legs, I think you are mis interpreting my opinions or thoughts..........most of them is just me asking honest or serious questions.........it's not me agreeing with whats going on or not agreeing for that matter.

Regardless of all the heresay and facts of this case, I would like to know one thing: Where are all of the people who are so outraged about the "injustices" done in Iraq (the prison scandal, etc.), those who line up to protest a convicted criminal being put to death, those who are outraged by fishing, hunting, etc.
Where is the ACLU?

Unbelievable...

There's a strange arguement happening between conservatives and liberals regarding death.

Conservatives seem to be OK with death at the hands of military might (so long as it's ours/our allies... or in the name of freedom), at the hands of the state (punishing criminals).
Liberals seem to be OK with death as a pre-birth choice (where the unborn doesn't get a say), or euthenasia (where someone really wants to die).

On the surface it seems both groups are very pro-death, just can't come to a consensus on the terms.

As far as Terri, her husband, her parents, siblings and all who are emotionally involved. I can't imagine the hell they are all going through.

Conservatives seem to be OK with death at the hands of military might (so long as it's ours/our allies... or in the name of freedom), at the hands of the state (punishing criminals).
Liberals seem to be OK with death as a pre-birth choice (where the unborn doesn't get a say), or euthenasia (where someone really wants to die).

On the surface it seems both groups are very pro-death, just can't come to a consensus on the terms.

Using your description it seems the liberals are in favour of a person being in charge of his/her own life (in case of abortion the foetus is not recognised as a human being, and therefor the mothers wish is the only one that counts), while conservatives favour the thought that life is the states to take.

There's a strange arguement happening between conservatives and liberals regarding death.

Conservatives seem to be OK with death at the hands of military might (so long as it's ours/our allies... or in the name of freedom), at the hands of the state (punishing criminals).
Liberals seem to be OK with death as a pre-birth choice (where the unborn doesn't get a say), or euthenasia (where someone really wants to die).

On the surface it seems both groups are very pro-death, just can't come to a consensus on the terms.

As far as Terri, her husband, her parents, siblings and all who are emotionally involved. I can't imagine the hell they are all going through.

I think you may be focussing on the wrong aspect. Death is not the relevant factor, freedom or security.
Conservatives seem to support that that retains the status quo, they would as this is basically a definition of conservatism.
Liberals seem to support that that liberates the individual, again they would as this is basically a definition of liberalism.

This is where the conflict in the Terry Schiavo case arises. One group want to keep the status quo, want to not risk being wrong. The other group want that the individual is important, not the society. The first group, the conservatives, appear to want to keep her alive as doing anything else sets a precedent, the second group the liberals want to allow her to die on the basis that this is what she supposedly had wished, respecting her individuality.

Me, I'm a libertarian, in US politics terms, so her wish should be respected, and the interferance of the state in her life in this way is unjustifiable. But that is based on my political views. Others have other views.

somehow i think both sides have (with the exception of her husband) are doing what they think is best for her. but this is a good example of why you should get a will saying whether or not you want to be killed if you are in a coma.

Curioser and curioser! Now there's videotaped testimony that Terri Schiavo's husband attempted to have her injected with unneeded insulin to induce insulin shock, which is fatal if immediate emergency measures aren't taken. Is this indicative of anything, or just an interesting side note to this entire tragedy?

Interesting side note!

Almost as interesting as stopping therapy when he won a malpractice lawsuite.

You got a source for that? or is it just hearsay?

Isn't all that we are hearing hear say?

Isn't all that we are hearing hear say?

Usually, when you say something that someone definitely doesn't agree to, they ask for a source.

When you then give the source, they then deny that your source is reputable, or find some other way to deny the information.

Oh, and don't try to argue logically from any real evidence. They'll ask you to provide a web page link to each logical step (you see, we're supposed to be incapable of rational thought and all our knowledge comes from the Internet).

Apparently, quite a few people believe that the Internet is the fount of all information, and books do not exist. No credible books, anyway.

Heart attack, but same difference.

Actually it wasn't a heart attack. There isn't evidence of one.

If the husband wants her to die, he should be required to shoot her in the head himself. Not this "pull the tube out and wait a couple of weeks".

If he doesn't have the balls to do it himself, it shouldn't be done.

obviously if it is true that he tried to inject her with insuln he basically did just that. I think it's horrible that they can starve her to death legally but cannot gie her an injection that will get it over with nice and quickly.

Why should it be with a gun shot to the head? lol - you are morbily obsessed with guns me thinks.

Those of you who think he just wants to get rid of her for heinous purposes... why would he have spent 12 years (or however long it was) doing all he could to get her all teh best treatment possible if that were true?
That seems like a horribly illogical conclusion to come to.

Isn't it possible that after a decade of doctors telling him that nothing can be done and not seeing any improvement that he finally accepted her death and was merely tryign to let her rest in peace?

HAving accepted her death, why can't he move on with his romantic life? He has not given up on trying to help Terri get the releif she deserves so obviously he cares very much for her.

Also, isn't it true that other people (friends of terris and her husband) have said that Terri has expressed that she would not want to be kept alive as a vegetable?

IF all this is good enough for the many many courts to decide in his favor then how can you believe your opinion on the matter is better informed? Just let the poor woman rest. There is no hope for her recovery.

The overwhelming majority of people polled would want to be killed as well and think she should be euthanized.

Usually, when you say something that someone definitely doesn't agree to, they ask for a source.

When you then give the source, they then deny that your source is reputable, or find some other way to deny the information.

Oh, and don't try to argue logically from any real evidence. They'll ask you to provide a web page link to each logical step (you see, we're supposed to be incapable of rational thought and all our knowledge comes from the Internet).

Apparently, quite a few people believe that the Internet is the fount of all information, and books do not exist. No credible books, anyway.

Someone said schiavo's husband stood to benefit from her death and i didnt beleive that. I asked for a source and they provided it so i conceded the point but the source did say that the settelement had been so reduced by the 15 years on life support that there wasnt much left to gain and that if he did get the money he would donate it to charity.

Someone said schiavo's husband stood to benefit from her death and i didnt beleive that. I asked for a source and they provided it so i conceded the point but the source did say that the settelement had been so reduced by the 15 years on life support that there wasnt much left to gain and that if he did get the money he would donate it to charity.


Wow that is pretty noble. Also I had heard that he refused a settlement of 11 million dollars from the parents to turn his rights over Terri to them. If it was all about money why would he do that? If this is true then he must be doing what he thinks Terri wanted and what is best for her.
Maybe Etrusca and friends are right.... he is evil and heinous and wants her to die no matter what.

Someone said schiavo's husband stood to benefit from her death and i didnt beleive that. I asked for a source and they provided it so i conceded the point but the source did say that the settelement had been so reduced by the 15 years on life support that there wasnt much left to gain and that if he did get the money he would donate it to charity.

I wasn't talking about you - I was talking about this forum in general. There are few here who even attempt rational discussion.

I wasn't talking about you - I was talking about this forum in general. There are few here who even attempt rational discussion.

like those who say that if he really wants to end her life he should have to shoot her in the head. lol

Usually, when you say something that someone definitely doesn't agree to, they ask for a source.

When you then give the source, they then deny that your source is reputable, or find some other way to deny the information.

Oh, and don't try to argue logically from any real evidence. They'll ask you to provide a web page link to each logical step (you see, we're supposed to be incapable of rational thought and all our knowledge comes from the Internet).

Apparently, quite a few people believe that the Internet is the fount of all information, and books do not exist. No credible books, anyway.

I wouldn't have been able to guess! :D

Now there's videotaped testimony that Terri Schiavo's husband attempted to have her injected with unneeded insulin to induce insulin shock, which is fatal if immediate emergency measures aren't taken.
if he did this, good for him. i can only hope that there would be somebody with the courage to do the same for me.

like those who say that if he really wants to end her life he should have to shoot her in the head. lol

I haven't heard a rational argument in opposition to the idea that we should make it the responsibility of the person asking for the death, and make it as personal and difficult for them as possible.

Just "oh, you're angry!" and "oh, lol!"

I haven't heard a rational argument in opposition to the idea that we should make it the responsibility of the person asking for the death, and make it as personal and difficult for them as possible.

Just "oh, you're angry!" and "oh, lol!"

No I agree with you that the person asking for it should pull the plug. But I think that saying it should be a gun shot to the head is hilarously frightening and not all that rational. Also you may have missed it above but the person asking for the death obviously did try to take her life if it is true that he tried to inject her with insulin.

No I agree with you that the person asking for it should pull the plug. But I think that saying it should be a gun shot to the head is hilarously frightening and not all that rational. Also you may have missed it above but the person asking for the death obviously did try to take her life if it is true that he tried to inject her with insulin.

Pulling the plug in this case makes it too easy on him and far too hard on her body.

I don't believe it should be made easy for the person doing the killing. And it should be mercifully quick for the person doing the dying.

I haven't heard a rational argument in opposition to the idea that we should make it the responsibility of the person asking for the death, and make it as personal and difficult for them as possible.

Well.. the purpose of this death is to preserve the remainder of her dignity and pleasant memories others have of her. Dignity can be said to be better preserved if her corpse is as intact as possible. The memories are easier to maintain if her head doesn't have a hole in it for the funeral. As such, using a gun is not ideal. A simple injection is much better.

I do agree that in principle the person asking should be the one administrating it.

Pulling the plug in this case makes it too easy on him and far too hard on her body.

I don't believe it should be made easy for the person doing the killing. And it should be mercifully quick for the person doing the dying.

Why do you think it is so easy for the person to even pull the plug? Don't you think they would go thru the same amount of mental anguish? Why should the person that want to put a loved one to their final rest have to be traumatized by splatterin gtheir brain all over the place with a gun shot. Do you REALLY think that is rational? IF you do then no wonder you don't think anyone else on this board argues in a rational manner because you are insane.

Also I didn't mean pull the plug literally, I meant to end the persons life. I think they should be able to do it with an injection that is merciful to the person dying.

Why do you think it is so easy for the person to even pull the plug? Don't you think they would go thru the same amount of mental anguish? Why should the person that want to put a loved one to their final rest have to be traumatized by splatterin gtheir brain all over the place with a gun shot. Do you REALLY think that is rational? IF you do then no wonder you don't think anyone else on this board argues in a rational manner because you are insane.

Also I didn't mean pull the plug literally, I meant to end the persons life. I think they should be able to do it with an injection that is merciful to the person dying.

Brains don't splatter all over the place from a handgun shot to the head - in most cases. It's far less messy than the movies indicate.

And yes, it's rational. It's quick, painless, and merciful. It's the official coup de grace in most cultures since the invention of firearms. Not insane at all.

Curioser and curioser! Now there's videotaped testimony that Terri Schiavo's husband attempted to have her injected with unneeded insulin to induce insulin shock, which is fatal if immediate emergency measures aren't taken. Is this indicative of anything, or just an interesting side note to this entire tragedy?
First of all, do we even know if this "nurse" is credible. As most things in this case it seems everyone has an ulterior motive. She could very well has been paid to say it. If she is credible, it must have been used as evidence. If so, why has the Florida police hasn't acted on it? I find this "evidence" highly dubious and I'm sure tha numerous judges that saw it hasn't seen it a circumstances enough to remove the Mr. Schiavo as the legal guardian. I think that this evidence lack credibility.

Just like the video the parents used to show that Mrs. Schiavo was getting better turned out to be staged and that friends were making her move for the benefit of the camera.

As for the nobel-loreate scientist, he hasn't seen Mrs. Schiavo himself just a tape that the parents sent him. His diagnostic is, as such, not based on all the facts. He said so himself.

Also, I find it highly hippocritical from a Catholic family to scream about mortal sin while making pressure on the husband to get a divorce, which is highly frowned upon and as big a sin as any in the Catholic religion. One has to wonder about their convictions...

And finally, the court have systematically ruled in favor of the husband. It's not like it was one judge who did, it has been at least 10 over the years, even to the point of Governor Bush passing a special anticonstitutionnal law to bypass the legal system in that case.

This case is done and I find it highly shamefull that politicans use it to pander to their voters. This, and not the case itself, is the biggest shame in all this sordid story.

Well here's my take on the whole mess ...

The Republicans are screaming up and down - even by an act of Congress, no less - to keep this woman alive based on Jesus and, yet, she is being kept alive by:

1] Medicaid - which the Republicans want to severely cut.
2] Medical Malpractice Settlement - which the Republicans want severely limit under "Tort Reform".
3] Machines that I'm reasonably sure Jesus did not hook her up to.

Can we say ... hypocrites?

Oh well. Whatever. Let her finish dieing already.

The overwhelming majority of people polled would want to be killed as well and think she should be euthanized.

Isn't it nice when a biased poll can get the results that you want?

Well here's my take on the whole mess ...


3] Machines that I'm reasonably sure Jesus did not hook her up to.

Can we say ... hypocrites?

Oh well. Whatever. Let her finish dieing already.


Can you say incorrect? What "machines" are hooked up to her?

Get your "facts" straight before you spout off.

What about democratic party wrangling? How many democrats voted with the republicans?

Why do the democrats want to make it neccessary to change the voting in of federal judges in the Senate?

Also, I find it highly hippocritical from a Catholic family to scream about mortal sin while making pressure on the husband to get a divorce, which is highly frowned upon and as big a sin as any in the Catholic religion. One has to wonder about their convictions...


Well, he has committed adultery hundreds of times. Why not just divorce her and add that to his mortal sins? Adultery is one of the ten commandments.

Can you say incorrect? What "machines" are hooked up to her?

Ok ok ok ... fine ... maybe our definitions of "machines" are different, but I can easily say two things:

1] Humans, not God, are keeping her alive. She's a cadaver being fed through a tube. (well, not any more)

2] If the Republican Party had everything they wanted, she would not have been able to afford all this health care and would have been dead 15 years ago and this would be a non-issue.

Why don't we put them all on Jerry Springer and let them duke it out?

Why do the democrats want to make it neccessary to change the voting in of federal judges in the Senate?

Wasn't it the Republicans who brought this to a Federal level instead of leaving it where it belonged - with the decision of the Husband.

Oh, I forgot, Republicans don't know what the term "sanctity of marriage" means. They use the term a lot, but when an actual real life example of a decision that married people sometimes have to face comes up, the Republicans say "No, her husband has no rights".

More and more hypocracy. This Schiavo thing will be good ammo for election 2006.

I know I would have wanted the tube pulled out from day one, would my mother, and my closest cousin, and if she honestly felt that way as well, why he waited 8 years to try to do this is quite questionable.
He probably waited for the same reason her parents still want to wait. He thought there was hope for recovery. Now he sees that there is none.

Why don't we put them all on Jerry Springer and let them duke it out?


Yup, that would be funny. Esp since Michael already has that wife-beater, redneck look to him. :p

Well, he has committed adultery hundreds of times. Why not just divorce her and add that to his mortal sins? Adultery is one of the ten commandments.
It has nothing to do with the religious convictions of the husband and everything to so with the religious convictions of the parents. If they consider it a mortal sin to remove the tube, thay shouldn't in all good conscience ask for a divorce. Either you use the religous card or you don't.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

And the husband has commited adultery after 7 years of his wife being clinically dead. He moved on with his life. I don't view it as a sin.

And the husband has commited adultery after 7 years of his wife being clinically dead. He moved on with his life. I don't view it as a sin.

"Clinically Dead"? How so?

It is a sin in the eyes of the church as he broke his vows.

This person has rights, whether she is in a vegetative state or not. The ACLU seems to inject its half-baked philosophy in cases much clearer than this.
Someone actually posted an article... the ACLU is siding with her right to die with dignity.

I don't know what the solution is and I feel sorry for both sides of the issue. I do suspect and predict that should Terri die as a result of these actions, or inactions, there will be many lawsuits to come.
How do you figure? People pull the plug on their next of kin all the time when they're never going to regain consciousness.

My whole point is that whenever there is some type of human rights violation or the appearance of the same, the left-wing, radical, liberal groups seem to cry foul in very large numbers.
Yes, and in this case, Terri's right to pass is beign violayed. What's your point? Her husband, her friends, all said that she would want this, it's only her parents who don't.

Why doesn't this concern them?
See above, it does concern the "left-wing radica, liberal groups" in that a person shouldn't have to continue such a state of living (if you can really call it that) simply because their family members cannot let go.

More and more hypocracy. This Schiavo thing will be good ammo for election 2006.

Yeah, esp since how many dems voted with the republicans?

Well, he has committed adultery hundreds of times. Why not just divorce her and add that to his mortal sins? Adultery is one of the ten commandments.
He doesn't divorce her because then it would put the decisions to her parents, who would keep her in that state indefinitely. He cares about her enough to try to follow her wishes, even if that means that he has to remain married to essentially a corpse.

"Clinically Dead"? How so?

It is a sin in the eyes of the church as he broke his vows.
being artificially maintained alive by a feeding tube and nothing else.
Besides, he's not the one using the religious card. How can you justify the parents asking for a divorce?

He doesn't divorce her because then it would put the decisions to her parents, who would keep her in that state indefinitely. He cares about her enough to try to follow her wishes, even if that means that he has to remain married to essentially a corpse.


Yes you are correct in that he doesn't want to divorce her, but that is just so he can get a sweet TV Movie deal, and book deal.

Curioser and curioser! Now there's videotaped testimony that Terri Schiavo's husband attempted to have her injected with unneeded insulin to induce insulin shock, which is fatal if immediate emergency measures aren't taken. Is this indicative of anything, or just an interesting side note to this entire tragedy?


Yes, it indicates that he probably wants this to be over. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. My God, this woman is brain dead!!! She will NEVER be able to function in life again. Her brain stem has deteriorated. There is no life in her. Let her go. Have mercy on this man. I would never be able to live up to the stress and strain that this poor man has gone through if it were my wife that was being artificially kept alive (against her wishes) for so many pointless years. And to have to go through this so publicly because of her selfish parents.

Irony:

If these same people who are trying to force everyone to pay to keep this corpse artifically animated would allow for aborted fetuses to be used in stem cell research, then they might have some hope of a cure for their daughter. But, alas, they would never hear of this and thus condemn their poor dead daughter to existance as a vegetable.

I think they should remove the feeding tube and keep it out. Not just of Shiavo, but her parents as well.

being artificially maintained alive by a feeding tube and nothing else.
Besides, he's not the one using the religious card. How can you justify the parents asking for a divorce?

Here is the actual definition for clinical death: Clinical death occurs when the patient's heartbeat and breathing have stopped.

Yes you are correct in that he doesn't want to divorce her, but that is just so he can get a sweet TV Movie deal, and book deal.
I'm sure that's it.

Yes, it indicates that he probably wants this to be over. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. My God, this woman is brain dead!!! She will NEVER be able to function in life again. Her brain stem has deteriorated. There is no life in her. Let her go. Have mercy on this man. I would never be able to live up to the stress and strain that this poor man has gone through if it were my wife that was being artificially kept alive (against her wishes) for so many pointless years. And to have to go through this so publicly because of her selfish parents.

Irony:

If these same people who are trying to force everyone to pay to keep this corpse artifically animated would allow for aborted fetuses to be used in stem cell research, then they might have some hope of a cure for their daughter. But, alas, they would never hear of this and thus condemn their poor dead daughter to existance as a vegetable.

I think they should remove the feeding tube and keep it out. Not just of Shiavo, but her parents as well.


Your whole arguement is debunked by one simple fact: She is not "brain dead"! If she were, she'd require various machines to keep her body alive.

A person who asks that a terminal patient under their authority be allowed to die should have to use something like a pistol shot to the head.



Somebody should shoot you in the head.

:rolleyes: :sniper:

Here is the actual definition for clinical death: Clinical death occurs when the patient's heartbeat and breathing have stopped.
fine. You have me there. But I am not really impressed as it is not his religous belief that I question but the parent's.

Would you be so kind as to answer my previous question:
How can you justify the parents asking for a divorce?

Brains don't splatter all over the place from a handgun shot to the head - in most cases. It's far less messy than the movies indicate.

And yes, it's rational. It's quick, painless, and merciful. It's the official coup de grace in most cultures since the invention of firearms. Not insane at all.


no it's irrational because it would be even more traumatizing to any normal person to shoot a loved one in the head with a gun, than to inject them with something. A loved one bleeding from a gun shot wound would be pretty hard on someones psyche (as if the injection isn't hard enough) where as an injection would be rational, quick, painless and merciful. What do you have against injections? I believe more and more that you argue just for the sake of arguing. Either that or you are truely insane as I first suggested.

Somebody should shoot you in the head.

:rolleyes: :sniper:

Yadda yadda yadda...

Isn't it nice when a biased poll can get the results that you want?


How do you know the many polls taken, that all come to the same conclusion, are biased? Better get that tin foil hat out. Also isn't it nice how you completely ignored the rest of my post and picked out one little thing which really doesn't even matter anyway. I only added it to show that those of you who think the husband is a heinous character are in the minority. What truely matters is what the legal decisions made are. You are obviously a flaimbater/troll (probably a puppet, though that is neither here nor there) but I thought I would give you this one response out of the goodness of my heart.

fine. You have me there. But I am not really impressed as it is not his religous belief that I question but the parent's.

Would you be so kind as to answer my previous question:
How can you justify the parents asking for a divorce?

I can justify it as they want her to remain alive. I honestly do not care about religion, so I honestly have no religious based answers.

How does he stand to gain from her death?
He's ready to go on with his life and get a new life, but he is still married to her; and there is no honor in divorcing a dead woman. :(

I can justify it as they want her to remain alive. I honestly do not care about religion, so I honestly have no religious based answers.
Yes but they certainly do, as they use it in their justification. How can you believe the story of someone who says white but act anything but white?

I can justify it as they want her to remain alive.

How- assuming the womans friends and husband were telling the truth about her wishes - is the parents selfish desire to keep her alive a justification ?

How do you know the many polls taken, that all come to the same conclusion, are biased? Better get that tin foil hat out. Also isn't it nice how you completely ignored the rest of my post and picked out one little thing which really doesn't even matter anyway. I only added it to show that those of you who think the husband is a heinous character are in the minority. What truely matters is what the legal decisions made are. You are obviously a flaimbater/troll (probably a puppet, though that is neither here nor there) but I thought I would give you this one response out of the goodness of my heart.


Have you read any of the poll questions? That is my whole point. I don't think he is a monster, just a dirtbag. I wasn't flamebaiting, as I just took issue with your use of polls to back up your claims. Have you heard that polls are not the end all and are always correct? Remember this last election?

Here is one example of a poll:

From ABC news poll

"How closely have you been following the case of Terri Schiavo, the woman at the center of a life-support controversy in Florida? Have you been following this issue very closely, somewhat closely, not so closely or not closely at all?"


"Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life-support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday. What's your opinion on this case? Do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo's feeding tube?"


Did you notice the bolded section? Most people are misinformed as to what is actually going on. As many people here on NS have shown through their false beliefs, these polls are biased in the fact that they give the wrong sense of what is actually going on. When most people think of life support, they think of breathing machines, and other equipment to help the body survive from day to day, mostly with total brain death.

How- assuming the womans friends and husband were telling the truth about her wishes - is the parents selfish desire to keep her alive a justification ?

Why should we assume anything in this case? I won't make the joke about what happens when you assume. ;) I don't look through rose colored glasses. I honestly don't trust anyone automatically, trust must be earned.
Seriously, in a court of law, hearsay is not admissable. But in Greers' court it was (this set the precedent for all other courts after Greers' ruling), you can't be forced to testify against your husband or wife in a criminal case.

Have you read any of the poll questions? That is my whole point. I don't think he is a monster, just a dirtbag. I wasn't flamebaiting, as I just took issue with your use of polls to back up your claims. Have you heard that polls are not the end all and are always correct? Remember this last election?

Here is one example of a poll:

From ABC news poll

"How closely have you been following the case of Terri Schiavo, the woman at the center of a life-support controversy in Florida? Have you been following this issue very closely, somewhat closely, not so closely or not closely at all?"


"Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life-support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday. What's your opinion on this case? Do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo's feeding tube?"


Did you notice the bolded section? Most people are misinformed as to what is actually going. As many people here on NS have shown through their false beliefs, these polls are biased in the fact that they give the wrong sense of what is actually going on. When most people think of life support, they think of breathing machines, and other equipment to help the body survive from day to day, mostly with total brain death.
Well, she IS on life-support. Without the feeding tube, she would die. I don'T see any other way to call it.

And if you ask the people if they follow the case (as in your first example), how is the question in any way biased?

Have you read any of the poll questions? That is my whole point. I don't think he is a monster, just a dirtbag. I wasn't flamebaiting, as I just took issue with your use of polls to back up your claims. Have you heard that polls are not the end all and are always correct? Remember this last election?

Here is one example of a poll:

From ABC news poll

"How closely have you been following the case of Terri Schiavo, the woman at the center of a life-support controversy in Florida? Have you been following this issue very closely, somewhat closely, not so closely or not closely at all?"


"Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life-support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday. What's your opinion on this case? Do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo's feeding tube?"


Did you notice the bolded section? Most people are misinformed as to what is actually going. As many people here on NS have shown through their false beliefs, these polls are biased in the fact that they give the wrong sense of what is actually going on. When most people think of life support, they think of breathing machines, and other equipment to help the body survive from day to day, mostly with total brain death.

ok, I'll bite - are you trying to say that she is not being kept on life support?

Are you trying to tell us that even though the media keeps saying "feeding tube" over and over as this story is everywhere that people have the wrong idea that a feeding tube is life-support? What is your point and as I already stated I didn't use th poll for any backing up of claims, only to show you that you are in the minority. There were no other points being made withthat poll.

And do you think you are more informed than teh majority of those polled and why? Do you think you are more informed than all of the judges that sided with the husband?

Please explain.

Yea I guess with how sticky this is, I just wasn't doing the math correctly. Thanks for the info you found, maybe he's not so cold.........but we will never know..........and maybe the money thing isn't a factor for him........honestly I think he wants to go on and not feel guilty living his life without her and she still be alive. He may have some peace if shes gone, compared to him leaving her like this. Not saying its right, wrong or whatever, but I think that is part of what he is feeling. Does that make sense.


Do you know your spouse's wishes? That is more important.

Well, she IS on life-support. Without the feeding tube, she would die. I don'T see any other way to call it.

And if you ask the people if they follow the case (as in your first example), how is the question in any way biased?

She could be fed by spoon (liquids only), but Michael would not allow that.

I say that it is biased as most people are misinformed as to the extent of her abilities. As soon as they hear life-support, they immediately believe that a machine keeps her breathing. It is the media's fault. When you watch a show on TV and see someone on life-support, they almost always show that person on a respirator. I'm not saying that people are bad for thinking this, but it's just the way people are.

Your whole arguement is debunked by one simple fact: She is not "brain dead"! If she were, she'd require various machines to keep her body alive.

WHAT??? She most definately is brain dead. NO BRAIN ACTIVITY = BRAIN DEAD.

So, my arguement stands!

fine. You have me there. But I am not really impressed as it is not his religous belief that I question but the parent's.

Would you be so kind as to answer my previous question:
How can you justify the parents asking for a divorce?

The Catholic Church will issue a divorce under extreme circumstances...I believe your spouse wanting to kill you would qualify as an exteme circumstance as does adultry in some instances. In this case, however, they were not seeking an annulment through the church, but a civil divorce. The church does not recognize civil unions or annulments. The parents were petitioning for a civil divorce in order to end her husband's legal claim to her. In the eyes of the church, assuming they were married by a Catholic priest, they would still be married.

She could be fed by spoon (liquids only), but Michael would not allow that.

I say that it is biased as most people are misinformed as to the extent of her abilities. As soon as they hear life-support, they immediately believe that a machine keeps her breathing. It is the media's fault. When you watch a show on TV and see someone on life-support, they almost always show that person on a respirator. I'm not saying that people are bad for thinking this, but it's just the way people are.
And how is that prejudice in any way the question:
"Do you follow that case?"

Yadda yadda yadda...

Great come back. Did you think of that all by yourself?

WHAT??? She most definately is brain dead. NO BRAIN ACTIVITY = BRAIN DEAD.

So, my arguement stands!

I think there's a difference between "persistent vegetative state" and "brain dead".

If you're "brain dead" then you're legally dead already. "Persistent vegetative state" seems to mean that there's still some EEG activity, but you're not capable of conscious thought or action (limited to reflex action or repetitive motion).

The Catholic Church will issue a divorce under extreme circumstances...I believe your spouse wanting to kill you would qualify as an exteme circumstance as does adultry in some instances. In this case, however, they were not seeking an annulment through the church, but a civil divorce. The church does not recognize civil unions or annulments. The parents were petitioning for a civil divorce in order to end her husband's legal claim to her. In the eyes of the church, assuming they were married by a Catholic priest, they would still be married.
So, in essence, they want a divorce but not a divorce?
Either you believe that divorce is bad or you don't wouldn'T you agree?

Do you know your spouse's wishes? That is more important.

Mine are carved in stone, signed, notarized, witnessed by 6 people, and in completely plain English.

6 months ... TOPS ... then pull the plug. That's it.

I have this sneaking suspiscion that the "crying" Terry is doing when her parents leave the room is a "Why are you leaving without killing me, you heartless bastards?!"

I have this sneaking suspiscion that the "crying" Terry is doing when her parents leave the room is a "Why are you leaving without killing me, you heartless bastards?!"

Not possible. If the doctors say it's a persistent vegetative state, then she's got all the thought processes of a raw banana.

Don't ascribe any emotion to any action she's taking, or you're buying into what her parents believe - that she's still conscious of what's happenning to her.

Believe what the doctors are saying.

Why should we assume anything in this case? I won't make the joke about what happens when you assume. ;) I don't look through rose colored glasses. I honestly don't trust anyone automatically, trust must be earned.
Seriously, in a court of law, hearsay is not admissable. But in Greers' court it was (this set the precedent for all other courts after Greers' ruling), you can't be forced to testify against your husband or wife in a criminal case.


you are already assuming a lot about this case unless you haven't noticed. For one you are assuming that this guy is a dirtbag. Why? What do you know about him? DO you know him his wife or his parents personally? Have you atr least met? You don't trust any sources yet you seem to know what are facts and what are not. Let's hear that joke now :p

ok, I'll bite - are you trying to say that she is not being kept on life support?

Are you trying to tell us that even though the media keeps saying "feeding tube" over and over as this story is everywhere that people have the wrong idea that a feeding tube is life-support? What is your point? As I already stated I didn't use th poll for any backing up of claims, only to show you that you are in the minority. There were no other points being made withthat poll.

And do you think you are more informed than teh majority of those polled and why? Do you think you are more informed than all of the judges that sided with the husband?

Please explain.

Technically she is on life-support, but she has the abilitiy to take liquid nurishment.

I am in the informed minority. I am more informed then the general public as I've dealt with this situation, and do now as part of my career. My Mother who was in a so-called PVS had requested to be not artificially kept alive. Fine, we removed her feeding tube. She was moaning severely for one week before we couldn't bear it anymore (she was given painkillers throughout the process), we had it reinstated and she died later as a result of the damage done to her kidneys through dehydration. If you want to think as the NY Times does, it is a painless, wonderful way to die. But until you actually see your loved one pass in that manner, it is hard to be able to have a fact based opinion. They said Mother couldn't couldn't feel any pain, and didn't even know who we were, but when we saw tears coming out of her, I just have to take issue with that.

So, in essence, they want a divorce but not a divorce?
Either you believe that divorce is bad or you don't wouldn'T you agree?

They want a legal piece of paper that says the Schiavos are divorced and that he no longer has spousal claims to her. It has nothing to do with the sanctity of their marriage in the eyes of the church. This is one case where religion separated government from itself.

you are already assuming a lot about this case unless you haven't noticed. For one you are assuming that this guy is a dirtbag. Why? What do you know about him? DO you know him his wife or his parents personally? Have you atr least met? You don't trust any sources yet you seem to know what are facts and what are not. Let's hear that joke now :p


Actually I have met Michael at the hospice, as I used to work there. Based on the things I overheard from him directly in the staff room, lets just say I am being nice.

i have been following this case pretty closely....the only problem that i have with this is that the whole thing is being decided based on the husbands word only. she did not have a living will, therefore its just heresay.

i think the husband is slimy. he has obviously moved on with his life, so i cant figure out why he is even still involved. he CAN divorce her if he wants.

i say, if the parents want to spend the rest of their lives and money taking care of their daughter, then they should be allowed. they have genuine love for her....her husband does not.

this really isnt about whether or not she will recover. she obviously will not. BUT, regardless, she is alive and has a right to live. since she cannot make that decision, the people who love her the most should make that decision. i dont believe that is her husband.

WHAT??? She most definately is brain dead. NO BRAIN ACTIVITY = BRAIN DEAD.

So, my arguement stands!

BRAIN ACTIVITY+BREATHING+HEARTBEAT=NOT BRAIN DEAD!

When you graduate from medical school, please let me know!

Technically she is on life-support, but she has the abilitiy to take liquid nurishment.

I am in the informed minority. I am more informed then the general public as I've dealt with this situation, and do now as part of my career. My Mother who was in a so-called PVS had requested to be not artificially kept alive. Fine, we removed her feeding tube. She was moaning severely for one week before we couldn't bear it anymore (she was given painkillers throughout the process), we had it reinstated and she died later as a result of the damage done to her kidneys through dehydration. If you want to think as the NY Times does, it is a painless, wonderful way to die. But until you actually see your loved one pass in that manner, it is hard to be able to have a fact based opinion. They said Mother couldn't couldn't feel any pain, and didn't even know who we were, but when we saw tears coming out of her, I just have to take issue with that.


well there you have it - she is on life-support

and the question is are you are informed about this case than the general; public and if so how do you know?

nice assumption you are making there btw.

also I agree that starving even a body devoid of consciousness is a horrible thing to do. But I also believe that if it is her wish to die, and her husband and friends have confirmed that that was her wishes, then they should abide by them. I just wish it could be with a shot or something.

this really isnt about whether or not she will recover. she obviously will not. BUT, regardless, she is alive and has a right to live.

You call that living? Come on, man. Be honest. If that were your daughter, would you torture her this long?

We slaughter billions of chickens every year for food which have higher brain process capability than this woman. Do you try to prevent that as well?

Actually I have met Michael at the hospice, as I used to work there. Based on the things I overheard from him directly in the staff room, lets just say I am being nice.

uh huh

Technically she is on life-support, but she has the abilitiy to take liquid nurishment.

I am in the informed minority. I am more informed then the general public as I've dealt with this situation, and do now as part of my career. My Mother who was in a so-called PVS had requested to be not artificially kept alive. Fine, we removed her feeding tube. She was moaning severely for one week before we couldn't bear it anymore (she was given painkillers throughout the process), we had it reinstated and she died later as a result of the damage done to her kidneys through dehydration. If you want to think as the NY Times does, it is a painless, wonderful way to die. But until you actually see your loved one pass in that manner, it is hard to be able to have a fact based opinion. They said Mother couldn't couldn't feel any pain, and didn't even know who we were, but when we saw tears coming out of her, I just have to take issue with that.
Here we have rule 4 on how to win argument on the internet: "Claim to have been in a similar situation or be an expert in the field"

How do we know it to be true? Don't you go galloping on your high horses and claim to be in the "informed minority".

If you indeed are, source please...

Technically she is on life-support, but she has the abilitiy to take liquid nurishment.


Technically, she is not on life-support. If gaining nourishment in any way other than chewing and swallowing was considered life support, we would have a bunch of potential candidates for humane death through starvation and dehydration. If he succeeds at this, I suggest that it is going to open the door to more "mercy killings". Better check your spouse's thoughts on the subject, cause he/she may be the only one whose opinion counts in the end.

Is she brain-dead? If so, she IS dead, only artificially is she being kept alive, so its quite pointless to keep her going, just for what? To show that we can keep bodies alive?

I'm just sick of the whole thing... Lets get our noses out of their Biz. I thought Republicans wanted the government out of personal biz. If there is a moral issue here isn't it up to the husband to have to face his maker on this choice and not ours.

GEZZZ!!!!... Leave the poor people alone.

She could be fed by spoon (liquids only), but Michael would not allow that.

I guess you haven't been following the case that closely or you'd know she can't swallow! Or they would be spoon feeding her. All of your arguments are not really worth arguing as you clearly don't understand the difference between brain death and body death. She is brain dead, all of her movements are involuntary, her frontal lobe is all but gone. She is dead.

My source of information comes from the doctor who treated her and testified in court. Where does your info come from?

Also, the husband stands to gain nothing from her death, there is no money left. It has been all used up on her treatment and legal fees. He also said even if there was money left he would donate it to charity, but there is no money left. The parents are just being selfish.

The court also ruled that there was credible evidence to back up that her husband is carrying out her wishes, which was testified to by people who had attended two separate funerals with her and heard her say it.

You call that living? Come on, man. Be honest. If that were your daughter, would you torture her this long?

We slaughter billions of chickens every year for food which have higher brain process capability than this woman. Do you try to prevent that as well?

If your child was born severly mentally retarded, would you starve them to death? Their quality of life would suck. What about Chris Reeves, should he have been starved to death? If starvation and dehydration is as wonderful as the NY Times said it was, why not do this to everyone on death row. It would be extremely pleasent, and all of the anti-death penalty people couldn't say it was cruel and unusual.

Let's not stop there, let's go to Africa and starve to death all of those Somalis and Ethiopians. Afterall, it is the humane thing to do as their quality of life sucks. Would you want to live like that?

Is she brain-dead? If so, she IS dead, only artificially is she being kept alive, so its quite pointless to keep her going, just for what? To show that we can keep bodies alive?

She is NOT brain dead. She breathes, moves, verbalizes, and shows brain activity. If receiving nourishment is considered artifical means of keeping a body alive, why don't you just quit eating and drinking? After all, you don't want to be kept alive aritifically do you?

keruvalia-

it is not the publics responsiblity or right to decide who is living their life to the fullest and who is not. we are not the judge of that, and certainly should not decide that people who dont seem to have a "full life" should be sentenced to die. Since noone can really know what Terry is thinking right now, you cant assume that she is miserable.

I have worked with severely brain damaged and disabled people for over 15 years. just because they have a very different life than most people does not mean that they are miserable.

i have been following this case pretty closely....the only problem that i have with this is that the whole thing is being decided based on the husbands word only. she did not have a living will, therefore its just heresay.

i think the husband is slimy. he has obviously moved on with his life, so i cant figure out why he is even still involved. he CAN divorce her if he wants.

i say, if the parents want to spend the rest of their lives and money taking care of their daughter, then they should be allowed. they have genuine love for her....her husband does not.

this really isnt about whether or not she will recover. she obviously will not. BUT, regardless, she is alive and has a right to live. since she cannot make that decision, the people who love her the most should make that decision. i dont believe that is her husband.
That would be true if you believe the parents...

Some would say that, despite having moved on with his life, the husband still respect her enough to grant her expressed wishes.

Who's to say that the husband does not love her? He obviously does or else he would have divorced and to hell with it. He hasn't.

If your child was born severly mentally retarded, would you starve them to death? Their quality of life would suck. What about Chris Reeves, should he have been starved to death? If starvation and dehydration is as wonderful as the NY Times said it was, why not do this to everyone on death row. It would be extremely pleasent, and all of the anti-death penalty people couldn't say it was cruel and unusual.


Completely different. Terry Schiavo and Chris Reeves are not the same. Reeves didn't have Jello for a brainstem and his frontal lobe was just fine.

Schiavo is a animated corpse. A zombie. Nothing more. If she were my daughter, I would have ended it 14 years ago. But, then again, as a parent, I know that one of the hardest lessons a parent must learn is when to let go.

I guess you haven't been following the case that closely or you'd know she can't swallow! Or they would be spoon feeding her. All of your arguments are not really worth arguing as you clearly don't understand the difference between brain death and body death. She is brain dead, all of her movements are involuntary, her frontal lobe is all but gone. She is dead.

My source of information comes from the doctor who treated her and testified in court. Where does your info come from?

Also, the husband stands to gain nothing from her death, there is no money left. It has been all used up on her treatment and legal fees. He also said even if there was money left he would donate it to charity, but there is no money left. The parents are just being selfish.

The court also ruled that there was credible evidence to back up that her husband is carrying out her wishes, which was testified to by people who had attended two separate funerals with her and heard her say it.

and with that I am over with this debate - those of you against the husband whom she loved and her friends, you are just argung to keep a poor soul suffering for the selfishness of her parents.

Hey Zooke I thought you gave up debating here. :confused:

I guess you haven't been following the case that closely or you'd know she can't swallow! Or they would be spoon feeding her. All of your arguments are not really worth arguing as you clearly don't understand the difference between brain death and body death. She is brain dead, all of her movements are involuntary, her frontal lobe is all but gone. She is dead.

My source of information comes from the doctor who treated her and testified in court. Where does your info come from?

Also, the husband stands to gain nothing from her death, there is no money left. It has been all used up on her treatment and legal fees. He also said even if there was money left he would donate it to charity, but there is no money left. The parents are just being selfish.

The court also ruled that there was credible evidence to back up that her husband is carrying out her wishes, which was testified to by people who had attended two separate funerals with her and heard her say it.

A nurse was fired for spoon feeding her way back when he remembered she wanted to die. I witnessed it. Early on she could swallow, but guess what? Through his refusal to give her meaningful therapy, she has lost most of her abilities. My info comes from the same hospice she resides at, which I worked at from 1990 to 1998. BTW doctors were giving their opinions in court after spending sometimes no more then 30 minutes looking her over. I was there and when these neuro docs came to check her out, some spent almost no time with her, looking only at her charts.

There is no money left. He stands to gain significantly from her death. How many people in Hollywood would pay millions for his story. He also has something to hide.

Greer has not been such a great judge in this case. Hearsay should never be taken into consideration.

and with that I am over with this debate - those of you against the husband whom she loved and her friends, you are just argung to keep a poor soul suffering for the selfishness of her parents.

Hey Zooke I thought you gave up debating here. :confused:

I did, for Lent. Father gave me some leniency though. He said that in discussions involving moral issues, if I reflect the doctrine of my faith, it isn't really debate, but enlightenment to others. He's OK. ;)

I think he got to feeling sorry for me for all the Rosaries I was having to say for atonement.

That would be true if you believe the parents...

Some would say that, despite having moved on with his life, the husband still respect her enough to grant her expressed wishes.

Who's to say that the husband does not love her? He obviously does or else he would have divorced and to hell with it. He hasn't.

Yup, and he was there when they removed the tube. Oops, no he wasn't. Such a great love. Why couldn't she have her priest come and give her mass? Great love there.

Yup, and he was there when they removed the tube. Oops, no he wasn't. Such a great love. Why couldn't she have her priest come and give her mass? Great love there.

Not Mass. Last Rites or more properly Extreme Unction. It's a sacrament to provide spiritual health.

Here we have rule 4 on how to win argument on the internet: "Claim to have been in a similar situation or be an expert in the field"

How do we know it to be true? Don't you go galloping on your high horses and claim to be in the "informed minority".

If you indeed are, source please...

Do you require my Mothers death certificate, Will, my BS and MS in physical therapy? Do you want my credit card numbers and SS# as well?

Oh, and the paystubs from my checks while working there?

Not Mass. Last Rites or more properly Extreme Unction. It's a sacrament to provide spiritual health.

No, he wasn't allowed to come into her room to give her Mass. This was before her tube was removed.

There is no money left. He stands to gain significantly from her death. How many people in Hollywood would pay millions for his story. He also has something to hide.
What, pray tell, stops hollywood from giving him the same millions one way or the other? Your argument does not hold water.

Greer has not been such a great judge in this case. Hearsay should never be taken into consideration.
OK, let's remove heresay from the case...
What have we left? The parents and the husband arguing over the wishes of Mrs. Schiavo. We don't listen to the argument of either side because they are only heresay. What does that leave us? Nothing as there is no living will.

In which case, the legal guardian has the power of attorney to decide. Guess what, it's Mr. Schiavo. So we are back at the same judgment.

i truly dont believe that man loves her anymore. he has another life. in my personal opinion, this is about winning a battle...a control issue. not love.

Do you require my Mothers death certificate, Will, my BS and MS in physical therapy? Do you want my credit card numbers and SS# as well?

Oh, and the paystubs from my checks while working there?
That would convince me.

Send them. In the meantime, I'll assume that you've read the papers and watched the news as most of us did.

A nurse was fired for spoon feeding her way back when he remembered she wanted to die. I witnessed it.

Maybe the nurse was fired for trying to go against legal wishes? I never heard she could swallow early on in fact I find it hard to believe even, given the reason she went into cardiac arrest in the first place was because of Bulimia Nervosa. Oh another point, they have went through 12 different judges. Not only one.

You witnessed it? I take it you work in the hospital? Otherwise you witnessed nothing.

You need to check fact from rumor methinks.

and with that I am over with this debate - those of you against the husband whom she loved and her friends, you are just argung to keep a poor soul suffering for the selfishness of her parents.

Hey Zooke I thought you gave up debating here. :confused:

Wait, I thought she wasn't suffering as she doesn't even know what the hell is going on.

She is NOT brain dead. She breathes, moves, verbalizes, and shows brain activity. If receiving nourishment is considered artifical means of keeping a body alive, why don't you just quit eating and drinking? After all, you don't want to be kept alive aritifically do you?


Well, some people here state or imply that she is brain dead (I havent followed this discussion much out there, so that was indeed a question lol)

Do you require my Mothers death certificate, Will, my BS and MS in physical therapy? Do you want my credit card numbers and SS# as well?

Oh, and the paystubs from my checks while working there?

No. Just an explanation why you are arguing here, on this forum, instead of giving testimony in the courtroom.

i truly dont believe that man loves her anymore. he has another life. in my personal opinion, this is about winning a battle...a control issue. not love.

Well that maybe but what would you do if you heard your father-in-law was willing to cut off all of her limbs and give her a heart transplant to keep her alive?

This came up in a round of lawyering. It was scenerio what-if talks. Though the parents did say they were forced to answer things.....

No. Just an explanation why you are arguing here, on this forum, instead of giving testimony in the courtroom.


I had given it in the past. They are only having hearings now, so I doubt I'd be called to testify anytime soon.

I had given it in the past. They are only having hearings now, so I doubt I'd be called to testify anytime soon.
source please?

She is NOT brain dead. She breathes, moves, verbalizes, and shows brain activity. If receiving nourishment is considered artifical means of keeping a body alive, why don't you just quit eating and drinking? After all, you don't want to be kept alive aritifically do you?


Well, some people here state or imply that she is brain dead (I havent followed this discussion much out there, so that was indeed a question lol)

source please?

If a lot of people think that the US Congress was meddling by offering its opinion on this matter, what should we think of a Canadian's opinion on Terri Schiavo?

my whole arguement is only about the legal aspects of this case....

there is NO living will. just heresay. you CANNOT base a judgement on only that. if our justice system makes rulings based on heresay, then this country is heading for BIG trouble. since there is NO documentation on what Terrys wishes are, she has THE RIGHT TO LIVE. period.

Maybe it would be fun to take someone who believes she should be stuffed in the skip and load them up with succinylcholine so they can't do anything except lay there.

Then get a court order to make sure they don't eat or drink.

After all, they can't react to anything in the room!

That would convince me.

Send them. In the meantime, I'll assume that you've read the papers and watched the news as most of us did.


Just don't steal my identity, and use it to purchase Philipino Donkey Porn! ;)

my whole arguement is only about the legal aspects of this case....

there is NO living will. just heresay. you CANNOT base a judgement on only that. if our justice system makes rulings based on heresay, then this country is heading for BIG trouble. since there is NO documentation on what Terrys wishes are, she has THE RIGHT TO LIVE. period.
Ah, but the law also goes on to say that, in the event of someone in that particular state, it falls to the legal guardian to inform us on her wishes. The legal guardian said she doesn't want to live. According to the law, the doctor should remove the feeding tube.

Ah, but the law also goes on to say that, in the event of someone in that particular state, it falls to the legal guardian to inform us on her wishes. The legal guardian said she doesn't want to live. According to the law, the doctor should remove the feeding tube.

First question on the bar exam:

Does the law have anything to do with common sense?

First question on the bar exam:

Does the law have anything to do with common sense?

The answer?

no

again, east,

despite the fact that her husband is her guardian, there IS NOT DOCUMENTATION OF HER WISHES. just because her husband SAYS thats what she wanted doesnt make it legal. its HERESAY!! ugh!

I had given it in the past. They are only having hearings now, so I doubt I'd be called to testify anytime soon.

They've had plenty of hearings, in fact they gave their decision in all levels of the Florida state courts. You don't do that without "hearings" The first circuit federal court has refused to hear it, now it will go to the 9th circuit than to the Supreme Court. I see you know about as much about the legal system as you do about Terri's case. Not a lot. :rolleyes:

again, east,

despite the fact that her husband is her guardian, there IS NOT DOCUMENTATION OF HER WISHES. just because her husband SAYS thats what she wanted doesnt make it legal. its HERESAY!! ugh!
And THE LAW says that in the absence of any documentation, the HERESAY of the LEGAL GUARDIAN is what will be followed.

ugh!!!

again, east,

despite the fact that her husband is her guardian, there IS NOT DOCUMENTATION OF HER WISHES. just because her husband SAYS thats what she wanted doesnt make it legal. its HERESAY!! ugh!

And legaly, in a court of law, hearsay evidence is not admissable.

First question on the bar exam:
Does the law have anything to do with common sense?

One should hope it doesn't.

I am going to state this opinion, and although some of you may think it is wrong, I stand by it. Here it is: I don't think I'd trust the words of a husband who is going out with a floozy and has money to gain from his wife's death on if she wanted to die or not. I mean, really, the spoken word of anyone, without documentation or such supporting what they say, is to be trusted.

One should hope it doesn't.
It should. Too many people have the idea that justice is served in court.

Many people go into court with grossly out-of-bounds expectations, despite any education they might receive from their lawyer.

It's not common sense. It's rarely what anyone in the case (on either side) might consider "right" or "justice".

And then you add people jumping into the mix at the last minute from outside, and you get a three-ring circus. People with outlandish and unrealistic (from a legal perspective) expectations.

Try and remember that the next time you feel like taking someone to court. Neither you, nor your opponent, will get exactly what you want in the manner and time that you want it. In fact, you're likely to get something entirely unexpected.

It should. Too many people have the idea that justice is served in court.

Many people go into court with grossly out-of-bounds expectations, despite any education they might receive from their lawyer.

It's not common sense. It's rarely what anyone in the case (on either side) might consider "right" or "justice".

And then you add people jumping into the mix at the last minute from outside, and you get a three-ring circus. People with outlandish and unrealistic (from a legal perspective) expectations.

Try and remember that the next time you feel like taking someone to court. Neither you, nor your opponent, will get exactly what you want in the manner and time that you want it. In fact, you're likely to get something entirely unexpected. Not to mention the fact that to pay for a court hearing or trial costs a helluva lot of money. I had a HAL field trip to the U.S. Federal Building in my city, and the judge we met their said trials and hearings can cost more than $150,000!

And THE LAW says that in the absence of any documentation, the HERESAY of the LEGAL GUARDIAN is what will be followed.

ugh!!!

Source of the US Law please?

If somone I love was in a coma for a decade I would certainly try to get them injected with lots of morphine or insulin or cyanide or anything for that matter.

I expect my loved ones to do the same for me.

It's not common sense. It's rarely what anyone in the case (on either side) might consider "right" or "justice".

Yes. But "anyone in the case" also rarely has spend several years studying ethics, or an objective view. "Common sense" is by nature subjective and less informed.
It would be nice if justice actually felt just. Unfortuantely that wouldn't mean it was.

And legaly, in a court of law, hearsay evidence is not admissable.

As a future lawyer I have to cringe at this.

Hearsay... well, I know one resource for information on hearsay, the Federal Rules of Evidence.

You can take a peek at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule801

A window into the living hell every law student knows as "hearsay."

If somone I love was in a coma for a decade I would certainly try to get them injected with lots of morphine or insulin or cyanide or anything for that matter.

I expect my loved ones to do the same for me.
Are you sure about that? Do you really have the will to end the life of a person you love? I'm not saying that if you did that you are a murderer, but, I'm saying that you have to have a strong will to end someone's life, even someone you hate with passion, as death cannot be reversed.

Are you sure about that? Do you really have the will to end the life of a person you love? I'm not saying that if you did that you are a murderer, but, I'm saying that you have to have a strong will to end someone's life, even someone you hate with passion, as death cannot be reversed.


Not end the life, end the artificial vegetable half-machine comatose braindead lingering.

As a future lawyer I have to cringe at this.

Hearsay... well, I know one resource for information on hearsay, the Federal Rules of Evidence.

You can take a peek at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule801

A window into the living hell every law student knows as "hearsay."

Thanks for providing a link to it my friend.

new granada-

that would be YOUR choice and you have a legal right to request that. however, you HAVE to have something stating that that is what you want to do.

However, just because thats what you would want, does not give you or any of the rest of us the right to determine thats what everyone would want. NOT UNLESS ITS DOCUMENTED!

new granada-

that would be YOUR choice and you have a legal right to request that. however, you HAVE to have something stating that that is what you want to do.

However, just because thats what you would want, does not give you or any of the rest of us the right to determine thats what everyone would want. NOT UNLESS ITS DOCUMENTED!Donald, my suggestion to you is this: More people would listen to you if you did not type some words all with capital letters. It is very "n00bish"

Not end the life, end the artificial vegetable half-machine comatose braindead lingering.
True, but still, it would be extremely(and I emphasize "extremely") difficult to pull the plug on someone you love dearly, no matter how much suffering they are in.

Terri Schiavo's husband has already recieved the 1 million dollar insurance settlement, $700,000 of which has already gone to her medical bills. She's been in a "brain dead" state...not a coma for 15 years..not 12. You can't expect her husband not to move on. I have also heard rumors on the radio that she ended up in this state due to her eating disorder (bulimia). I have also heard that her husband may have attemped to murder her due to there marrital problems. None of this is relevent though..she's not coming back. If the Florida police want to pursue a criminal investigation on her husband....fine..good, but for Repulicans to use her as a political pawn in their sick game of chess is just nasty.

Also, I would like it if everyone stopped using the word "vegetable" in place of "vegetative". Whether you want it to or not, it sends the subliminal message to fellow debators and readers that anyone in a state such as Terri Schiavo is is a vegetable like a carrot or a potato. And Terri, whether you think she's brain-dead or not, is a human being.

i have been following this case pretty closely....the only problem that i have with this is that the whole thing is being decided based on the husbands word only. she did not have a living will, therefore its just heresay.
Didn't her friends testify to that extent as well?

When a hearsay statement, or a statement defined in Rule 801(d)(2)(C), (D), or (E), has been admitted in evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked, and if attacked may be supported, by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time, inconsistent with the declarant's hearsay statement, is not subject to any requirement that the declarant may have been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party is entitled to examine the declarant on the statement as if under cross-examination.



does this statement not give the right of the family to try this in court?

True, but still, it would be extremely(and I emphasize "extremely") difficult to pull the plug on someone you love dearly, no matter how much suffering they are in.


I suppose then that the difficulty of mr schiavo's decision lends it weight and credibility.

I suppose then that the difficulty of mr schiavo's decision lends it weight and credibility.
True. True. But what I said is kind of a generalization of people. Some people really do have the will to end a life and do it, such as the case of the shooter in Minnesota yesterday. Not to say that Mr. Schiavo is like the shooter but I'm trying to say that he seems to have the will to end Terri's life.

again, east,

despite the fact that her husband is her guardian, there IS NOT DOCUMENTATION OF HER WISHES. just because her husband SAYS thats what she wanted doesnt make it legal. its HERESAY!! ugh!
whether or not her husband's description of her stated wishes is hearsay or not doesn't matter. he is her legal "guardian" in this case, and since she left no documentation of her wishes it's his decision to make in her stead.

does this statement not give the right of the family to try this in court?
the parents HAVE tried this in court. many hearings have been held, years of legal battles, countless man hours spent giving them a fair and legal shot. they have lost. Terry Shiavo's husband has been ruled to be her legal "guardian" in this matter, and the legal proceedings have upheld his right to choose for her. whether or not his reporting of her wishes is hearsay doesn't matter, legally speaking, because he is the rightful next of kin regardless. because she left no official record of her wishes, the decision falls to her next of kin, and that's her husband. period.