NationStates Jolt Archive

It’s a fine day in America when you see Rev. Jesse Jackson in agreement with President Bush. Terri Schiavo lays dying in a Florida hospice, and these two wildly different figureheads, are undoubtedly wondering why the media circus surrounding her case has failed to save her life.

Husband Michael has been fighting for a decade to remove her means of sustenance, which comes in the form of a feeding tube. He maintains that it was her ironclad wish to be terminated should she ever require assistance to live. So hewn in stone was this view that she never put it down on paper.

The courts have finally ruled in Michael’s favor, and sweet mercy has come at last — in the form of a fortnight of starvation.

Our judicial system has upheld this ruling despite attempted interventions from Gov. Bush of Florida, Congress and even our President. Alas, the President of the United States has the power to stay the execution of a serial killer, but not someone with brain damage. Whereas some cite states’ rights and the ill constitutionality of these attempts, I absolutely support any attempt, however questionable, of lawmakers to save this woman from a cruel and inhumane fate.

More laudable is the fact that this was an unpopular stand to make. The American people spoke out in favor of Federalism, and between his efforts in this case and a sharp hike in gas prices, Bush’s approval ratings have taken a supreme hit.

Such a precedent could open the door for purported mercy-killings of a multitude beyond any means of communication — a holocaust of the direly sick and bedridden.

I disagree with the ruling in two ways. First, when there is a dispute between the husband and the parents, it would be prudent, in the absence of a living will, to err on the side of caution. That is, no one can say for sure what her wishes now are, and feeding her certainly isn’t harmful to anyone.

One must also wonder why her husband has been handed sole lordship of her life while her immediate family remains close to her. It seems naïve to assume that he alone would be able to evaluate her wishes best, especially given that her supposed opinion of the matter is a view flippantly tossed about by most without much consideration.

But there is a profoundly sadder issue than this surrounding euthanasia, a practice I fully support in cases where one’s final wishes are irrefutably known. Her recent state has been compared to that of an Auschwitz prisoner, and it begs the question — why are rabid pets and murderers good enough for a swift lethal injection, but Terri Schiavo must endure weeks of emaciation? Are we so afraid of direct euthanasia that we will treat a severely injured woman with such cruelty?

Advocates of this indirect measure say that she cannot feel pain, but the battery of world-renowned neurologists flitting in and out of the news circuit has usually been loath to commit to any such position. Pain is one of the most mysterious facets of the brain, they say. How mysterious is it for someone after ten days of starvation?

It is as if society believes it can escape collective guilt for her death by depriving her of food and letting nature run its course. Cowardice and deliberate neglect must not be mistaken for mercy.

Ancient Sparta was a place noted for its strength, its military honor and its tendency to cleanse its citizenry by exposing and starving its handicapped. Infants who did not fit the Spartan model were left to die on a hillside without food or water. Society’s undesirables were disposed of with casual negligence, and the government looked on with approval.

It’s a fine day in America.

i like chicken, i like liver, meow mix, meow mix, please deliver!

Any particular reason for the new thread?

7.

thats how much one life is worth

Any particular reason for the new thread?

Not really, i just haven;t really put my two cents into it...i personally would agree with her right to die if it were actually i=on paper, and if it didn;t involve weeks of starvation.....but it isn;t...and it does....al least be a LITTLE more humane.....

actually, if my sources are correct, broken down into our base chemicals, the average human is worth 18 bucks.

1 A husband or wife is considered next of kin in the US legal system. Not the parents.

2 Terri isn't there anymore. The part of the brain responsible for thought and other higher functions is gone. The body that remains is just meat and bone and is a waste of money and time.

3 I agree, the process should be speeded up with a drug overdose.

Oh, and a human life's value is determined by it's history and it's potential. A person who has a history of rape and murder is worth less than one who has a history of decent behavior. A child who may one day grow up to be a functional member of society is worth more than a woman who's brain is capable of fewer functions than a hamster's.

1 A husband or wife is considered next of kin in the US legal system. Not the parents.


Actually, it goes further than that. Under common law, a wife is essentially the chattel property of the husband, and her family surrenders all rights to her when she marries.

Anyone can have someone killed for less than a $100 bucks. So, I guess thats how much one life is worth.

Actually, it goes further than that. Under common law, a wife is essentially the chattel property of the husband, and her family surrenders all rights to her when she marries.
Ok, but we don't go by common law when it violates the constitution and the legal codes that are in effect.

i believe firmly in the right of a person to refuse medical treatment and to have her husband refuse for her if she is unable to do so. the florida requirement of judicial review makes it that much more acceptable in my opinion.

no one should be forced to live like that against her will.

actually, if my sources are correct, broken down into our base chemicals, the average human is worth 18 bucks.

You can get more than that if you sell the organs. :p

i believe firmly in the right of a person to refuse medical treatment and to have her husband refuse for her if she is unable to do so. the florida requirement of judicial review makes it that much more acceptable in my opinion.

no one should be forced to live like that against her will.

Well..if you put it that way...she has no say in the matter...she has "no hihger brain functions" so therefore she was no will.....or living will for that matter...you know that wbesites for businesses that make living wills have had 150% hiher hits in the past few weeks...i know what this is...it's a conspiracy....that;s what it is...for people to make more money on living wills....

Ok, but we don't go by common law when it violates the constitution and the legal codes that are in effect.

It certainly affects the law, even if she isn't strictly considered property. The husband still gets first pass at any rights in those matters.

No one is above the judges, not even the law.

He maintains that it was her ironclad wish to be terminated should she ever require assistance to live. So hewn in stone was this view that she never put it down on paper.

Note: the majority of people, especially young ones, does not bother to write down final wishes or their desires on when to end lifesupport. Writing it down often makes them feel they are "inviting" something bad to happen. Irrational, but such is the human mind.
This does not mean they will never say things like "gosh, I wouldn't want to live like THAT" when they see comapatients on tv. Just that getting a piece of paper and sacrificing a few minutes of their life is too much effort. With many unfortuante results. Like Schiavo. Or like the shortage of donor organs.

The courts have finally ruled in Michael’s favor, and sweet mercy has come at last — in the form of a fortnight of starvation.
Which is only cruel for mrs Schiavos loved ones. According to the doctors she herself does not know the difference between continuing to live, starving, or getting a lethal injection.

Our judicial system has upheld this ruling despite attempted interventions from Gov. Bush of Florida, Congress and even our President. Alas, the President of the United States has the power to stay the execution of a serial killer, but not someone with brain damage.
Well.. one is a decision based on something that can be forgiven, the other one is Gods will.

Whereas some cite states’ rights and the ill constitutionality of these attempts, I absolutely support any attempt, however questionable, of lawmakers to save this woman from a cruel and inhumane fate.

Cruel and inhumane for whom ?

More laudable is the fact that this was an unpopular stand to make. The American people spoke out in favor of Federalism, and between his efforts in this case and a sharp hike in gas prices, Bush’s approval ratings have taken a supreme hit.
I agree here. Standing up for ones ideals despite negative consequences is laudable. Of course, the correct step for Bush to take right now would be to step down as president.

Such a precedent could open the door for purported mercy-killings of a multitude beyond any means of communication — a holocaust of the direly sick and bedridden.
Or suddenly motivate lots of people to write a will.

I disagree with the ruling in two ways. First, when there is a dispute between the husband and the parents, it would be prudent, in the absence of a living will, to err on the side of caution. That is, no one can say for sure what her wishes now are, and feeding her certainly isn’t harmful to anyone.
It harms her loved ones. It may harm the memory people have of her. It may harm her soul, if such a thing exists.

One must also wonder why her husband has been handed sole lordship of her life while her immediate family remains close to her.

Because she picked him. She did not chose her parents.

and it begs the question — why are rabid pets and murderers good enough for a swift lethal injection, but Terri Schiavo must endure weeks of emaciation?

Because euthanasia is supposedly defying the will of God, and she was a Catholic ? Why keeping her alive is not defying the will of God is beyond me btw.

Are we so afraid of direct euthanasia that we will treat a severely injured woman with such cruelty?
Again: SHE does not suffer. But it is saddening that the momory people have of her will be tainted. I agree an injection would be better.

Advocates of this indirect measure say that she cannot feel pain, but the battery of world-renowned neurologists flitting in and out of the news circuit has usually been loath to commit to any such position. Pain is one of the most mysterious facets of the brain, they say.

Says who ?

Nice emotional plea though :) *applauds*

1 human life = 1.1 dogs' lives = 4.2 cats' lives = 6.8 Democrats' lives

*Snip*

Who are we to say that she feels no pain...i am sure that if you prick her with a needly she will feel pain...i beleive that she knows/knew somehting that the husband wants to get rid of....i wouldnt have a problem with it, had she had a living will, and it was done more humanely.....what docters have you spoken to that say she feels no pain.....

We have no defnite answer as to the state of terri's will...she may or may not have had a wish to die...we will never know....I agree that this case sets too much precedent either way.....i think the courts should have left it alone...now this does open the door for governemnt-sancitioned euthanasia of crtically ill patients, or patients with no survival outlook.....here come the purges....

Who are we to say that she feels no pain...i am sure that if you prick her with a needly she will feel pain...i beleive that she knows/knew somehting that the husband wants to get rid of....i wouldnt have a problem with it, had she had a living will, and it was done more humanely.....what docters have you spoken to that say she feels no pain.....

We have no defnite answer as to the state of terri's will...she may or may not have had a wish to die...we will never know....I agree that this case sets too much precedent either way.....i think the courts should have left it alone...now this does open the door for governemnt-sancitioned euthanasia of crtically ill patients, or patients with no survival outlook.....here come the purges....
You're sure that if you prick her with a needle she will feel pain? Funny, all the doctors who actually examined her know for a fact that her brain is gone. Even the part that registers pain. Only the basic parts that control breathing are still there.

I don't give two shits about state's rights or personal rights here; I'm glad that Bush and co tried to prevent Terri's death for the simple reason that allowing her to die sets an unfortunate precedent. As it is, I don't think Michael Schiavo is a bad guy, and in general I absolutely believe the partner has more authority than the parents or children, but this is about whether or not someone is allowerd to die based on unproven word of mouth. If it was written, fine. Even if there were numerous witnesses to this being Terri's desire, I'd be willing to listen. But frankly, even if only one cell remained alive, without her written acquiesence, that one cell has to be kept alive. It's not about mercy, it's about precedent.

One life is worth the Entire population. Or says religion anyways.... (do not bring up Inquisition or something! That would be like me saying the terrorists represent Islam)

Who are we to say that she feels no pain...
People unable to judge such a thing. Which is why I believe the people that most likely do know what they are talking about: her doctors.

i am sure that if you prick her with a needly she will feel pain...
Why ? The part of her brain that would actually register the pain is gone. Maybe her body will respond - but that doesn't mean there is a *person* left to feel it. A tree could be said to feel pain when you chop it down. According to the doctors a tree has more awareness than Mrs Schiavo. So why are not more people protesting the chopping of the rainforest ?

what docters have you spoken to that say she feels no pain.....
Spoken to personally ? None. Et tu ?

We have no defnite answer as to the state of terri's will...she may or may not have had a wish to die...we will never know....

True. This is saddening. But what would letting her life accomplish ? She would not get better. She would not be able to tell anything. Her body would just continue to exist till it dies of old age.

Who are we to say that she feels no pain...i am sure that if you prick her with a needly she will feel pain...i beleive that she knows/knew somehting that the husband wants to get rid of....i wouldnt have a problem with it, had she had a living will, and it was done more humanely.....what docters have you spoken to that say she feels no pain.....

We have no defnite answer as to the state of terri's will...she may or may not have had a wish to die...we will never know....I agree that this case sets too much precedent either way.....i think the courts should have left it alone...now this does open the door for governemnt-sancitioned euthanasia of crtically ill patients, or patients with no survival outlook.....here come the purges....

1. There is this little thing called morphine they are giving her, just in case she can feel pain.

2. This case sets no precedent whatsoever -- except perhaps the unusual intervention by the Executive branch. These situation occur everyday without the media circus and the law is well settled.

3. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a matter of Mr. Schiavo having the final say. Mrs. Shiavo is being allowed to die because the courts have determined -- by clear and convincing evidence -- that she would not wish to be kept alive.

As fictions about this case keep popping up in new threads, I'll once again post some actual facts (which undoubtedly will be ignored):

I'm really sick of those who think they know what is best for a complete stranger, Terri Schiavo, based on rumor, innuendo, and libel.

Here are some facts:

1. Ms. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

2. Ms. Schiavo would wish to die under these circumstances.

3. Ms. Schiavo is not being allowed to die merely because her husband wishes it or because he is her guardain. She is being allowed to die because that would be her wishes.

4. Ms. Schiavo's parents have gotten an extraordinary amount of judicial review of facts #1 & #2. Federal and state courts have reviewed this case multiple times over 7 years. All have agreed that points #1 & #2 were established by clear and convincing evidence.

As many will resist these facts, I'll provide ample explanation and documentation:

The following consists of excerpts from the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/flsct92304opn.pdf) on Sept. 23, 2004 (with my edits in brackets):

In May of 1998, eight years after Theresa lost consciousness, Michael petitioned the guardianship court to authorize the termination of life-prolonging procedures. By filing this petition, which the Schindlers opposed, Michael placed the difficult decision in the hands of the court.

After a trial, at which both Michael and the Schindlers presented evidence, the guardianship court issued an extensive written order authorizing the discontinuance of artificial life support. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Theresa Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and that Theresa would elect to cease life-prolonging procedures if she were competent to make her own decision. This order was affirmed on direct appeal, see Schiavo I, 780 So. 2d at 177.

...

The severity of Theresa’s medical condition was explained by the Second
District as follows:
The evidence is overwhelming that Theresa is in a permanent or persistent vegetative state. It is important to understand that a persistent vegetative state is not simply a coma. She is not asleep. She has cycles of apparent wakefulness and apparent sleep without any cognition or awareness. As she breathes, she often makes moaning sounds. Theresa has severe contractures of her hands, elbows, knees, and feet.

Over the span of this last decade, Theresa’s brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid.

Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs. She could remain in this state for many years.

In affirming the trial court’s order, the Second
District concluded by stating:
In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we
conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.
Schiavo I, 780 So. 2d at 180.

[Although the guardianship court’s final order authorizing the termination of
life-prolonging procedures was affirmed on direct appeal, the litigation continued because the Schindlers began an attack on the final order. After several court and appellate decisions against the Schindlers, they were granted a new hearing.]

The Second District permitted the Schindlers to present evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the judgment was no longer equitable and specifically held:
To meet this burden, they must establish that new treatment offers sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo’s cerebral cortex—significantly improving the quality of Mrs. Schiavo’s life—so that she herself would elect to undergo this treatment and would reverse the prior decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures.
Id.

The Second District required an additional set of medical examinations of Theresa and instructed that one of the physicians must be a new, independent physician selected either by the agreement of the parties or, if they could not agree, by the appointment of the guardianship court. See id. at 646.

After conducting a hearing for the purpose set forth in the Second District’s
decision, the guardianship court denied the Schindlers’ motion for relief from
judgment. See In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 851 So. 2d 182, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Schiavo IV). In reviewing the trial court’s order, the Second District explained that it was “not reviewing a final judgment in this appellate proceeding. The final judgment was entered several years ago and has already been affirmed by this court.” Id. at 185-86. However, the Second District carefully examined the record:
Despite our decision that the appropriate standard of review is
abuse of discretion, this court has closely examined all of the evidence
in this record. We have repeatedly examined the videotapes, not
merely watching short segments but carefully observing the tapes in
their entirety. We have examined the brain scans with the eyes of
educated laypersons and considered the explanations provided by the
doctors in the transcripts. We have concluded that, if we were called
upon to review the guardianship court’s decision de novo, we would
still affirm it.
Id. at 186.

Finally, the Second District concluded its fourth opinion in the Schiavo case with the following observation:

The judges on this panel are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. Each of us, however, has our own family, our own loved ones, our own children. From our review of the videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has sustained the most severe of irreparable injuries, we understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from conception would hold out hope that some level of cognitive function remained. If Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to such a faith.

But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo’s right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband. . . . It may be unfortunate that when families cannot agree, the best forum we can offer for this private, personal decision is a public courtroom and the best decision-maker we can provide is a judge with no prior knowledge of the ward, but the law currently provides no better solution that adequately protects the interests of promoting the value of life. We have previously affirmed the guardianship court’s decision in this regard, and we now affirm the denial of a motion for relief from that judgment.

...

Theresa’s nutrition and hydration tube was removed on October 15, 2003.
On October 21, 2003, the Legislature enacted chapter 2003-418, the
Governor signed the Act into law, and the Governor issued executive order No. 03-201 to stay the continued withholding of nutrition and hydration from Theresa. The nutrition and hydration tube was reinserted pursuant to the Governor’s executive order.

On the same day, Michael Schiavo brought the action for declaratory judgment in the circuit court. Relying on undisputed facts and legal argument, the circuit court entered a final summary judgment on May 6, 2004, in favor of Michael Schiavo, finding the Act unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Theresa. Specifically, the circuit court found that chapter 2003-418 was unconstitutional on its face as an unlawful delegation of legislative authority and as a violation of the right to privacy, and unconstitutional as applied because it allowed the Governor to encroach upon the judicial power and to retroactively abolish Theresa’s vested right to privacy.

In the linked opinion, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision on Sept. 23, 2004.

During the course of the litigation, 3 separate guardians ad litem – independent individuals with no stake in the case – have been appointed by the courts. 2 were attorneys and one was a doctor. The last was requested by Gov. Jeb Bush. All have concluded that Ms. Schiavo would wish the life-preserving measures to cease under her current circumstances and have testified to that conclusion in the trial and various hearings.

There has been an extensive trial, a separate extensive hearing at which multiple qualified physicians testified, and at least 14 separate appeals. This includes appeals that have been heard by the Florida Supreme Court four times, that have gone to the US Supreme Court now three times, and have been decided by both federal and state courts.

Here are links to copies of just some of the orders and opinions in the case:
Order by Judge Greer setting Oct. 15, 2003 as the date when removal of the feeding tube can begin (Sept. 17, 2003) (http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Order%20of%20Death%20091703.pdf)
Order by Fla. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals denying motion for a stay (March 16, 2005) (http://www.2dca.org/schiavo/order.pdf)
Order setting March 18, 2005 as the day to withdraw Schiavo's feeding tube (Feb. 25, 2005) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/22505ctord.pdf)
U.S. Supreme Court Order rejecting a request to consider arguments on the case (March 17, 2005) (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/031705pzr.pdf)
US District Court Order denying the request of Terri Schiavo’s parents to reinsert a feeding tube into their daughter (March 22, 2005) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32205fjord.pdf)
11th Circuit Opinion In 2-1 vote, a federal appeals court denies a legal request to reinsert a feeding tube into Terri Schiavo (March 23, 2005) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32305opn11.pdf)
The 11th Circuit Order denying Terri Schiavo’s parents request for a rehearing (March 23, 2005) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32305norhrng.pdf)

After a full trial, a second extensive hearing, dozens of motions, numerous court rulings, numerous appeals, etc., the courts have uniformly held that, by clear and convincing evidence, Ms. Schiavo is in a persistent vegatative state and would wish to die under these circumstances.

Based on the stray hearsay you've read or heard you disagree factually with all of these judges, guardians ad litem, etc., who have no personal stake in the matter, are trained to decide these questions, and have heard extensive facts -- including the presentations of Ms. Schiavo's parents. Tough. Your opinion is unreasonable.

Let the poor shell that is left of the woman die.

Well, I have 2 space marines, 3 pieces of chalk, 12 buckets full of legos, a dog, and three hermit crabs. I guess that's how much someone's worth.

It certainly affects the law, even if she isn't strictly considered property. The husband still gets first pass at any rights in those matters.

You are blissfully ignorant of the fact that if the situation were reversed, the wife would be in control, aren't you?

How much is one human life worth? One person is worth more than anything else in the world. It doesn't matter who they are or what they have done, one person is invaluable.

How much is one human life worth? One person is worth more than anything else in the world. It doesn't matter who they are or what they have done, one person is invaluable.

Actually, I think that humans are planetarily and genetically the LEAST valuable thing in the world for several reasons.

1) Humans have no predators, therefore cannot easily conribute to the other species.

2) Humans are actively destroying the environment and as many other species as possible.

There are others...but look at dependance. Which species are dependant on humans to survive? Noine, really...even domestic animals go feral when released into the wild. ANd the few that ARE dependant on humans for survival are only dependant on them because humans almost killed them in the first place.

Look at plankton. Without it, every other living animal on the face of the earth would eventually die off without question. I would say it is more valuable than a single human life, and yet we are eradicating plankton by our actions.

Funny, huh?

How much is one human life worth? One person is worth more than anything else in the world. It doesn't matter who they are or what they have done, one person is invaluable.
Please don't take offense at the following comment. It's not so much about you or your post, it's about my initial reaction to it.

Maybe I'm just too jaded and disillusioned with the world, but that comment sounds like simpleminded saccharine crap to me.

I don't give two shits about state's rights or personal rights here; I'm glad that Bush and co tried to prevent Terri's death for the simple reason that allowing her to die sets an unfortunate precedent. As it is, I don't think Michael Schiavo is a bad guy, and in general I absolutely believe the partner has more authority than the parents or children, but this is about whether or not someone is allowerd to die based on unproven word of mouth. If it was written, fine. Even if there were numerous witnesses to this being Terri's desire, I'd be willing to listen. But frankly, even if only one cell remained alive, without her written acquiesence, that one cell has to be kept alive. It's not about mercy, it's about precedent.

1. There was more than one witness, so you can be assuaged.

2. If you are willing to throw out both individual rights and state's rights, you are an extremist of the first order and I don't really care about the rest of your opinion. Think again whether you really mean that.

3. Once again, there is no precedent here. The only thing extraordinary about this case except the media circus, amount of judicial review, and political intervention. People are allowed to die pursuant to their wishes everyday.

I don't give two shits about state's rights or personal rights here; I'm glad that Bush and co tried to prevent Terri's death for the simple reason that allowing her to die sets an unfortunate precedent. As it is, I don't think Michael Schiavo is a bad guy, and in general I absolutely believe the partner has more authority than the parents or children, but this is about whether or not someone is allowerd to die based on unproven word of mouth. If it was written, fine. Even if there were numerous witnesses to this being Terri's desire, I'd be willing to listen. But frankly, even if only one cell remained alive, without her written acquiesence, that one cell has to be kept alive. It's not about mercy, it's about precedent.
so people should be kept alive at all cost (monetary and physical) because they did not anticipate every contingency in a living will?

i disagree. a paper (signed probably years before) cannot anticipate the realities of medical extremes. only a living human being can do that

for example, if she had had a living will specific to this condition, she probably would have been allowed to die after 2 years. her husband waited 8. while that isnt exactly what she would probably have wanted, it allowed for enough time to be certain that she wasnt going to recover.

And yet he was vilified for waiting eight years. ANd he would haveb een vilified by the same people if he had only waited three months or two years or four years or twenty years.

Fuck it. SOmetimes the other side really IS fucking stupid and htere's no denying it.

Actually, I think that humans are planetarily and genetically the LEAST valuable thing in the world for several reasons.

1) Humans have no predators, therefore cannot easily conribute to the other species.

2) Humans are actively destroying the environment and as many other species as possible.

There are others...but look at dependance. Which species are dependant on humans to survive? Noine, really...even domestic animals go feral when released into the wild. ANd the few that ARE dependant on humans for survival are only dependant on them because humans almost killed them in the first place.

Look at plankton. Without it, every other living animal on the face of the earth would eventually die off without question. I would say it is more valuable than a single human life, and yet we are eradicating plankton by our actions.

Funny, huh?

Please don't take offense at the following comment. It's not so much about you or your post, it's about my initial reaction to it.

Maybe I'm just too jaded and disillusioned with the world, but that comment sounds like simpleminded saccharine crap to me.

Riptide, you are correct that humans are pretty worthless, ecologically speaking. However, I don't judge people based on ecology.

DCR, I assume that you are not the only person out there who saw my comment as a little too naive.

I believe the way I do about the life of a human being because I believe that humans are created in the image of God. As such, a single human life is the most important thing in the universe short of God Himself.

$8.23 (US) if you break us down into our chemical parts and sell us.

So what?

I still wonder why people feel the need to pretend there are people who *want* her to die, who are in fact happy to see it.

I also wonder if there'd be all this commotion if she was a homosexual, black, and/or a Muslim.