Should Terri Schiavo be allowed to die?

Whether she lives or dies should be up to her family, not George Bush, not Congress, or any other group trying to politicize this issue to further their own agendas. Kind of ironic that one of the mantras of the Republicans is smaller government. How does one go from less government involvement to direct involvement in a person's medical condition?

I guess Bush's involvement shouldn't be much of a surprise since he enjoys playing God with other people's lives and he believes that God speaks to him directly.

Yes. In retrospect, the poll should really be WHO should decide and not whether she should be allowed to die or not.

Oh well.

People may wanna see http://www.TerrisFight.net/ before forming an opinion...

From what I see there, it seems her husband has started a new family, and just wants her to "disappear" -- against her family's wishes. It also seems Terri's lawyer is making some huge bucks over all this. I'm still not certain what even happened to her to begin with -- or what entitled her to over a million dollars in malpractice awards a few years ago -- but I think the family should be the one to decide, not the government nor deserting husband Michael Schiavo.

But as I said, I don't know everything about this case...

If it is truely her wish not to live like that then I say yes take the tube out. I know the only way I would want to be put on a machine or a feeding tube if it was only temporary and it would help me to get better. But, not for the rest of my life living like a vegtable. The US Government has no business getting involved in this case. It is up to the family. If it is true that the only reason the husband wants her to die is so he can get on with his life with his new family then he is a scumbag.

She should be allowed to die. Congress interfering with this means that Congress (mainly those God damned Republicans, as a matter of fact, just those God damned Republicans) is intruding on the lives of each person and can't mind their own business. Every other family that is going through something like this can now turn to Congress for help. People around the US who know what is going on are starving to death and living in poverty, but we're worried about someone who is going to stay in her present state.

I wish the decision could be up to the parents, but giving them the authority to decide whether Terri lives would interfere with a juvenile and an adult.

A sticky situation that should've been left alone by Congress. -Pat

How is that?

and btw I like the flame bait by saying "God Damned Republicans" :rolleyes:

How is that?

and btw I like the flame bait by saying "God Damned Republicans" :rolleyes: [/quote]How is that? If the parents can decide what happens to their daughter (who is over 18), than that, in essence, gives them power to decide her fate when she is an adult. It's like my parents being able to tell me what to do when I turn 18 and move out. They have no authority on me anymore.

Are you trying to say that it's not the Republicans that are pushing this?!

How is that?

and btw I like the flame bait by saying "God Damned Republicans" :rolleyes: [/quote]How is that? If the parents can decide what happens to their daughter (who is over 18), than that, in essence, gives them power to decide her fate when she is an adult. It's like my parents being able to tell me what to do when I turn 18 and move out. They have no authority on me anymore.

Are you trying to say that it's not the Republicans that are pushing this?! [/b][/quote]Then it only interferes with what happens between an adult and an adult. Terri is responsive and I've heard numerous reports of her responding when they talk about death, and how SHE doesn't want it. Since she can't personally go to court and fight it and her husband wants her dead then her wishes should just be ignored? It's not a matter of the parents MAKING the decision it is the parents FIGHTING FOR THEIR DAUGHTER'S decision.

and no I'm saying there was no need to say God Damned, you could have just said Republicans but you put in the God Damned as flame bait.

I personally know all the lawyers and the judge who have been fighting this case for what now seems to be forever. The Federal Judge who will hear it is smart enough to put the tube back in and hear the who shee-bang another day.

This is an effort by the agenda driven right wing to have government control over life and death, and the relationship with this case to Roe v Wade is unmistakable. If congress can overrule the courts on this issue, it can do so on abortion.

These right wing whack jobs have no compunction about executing retarded people, and calling the death of 100,000 Iraqis "collateral damage." But when there is a white woman on a feeding tube and a photo op, then they are advocates of the "culture of life." BULLSPIT!

Please show evidence of this. According to a doctor who was on CNN yesterday, it's VERY ordinary for someone in a vegitative state to smile and look at the person talking to them, but they have no understanding of what is going on.

Oh, I forgot about your virgin ears. :p :rolleyes: I'll use darn next time. -Pat

Welcome to the boards!

Bravo - well said. The right isn't just sticking its foot in the door, it's trying to kick the door down and get rid of our civil liberties. And many in this country gleefully let them get away with it.

Hypothetically speaking.....

If I were in a vegetative state, I would want the plug pulled so my spouse would be able to get on with her life.

Particularly if she found someone to be with whom she loved and who loved her.

What would be the point of my keeping my spouse trapped in a marriage to a vegetable?

I wouldn't blame her one bit if she wanted to divorce me because she met and fell in love with someone else.

Like JG, I'm not all that familiar with the facts of the case, but I don't see how her husband is a scumbag.

If she could somehow make a conscious choice as to whether or not to let him get on with his life and chose not to, that, I think, would make her the scumbag.

I think the fact that he hasn't could be a testament to his desire to do what she would have wanted. If my DH were in her situation, I would fight until the end to take him off artificial life support, because I know that he would not want to be in a persistent vegetative state for years without end. It wouldn't be possible for me to just walk away.

It has been 15 years, he HAS another life. He asked the COURT to consider the evidence about what she would have wanted, and to make its own evaluation, not necessarily HIS alone. THE COURTS found that she would not have wanted to be kept alive based on the evidence we are not privy to.

I saw the brain scans of Teri. It is all fluid. Yuck.

Of course she should be -- did anyone ask her, or did she indicate at all, if that's what she wanted?

Of course she should be -- did anyone ask her, or did she indicate at all, if that's what she wanted? [/b][/quote]As a matter of fact, according to her husband, she said she wouldn't want to live this way.

Also, I find it really uncomfortable that some of you guys want this woman to be kept alive. Put yourself in her shoes. Would you want to live that way? Laying in one bed for 15 years with only a tube to decide your fate? Seriously. I pray to God that the Federal Judge decides to keep the tube out. We all know that the right is coming for Roe Vs. Wade next.

This is their practice round. I can see the lies in the eyes of every single politician who said they trully cared about Terri. Give me a break! You didn't even know the woman and you know 'darn' well that you wouldn't want to live that way. -Pat

You are right...the problem however, is that her family is DIVIDED on the issue. While her estranged husband insists that she should be allowed to be starved to death, her parents would like her to be allowed to live. That is why it came to this in the first place.

While I'm fairly certain the husband's motives are sincere and that that Terri might well have told him she would not want to live this way - in my opinion the fact remains that she never signed a paper stating so, never prepared a living will making her wishes known. That lack of legal documentation alone should prevent this feeding tube from ever being removed in the first place.

What is the point of a living will if someone's spouse or other closest living relative can simply say, 'Well, he/she told me once while we were watching a movie that they would never want to be kept alive in a vegetative state.'

While she's had no nutrition since Friday and time's a-wastin', I think it's absolutely right of Congress and anyone else to do whatever they can to help this woman to remain alive. For feeding a person is NOT keeping them alive via 'artificial' means. And whatever she said to hubby in the comfort of their home...she did not sign anything expressing her wishes. If she had, this story would've been over long ago.

Since air isn't being forced into her lungs, Terri is not being kept alive artifically. She can breathe on her own. She's not on life support. She is simply being fed. And she should continue to be fed until the day she dies.

Best,
AppleOnYa

If that day comes - and it may never come - but in the event it does, can you include something that allows me permission to pull the plug ? I would like to take that opportunity and auction it off on eBay, I bet I would make a fortune. DB would probably be the second highest bidder but that is another story. :p

But to the question at hand and whether anything was written. She has been this way for 15 years, she was in her mid 20's when this happened, so how many people in their mid 20's even have a living will. My wife has said many many times that she would not want to be kept alive if she cannot survive on her own - that is not the life that she wants. And though she has let that be known many times and in some cases to others than myself, she has no living will. So if God forbide she was ever in that state I would be doing what I could to grant her wish because that is what she wanted and that is what my obligation to her would be. Why is the husband perceived as the bad guy in this? If she truly made that request he is trying to honor it, I don't see that as a negative. It is not like this has been 15 days or even 15 months, but it has been 15 years, this was not a spur decision. There was actually a good discussion on her state on CNN last night, she really has no brain function and I don't believe they have found one medical professional in the 15 years that has said she can recover. At the end of the day, no matter what - it is just a sad sad story, for I think everyone, although on opposite sides, really believe they are doing the right thing and doing what is best for Terri.


Of course on my part I let it be known to keep me going. Take me in the car, plug me into the cigarette lighter, drive me around down. Get me back in the house, sit me in the vibrating recliner plug me in and put the remote next to me. Most people probably wouldn't see much of a change though It'll be like 'Weekend at Bernie's' :p

From what I have heard, her parents were willing to take full responsibility for her, so if there is no living will or similar document, then I really do not understand the husband's view... unless her death means that he can date or remarry with a clear conscience. Sorry, but my 'guy' instincts tell me that even if she is not in his care, she is still restricting him from moving on. Although his wife is disabled, he cannot remarry or even date without technically committing adultery. I am not saying that he does not love his wife, but I do know that her death sets him free to move on.

I read that several doctors have said that her situation can be improved with therapy and rehabilition. However, her husband keeps refusing it, even when they outright recommended specific rehabilitation centers for her, early on.

Does anyone know why he doesn't want this?

I don't know, I don't trust him. One of his ex-girlfriends testified against him, but then stopped testifying because she was scared of him. He won't sign over the guardianship to her parents-- if he wants to move on with his life, he's welcome to, but he's not doing it. At one point, he forbade Terri's brother and sister from visiting her. What's the deal with this guy? He's not just some poor soul who basically lost his wife and is trying to move on. There seems to be a LOT more to it than that.

I have a hard time believing that after 15 years and all the press this case has gotten in addition to the numerous courts cases and battles that included so many medical testimonies, that if there was real beliefs that therapy and rehabilition could make a difference it would have had to happen or it would have been made a much bigger issue. From what I have heard she has no brain activity - zero - how can therapy and rehabilition help if there is no brain activity? Putting aside the issue of the feeding tube - which I can see arguements on both sides, I really don't see after all these years of no change nor improvement that any therapy will make a difference though - unfortunelatly. Sanjay Gupte the medical expert on CNN, who I think is pretty neutral on a lot of things even said there is no medical evidence or perceptions that anything can change her condition.

There are videos of her reacting to things, to people's voices, reacting to touch, things like that. When her mother asks her questions, she grunts. I'm no doctor, but that really seems like brain activity to me.

I don't know, the whole thing is weird. The two sides are so extreme, and they're not agreeing on anything. You'd think they're seeing the medical charts of two separate people.

They talked about that very exact thing last night on the CNN episode I saw with Gupte. He said that people in her condition sometimes respond to noise and such but it is more of an instinct or natural movement - whatever that means but he was saying again saying from all the tests / exams there is no brain activity at all. I don't understand it all but it has been pretty consistent from the various people that I have at least seen that they all say no brain activity. He also said that what we don't see is all the times when there is no response, that in all the years that same clip we see is the one that is used because 99% of the time there is no response at all.

As I said the issue of the feeding tube etc is debatable I can see both sides, I lean towards one, however on the issue of brain activity from what I have seen and heard I don't believe there is any, she was without oxygen for over 5 minutes when the initial stroke or whatever occured and the brain never responded since than. Who thinks stuff like that happens to a 25 or 26 year old person?

I know, it's scary.

If they were sure that she's brain-dead, and that no amount of treatment and therapy would help her, then I'd say send in the priest, say a prayer, whatever it is that they do, and get it over with already. I don't think it's right to "defeat" death that way. Death happens, and it's a very necessary part of life. You can keep someone on life support forever, what's the point?

But the thing is, as far as I know, she's not on respirators and stuff... they're only feeding her and giving her water. Nothing more. Her heart is beating on its own, she's breathing alone.

What are they saying about that on CNN and stuff? I'm not being a bitch and challenging you (at least not this time )-- I seriously want to know. I haven't been watching the news, just reading the papers and stuff.

Oh I know you are not challening me nor being a bitch - you are too smart for that. :p

But seriously though, the CNN segment was probably the only segment that was more than just the standard 2 minute soundbyte where they really discussed the situation from a health standpoint, not all the legal issues. And they basically talked of what I said earlier. She is the way she is, it has been 15 years, she was deprived of oxygen when this initially happened for over 5 minutes and though the body and organs can function, which is why she is not on respirators and the such - the brain is shut down for all intent and purposes.

And to the earlier comment about the woman that was in a coma they also spoke about the difference between the two; a coma and this persistent vegetative state (or whatever it is called). With the coma that body completely shuts down, no responses, nothing, it just shuts down however that does not mean no brain activity, only no responses. In this persistent vegetative state, the body shows signs of responses at times however the brain is not functioning. I do not have a medical degree so I am not sure of all the talk of how the body responds with no brain activity etc, but they were consistent in the message there is no brain activity in this persistent vegetative state and that was pretty consistent with the few other discussions I saw or read on the medical side of it. There was really no discussions on the legality of removing the feeding tube - it was really just a discussion - from a medical point of view of her condition.

The most interesting point though, I thought and mentioned earlier was when they discussed the video where she seems to respond at times and the comment was you see these same few clips over and over because all the other times there is no response at all. I found that a very interesting comment.

This whole situation makes me sick If her parents, her family, want so much to keep her alive and they are willing to care for her, then why should ANYBODY be allowed to remove her feeding tube?! Since we will never know what Terri's true wishes were, the decisions should be made by her family. And I do not think anybody should have the right to tell her parents that they cannot be allowed to care for their daughter, especially considering how imhumane this is. We're talking about starvation here...

I just think it was really stupid of congress to get involved in this issue. There are so many more important items in this nation that needs attention.


First thing pat I want to reply to your words of god dmaned republicans. :rolleyes: Yeah like it's totally their fault. Granted they controll congress but they don't control it by a large margin. :rolleyes: I'm sure your precious democraps are highly involved in this as well.

.......human rights ARE important issues, IMO.

This is so very hard. I wouldn't want to trade places with any of the folks involved. As a mother, I can understand the parent's feelings. I would give anything under the sun for another minute with my child. Even if I suspected that she didn't know it was me, just to be able to stroke her face or kiss her cheek, I would gladly surrender whatever anybody wanted. Not just for another day with her, or another hour, but even another second. That's the strength of a parent's love.

However, I can also understand her husband. He is a young man. She has lingered this way for 15 years. It must be heartbreaking. She was a beautiful young girl. To see her reduced to this level is pain I can't imagine.

Maybe he doesn't want to sign over her guardianship because legally, as her husband, the courts usually place the spouse in the position to make these decisions. Maybe he truly believes that this is what she would've wanted and wants to fight for her to die with what he sees as some scrap of dignity.

As for the conflicting testimony regarding her status and her reaction to voices, etc., perhaps the husband is just being more objective. I think that the parents are blinded by their love for her, so maybe they see things that they want to see. I'm pretty sure I would.

That being said, I think that the evidence has shown that she is incapable of surviving. If she still can't eat on her own after 15 years, then her tube should be removed and she should be allowed to die. Seeing my father suffer before he died and being powerless to relieve his pain may have altered my opinion, but I think we owe humans the same compassionate death we would give our own dog or cat.