Main > Everything Else
Schiavo rumblings
Tailgunner:
While I'm politically conservative, I'll agree with both mrC and JCL that neither the Florida legislature nor Congress has any business being involved in this case.
As far as Terry, I'm inclined to believe she's been dead for 15 years. At least I'd like to think so, being cognizant and trapped in a useless body for that long isn't something I'd wish on my worst enemy. I can understand keeping her alive while holding out hope she'll wake up, but to drag it out this long strikes me as ghoulish and inhuman. Granted, starving her to death (a misnomer, she'll die of dehydration first) isn't a pleasant concept, but without any legal way to release her mercifully there isn't any alternative.
SirPeale:
I dunno...
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43383
How true this is, I can't say, I wasn't there. But if it is...
DrewKaree:
It's not a matter of her waking up. She's awake.
The website set up to explain whatever you wish, or contact your elected representative
From the FAQ:
If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go?
Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it.
Why can't Terri just divorce?
Terri's husband/guardian speaks for her. She cannot divorce without his permission
Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?
Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation.
Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide?
Terri's husband has started another family and probably has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home.
Is Terri receiving life support?
Not in the traditional sense. Terri only receives food and fluids via a simple tube.
Isn't removing her tube a natural and dignified way to die?
No. Dehydration and starvation cause horrific effects and are anything but peaceful.
Most common misconceptions about Terri's situation
MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.
Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.
If the man truly felt a responsibility to his wife, he wouldn't have been fathering children with another woman while still married. He also wouldn't have stopped any and all treatment of her two months after recieving a malpractice settlement. Nothing he's done speaks to him actually feeling responsible for her.
If she had ever put her wishes in writing or if anyone other than her husband had heard of these "wishes", I'd probably agree, but this seems to be a case of some SERIOUSLY suspect motives by the husband, aided by a judge using the slightest of reasons to give him this power. There's SO much to call into question his motives, which is why legislative action is being worked on.
If you haven't already, this case should have you considering getting started on a living will.
fredster:
I don't know what his motives are. I don't know if he has the money. I don't know the ramifications if he gets a divorce for him. I don't know a lot about this.
I do know that I am facing a similar situation in the future, maybe in 5 years. It's a situation that I hope nobody on this board ever has to face in any way shape or form.
If Terry indeed said those things back when she was healthy, then the court has every right to enforce her wishes. Congress has the right to look into it. Let them look. I'm personally glad that they are for once upholding the constitution's mandate and looking out for her life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But if they find that she wouldn't want to live, then she has the right to pass on like she wanted. But they should look, I'd want them to for me.
There is a lot vitriolic crap being spewed by both sides. The ethical guildlines on this are thin. My feeling is that this man would have walked away and handed the money and responsiblity over to the parents . I know I would have. I side a little on his camp.
MrC - Where in that article can you produce fact on your cheap Bush shot? Discuss.
tommy:
Seeing her the way she is there is no point in her being alive, except for her family to hold on to something , who wants to see you child die but it seems they should let her rest in peace.