What would you do?

[Raistlin]

People should have the right to die if they're mentally competent to make that decision. There is usually a legal document required for a "do not revive" order. I don't know why there isn't one in this case, or whether or not one is even required in that state.

There isn't one in this case because she went under 15 years ago, well before living wills became more common. She was young and the doctors did not diagnose the condition which eventually sent her into the coma(hence the malpractice suit). The living will in writing is not required - what her husband and others testified to was that she said orally that she would want to die.

The only question here should be what the woman wanted, not the morality or immorality of letting someone die.

Exactly! And that's exactly what the courts considered and ruled on.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

If a person is in a permanent vegetative state, why prolong their existence? In a way, they are already dead. They cannot think, they cannot fend for themselves, their brain is dead, the body just hasn't caught up yet. If someone needs machines to be kept alive and cannot respond or feel or think for the rest of their life, do we have a right to force the body to live?

[nik0tine]

My question is how do the courts know that she would have wanted to die? And hell, even if she did, she might change her mind once the time to die actually comes. I don't think it's right for the court to make this decision. They don't know for sure, therefore she should be kept alive. What's worse keeping someone alive ifthey don't want to live, or killing someone when they don't want to die?

[Raistlin]

I must point out the difference between "brain dead" and "persistent vegetative state." By law, brain dead qualifies for death. It's when everything in the brain is gone except for the brain stem(the part of the brain that controls heart rate, breathing, etc.). If she was brain dead, there would not be this controversy.

However, she's in a "persistent vegetative state." That means that the part of her brain that forms concious thought is gone, and she can basically just lie there and make occasional involuntary actions, such that might led the uninformed to believe that she is reacting to something(see all those Schiavo movies on the internet which are Terri making involuntary actions to the camera with her parents, making it look like she's reacting to her parents. However, as judges ruled, these are occasional, involuntary actions). Her brain is there, but the part that made her...well, her, is gone. And, according to all the doctors except for the ones hired by the parents(including the independent experts sent by the court), she will never recover.

My question is how do the courts know that she would have wanted to die? And hell, even if she did, she might change her mind once the time to die actually comes. I don't think it's right for the court to make this decision. They don't know for sure, therefore she should be kept alive. What's worse keeping someone alive ifthey don't want to live, or killing someone when they don't want to die?

1. I dunno why the courts ruled that she wanted to die. I just know they heard testimony from Michael and her parents and other people, and ruled that she did(which was affirmed in the court of appeals). Florida law mandates that the judges err in valuing life in circumstances like these, so it must have been pretty convincing evidence to make two sets of judges hop over the fence.

2. It's called a living will. Yes, it's possible that the patient might change their mind, but if a living will(written, oral, or inferred), is left, then by law it must be followed. It's absolutely right for the court to make this decision - if you don't like it, argue with Congress. The courts only follow the law, they don't make it.

3. How do you know she didn't want to die? The lower Florida court ruled, time and again, that she did, and the Florida court of appeals affirmed, time and again, the lower courts' ruling. Seems like the husband has a pretty strong case.

[ShunNakamura]

What seperates people and animals?

What makes a person a person?

What really makes us humans seperated from the rest of the animal kingdom are our cognitive abilities(this includes the fact that humans create "culture"). Anyways without our cognitive abilities we are no longer a person... we probably wouldn't even qaulify as an animal in that state, hence we call it a vegitative state. I aggree that if there is no chance of mental recovery that one should just die... unless otherwise specified by the person themselves, or if there is some chance of recovery.

[Garland]

My disapproval isn't with Terri's right to die. I for one feel euthanasia should be legal in certain circumstances. I disapprove with the method in which Schiavo is being executed. When my dog was terminally ill, it was given an instant, painless death to put it out of its misery. Our criminals are given instant painless deaths by the exact same means. I would never even consider for a second, killing a terminally ill dog by starvation/dehydation. It's cruel. While I agree that Terri should be allowed to die, I think the week long starvation technique is barbaric.

[Lone]

From a personal stand point, i belive it would be more acceptable to take out the tube. Why? Because the recources that keep her alive (not to mention all the money) could go to better use. And what i mean about better use is the use on other patiants that have a better chance at survival. She has been in acoma for 15 years. I could see where the problem would be if it was 1 or 2 years. But this is 15. I highly doubt that she will live a full life. She may continue to live, but wouldnt it be better to die then to live another 15-30 years in a vegitative state with a small chance of recovery.

But the part i do not agree about, is that it would take her 2 weeks to die after they take out the tube. Thats is just wrong. Even if she is in acoma, she is subconcously alive and may feel the pain of hunger in dreams. If they remove the tube, i think she should remove all equipment aswell.

[Rye]

But the part i do not agree about, is that it would take her 2 weeks to die after they take out the tube. Thats is just wrong. Even if she is in acoma, she is subconcously alive and may feel the pain of hunger in dreams. If they remove the tube, i think she should remove all equipment aswell.

I agree, but the only other equipment she has is for getting water into her, and I think that's being taken out too.

[Big D]

My disapproval isn't with Terri's right to die. I for one feel euthanasia should be legal in certain circumstances. I disapprove with the method in which Schiavo is being executed. When my dog was terminally ill, it was given an instant, painless death to put it out of its misery. Our criminals are given instant painless deaths by the exact same means. I would never even consider for a second, killing a terminally ill dog by starvation/dehydation. It's cruel. While I agree that Terri should be allowed to die, I think the week long starvation technique is barbaric.

I think the problem is this: discontinuing medical treatment is a passive choice - they're not actively doing anything, just refraining from doing more. By administering a lethal injection or somesuch, they'd be actively taking steps to kill her. They go from omitting to do something, to choosing to kill by a deliberate act. It's a technical distinction, but one is homicide and the other is merely the exercise of medical discretion.

If there's absolutely no possibility of her experiencing any sensation - conscious or unconscious - then I understand the decision.

[edczxcvbnm]

If it were me I would have wanted to be shot in the head like...by 5 guns at the same time. I don't want to starve to death. Just get it over with already.

I think that this has gone on more than long enough. 15 years and counting seeing as how congress just had to go involved. I think the tube is back in because the Republicans are passing laws to make sure she lives. Until this goes to federal court. In which case it nothing is going to change.

I am very pissed off at congress becaues they can rush stupid like this through but when it comes to the important stuff like
1) A simple tax code
2) Balancing a Budget
3) Fixing anything that effects us all

It takes them about a bazillion years to lift a finger on it. HEY CONGRESS, get your priorities straight you jackasses!

[Raistlin]

My disapproval isn't with Terri's right to die. I for one feel euthanasia should be legal in certain circumstances. I disapprove with the method in which Schiavo is being executed. When my dog was terminally ill, it was given an instant, painless death to put it out of its misery. Our criminals are given instant painless deaths by the exact same means. I would never even consider for a second, killing a terminally ill dog by starvation/dehydation. It's cruel. While I agree that Terri should be allowed to die, I think the week long starvation technique is barbaric.

Cruel? She can't feel it. The only difference between an instant painless death and a two-week-long painless death is that one is easier on our conscience. There is no difference to the dying person.

But the part i do not agree about, is that it would take her 2 weeks to die after they take out the tube. Thats is just wrong. Even if she is in acoma, she is subconcously alive and may feel the pain of hunger in dreams. If they remove the tube, i think she should remove all equipment aswell.

So what you're saying is...you'd be in favor of it if it only took two days, for example? Two days of suffering is better than two weeks?
Either way, it's a moot point: she can't feel a damn thing. C'mon, people, keep up now.

I think the problem is this: discontinuing medical treatment is a passive choice

Exactly. That's the legal difference. I, personally, see no moral difference, but the legal difference is necessary. Allowing active suicide brings about a possible "slippery slope."

ed: yep. The Republicans are using Terri as a political soap box, completely ignoring the true issue at hand.

[Casey]

How, exactly? A retarded person can feel and have concious thought.

It's staggering to me how many of you don't understand what the court ruled on. The court didn't rule to take the feeding tube out because that's what should happen in these instances; the courts ruled that Terri would have wanted to have the feeding tube removed.

Being retarded, is like also being brain damaged. The courts ruled that to have the feding tube removed, when parts of her family I.E. her sister and brother are against it. Terri's ex, Michael Schiavo honestly doesnt care for the woman and wants her dead, he's even recieved money from lawsuit settlements. I wonder about this man Michael Schiavo, he's a murderer. He wouldnt let Terri's brother or sister visit the woman, or even let Terri outside the hospital.

How the hell do you know what she wants anyways, she cant even defend herself. And all Im trying to be is compassionate, when people like the guy below in the quote says somthing about Republicans 'exploiting' this problem. Honestly debating about this over the internet isnt going to help, because we have no say, non of us. I think its a real shame though, that they're just going to kill her. Ronald Reagen began to have Alzheimer's, you didnt see him kill himself because his brain started to break down.

The best thing to do is stay optimistic. I mean, she maybe in a vegetative state, but it doesnt mean she will stay that way forever. She might get out of it 20 years down the road, or maybe never. We dont know. Theres been cases in the pass of people waking up from brain dead or coma, on the news.

The Republicans are using Terri as a political soap box, completely ignoring the true issue at hand.

The issue happens to be bi-pardecin.

Cruel? She can't feel it. The only difference between an instant painless death and a two-week-long painless death is that one is easier on our conscience. There is no difference to the dying person.

Whats cruel, is that some of you want her dead because she cant defend her self. Now thats cruel, talk about having your mouth stapled shut when people want you dead. Even when your paralyzed in a hospital bed or wheel chair, you have no self-defense.

http://www.terrisfight.org/

[Raistlin]

Terri's ex, Michael Schiavo honestly doesnt care for the woman and wants her dead

...and you obviously have some remote sort of evidence to testify to that, right? Oh wait, no, 'cause there isn't any. Courts have ruled and affirmed time and again that he's right - that's what Terri would want.

I wonder about this man Michael Schiavo, he's a murderer. He wouldnt let Terri's brother or sister visit the woman

I just read that she's free for visitation.

How the hell do you know what she wants anyways, she cant even defend herself.

That's what the trials were about. If judges time and time again(these judges are people too, y'know) that Terri would chose to die, who the hell are we to say otherwise? We don't even know all the facts.

And all Im trying to be is compassionate

All I'm trying to be is open-minded.

Ronald Reagen began to have Alzheimer's, you didnt see him kill himself because his brain started to break down.

Because obviously Alzheimer's is exactly like being a vegetable.

I mean, she maybe in a vegetative state, but it doesnt mean she will stay that way forever. She might get out of it 20 years down the road, or maybe never. We dont know. Theres been cases in the pass of people waking up from brain dead or coma, on the news.

There has never been anyone that has woken up from being brain dead. Ever. Brain dead IS dead. They wouldn't even bother saving them. Yes, people have woken up from comas before. But guess what? Terri's whole front of her brain, the part that controls concious thoughts and makes you you, is GONE. Completely gone, left with nothing but spinal fluid. Irreversible brain damage. All put one doctor in the case(those hired by the husband and those sent independently by the courts) say she's never waking up. Seems a pretty reasonable estimation to me.

The issue happens to be bi-pardecin.

First off, it's "bi-partisan." Secondly, that's bull. Some Democrats may support the Congress in this action, but the Republicans are leading it, completely ignoring the true issue.

Whats cruel, is that all of you want her dead because she cant defend her self.

...what? I don't want her dead. But I do fully support her right to die if that's what she wishes - which, according to judges and witnesses and numerous court trials, she does.

Please, click on the link I posted in a previous post of mine. You are obviously vastly misinformed.

[fire_of_avalon]

Being retarded, is like also being brain damaged. The courts ruled that to have the feding tube removed, when parts of her family I.E. her sister and brother are against it. Terri's ex, Michael Schiavo honestly doesnt care for the woman and wants her dead, he's even recieved money from lawsuit settlements. I wonder about this man Michael Schiavo, he's a murderer. He wouldnt let Terri's brother or sister visit the woman, or even let Terri outside the hospital.

How the hell do you know what she wants anyways, she cant even defend herself. And all Im trying to be is compassionate, when people like the guy below in the quote says somthing about Republicans 'exploiting' this problem. Honestly debating about this over the internet isnt going to help, because we have no say, non of us. I think its a real shame though, that they're just going to kill her. Ronald Reagen began to have Alzheimer's, you didnt see him kill himself because his brain started to break down.

The best thing to do is stay optimistic. I mean, she maybe in a vegetative state, but it doesnt mean she will stay that way forever. She might get out of it 20 years down the road, or maybe never. We dont know. Theres been cases in the pass of people waking up from brain dead or coma, on the news.



The issue happens to be bi-pardecin.



Whats cruel, is that some of you want her dead because she cant defend her self. Now thats cruel, talk about having your mouth stapled shut when people want you dead. Even when your paralyzed in a hospital bed or wheel chair, you have no self-defense.

http://www.terrisfight.org/

But is it fair that thousands upon thousands of dollars in medical treatment are going to this one person, who yes very well may have a chance to survive, whereas others who have greater chances of survival with proper medical care are left out? Is it fair that she takes up a room, and machines, and resources that other people can use?

I'm playing Devil's advocate now, because as I've said before I really don't know what I'd do in this situation. The right to life is a strange subject, especially when the life in question can't really be defined as "life" anymore.

[udsuna]

Exactly, I don't see how you could call LETTING her die is murder. She's already dead. Take the cold scientific approach, and you must acknowlege that the part of her that can think or function is entirely gone. Open a computer, remove the hardrive and the motherboard, and it can hardly be called a computer anymore. Or, it isn't doing much computing any time soon, even if it's still plugged in. Hence, you can't kill what isn't alive.

Take the religious approach, and this is a blessing. Imagine trapped, alone, in a body that will not let go and die. Unable to see, or hear (or at least, unable to understand sight and sound). I'd chose death. If it was in my power, I'd take my own life with little hesitation. Just enough to think "Ok, this sucks. Oh well, final resting place, here I come."