i've been thinking about this recently too... one of the arguments i seem to be hearing for leaving her tube in is usually to the effect of 'starving her is barbaric.' and i don't disagree. but unfortunatly, if she had never been resussitated (sp?), it wouldn't matter, but because she was and retained a functioning brain stem, it isn't as simple or painless as 'pulling the plug.' (for clarification, i'm not saying that she is in any pain, but if she had a fully functioning brain, i'm sure it would be unpleasant).

maybe now it's time for us to wake up as a country and legalize euthinasia...

lucky for terri that she can't feel any pain, but what about all the people dying of cancer or als or any number of other terminal and painful disease? we do treat our criminals better, maybe it's time we treat our normal citizanry with the same courtesy.

And you know this how??? Do you think your ancestors in the death camps would have agreed with you?? Would the 30 million Ukranians that Stalin starved to death have agreed with you???

This makes me sick. No one here has any clue what the woman is feeling.

Including you, m'dear. So what makes you more qualified to judge, or your opinion more valid?


I have to disagree with the "no pain" thing though - she can absolutely feel pain. What she can't do is "suffer," which is a uniquely human trait limited to people with intact cerebellums: the addition of significance to events.

You're correct in the sense that I don't know what it is to starve to death. However, what makes me qualified is knowing what everyone else here knows....that starving is not a pleasnat experience. If you wanna believe that she's not suffering because it helps you sleep better, fine, but please do not presume to know whether another human being is suffering or not.

You wanna make it better NCB?
Next time you have the opportunity to vote, find out if candidates are in favor of euthanasia and vote for them.
Until then this is unfortunately the best we have.

And, again, because this woman has NO INTACT CEREBELLUM we know she can perceive no pain. We aren't presuming when we use this thing that the controlling minority of Christian Fundamentalists shun, called Science.

Since when did the separation between Church and State disappear? Bush and Congress had no right to attempt to interfere in the case.

Good point. Sorta like a tree falling in the woods with no one there to hear it.

Her brain is shut down. She's done. Let her die peacefully- and not by removing the feeding tube- that's a painful death. Whether or not she can feel herself slowing starving to death is irrelevant- it's disgusting to DO to a person, and completely unnecessary.

Euthanize her. She's not "responding" to anyone's presence any more than the body of a decapitated worm continues to move. Certain physical stimuli produce certain reactions- this does not mean she's "alive" and "cognizant", and it certainly does not negate all the tests that have been performed that show she's a veggie.

Euthanize her. Let her pass with some damn dignity.

11th Circuit Court says "We agree that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims." Ouch. That must brutal to hear for the Shindlers.

Here's a link to the text of the decision (PDF from the court's website).

I can't believe there is talk of euthanasia. That's the slippery slope of all slippery slopes if you ask me.

A very dangerous path to consider going down.

Why do you consider talk of euthanasia a dangerous path? When my Mother in Law was dying of brain cancer, she begged my wife to take her to Sweden(?), so that she could be euthanized. My wife negated that request. She's lived with that guilt ever since, as her mother's passing was, most assuredly, not an easy one.
We treat our household pets with more dignity and respect than we give to our loved ones.

Yep. The next case we'll hear about is some person with Alzheimers. The guy will be strapped down to his bed and starved. After all, it's what he would have wanted.

It's coming, and the hostility the Left seems to hold towards a culture of life will embrace it whole heartedly



Edited

Stop. That. Now.

The Left is not a death cult. This is not a liberal issue. DO NOT just impose anything you disagree with to the left.

A MAJORITY of Liberals, Conservatives and Evangelicals are in favor of letting her pass away like this and are against the federal actions.

By the way the doctor you were touting, William Hammesfahr, was not a Nobel Prize Nominee.
His nomination was based on a letter a Florida Republican Congressman wrote to the committee. This guy, though was not one of hte people that Nobel accepts nominations from.

Would that be hard to believe?

My grandfather had alzheimers, its what he wanted...his last week of life was in a hospital, no food, no hydration

he had it in writing though

Euthanasia and late term abortion in the minds of many are a form of death cult. Just because you may not like the term does not mean that it's not a belief that many conservatives hold. I think its a shame that life has become so cheap.

And some could say supporters of a death penalty that is skewed horribly against the poor and minorities who are unable to pay for a proper defense could be called a death cult as well.

But then I'd be playing a rhetoric game and I don't want to do that.

I think this is one of the key points. If she had it in writing, then OK. However, the husband is the only person that says she wanted it this way, and he didn't mention this until 7 years after her condition?

The people here who argue that TS wanted to die say that there are other who claim to have heard her say such things. Who those "others" are is another story. Her friends who I have seen interviewed say that she made no such claim. Thus I suspect the others are probably Steve Schiavo, brother of hubby, and an assortment of Michaels friends.

The seven separate courts and 20+ justices seem to think the "others" were significantly credible to side with Michael.

again, I will state......other people besides her husband testified in court that they heard her say the same thing. He gave her YEARS of aggressive rehab and therapy before he tried to let her go. Thats when the parents started fighting him and they had to start going to court.....


gosh dont ya'll read anything? I feel like this same thing has been said 20 times in this thread.

So who are these "other" people. I hear a lot about them, but very few details

It would be interesting to go through all 300+ posts in this thread and create a bar graph to show how many times identical information was given.

But I'm not that bored.

Feel free to review all court transcripts. I bet you can find them at findlaw.

I have, and still have seen no evidence of who the "others" are.

:lol:


You may not be able to see 'em, but damn if they don't make good witnesses. Virtually unimpeachable

I think your on to something here. I mean whats to stop them, theres no difference between the two. Mabye next week a man goes to get a physical for work when the doctor just puts a gun in his mouth. Theres no difference , and nothing we could do. After all we set president with this case and its all the same. We as a people cannot differentiate , and even if we could why would us death worshiping left even want to?

I've read most of this thread, and I've decided that I refuse to enter this discussion substantially. I can only say that after reflecting on this entire situation, I only hope that if one day I, or any of my loved ones are in a situation like this, that they will be allowed to pass without anything remotely approaching this much scrutiny or public attention. It's disgusting. It's hard enough to be involved in a situation where you have to make a life or death decision about a loved one - the villification of the individuals involved in this situation, which is seeminly based on very little substantial fact, is simply irreponsible. It's very easy to make judgemental statements from miles away - having been in a similar situation before, I can only say that many rhetorical arguments melt when you're face to face with a loved on who is in a similar situation.

well what do you know........

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151252,00.html

DOYLESTOWN, Pa. — A judge temporarily barred a Philadelphia woman from prolonging her husband's life with a feeding tube, which his daughter claims is contrary to his wishes.

Like the federal court battle over the removal of Terri Schiavo's (search) feeding tube in Florida, the Bucks County Court case of Alzheimer's disease victim John P. King Jr. (search) is complicated by disagreement among family members.

Unlike Schiavo, the 72-year-old King had signed a living will, but the document didn't avert the dispute that led to a preliminary injunction signed late Tuesday by President Judge David W. Heckler (search).

The injunction says King may not be nourished through a tube pending a hearing Heckler has scheduled for Monday.

King's daughter, Mariann Judith Clunk, of Hatboro, filed the lawsuit, saying her father suffers from the late stages of Alzheimer's disease and has deteriorated into an unconscious condition.

The lawsuit includes a copy of a living will King signed in 1998 saying he has a "firm and settled commitment to refuse life-sustaining treatment."

If he were ever to be in a "state of permanent unconsciousness," King said in the document, "I do not want tube feeding or any other artificial invasive form of nutrition or hydration."

Clunk said she believed her mother, Ann King of Philadelphia, intended to have her husband nourished through a feeding tube.

Ann King said she had asked for insertion of a feeding tube. "I have been talking to the doctor about it for while," she said. She said she didn't know about the injunction, and declined to comment further.

Though the living will stated King's opposition to a feeding tube in the event of permanent unconsciousness, it also named Ann King as her husband's surrogate, with the power to carry out his wishes if he is "unable or incompetent to make or express a decision."

Clunk and King's son, John P. King III, were named as alternate co-surrogates.

Clunk's attorney, Joseph M. Masiuk, declined to discuss whether Clunk's authority would outweigh Ann King's, but said Ann King had no power to alter the terms of the living will.

"The issue is what John P. King Jr. wants. That is clear by the terms of his living will," Masiuk said.

Then you haven't read very carefully.

Several of the links we've posted to backup documentation said that in addition to Michael Schiavo, his brother and brother's wife (who was also a very close friend of Terri's) stated that Terri Schiavo made comments in numerous instances - after the prolonged deaths of family members - that made them believe she wouldn't want to be kept alive in this state.

Interesting how not reading the documentation we provide allows you to keep claiming that "I haven't seen such and such evidence." It's there if you're actually interested in being educated.

Intresting sources. I've also heard 4 other of her close friends that are not related to hubby of the year and they say the oppossite. So who do you believe.

For someone who's is so concerned about my education on this, you sure don't seem to educated about the people who claim that she didn't want this.

back up NCB......we are not the ones asking for proof of things we have already provided documentation for....we are well aware of the statements from the other side, and I dont see where anything that we've said proves otherwise... since we get our information from non biased sources... YOU are the one that doesnt seem educated on both sides

Intresting. A little different, because this has a living will with his wishes included in it. Nice find

Could you leave my (and HH's) ancestors out of this, please? Is it really so hard to see the difference between genocide and "killing" a braindead piece of flesh?

It's really simple: you have your opinion, and see mercy killings as evil; we have ours, and see it as humane. The courts seem to be on our side in this, and I would guess that that isn't because they *like* killing helpless people. Just because you don't know all the details, doesn't mean those details aren't there, nor that they're all fake/wrong.

I'm a bit vocal about this issue, because I saw the whole process from up close. It's really different when one of your loved ones is suffering on a daily basis. Because of this experience, I think that forcing people to experience that is less humane than putting an end to it.

Lurkette, Shani, S-Belt et al: why are you arguing about this anymore? The patient's guardian (via marriage) has made the decision he was entrusted with, all legal challenges have been turned down, and the process of this family is carrying on. NCB doesn't accept that as an ethical procession in this situation, and I hightly doubt he's going to change his mind. You have posted more sources for information than should be necessary. No offense to y'all, but I don't think it's worth your emotional input to argue this. I just hope that if I'm ever in the position of this lady , whoever in my family it falls to to make the decision isn't of the mindset of NCB . No offense at all NCB, but we just differ largely on this point. Aside from that - the intense focus on this particular family at this time in their lives is awful.

actually, just this morning ANOTHER legal action is being considered. A neurologist who has spend about half an hour with terri and reviewed video tapes (NOT given her an actual examination) is preparing an affidavit that brings up doubts that she is in a persistant vegitative state. This would allow the DCM to put Mrs. Schaivo into protective custody, which would allow them to reinsert the feeding tube.

I think this is sick. the Carr family is not doing this for Terri, they're doing it for themselves. After HOW many years they're still clinging onto impossibility of her recovery. What does Michael Schaivo have to gain from letting his wife die? Terri has been dead for almost two decades; her body has been kept alive so her family could pretend she might someday wake up and say "thanks for sustaining my body all those years, now i have dimished mental and physical capacities but at least I'm 'alive'."

I'm with analog. Let this woman die, but don't starve her to death; euthanize her. It bothers me that the "right to life" is more important than the rights of an individual.

And I must say, although this thread has walked the fine line a number of times, but it's impressive how long it's lasted. kudos to those who have kept the debate alive and civil.

This is sad that it has to come to this. The kid may be scum in many books, but in mine, he's a hero. Also, it looks like the end is near. I just read that death may come as early as tonight. Pray for her, no matter what side you're on.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...4209066064.jpg

Gabriel Keys (foreground) is arrested by police officers for trespassing in Pinellas Park, Florida, March 23, 2005. The young protester attempted to take a glass of water into the Woodside Hospice for the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo. A federal judge rejected a request from the parents of Schiavo to order her feeding tube reinserted, dealing a blow to attempts by the U.S. Congress and the White House to prolong her life. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Scum? Hardly. A pawn? Most certainly. Kudos on the last sentence, though. ;)

Exactly BOR. Anyone who thinks this kid wasn't compelled into what he did is deluded.
He doesn't understand what is going on and likely doesn't care. There's a very dedicated parent behind this kid and the strings should be followed back and the puppetmaster should be charged with corrupting a minor.