Reply By: RightwingerPosted: Tuesday, March 22, 2005I have a nephew that was condemned to be slow..retarded if you must say the word.... he is slow, yet thru patience he has made a sucess of his life, owns a home in lynbrook long island , 2 vibrant alert kids and a loving wife that he snagged I do not know how.. the thought of putting someone slow or brain dead down like some kind of peice of rotten meat enraGES MEBut your nephew is different....he functions, and is able to make a way for himself in the world. God bless him for it. Terri Schiavo is not able...she'll need round the clock care forever and ever amen. She will never again be able to function in the world as she once did. That, to me, is not life.

agreed about my nephew and about terry too, but it should not be the cheating husbands call anymore, not after having kids with another woman he waited a whole 2 months to start up with.{after terry was damaged}

Reply By: JillUserPosted: Tuesday, March 22, 2005Too many comments to read them all so if I repeat what has already been said, I apologize. Here are my mixed feelings about the case:If she did indeed say that she wouldn't want to go on that way, I think it is a crime to prolong her in that state, however, if she never put that desire in writing and only her husband who moved on pretty quickly is the source of that info, it becomes questionable.If her husband has moved on and her parents want to care for her, why not let them? However, I think her parents are being selfish. Do they want to prolong her life for her sake or theirs? I am betting the latter.I am a quality of life person. I personally would not want to go on like that. If she is aware at all, I would think that would be hell to be trapped in your own body like that. If the doctors give her pain meds to ease her pain until she passes, I personally think that is the most humane thing that can be done for her.I don't see this as a conservative vs liberal issue at all and am saddened that the political divide has reduced things to the point of people seeing it that way.

agreed jill and it is not a right vrs left issue {altho I do love tweaking the lefts nose} it a humane vrs inhumane issue.

Reply By: stubbyfingerPosted: Tuesday, March 22, 2005That which we do the least of our citizens is the mark by which the society will be judged.Wow Dr. Guy that’s a very liberal statement. What’s next advocating social programs and financial assistance for lesser among us?

nope not a liberal statement a HUMANE STATEMENT.

Modman, you of all people should realize by now that the true liberals on here (Myrrander exempted...he's an annoying leftie, yes, but at least he can be funny) have no sense of humor or of irony. Such things just blow right on by them and set them all aflame with righteous, if misplaced, anger.

When you don't know someone, it's hard to know when they're being sarcastic, especially on the computer.

has anyone even noticed I have not said one way or the other how I think if she should live or die? I fugure that just ain't my job.

But you have said how you think she shouldn't die. It's the same thing in reverse.

Reply By: Iconoclast™Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2005has anyone even noticed I have not said one way or the other how I think if she should live or die? I fugure that just ain't my job.But you have said how you think she shouldn't die. It's the same thing in reverse

not even close icon.... now that the sentence is in and terry dies slowly, I can say yes she is better off dead, but starvation!!! please. We would not let an animal die like that let alone a human being, and she is human, damaged and all.

not even close icon.... now that the sentence is in and terry dies slowly, I can say yes she is better off dead, but starvation!!! please. We would not let an animal die like that let alone a human being, and she is human, damaged and all.

I thought this was about opinions.

It is so easy for anyone who is on the outside to sit and judge this man and what he's trying to do for his wife. No one but him and God, (yes, I'm bringing God into it) knows what his wife said to him. People, the nurses, the parents, strangers, will sit and speculate and accuse but they don't really know having not lived day to day, or minute to minute in their home. People will always be quick to jump on whatever band wagon they believe in, that's their right.

But if you have never been in the position that Terry is in, a vegetative state, lying there, not knowing anything, how can she, she's literally dead. Her husband, despite whatever accusations are being thrown at him, is still that, her husband. He loves her, had a relationship with her and knew her while she was up and "kicking". Would you want to be in that position to have to decide that it's time for your spouse to die, time to pull the plug and not try anymore because there's no hope? Because everyday that she's kept alive, she's in pain and the detail of what they have to do to keep her alive, have not been disclosed for the public to know what her body is being put through (I might be wrong here, but I have yet to see).

Regardless of what your opinions are, whatever the public may think, this is this family's pain. It should not have come to this, the parents are trying to hold on to her because she's their child and you can't blame them for this. But she has a husband, and therefore they should respect her wishes to not remain that way.

Having been in this situation before my mom passed on last year, I know how hard this is for these people, and I know especially how hard it is for Terry. My friend is right at this moment in the same situation in NY wherein her mom is in a coma and dying and she has to make the decision that is best for her family. It's not an easy decision to make and it doesn't make the pain of it go away.

Would I want the government to take this right away from me? No! Should they become involved? No! Now that I live in Florida, what the President has done will take away my rights.

Now that I live in Florida, what the President has done will take away my rights.

And isn't it interesting that the Governor of Florida is President Bush's brother?

First of all, if I missed this in the replies, I apologize for reposting it. I didn't have the time to read them all. Someone asked so you decide who lives and who dies? and that is an interesting question.. My point is this.. aren't we play God by keeping her alive in the first place? I'm not expressing my opinion on the subject, that isn't relevant.. but to let her die is playing God? Maybe I'm confused but we're intervening and preventing the natural course of things..(Yes, it happens every day for millions of people, I'm not against it one bit).. Isn't that playing God?

What you missed is they're *not letting* her die. By forcing the removal of the feeding tube they are *forcing* her to die. Now you want to talk about playing God? Then what would you call this? Also if giving her food and water is playing God, then you must play God daily.

It is so easy for anyone who is on the outside to sit and judge this man and what he's trying to do for his wife. No one but him and God, (yes, I'm bringing God into it) knows what his wife said to him. People, the nurses, the parents, strangers, will sit and speculate and accuse but they don't really know having not lived day to day, or minute to minute in their home. People will always be quick to jump on whatever band wagon they believe in, that's their right.

First off she was/is a catholic and as such what they are doing to her would be considered suicide by the RC church (that she supposedly wanted done). And that's a MAJOR sin and a BIG no-no!

Would I want the government to take this right away from me? No! Should they become involved? No! Now that I live in Florida, what the President has done will take away my rights.

The government has taken NOTHING from you! What they passed was a one time shot for Terri only. BTW GW has taken NOTHING from you. He signed what congress put in front of him. You don't like that? Then talk to your senators and your representatives.

How can you say she does not deserve to live?????? I said I agreed with you..............Terri has a RIGHT to live.........

Reply By: Iconoclast™Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2005Modman, you of all people should realize by now that the true liberals on here (Myrrander exempted...he's an annoying leftie, yes, but at least he can be funny) have no sense of humor or of irony. Such things just blow right on by them and set them all aflame with righteous, if misplaced, anger.When you don't know someone, it's hard to know when they're being sarcastic, especially on the computer.

aamen, thats why I jump on people that think they KNOW me from my postings.

Reply By: Iconoclast™Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2005not even close icon.... now that the sentence is in and terry dies slowly, I can say yes she is better off dead, but starvation!!! please. We would not let an animal die like that let alone a human being, and she is human, damaged and all.I thought this was about opinions.

that it is, opinions, and my opinion is she is damaged and should die, but starvation is just to damn cruel.

"t is so easy for anyone who is on the outside to sit and judge this man and what he's trying to do for his wife. "

which wife, the one he has now or the one he "manages" like a peice of property?

"But if you have never been in the position that Terry is in, a vegetative state, lying there, not knowing anything, how can she, she's literally dead."

Nope, nor would I be "suffering" or "demeaned" if I were "literally dead". Nor would my heart be beating, nor would I be ingesting food and living without any help but nourishment.

"Would you want to be in that position to have to decide that it's time for your spouse to die, time to pull the plug and not try anymore because there's no hope?"

No, but it the point is there is no plug. She's been denied food and water for days and she is still alive.

"But she has a husband, and therefore they should respect her wishes to not remain that way."

Her wishes aren't known. Abandoned spouses shouldn't be starved to death based on hearsay statements. She never let her real "family" know what her wishes were.

"My friend is right at this moment in the same situation in NY wherein her mom is in a coma and dying and she has to make the decision that is best for her family. It's not an easy decision to make and it doesn't make the pain of it go away."

But your friend's mom has the benefit of having her family make the decision. In this case the family is being denied the ability to make the decision by someone who has "moved on" and whose only "management" of the situation is his tireless efforts to have her starved to death.

"Would I want the government to take this right away from me? No! Should they become involved? No! Now that I live in Florida, what the President has done will take away my rights."

No one is telling anyone what they can do. You can write out a living will. You can share your feelings with your family. You can ensure that this doesn't happen by leaving your directions in irrefutable ways. You are basing your ideas about what someone else would want on your feelings for what YOU would want. You can't make that assumption.

AND the "state", should not, ever, never do such a thing. To do so would be basically sentencing everyone in this condition to death by default unless they provide directions otherwise. Why not just go a step further and assume they want their organs harvested? How would that play out over time when anyone who can die, must die?

So, do you want the rule to be "starve them unless they specify otherwise", or would you like to make sure people who don't specify are given the benefit of the doubt, and not discarded like so much garbage...