Terri Schiavo

Terri's right to live is all her own, not her husband's, her parent's or the federal government's. From what i understand, she had said to her husband that if she was ever in a situation similar to the one she is in, then she would not want to continue. Why should the government decide if she should live or die when she had already decided for herself?

Secondly, the right-wingers in DC who seem to be supporting any intervention into this case, which legally i do not believe they have any right to be doing, are the same group who upholds the marriage of a man and a woman as this sacred entity, yet make an end run around terri's husband and ignore his opinion completely.

Numerous doctors have already been brought into this at the state level and have decided that Terri has zero cognitive abilities and has no understanding of what is going on around her. If you would like to continue living if that were to happen to you, i have no right to say that you are wrong, but Terri decided she doesnt want to live this way. I will be happy to see her go, jsut how she would have wanted it.

We've been following this for a long time in Florida. It's a very sad case.

The husband's position is that his wife told him she would never want to be kept alive if she were a "vegetable." He says he's trying to honor her wishes. It's not that he doesn't want to keep her alive, it's that he feels that this is not what she wanted for herself.

The parents are in denial that she in a vegetative state despite what the doctors (including neurologist) have concluded. And they also contend that she would want to be kept alive via artificial means.

FWIW, I told my mother that I want her to make these kind of decisions for me if I were not able to make them for myself, but that if I had no brainwaves, was basically brain dead and had only a functioning brain cortex that I did not want her to keep my body alive when my mind was long gone. I have my annual physical next month; I have to get papers (Living Will/Five Wishes document, I think) notarized with my primary doctor so that everything is properly spelled out and the State, the Courts, and the US Congress and Executive Branch won't be interfering with my wishes - and no one has to second guess or debate what I want.

My mother let me know that she thinks parents should make these decisions, regardless of the age of the child. If I ever remarry, I'll have to reconsider whether I want her to make those decisions for me. I wouldn't want anyone to go through what this family is going through, nor would I want my mother to have animosity towards my husband for simply carrying out my wishes. That's why having a legal document is so important - to protect my wishes and to allow my "durable power of attorney for health care" to carry out those wishes.

The word suicide should not even be brought up in this argument. It is a refusal to of care, which is an inalienable right which everyone should be allowed, not a suicide attempt. Should those whose religions dictate that they not recieve specific medical treatments as dictated by thier religion be forced by congress to recieve care, whether it be a blood transfusion, medications or a feeding tube.

If the government lets itself decide what we can and can't put in our bodies, i dont even want to think about where that could lead.

#1  The right to live or die should never be a case of "he said, she said".  If it's not written down in a living will, notarized and validated, then the benefit of the doubt should be with keeping the person alive.  A person's life or death should never be in the hands of another who stands to benefit materially from the decision.  It should never exist outside of any statements that cannot be directly attributed to that person, without absolute credibility and certainty.

#2.  We don't treat stray dogs the way we're treating this woman.  I dare any one of you to sit in her room right now, watching her lips crack and bleed, watching her chest heave to breathe, watching her suffer of dehydration.  I dare you to not give in to your humanity to want to give her drink and food.  At least with a dog, they're put to sleep.  Why not put a gun to the back of her head, what's the difference?  Its a 170 grain bullet and instantaneous relief versus two weeks of absolute torture.  I'll tell you what it is, cowardice and a very warped sense of right and wrong.

#3.  What ever happened to the sanctity of life?  Have we become so secular of a society that this is purely a legal issue, something academic to be argued by judges and lawyers?  For those of you who have children, don't your hearts break for the parents who have to sit and watch their child slowly starve to death, regardless of her condition?  The posts above make you all sound like you heard from the woman herself that she wants to die.  There is not one shred of evidence, not one, beyond her husband's statements, that she in fact desires to be dead.  What makes you folks all experts in who should live and who should die?  I never want to be in a place where I have to make that decision for another, not pretending here on BT, not on any blogs, not in any friendly debates, and not certainly in real life.

#4.  I spent a lot of my time as a young adult working with the mentally handicapped.  There were many people who couldn't feed themselves, I personally fed a few of them.  What makes this woman so different?  Why should she die, cause her husband say's so?  No.  Heresay does not hold up in court over petty theft.  It shouldn't hold up in this case where it concerns life and death.

#5.  I am really saddened by this entire situation.  How callous must you be to sit in your living room, coffee shop, or office and sumarily decide that someone should be starved to death, regardless of their condition?  You can debate the merits of the Iraq war, of high gas prices, or who should win American Idol, but why on God's green earth would you offer an opinion in support of her death from where you sit?  How can you with a clear conscience?  You're just guessing, basing your opinion on what you've heard on CNN.  You should be either in support of her life or silent.  I don't understand how anyone who doesn't have first person knowledge of this situation could even begin to advocate her death.  It is apalling and it breaks my heart.

You're calling people wrong, Karl. They are not trying to dictate whether she should live or die. They are saying that she should have the right to refuse care. We don't have any living will or written document saying what her wishes would be in this specific case, so all we have to go on is a comment she made to her husband. Just because she neglected to do something the VAST majority of people neglect to do shouldn't mean that her life should be in the hands of the government. It is appalling and breaks my heart that Tom Delay, Jeb and George W. Bush think they know this woman's wishes better than her own husband. Yes.... what she's lacking is just food and water, but she cannot swallow, therefore the administration of food and water is health care which she has the right to deny.

Ok, now I'm getting fired up.... Sorry..... Here is the thing that I find the saddest and most ironic. The same guys that are fighting tooth and nail to save Terri Schaivo's life would like to slash Medicare, which has paid for much of the cost of keeping her alive to this day. I guess their 'respect of life' works in the specific, but not in the general?