Thank you WB!

Can anyone find out when he became involved with the woman he now has a family with?

If my husband told me to pull the plug on him if he became a vegetable, I wouldn't be able to do it immediately. There are cases where the person regains consciousness, inexplicably.

But after 8 years (geez, perhaps sooner? I don't know), I'd follow his wishes, because I'd be sure he couldn't wake up. :( Ugh, why am I following this horrible story anyway? Now I've got to figure out how to make a living will or Dubya will decide my fate.

He moved in with the woman he now calls his fiancee in 1995. They have two kids.

Except that he moved in with the other woman 3 years prior to his first request to have her feeding tube removed. If I'm moving in with a woman other than my wife, I gotta figure I've given up hope that she's gonna get better.

By the way, while I don't have the exact Senate counts, the bill signed by Bush passed overwhelmingly, and in the House, it passed with a 4 to 1 margin.

Hardly an issue of the republicans forcing something through.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Will shed some light for a lot of people on this thread.....

Great site. Of particular interest is the ruling from February 2000 which, among other things, brings to light the fact that this is NOT the word of one man. 2 other people, her brother and sister-in-law as a matter of fact, also say that she had made comments to them about not wanting to be kept alive if she were a burden, and wanting to add a statement saying as much to her will.

Also from that site:

This is simplistic, but for many people who wonder why he won't "drop it," he can't.

For anyone questioning how exactly a life prolonging procedure is defined in Florida.

Great site, thanks Claire. Earlier today I was reading up on the most recent happenings over the weekend, and I had a sneaking suspicion there is a lot more backstory to this, and here there it is on that website, succintly w/o being broad or vague.

I'm in class and the prof is flinging hypotheticals, so I'm flinging a few hypos of my own that have been in my brain based on comments made here, in the news, by random passers-by, etc. Feel free to answer according to your own opinions, if you like, or ignore me, as I am ignoring my professor.

1) Some people feel removing a feeding tube is a particularly painful/gruesome/unpleasant death. If all other facts were the same, but she DID have a living will stating that she didn't want to be kept alive, would that justify removing the tube?

2) If all other facts were the same, but she DID have a living will stating that she didn't want to be kept alive, AND giving that decision to her husband, BUT it was proved that her husband was a philandering jerk before her incident, should her instructions still be followed? What if all the above and, like now, the parents want to and are capable of providing all her care and don't want to remove the tube?

3) What if the above, existence of living will, but the husband is obviously loving and devoted? If the parents want to and are capable of providing all her care and don't want to remove the tube, should they prevail over the living will?

4) Some people in various places here and elsewhere have mentioned her religious beliefs being incompatible with removing the tube. Other people have mentioned that the husband should just divorce her and let the parents care for her. But divorce would also be against the religion mentioned. Can these two ideas be reconciled? Or does no one person ever hold both positions so it's not an issue.

5) Various medical officials have stated that no one has ever recovered from a vegitative state of this length. People have miraculously, if you will, recovered from long-lasting comas. If congress and/or courts determine the outcome in this case, will this impact the enforceability of living wills in cases of persistent, non-responsive coma? (The more traditional "pull the plug" cases where breathing and other functions are performed mechanically.)

6) If in any of the above hypos it is determined that life-preserving measures are to be continued, who bears the financial cost? Can/should a spouse be required to pay all bills? Should divorces of vegitative or comatose patients be prohibited to prevent spouses from abandoning their financial responsibility? Is there a maximum cost after which treatment is discontinued? If treatment must be continued, does the community pay?

That's all I can come up with now. If I've offended, I apologize now because it's not my intent. I'm honestly curious where different people draw boundaries and whether or not people who seem on opposite sides might have commonalities of belief.