So law makers need to grow a set and make assissted suicide legal.

No one would force you to partake in it. There would have to be written instructions and signed documents. But really.... What harm does it do to society as a whole to allow people who have a terminal illness, who will die a horrible slow painful death to take their own life? To die with dignaity?

Couldn't disagree more. There's no evidence anywhere, other than the word of her husband, that she wants to die. The issue about which I posted in the OP is that a judge can order someone to starve to death for whatever reason.

It is not an assisted suicide issue. She hasn't told anyone or written anything to suggest that she wants to die. The only thing is the word of her husband. And that is enough to starve her to death?

I think not. That's not even enough to kill her humanely.

She is not terminally ill. She is fed through a feeding tube. This is not an assisted suicide issue. It's an issue that the word of one man can lead to legal starvation of this woman.

I suppose I agree with you on a purely legal level. But knowing that there's a possibility that this woman has already been tortured far worse than a few days of hunger by being kept alive against her wishes, it's hard for me to just say, "keep her alive 'cause starving is torture."

I really can't believe he's still fighting for any other reason than he truly believes she wanted to die. The family keeps claiming that he wants the inheritance, but clearly it's not about money. If it were about money, he'd have given control over LONG ago. The cost of the care and the court battles I'm sure at this point have eclipsed and lapped any inheritance he might stand to receive by a LONG shot. If all he wanted was to get rid of an inconvenience, then as you said he could simply divorce her.

I agree that I cannot speak to the motivation of the husband.

However, I know if I truly loved someone, I wouldn't want them to go through the agony of starving to death even if I believed they wanted to be dead.

The thing is that he (the husband) has been adamant about it for years. Looong before she became an "inconvenience" to him.

And Leo, believe me, I have been in the parent's shoes. Totally. You don't think everyone in my family was a total jerk to my aunt who had to live with my dying uncle day in and day out? We were, at times. We judged her motives, her decisions. But ultimately, the decisions were hers. She was his wife, and she loved him. It hurt to watch. She did nothing wrong....it just.....hurt. Everything hurt. It hurt to watch her and her children move on with their lives while my uncle's life was turned upside down and backwards over the course of ten years. She stayed put. She did the best by him under the most difficult circumstances I could ever imagine. For years.

I don't doubt that Teri Sciavo's husband loved/loves her. But I also know that his life has been in limbo for years now, and that he has been rock solid sure in his belief that her current state is NOT the state she would have wanted to live in.

I just wish there was an easy answer.

These are difficult questions, to be sure.

I do believe, though, that the feeding tube IS life support. She cannot feed herself. So a mechanical means has been employed. That is life support.

It's the same with a respirator. When a patient can't breathe for themselves and an external system is employed to take over that function, that is life support.

I think people have a problem with the time period between cessation of life support and death. In the case of a respirator, it's only a few minutes but the patient still suffocates. In this case, it's a much longer time period. I think that makes some people very uncomfortable because it's not as quick. I know how it affects me.

I understand the emotions. It pulls at the heart. And there are no easy answers. Is there any more convincing argument than this to make sure you have a living will? I'm glad to hear you did just that, Leo, for yourself and for your family.

What I can't understand is the rumblings in the news about Congress wanting to subpoena Terry Schiavo for questioning before Congress.

From http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/sc...ged/index.html

I'm not trying to be dense, but just what are they hoping to get out of her?

I suppose they want to see for themselves, at least nominally, what sort of state she's in.

Actually, it's a tricky little manuever, from what I've heard. Anyone who is put under a congressional subpoena can be placed in protective custody. If she is under protective custody, guess what? She can't be starved to death.

Good points.

Couldn't the same be said of a lot of lifesaving medications? Or nearly any technological advancement that can save lives?

But again, the point is that she isn't terminally ill, and there is no proof (beyond the word of her husband) that she would wish to have the tube pulled. I just have a hard time accepting that the word of one man should be enough for her life to be ended by any means.