The Schiavo issue

[scaeagles]

I have to say that frankly I don't care who has the decision making process. It's an issue, but frankly, whether she lives or dies isn't the issue to me.

My point is this - I do not know how it is possible for a judge to order someone to starve to death. That is just sickening. The person who gives the order for that, regardless of the reason why, should grow a big set and go kill her in a quick and humane fashion.

I'll tell you - if the order is passed and they pull the tube and I were her dad, I'd kill her. Is there a jury in the world that would convict? Now that would be a mercy killing. Killing her so that the government mandated starvation wouldn't be such torture.

[BarTopDancer]

Even if she had it in writing it doesn't mean her wishes would followed. Living wills are turning more into *guidelines* then anything.

This whole situation is very sad. To starve to death will be a horrible way to die. Let her die without pain, without suffering.
Sca, I fully agree with you. Someone needs to grow a set and just let her die painfree.

We can put our pets to sleep when they are in pain and terminal. We don't want them to suffer. Why do we allow humans to suffer?

I think that if the husband didn't care or was in it for the money he would have divorced her and turned custody over to her parents. He's turned down boatloads of money to relinquish care to her family. Back when this all started I doubt the husband said "this will drag on for years and I can make so much money from this and get fame and fortune".

If Jeb didn't get involved and pass a law that was later deemed unconstitutional no one would be blaming him. If our rights weren't slowing being taken away because of the religious undertones and beliefs of this government no one would be blaming the government (any members of it).

[Ghoulish Delight]

It's not about "growing a set" it's about the stupidity that assissted suicide is illegal.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

It's not about "growing a set" it's about the stupidity that assissted suicide is illegal.

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?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

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?

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

[Claire]

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.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

It's not about "growing a set" it's about the stupidity that assissted suicide is illegal.

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.

[scaeagles]

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.

[Scrooge McSam]

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

Earlier Friday, a House committee subpoenaed the brain-damaged woman to appear before Congress next week, and Schiavo's family was "hopeful" the brain-damaged woman would make that appearance in Washington, an attorney for her parents said Friday.

Meanwhile, a Senate committee issued an invitation for Terri Schiavo and her husband to testify on Capitol Hill.

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