The Schiavo issue

[Morrigoon]

I guess my read on this is that she appears at least a little responsive. I'm all for Euthanasia, but I do worry about it in this case. Imagine if someone had decided that Stephen Hawking was "dead"?

[MickeyLumbo]

interesting that (some) conservatives are calling for her feeding tube to remain, going against her husband's wishes...but these same conservatives that champion the "sanctity of marriage" think that, in this case, the parental-child bond trumps a spouse's decision.

clearly this is a political football based on abortion and shameful that politicians are involved with this at all.




An Advanced Directive on Heath Care is vital to prevent oneself from suffering through a similar fate. also, a DNC, DO NOT RECESITATE.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by MickeyLumbo

interesting that (some) conservatives are calling for her feeding tube to remain, going against her husband's wishes...but these same conservatives that champion the "sanctity of marriage" think that, in this case, the parental-child bond trumps a spouse's decision.

clearly this is a political football based on abortion and shameful that politicians are involved with this at all.




An Advanced Directive on Heath Care is vital to prevent oneself from suffering through a similar fate. also, a DNC, DO NOT RECESITATE.

Sorry, Mickey, but you're wrong. The "sanctity of marriage" issue is completely unrelated and a total red herring.

Based on abortion? How so? I would bet her parents are pretty happy that certain politicians have gotten involved. Perhaps they have even asked for assistance from their elected representatives.

And regarding the documents you listed - there are no documents in this case. Again, ending starving her to death is completely based on the word of one man. Not enough there.

[SacTown Chronic]

This is not a state-sponsored execution so comparisons to the death penalty are irrelevant, imo. But I agree with you, scaeagles, it is a horrifying way to die. Put in that position, I would suffocate my child/spouse after the tube was removed.

As for the motivations of the parties involved, I don't see evil intent on either side. I believe the husband knows exactly what his wife wants. I believe the parents have hope of a recovery in their hearts (Though I do fear that Catholic dogma is playing a not so insignificant role in the parents' fight to keep their daughter alive). On a personal level, my wife's wishes would trump whatever hope, whether real or imagined, that her parents might have, and I would fight to give Crystal what she believes is the dignity, and peace, of death -- even after moving on in my personal life. I would owe her that.

And yes, you are correct, MickeyLumbo. That icky political/religious two-headed monster is putting it's fingerprints all over this tragedy. That's not to say that everone who is outraged over the removal of the tube is being driven by their beliefs, but, as with the abortion issue, the religious arm of the keep-her-alive army is in the majority.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Sorry, Mickey, but you're wrong. The "sanctity of marriage" issue is completely unrelated and a total red herring.

Again, ending starving her to death is completely based on the word of one man. Not enough there.

Completely disagree. This is not a red herring. The law clearly states that as her husband, he is the only one with the authority to make this decision. These politicians are saying that the law should not be respected and that his rights are not valid. If that isn't a violation of the sanctity of marriage, I don't know what is. The courts have ruled over and over and over again that her parents do not have the right to make this decision. Nor do the clergy. That right lies with her husband solely so yes, in this case, the word of one man is enough. That is law and if people don't like it, they are more than able to change it. Until then, it should be followed.

I have yet to hear one independent doctor, one who does not have a special interest in this case, state that they feel there is any hope of recovery for this poor woman. She is being kept alive out of denial of the facts. And people like Bill Frist, who is a doctor and should know better, are using this for political reasons.

If Terry is kept alive, she will live out the next 10,20,30 + years, in exactly the same state that she has lived in for the last 16. Would anyone here really want that for themselves or a loved one?

[wendybeth]

Prudence, I have to admit that it is my distrust of the 'husband' that largely shaped my stance on this issue, but along the way my feelings as a parent came into play as well. I can't help but put myself into her parents position, and as I see it, the day the husband entered into a relationship with another woman before ending his marriage to their daughter was the day he gave up any rights as to what sort of say he had regarding her care. He could get a divorce, but he hasn't. Why? He sued the doctors, received a large chunk of money for her long-term care (which he still has, as he cannot use it for legal fees), and now he remembers that she wanted to die if something like this happened? I don't believe it , and I don't believe him. This is legally assisted murder, in my opinion. I have a friend with a son who is probably less cognitive than Terry, yet she and her husband love him dearly and would never think of starving him to death because he will never enjoy the same quality of life as they. Indeed, if they were to do so, they would be charged with murder.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Completely disagree. This is not a red herring. The law clearly states that as her husband, he is the only one with the authority to make this decision.

The problem, though, is that she is not brain dead. She is not on the "traditional" life support. It is for this reason that I don't think the power of life and death should be his decision. In terms of "pulling the plug", yeah, it would be his decision. Food and liquid is a requirement for all of us to live. just because she cannot give it to herself we should deny her of it?

How many ten of thousands of people are in nursing homes, unable to communicate and unable to feed themselves? Is it any different because they eat from a spoon? Should their spouse or eldest children (next of kin) be permitted to just tell the nursing home to stop feeding them? Hardly.

As I earlier stated, I would not want this for a loved one - who would? It is an absolutely nightmarish situation. This is why my wife and I have living wills - so that there is no question. However, I could never stop feeding my child regardless of their condition. If they were brain dead and on a respirator? Yeah, I'd have to make the tough choice. Starvation? No.