The Schiavo issue

[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.