The Schiavo issue

[Prudence]

wendybeth: That's actually very helpful. The more I understand the very core issue for a person or group of people, the less I pontificate.

Would it be a fair restatement of your position that you are, in general, against the removal of necessary feeding tubes? That your distrust of the husband is secondary?

[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"?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Prudence

Query:

What if the positions were reversed? What if the parents had spent umpteen years begging for the doctors to release their daughter from torment and let her soul be at rest. And what if it were the husband who was convinced she was responsive and refused, ever hopeful of recovery?

I would feel exactly the same. Although I do think your question is somewhat loaded and disagree with the premise - "to release their daughter from torment and let her soul be at rest". No one can say if she is in torment. From what I've read, she seems to be quite happy to spend time with her parents.

My greatest objection is the method of starvation. We are expected and required - as it should be - to treat convicted murderers and terrorists more humanely than that. I must say that shold the entire family be in agreement on it I would still object to her being starved to death.

My second greatest objection is that no one should be permitted to rip life away from someone by court order when there is no living will and it is based on the word of one man alone. We require more to convict on misdemeanors.

I agree with Wendybeth in her distrust of the man. With such national prominence involved, do you really think he'd take money and turn away? He'd be a joke and a pariah on society and all he encountered. He has to stick by his guns. I have no proof, of course, but I do not trust him.

[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.

[Nephythys]

Does this mean anything?

A mentally disabled woman whose court-ordered starvation-execution began Friday attempted to contradict her estranged husband's claim that she wants to die hours before her feeding tube was disconnected, an eyewitness is claiming.

If true? What we then bear witness to is a court sanctioned murder.

[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.

[BarTopDancer]

Wendybeth,

IRRC, this battle to let her die has been going on for years (I think since 1990). It's just recently come into the public light so glaringly. What little money is left from the lawsuit will be going to charity. He's been offered money almost from the get-go walk away, and he's always turned it down. Right now all expenses must be approved by a judge down to her hair cuts. Lawyers on both sides haven't been paid in several years.