terpfan1980 terpfan1980

Terri Schiavo - what would you do?

▼

Terri Schiavo - what would you do?

from JoeUser Forums
Congress is now trying to get into the act in the Terri Schiavo case.

If you don't know who Terri Schiavo is, or why she is relevant in the politcal arena, then I'd suggest doing some quick googling on "Terri Schiavo" or reading the following quick summary:

... Working against the clock, Republican leaders in Congress on Friday were trying to prevent doctors in Florida from removing the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman at the center of a battle between her husband and her parents.


Background to the case
Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance, and court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, says she told him she would not want to be kept alive artificially. Her parents dispute that, and say she could get better.

The court found that it was Terri Schiavo’s wish not to kept alive in her current state and issued an order to remove the feeding tube Friday. Michael Schiavo’s attorney, George Felos, wouldn’t comment on when and how the removal will take place or whether Michael Schiavo would visit his wife before it happened.

Doctors have said it could take a week or two for Terri Schiavo to die once the tube that delivers water and nutrients is removed.


background info from Associated Press, Washington Post, and others


So, with that info (or any you've researched or already were aware of), what would you do, and what do you think should be done?

Should the feeding tube be removed -- this may hinge upon your belief that Terri Schiavo really has stated in the past that she would not want extraordinary measures and artificial means to be used to keep her alive. Assume that is the case (that she put into effect those orders and you have hard evidence of that information), would you order the feeding tube removed? What if all you had was a verbal (voice) statement saying that?

What helps you decide what should happen and how do you arrive at your conclusion? Are you deciding because you think it's the right thing for yourself if you were in a similar situation, or only for the case at hand?

I'm curious as to how most people at JoeUser.com stand.
politics
25,595 views 103 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
If a baby is born with a mental defect, say Down's Syndrome or some form of retardation, that's life...they never "had it any better", I guess would be the way I'd put it (for want of a better term), so they'd never miss anything. They would live, grow and die as what they are.
For a person born physically and mentally normal, however, who grew into normal adulthood with normal abilities and likes and dislikes, hobbies and such, to be rendered unable to experience and enjoy those things is a terrible thing. I think to be trapped in a body and mind that can no longer function or comprehend the world around you would be hell, especially if you knew what you were like before. If I were in such a position, I would want to be let go.

That's just me.


Even further, this woman is not retarded. She is not capable of anything. She can not feel anything. She is no longer conscious. She is not any longer a thinking person. She is a body and a brain with the capability of keeping the heart beating, the lungs breathing, and pretty much nothing else.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even further, this woman is not retarded. She is not capable of anything. She can not feel anything. She is no longer conscious. She is not any longer a thinking person. She is a body and a brain with the capability of keeping the heart beating, the lungs breathing, and pretty much nothing else.


When you think about it, even if she had a living will stating she wanted to live, it'd be prudent of the hospital to just pull the plug anyway.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
it'd be prudent of the hospital to just pull the plug anyway.


But she's not on life support. She's not on a ventilator, she just has a feeding tube. There's nothing to 'pull the plug' on.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
When you think about it, even if she had a living will stating she wanted to live, it'd be prudent of the hospital to just pull the plug anyway.


So, who else doesn't have the right to live. Let's hear from Comrade Messybou, Lord Dictator of all that deserves to live!!!

Of course you side with the judge, he's a stinking bit of statist rancid tallow too!
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Even further, this woman is not retarded. She is not capable of anything. She can not feel anything. She is no longer conscious. She is not any longer a thinking person. She is a body and a brain with the capability of keeping the heart beating, the lungs breathing, and pretty much nothing else."


I'll repeat what I said above, since people ignored it. I have dealt with mentally handicapped people who were indistinguishable from Terri Schiavo's condition, who had been that way since birth, and who had zero hope of every being any different. They never spoke, confined to a wheelchair, only reacted to pain or discomfort, and had to be spoon fed. They never "looked around", scratched themselves, nothing, they just stared off into space.

They, though, had families that loved them enough to send them to summer camp, in the slimmest chance that maybe some joy would get through. Sandy and a few others here seem to think the best thing to do would be to starve them to death. And don't try and draw some big difference, because there simply isn't one.

Do we starve them to death too? Is there a difference between a child born with no higher brain functions, and a person that achieves the handicap through a tragedy? Do we differentiate between other handicaps in that way? Please, someone explain to me what the difference is between a tube and baby food on a spoon...


*********************
REGARDLESS, (in all caps so the brain-dead here might read it instead of skimming and posting copy/paste opinion from pundits elsewhere...)
*********************

IF SHE IS A VEGETABLE, HOW IS HER QUALITY OF LIFE OR "SUFFERING" ANY INTEREST TO HER? THERE IS NO "HER" IF YOU ARE RIGHT. HOW IS SHE HARMED BY BEING CARED FOR BY PEOPLE WHO LOVE HER? IF SHE IS A "VEGETABLE" HOW THE HELL DOES SHE KNOW SHE IS LACKING "DIGNITY"?????

It's an asinine double standard to call her a piece of meat and then pretend that you are starving her to death for heR sake. There is no "her" there, if you are right. If you are wrong, you are committing murder in a most heinous way.

I understand rightwinger's postion, and had she left a living will, I'd agree with him. She didn't, and all we have as proof of it is her "husband" who has apparently has a new family and little interest in her other than starving her to death...
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
there is no excuse to starve someone to death. period.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
My question is this: would there ever be a chance of her recovering and being at least a close approximation of the person she was before the incident occurred that left her in her present state? The answer is no....she will be like this until she dies.
Some of you may see this as cold, but I think such a person should be allowed to die with dignity.


90% of her attending doctors would say that this is a load of crap.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even further, this woman is not retarded. She is not capable of anything. She can not feel anything. She is no longer conscious. She is not any longer a thinking person. She is a body and a brain with the capability of keeping the heart beating, the lungs breathing, and pretty much nothing else.


You are *grossly* misinformed! She is most CERTAINLY conscious! And she DOES do feel. Unfeeling people do NOT laugh. Try reading the links I posted, fool.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are *grossly* misinformed! She is most CERTAINLY conscious! And she DOES do feel. Unfeeling people do NOT laugh. Try reading the links I posted, fool.


I'd like to hereby report Dr.miller to the "authorities" for using personal insults instead of rational discourse.

A Constant Vegitative State is where you are not "there" and are not thinking/feeling anything.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
"A Constant Vegitative State is where you are not "there" and are not thinking/feeling anything."


Then there is no "she", so she has no "dignity" to miss, and she isn't "suffering", so she is being starved to death for bogus reasons. Then, if you are wrong about her awareness, she (the REAL she) is being starved to death for even MORE bogus reasons.

Either way your reasons are bogus, and she is being starved to death. Worse, a precedent is being set that we can kill off morbidly handicapped people that we get tired of dealing with.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Either way your reasons are bogus, and she is being starved to death. Worse, a precedent is being set that we can kill off morbidly handicapped people that we get tired of dealing with.


She is being starved to death... but she can't feel it. She wants to die, she has no reason to live, why can't she be allowed to die with dignity? When she could think, she thought she didn't want to have people be able to see her in such a state. She thought that she wanted to die. She should be allowed to die.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
"She wants to die, she has no reason to live, why can't she be allowed to die with dignity?"


How the hell can a vegetable WANT anything sandy? Don't you see you defeat your point every time you open your mouth???

LOL, keep ignoring my point sandy.

If she is a vegetable, then she isn't sitting there suffering, or being ashamed of her state. She isn't crying "God, please kill me".

You said it. It is your point. She's a vegetable. SO all your empty, decietful words about "dignity" and suffering and whatever are just empty reasons to starve someone to death because you are tired of them hanging around.

You have no idea what she wanted. You just have the word of a man whose concern for her before her handicap and credibility now is deeply in question.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are *grossly* misinformed! She is most CERTAINLY conscious! And she DOES do feel. Unfeeling people do NOT laugh. Try reading the links I posted, fool.


I'd like to hereby report Dr.miller to the "authorities" for using personal insults instead of rational discourse.

A Constant Vegitative State is where you are not "there" and are not thinking/feeling anything


Are you stupid or just don't care? She is NOT in a constant vegitative state. Here's a link that leads to videos that prove otherwise! Can you provide proof of what *your* saying? I don't think so.
Link
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Either way your reasons are bogus, and she is being starved to death. Worse, a precedent is being set that we can kill off morbidly handicapped people that we get tired of dealing with.


She is being starved to death... but she can't feel it. She wants to die, she has no reason to live, why can't she be allowed to die with dignity? When she could think, she thought she didn't want to have people be able to see her in such a state. She thought that she wanted to die. She should be allowed to die.


BULLSHIT she can't feel it.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
She is being starved to death... but she can't feel it.


So, that makes it ok?
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, that makes it ok?


What makes it ok is a) she wants it and b)shes been virtually dead for the past 14 years and c) her husband says she wants it and approves of it and he is her gaurdian oh and d) 19 judges have said its ok, and now congress is breaching the seperation of powers.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
What makes it ok is a) she wants it and b)shes been virtually dead for the past 14 years and c) her husband says she wants it and approves of it and he is her gaurdian oh and d) 19 judges have said its ok, and now congress is breaching the seperation of powers.


a) If she stated she wanted to be starved to death, then why is there such a debate over the whole ordeal?
b) I don't see how this is relevant. Isn't the debate over what she wants, even if she is virtually dead?
c) Guardians can't lie?
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not accepting a bid for 10 million dollars to stop his legal battle to allow his wife to die with dignity tells volumes about his honesty. Obviously he is not out for money. He wants what his wife wanted, what millions of us would want if we were in a similar situation.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
a) If she stated she wanted to be starved to death, then why is there such a debate over the whole ordeal?


I don't honestly know. Maybe the repulbicans are using this for political purposes. Courts have ruled that she did in fact want to die, and thats that.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
If I made the same statements that sandy made , the liberal left would be on me like stink on poo-poo, eviserating me for being , fascist, unfeeling, a monster.

I repeat no one deserves to be starved to death...........
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
I repeat no one deserves to be starved to death...........


unless they want to be... actually, I would much perfer assisted suicide, but republicans apparently would perfer to people starve to death.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't honestly know. Maybe the repulbicans are using this for political purposes. Courts have ruled that she did in fact want to die, and thats that.


By the way, where did she actually say she wanted to die. Courts aren't infallible, nor can judges read minds.

I won't deny that Republicans aren't using this for political purposes, but so is everybody else, including the pro-euthanasia crowd. Every angle of her is being pimped. I suspect a South Park episode in the works!
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
46 by sandy2
Sunday, March 20, 2005


unless they want to be... actually, I would much perfer assisted suicide, but republicans apparently would perfer to people starve to death.


and you knoW THIS HOW>??? from her cheating husbands lips? where is your liberal crying whining moaning heart now sandy hypocrite? Maybe if you stopped feeding that fat head of yours for 3 days and see what starvationb feels like yoy might change that peabrain of a LIBERAL mind. I doubt it thought because as every clear minded person knows "a LIBERAL IS NEVER EVER WRONG" right fathead?
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
What makes it ok is a) she wants it and b)shes been virtually dead for the past 14 years and c) her husband says she wants it and approves of it and he is her gaurdian oh and d) 19 judges have said its ok, and now congress is breaching the seperation of powers.


a) so she's said that,has she? She's miraculously come out of her comatose state and has said that she wants to die. If she had said that, and had been clear about what she was saying, I seriously doubt that there would have been 15 years of court action to keep her alive. Besides, I don't think that she would have agreed to being starved to death.

b)Define virtually dead. Virtually dead to me is in a deep coma, non responsive to sounds and light and stimuli, unable to breathe or maintain any life or vital signs unassisted.

c)Her husband says she wants to be starved to death?

d)Judges have made an impartial legal decison. Thats what they're paid to do. They're making decisons based on the facts...which is not tantaqmount to saying "it's ok to starve her to death".
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
unless they want to be... actually, I would much perfer assisted suicide, but republicans apparently would perfer to people starve to death.


Sandy----what the fuck are you talking about? Its the GOP that's trying to save her. What paper are you reading?