If I married, say, a Mexican, and she was able to stay here because of it, and later it was found that I hadn't had anything much to do with her in ten years, AND I had been living with another woman and had two kids...

...would people here feel I was really her husband?

Of course not. T.S. is an abandoned spouse, and he shouldn't be considered her "guardian". That waste of skin actually barred her parents from seeing her for four hours. These are the people who have devoted themselves to her, and this waste takes legal precedence.

Sandy2 can't answer my question. If she is just "meat", all but dead, then all the bullshit in the world about her "suffering" and "dignity" is empty. There is no "she" to people who feel that starving her to death is a good option.

If, on the other hand, there IS a "she" left in there, why in God's name are we relying on a 20 year old, hearsay statement from a husband who has abandoned her to decide whether she should be starved to death.

It's laughable, insipid junk. Worse, it places many, many other people in danger.

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.

Back to being GROSSLY misinformed I see! It's the dems and libs that pulled her feeding tube, NOT the republicans. Grow a brain will ya.

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

I'm wondering... If she's not even conscious enough to be suffering, what's the hurry with killing her? I understand why people are desperate to keep her alive, but why rush to let her die? So, she's a cost to the hospital and takes up a bed. Surely compassionate liberals would not use that to justify killing somebody.
Also, how could it be called suicide if she hasn't clearly consented to it? Sure, her husband consented for her, but does that mean that I could have my wife commit suicide by killing her and saying she consented to it?

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

Just another symptom of the dread DEMOCRATIC DEMENTIA. they lose the ability to read, interpet, or remember anything that does not SUPPORT the way they think..

STARVE A LIBERAL FOR A BETTER AMERICA.COM

I made this point earlier. The husband says it was Terri's wish not to be kept alive if she was in this condition. I seriously doubt the conversation included that if you were still able to look around, make sounds, sit up, breathe on your own, and have your heart beat on its own that you would want to be starved to death in front of your family that opposes the action being taken. If this was soooo important to Terri she should have had a "living will". I live in the state of Florida and have a will. It's not that hard. I personally don't have a "living will" but when my attorney asked the question it's something he can do right then and there. A "living will" is not a long drawn out process. You spend more time waiting in a bank line. Since Terri didn't have one it must not have been that important to her. Now I know nobody thinks they're going to end up incapicitated but the husband runs around saying this was so important to her. The absence of a "living will" says otherwise.

Few comments to try to get back on track here (please people, less with the hyperbole and name calling, and more with thoughtful discussion as to why you'd choose to make a decision in one direction or the other).


As folks probably know if they've watched the weekend news - both the Senate and the House pushed through legislation that moved this case to the federal court system. At least for now, until and if the legislation that was passed is appealed for constitutionality.

I'm a bit surprised that the liberals in the Senate weren't able to, or didn't have the guts to filibuster this one. If the left really believes in individual rights and individual liberty, then they should have been keeping the government out of the business of this family.

For many Republicans -- true conservatives -- that would also seem to be the case. True conservatives want less government interference, even if the interference is on the side of preserving life. How many of these individuals let the "right to life" mentality interfere in this case is somewhat beyond me.

I know we are dealing with unique cirmcumstances. There's no living will. It's just the husband's word (though such was taken as evidence enough in the prior court decisions) that the wife wouldn't want to live this way.

For those that are really arguing against removing the tube - please distance yourself from your feelings about the husband and his reasons - again, what would YOU DO. Not what should he have done. Ignore the reports about possible mistreatment, misappropriations of funds that should have gone to rehab, etc.

If things had been perfect, if Terri Schiavo had been getting rehab all along, if the Husband had been there every day, and wasn't with another woman, would he be right to let Terri Schiavo "starve to death" if she really didn't want to live that way.

If a living will was in effect that stated her wishes, would you still insist that she be kept alive in the current manner?

If you were in the same position, would you want to stay on feeding tubes, or would you rather move on to whatever awaits you after life on earth?

I think that you have to look at the quality of life. If Terry has no quality (and it seems so), and her immediate family's quality of life is affected, then perhaps she should be let go. What a pity we don't know how she thinks. Then again, if she could think, the answer would be different.

I do think that politics could be kept out of this as it is a invasion of the family's privacy.

Third, the persistence of 15 years in a coma speaks for itself. The emotional toll, not to mention the medical bills, must be unbearable.

Umm, NOT a coma. This isn't "splitting hairs", it's a VERY IMPORTANT medical distinction.

Gideon, for a 40 year old woman, a feeding tube is an extraordinary measure.

Sandy,

Gotcha. So now, let's go into the group homes and institutions and yank the feeding tubes out of all developmentally disabled, nonverbal clients over 30.

Sorry, I disagree vehemently. I have worked with individuals at approximately Ms. Schiavo's level of functioning, and can tell you they still ARE human.

If a living will was in effect that stated her wishes, would you still insist that she be kept alive in the current manner?

Absolutely not. Thats what a "living will" is for. I just think that in its absence and because of her circumstances we should err on the side of caution, which is preserving her life.

If you were in the same position, would you want to stay on feeding tubes, or would you rather move on to whatever awaits you after life on earth?

Personally I want to be kept alive as long as possible. Unlike some people I only want to die after medical science and technology have been completely exhausted. I don't care if they have to invent machines to keep me alive. Keep me ticking! I have no fear of lingering trapped in a coma or something. You end up dying anyway. I have insurance so I might as well get every penny out of it I put in! The time delay on my mortal departure does not bother me. Medicine advances everyday and who knows what miracles lie around the corner. AIDS used to be a death sentence but many people are now not just surviving but living well. Look at the cases of coma patients waking up. Paralyzed people who use feeding tubes still enjoy fruitful lives. I mean, who is anybody to say anyone's quality of life is acceptable or not? I know some would say but what about your family? Well, I've made my wishes known so they can be comforted that that is what I wanted. My personal religious beliefs tell me that the life of innocents should be preserved at all costs.

I'm a bit surprised that the liberals in the Senate weren't able to, or didn't have the guts to filibuster this one.

On the contrary, look at the tally. About half the Democrats were in favor of it. Not every Democrat is ultra-liberal in knee-jerk fashion...

"For those that are really arguing against removing the tube - please distance yourself from your feelings about the husband and his reasons - again, what would YOU DO. Not what should he have done. Ignore the reports about possible mistreatment, misappropriations of funds that should have gone to rehab, etc."

If he were her husband, I'd agree. He isn't, though. He "moved on" ten years ago, and abandoned his wife. If this were an immigration marriage the courts would laugh it off and deport him. I guess killing people has a lower standard.

"Third, the persistence of 15 years in a coma speaks for itself. The emotional toll, not to mention the medical bills, must be unbearable."

The bills are going to be paid. It's asinine to think that people offering a million dollars to spare her life would then let her waste away for lack of support. To my knowledge the bills have never been the issue.

"Gideon, for a 40 year old woman, a feeding tube is an extraordinary measure."

SANDY PLEASE STOP IGNORING ME AND ANSWER...

I took care of 30 and 40 year old mentally handicapped kids at summer camp, who never spoke, never looked left and right, never reacted to anything other than pain and discomfort. Now, according to your standard, all of them should be starved to death too?

Or just killed with Docter Myrrengala's morphine cocktail? Do you realize how many thousands of families could be thrown into situations like this if your idiotic standard was held to?

IF SHE IS "MEAT", THEN THERE IS NO REASON TO KILL HER, BECAUSE SHE IS NOT DEGRADED, AND SHE IS NOT SUFFERING. IF SHE IS NOT "MEAT" THEN YOU ARE STARVING OR KILLING A HUMAN BEING WHO HAS A REMOTE CHANCE OF RECOVERY.

No one will address this fact. Everyone ignores it no matter how many times I say it. If she is really as "dead" as you make her out to be, there's no reason to kill her.

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

The fact is, the law says that you are allowed to write in your living will that you want to be allwoed to die, which in this case would mean starving to death. The republicans refuse to allow people to have assisted suicided, however, which would be much less painfull and much faster (allowing people to die with more dignity). This is what I mean when I say republicans want you to starve to death.

The problem I am having, is I don't s ee the legal debate here. As the law stands, she is to have her feeding tube removed.

Coward. You can't answer the question, so you ignore it. That might be a good indication that you are WRONG, sandy.

"The problem I am having, is I don't s ee the legal debate here. As the law stands, she is to have her feeding tube removed."

Bullshit. Where's all that "When they came for the baptists" crap that Liberals around here are full of. You can poo-poo any Conservative-leaning decisions courts make. You can bitch and whine when a court overturns homosexual marraige or endangers farce "womens rights", but when they agree with your uninformed opinion you don't have a problem at all.

The fact is, the law says that you are allowed to write in your living will that you want to be allwoed to die, which in this case would mean starving to death

Here's fact for you.....she DOESN'T HAVE A LIVING WILL! So take your "legal" debate an throw it in the trash can! All we have is Michael's say-so that she didn't want to live this way.

The fact is, the law says that you are allowed to write in your living will that you want to be allwoed to die, which in this case would mean starving to death. The republicans refuse to allow people to have assisted suicided, however, which would be much less painfull and much faster (allowing people to die with more dignity). This is what I mean when I say republicans want you to starve to death.

Then stop talking until you start to make some sense.

Gideon: I know that you're very much in favor of the rights of the disabled. You've spent your time on this post arguing very persuasively, and I respect that.
But...would YOU want to "live" like that (for that matter, would any of you)?
You can look at them and respect them and feel for them all you want to, but when the butt dumplings smack the rapidly turning blades, would you want to be left like that, responding to nothing forever and spending the rest of your life having to be fed by tubes or spoon-fed by someone else? Having to have your limbs forced into other positions, so you didn't pull yourself into the fetal position, having to be turned regularly like a freaking hamburger, so you didn't get bedsores?
Sorry, I might be a traitor to my people here, but I wouldn't. Yes, I know, Terri Schiavo isn't as bad as that, but just about, and you're worried about precedent-setting and how it would affect others like her or worse.
I wish the Schiavo case were more clear-cut....but then, we wouldn't be here hashing it out now, would we?

eon: I know that you're very much in favor of the rights of the disabled. You've spent your time on this post arguing very persuasively, and I respect that. But...would YOU want to "live" like that (for that matter, would any of you)? You can look at them and respect them and feel for them all you want to, but when the butt dumplings smack the rapidly turning blades, would you want to be left like that, responding to nothing forever and spending the rest of your life having to be fed by tubes or spoon-fed by someone else? Having to have your limbs forced into other positions, so you didn't pull yourself into the fetal position, having to be turned regularly like a freaking hamburger, so you didn't get bedsores? Sorry, I might be a traitor to my people here, but I wouldn't. Yes, I know, Terri Schiavo isn't as bad as that, but just about, and you're worried about precedent-setting and how it would affect others like her or worse. I wish the Schiavo case were more clear-cut....but then, we wouldn't be here hashing it out now, would we?

Just about that bad? Are you a doctor? Sorry but I can't agree with this. You need to go to her web page and start looking at the video clips. Link scroll down a little.... video links are there.

Rightwinger: If I was in the condition that T.S. is supposedly in, I wouldn't "want" anything. "I" wouldn't be there, if I were the proverbial "piece of meat" that those willing to kill her now claim she is.

Much like her husband, the pro-pulling the tube folks can't decide if she is alive or dead. On the one hand her husband was perfectly right to "move on" and get a new family, and on the other she is "suffering" and "demeaned" by her condition. On the one hand she is "brain dead" and we should "let her go", and on the other this is about the rights of people to end their lives the way they choose.

Come on, is she dead, or isn't she?

If she is for all intents and purposes "already gone", then what is the big deal leaving her to her parents? She isn't suffering or demeaned.

If she is "in there", then why in the hell would we deny her rights and accept the hearsay of a man who abandoned her 10 years ago as to whether or not she wants to be starved to death?

No baker.. she would be deameaned by what has happened with her body if she were here today. First, some people aren't completley selfish, and they decide that when they are done, they are done, and they don't want to take up space for a body that will never think again. Second of all, if you died, and then your corpse were draggged behind a car, or displayed, rotting, on tv to millions of viewers, I'm sure that would be demeaning to you, if you were to look back at it from above. Now think of what she would feel if she could see herself now. I sincerly think she would not want to be kept alive.

By the way, if 19 courts rule in one side, there are no more appeals left. The judgement has been verified 19 times people, the law is pretty clear in the area that the legal gaurdian has the say when the victim is in such a state as T.S. is in.

Go back and study history, Sandy. Go back and read how many judges ruled AGAINST civil rights legislation. Go back and look at how many judges ruled AGAINST abortion. Go back and look how many judges ruled FOR slavery.

Again, you can dismiss judges when they rule against homosexual marriage or put Roe v. Wade in jeopardy, but when you agree they could walk all over the Constitution for all you care.

"I sincerly think she would not want to be kept alive."

No, you don't think YOU would want to be kept alive. She described as a reasonably devout Roman Catholic. To starve someone to death is against her stated religion, and the religion of her family. All we have is the testamony of a guy who didn't come up with her hearsay "living will" until he was ready to move on...

So no, you have no idea of her wishes, and you have no idea what her soul would think "looking down" because you obviously don't share the religious beliefs she is said to have had.

"By the way, if 19 courts rule in one side, there are no more appeals left. The judgement has been verified 19 times people, the law is pretty clear in the area that the legal gaurdian has the say when the victim is in such a state as T.S. is in."

And I'll say again, if this guy walked into an immigration court, and tried to justify this as a marriage when he has been living with another woman for ten years and had two kids...

he'd be laughed out of it and deported. Evidently, killing the handicapped requires a lower standard of scrutiny.

No baker.. she would be deameaned by what has happened with her body if she were here today.

If I were severely mentally disabled and homeless, I'd want to be euthanized, but if I used that as justification for euthanizing the chronically homeless that are severely mentally ill or euthanizing the mentally retarded (I'd also rather die), I'd be called a Nazi!

First, some people aren't completley selfish, and they decide that when they are done, they are done, and they don't want to take up space for a body that will never think again.

We don't know what she wants yet though. It's funny though. If she did want to be kept alive, then you're calling her selfish for it.

Second of all, if you died, and then your corpse were draggged behind a car, or displayed, rotting, on tv to millions of viewers, I'm sure that would be demeaning to you, if you were to look back at it from above. Now think of what she would feel if she could see herself now. I sincerly think she would not want to be kept alive.

Well, 1) I'm sure she'd have better things to think about than how she looks on TV in Heaven, 2) she's not a corpse being dragged behind a car, and if you consider being in hospital to being dragged behind a car, shouldn't we euthanize anybody unable to stand on their own two feet?

Now think of what she would feel if she could see herself now. I sincerly think she would not want to be kept alive.

Then contact her from beyond the grave and have her say on national television that she agrees with her loving husband. Until you do though, your opinion on what she wants is no more valid than Bush's.

I wonder, if you asked a white supremacist if he woke up one day and found himself to be black, what he would want for himself.

Sometime we can show our biases in such a way. We find something repulsive, so we assume they'd want to be dead. A shame we are now going to be allowed to make such an assumption without written consent.

Sorry but I can't agree with this.

You know what doc? We've been on the same side of many an argument, and it pains me to disagree with you on this.

You're not there. You've never met the woman...If it wasn't for the big debate over her, you'd never have known about her anyway.
Everything you do know is second and third-hand coming from extreme elements on one side or the other. I've gone to some of the links and read the info.
I wouldn't want to live like that, and I wouldn't want to burden those that I loved, no matter how they felt, with seeing me like that, on top of having to feed me and bathe me like I was 37-year old baby. No thanks.
The woman known as Terri Schiavo is gone....in her place is an adult toddler who will require intensive, hands-on attention for the rest of her existence. Would she have wanted that, do you think?

"The woman known as Terri Schiavo is gone....in her place is an adult toddler who will require intensive, hands-on attention for the rest of her existence. Would she have wanted that, do you think?"

Your take, rightwinger, is just as subjective, and, I am sorry to add, does NOT take into account her religious beliefs. The only reason we have to believe she felt otherwise is based on the hearsay testamony of her (ex)husband. The decision isn't being made by her, it is being made by someone who has tossed away his "guardianship", by "moving on".

So, while I agree that none of us know Terri Schiavo's wishes, I have to disagree that the "mercy killing" perspective is any more enlightened. Her state prevents us from asking her directly, and the only person available for testamony has no tangible evidence that she wished her family to behave in any way counter to their beliefs.