Fair or unfair? The Schiavo case

---

What are everyone's thoughts on Terri Schiavo?

Boy, you posted a toughy!

I recently lost a family member for whom that decision had to be made. The circumstances were different though, we knew the persons wishes, and they were in writing.

I do not know what is in Teri, what are her thoughts, or what she can feel, or knows.
I however would want to be let go at that point. Although, starvation is a sad way to go. I really feel for the husband it has been such a burden and even if he "just got on with his life" and say divorced her, he would still be responsible for her. Her family isn't able to let her go. I also can understand that.
It all boils down to personal beleifs, I do beleive in natural selection, and that medicine has gone too far in some cases to save lives that aren't really lives anymore. Part of living is being part of our society, contributing, enjoying, loving, comunicating with fellow man. In my point of veiw, Teri is one of those cases where science has "kept something going" that isn't going anymore.

This is SO controversial. I'm scared to post! I'ts gonna get nasty I bet!

I felt it was the right thing to do. IF I was in that postition, pull the plug, please.

87% of people agree with you, when polled and asked what they would want done if they were in that position. But that in and of itself doesn't drive the legal issues, or determine what Terri Schiavo wanted.But all of the Florida courts agreed, over and over, unanimously, that her husband had the right to let her die. His case was good, they said, both medically and legally. And the U.S. Supreme court didn't want to hear an appeal on the case, which means that the Supreme court thinks that the decision process was correct.Her feeding tube was removed.Then conservative faction of the Florida legislature, driven mainly by political and religious right-to-life elements, and led by an opportunistic governor (who happens to be the president's brother) decided to do whatever it would take to get the feeding tube re-inserted. It's amazing how long it usually takes an idea to become legislation, but in this case, it happened in almost no time. The legislature passed a bill concerning the Schiavo case specifically, and was plainly unconstitutional, that compelled the re-insertion of the feeding tube.More litigation resulted, and the feeding tube was removed again. Then the legislature and the governor came back with another unconstitional law in a hurry, and the tube was re-inserted a second time. More litigation. Once again the court invalidated the law.Then the U.S. Congress, led by Tom Delay, decided to step in. Among the crazy maneuvers they pulled, they tried to call Terri Schiavo to testify before Congress. The Florida judge involved in the case threw that out. And now, the feeding tube has been removed yet again.But Congress is not done. Delay calls the removal of the feeding tube "barbaric". And now, as I type this, Delay is announcing that the House will be called back into emergency session tomorrow. The result will be legislation that G.W. Bush will almost certainly sign that will result in the re-re-insertion of the feeding tube. And then the case will be dragged into federal court, and the cycle will start again.Now that seems pretty barbaric to me.Beyond Terri Schiavo herself, this is scary from a states rights and civil rights perspective. The Florida courts have considered this case long and hard and have spoken. But the federal government says, screw you, we have our own ideas.Tom Delay presents himself as a calm, soft talking Texas guy. But he's a vicious political operator, with a lot of ethical problems. It's interesting how the people living in his district don't rein him in. But he's the House Majority leader, so he can really bring home the bacon.So the executive branch of the federal government has been accreting power, weakening the legislative branch, and now the legislative branch is taking power from the judicial branch and the states.The Constitution is a victim as well.

unfortunately, she has become nothing but a political catalyst. What I've heard little of from either side of the debate is hard, cold science. There seems to be a constant debate about how those around her feel rather than how she feels. If how she feels is irrelevant, then she is already dead.My feelings on the concept of euthenasia not withstanding, don't let the poor thing die of dehydration!(thanks Amanda)

If you read through the court transcripts, plenty of scientific stuff was discussed, and a number of medical experts who actually examined Terry Schiavo stated their positions.Go to any hospice and you'll see that many people who are dying from cancer, for instance, have reached a point where they have determined that there's no quality of life left, and they want to die with dignity.To temper your concern about not "letting the poor thing die of dehydration", understand that not everyone who dies under such circumstances has a feeding tube and is uncommunicative. Some people, who are rational and able to communicate, refuse nutrition and hydration. They are able to describe their feelings up to the time they die. As long as no food and water is taken, it seems to be a pretty humane way to die.In the Schiavo case, there appears to be massive brain damage, so Schiavo probably doesn't feel anything at all, but it's hard to prove it.In any case, my mother died under hospice care, and toward the end, refused nutrition and hydration, so I know from whence I speak.

I am not very opionated on this topic, relative to the family that is. But have the government interfere (republicans) just makes my blood boil. The governement has no business in interferring. Fucking politicians, bastards...low lives.

In reply to:

---

If you read through the court transcripts, plenty of scientific stuff was discussed, and a number of medical experts who actually examined Terry Schiavo stated their positions.

---

yes! "if you read"
Like I mean, It's not presented as part of the media debate.
It's all "me me me"

Welcome back Walken! Politicians and lawyers... first against the wall when the revolution starts!

The media debate? I don't know how things are presented on the CBC, but in the U.S., broadcast news is seriously dumbed down. Ratings (i.e., profit) are the main driving force, rather than a duty to inform the public with factual information. Plus a lot of people are bored with the complexities of things like how their government operates. It's just easier to react emotionally for the intellectually lazy.Not that CNN is a paragon of fine journalism, but how do you think Fox News got ahead of CNN? And how many people still read the newspaper every day? A lot of newspapers are reducing news coverage and increasing space for light features, like tips on how to do your fingernails and such.A large chunk of the U.S. population thinks WMDs were found in Iraq, and Saddam sent the 9/11 hijackers. Need I say more?The problem is that an uninformed population winds up with a government that can get away with all kinds of crazy stuff, and hardly anyone will call them on it. The government just get more and more brazen. Democracy does not thrive when the population chooses to be uninformed.

Steve,I think we're pretty much on the same page here. The media has it's own prioreties, and they have little to do with relaying truth to the people.My heart goes out to Terri, I think it's time for her to go 'home'.

Well the feeding tube is being reinserted as the appeal goes on.

I'm glad of that. Whether ot not Terri should be allowd to die, depravation of nourrishment is not the most humane way to let her go

I agree, if they want her to die they should do it in a quick manner and not let her die slowly.

I agree. When I heard it was going to take awhile for her to die, I kind of thought "WTF?! Do it quick"

What manner would you suggest? Active euthanasia is illegal in the U.S.And starvation/dehydration, as I mentioned, is not inhumane. If you haven't tried it, and you don't know anyone who's been in the situation, and you haven't researched it, I don't underastand what you base your opinion on. It's not the same thing (in terms of how it feels) as fasting for a day.You can't just judge this on your emotional feeling about being hungry and thirsty.And the doctors who examined Terri Schiavo don't think she can feel anything at all, in any case.

I would think lethal injection would be the easiest and least painful, she'd die on the spot.

My opinion is that this is just plain wrong.This is being dealt with as a matter of expediancy almost. But it's not. It's about death which is serious. It's about who has the right to take a life. We're also not talking about removing life support, which I would agree with under certain conditions. We're talking about starving someone to death and being told it's alright because she may not feel it. As far as turning it into a moral issue, if the question of whether or not to kill someone isn't a moral issue, what is? Me thinks statements like "Republicans are trying to turn this into a moral issue" come more from hatred of Republicans than anything else.As for the husband, he just wants her out of the way. Her parents would love to have power of attorney or whatever and let him go on and do his own thing, but he doesn't want that. Wealthy people have offered millions of dollars to pay whatever is necessary to keep her alive, and to help her even possible convelesce. He doesn't want that either. You tell me what his motivation is. Okay, I'll make it easy on you. He wants her dead because he knows as long as she is alive he and his girlfriend can never be married...unless of course he divorces his wife...which, once again, he won't do. I honestly believe he feels like if he divorces her and gives legal rights to his parents he will be seen as a schmuck. If he fights to pull the tubes, in our twisted society he will be considered a compassionate hero...a poor put upon loving husband who had the courage to do the right thing. I think that is just wrong.As for the government...I think the state government is very much within their rights to step in on a situation in which the prevailing question is who, if anyone, has the right to take a life. Political propoganda, medical mumbo jumbo, twinkle-ding-dong pie in the sky sentiments aside... We're talking about a man who wants to kill an adult woman by starving her to death! If they tried to do this to the worst prisoner on death row, the same public supporting Shiavo's death would be throwing a hissy fit! You don't have to be a conservative to think that is wrong.OH...welcome back Walken!

This sounds exactly like a right-to-life antiabortion argument.

The attack on Terri Schiavo's husband is based on what? He's turned down bribes of millions of dollars to turn over control of his wife to her parents. I saw him during a thirty minute interview on Nightline. He seemed quite straightforward. I think you just think he "wants her out of the way" because you don't agree with his position and have been consuming too much of the media nonsense that comports with your own bias.

I'd be less nauseated by all this moral indignation by the conservatives (or at least the ones that are always on TV) if they weren't such hypocrites. If they'd be as concerned about the effect of mercury pollution on the unborn, the problem a lot of people have getting medical care for their children (before and after birth), the hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Darfur area, and on and on.

Governor Bush is not out of line if you believe Constitution should be retired and replaced by the bible of your choice. But if you believe in the constitutional republic that we have, then Bush was way out of line. It's the court's job to interpret the state and federal constitutions. The courts have spoken.

Do you understand what the phrase "a nation of laws, not of men" means?

What were you expecting, he's a communist?

darforpeople are shitOnly people kill for fun