If anyone watched/heard the news, there seems to alot of coverage about Terri Schiavo. Catch an article here.

Terri is suffering from serious brain damage and has been ruled "persistent vegetative state." It appears she can not respond to her surroundings and lacks much brain functions (other than breathing and such). Her husband wants to remove her feeding tube and let her die peacefully, but her parents wants to "save" Terri through treatment. And Terri didn't state what people should do if she is under such a situation.

I dunno. Personally, I think her feeding tube should be removed, and she should be laid to rest. But I'm not so sure to jump to that side. What do you people think?

On one hand, she is being starved to death. On the other hand, she is being starved to death.

Now, I don't belive putting her to rest is the bad thing; it's the fact it will be by starving her to death. I'd rather she just be given a lethal injection of some sort, quick and clean.

She's practically brain-dead. Keeping her alive on the remote chance that she could ever recover is a big drain on hospital ressources. While she's there hogging those ressources, people who need it more than she does might die as a result. They shouldn't even ask her parents. The system has done everything it can to help her. There's no reason why other people should be punished and possibly die because of parents who aren't capable of letting go of their dead daughter. I say screw what the parents want, unplug her anyways.

I think she should be euthanized...I believe its a selfish act on the part of the family to keep dying family members alive like that, especially when the person is brain dead. People see death as too much of a bad thing.

No, that wouldn't happen. Hospitals don't work that way, belive me that her care isn't taking away from the care of others. It's like saying that her continued hydration will drain the area of water.

If anything, that is not a the motive at all. It's more or less about people moving on from the tragedy. I agree with the action, not the method...

It's not like she'll notice the difference. She is, for all intents and purposes, gone. Her cerebral cortex is dead. This is a very difficult decision. I kinda think that they should go ahead and remove it. If she's that dead already it would probably just be best to let nature take its course. In any case, it's a rather sad affair.

Wow, I recant, this the action is indeed wrong:

"They also might move spontaneously and even grimace, cry or laugh. Some people might regain some awareness after being in a persistent vegetative state but others might remain in the state for decades."

Why is everyone so eager to have her tube pulled? If there is even the most remote, slim chance of her regaining some level of function, she should be kept alive.

Also, the article is greatly vauge on the extent of her brain damage, what was damaged, ect. This is not as black and white as it seems.

And how come the husband is incredibly persistent to remover her feeding tube?

Where, my dear Mr. Obi, does it say "her cerebral cortex is dead"?

If there's even a slim chance that she can regain her consciousness we should keep her alive. Also I don't believe she's "draining" resources as her family are more than willing to pay for it.

Well, for completeness, from here: http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/28/n...g_Terri_S.shtml

"Although the physicians were not in complete agreement concerning the extent of the daughter's brain damage, they all agreed that the brain scans showed extensive permanent damage to her brain. They only debate between the doctors was whether she had a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she had no living tissue in her cerebral cortex."

There may be a small amount of living tissue; there may not be. But hey, if we sentence people to death with the premise that there is nothing "beyond reasonable doubt", we should extend this to Mr. Schiavo. And this is indeed reasonable doubt.

Also, to reiterate what the article itself said:

"This term (Persistent vegetative state) is commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as "brain-death.""

It is said that Terri and husband talked this over and it was her wish to NOT be done like this. Trust me, I would be unbelievably pissed off at my mom and/or dad who kept me alive for 15 years in this vegetative state. I would rather be dead then unable to recognize...anything or unable to function.

Exactly...whats the point of living for her? She's basically a living body, an empty shell of a human being. She might as well be dead. The parents are just too selfish to let go of her. The problem with today's society is that we view death as the ultimate worst thing ever to be avoided at all costs, even if the person can't function at all. It's bull****...

And meanwhile, little kids are dying all over the world and get no help whatsoever.

What in God's name does that have to do with ANYTHING. And also, you seem to have skirted the other posts as well; the person has a chance to regain function, she isn't brain dead, as the article clearly states.

In addition, "The problem with today's society is that we view death as the ultimate worst thing ever to be avoided at all costs, even if the person can't function at all." How is this exactly a problem? And this is not the case, as the person can function to an extent. Death is the worst thing; what else is worse?

Also, "it is said that Terri and husband talked this over and it was her wish to NOT be done like this." If it isn't in writing I seriously doubt its vality. Anything can be said.

That was the problem. They never put this in writing. Thus it came down to a he-said she-said ordeal. If it was in writing, She would have been dead 15 years ago.

Persoanlly, I'd want the tube pulled. Same if I was on a respirator with no cjance of coming out of it.

If the parent want to keep her alive so badly, they should move her to some sort of care facility and take care of her, or at least pay for it.

Meh.

Don't care.

It's as clear as it gets. Her husband and legal guardian says Schiavo didn't want to be kept alive like this. The courts have reached the same conclusion, twice. The rest is her media-whoring/emotionally needy parents refusing to accept the death of their daughter.

Kuat: The removal of the feeding tube means no water. It's not going to be drawn out.

Much, if not all, of her cerebral cortex is destroyed and has been replaced by liquid. The cerbral cortex receives and processes sensory information, and is the center of complex thought, motor coordination, emotion, and personality. Starvation will be a painless process for Schiavo, and even considering the possibility that she does regain consciousness, she will not be the same, and her functioning in life will be severely diminished.

Also, here's her CT scan:

http://miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/CT%20scan.png

I believe that this woman deserves to have her feeding tube removed. Drawing out her life is senseless when it appears to me that she is already gone.

I heard it it one of the many, many discussions about this on the news and radio. Not verifiable. I also heard that the emotions and reactions were a bit of a stretch too. But that being said, I have not researched or followed it in depth, and even if I had I think I would have a very hard time coming to a decision.

And I assume because you brought this up you must be doing something yourself to help them. Otherwise this makes you a hypocrite (sorry to be frank but that's the truth).

I've got papers signed through my doctor and parents that if I'm ever in a situation like this (Increadably specific cercomstances, as stated on the papers. I have to be unaudible, lacking cognative skills for the rest of my life, things like that) that they're legally bound to unplug me. I've been hooked up to a tube before. I had every chance to live: I wanted to die THEN, knowing I'd survive. Being hooked up to a tube and being told you wouldn't survive anyway would be more than death for me.

JediKirby

She could always wake up in a few years and kill a bunch of people, though.

But realistically, pull the plug.

Death isn't so bad. I'm not even religious, and I realize that death isn't something so terrible. I don't want to be old. I'd rather die at 40 than be bleh for 40 more years. My grandpa is in his late 80's, can't remember anything for more than 10 seconds, is becoming increasingly incontinent and is just generally miserable. He should have died 10 or 20 years ago, and I don't feel bad at all saying he should just die already.

Living to 100 may seem great, but in the end you'll just be miserable.

In other news, there was an article linked here about the technology to live forever, and I can't find it with the search. Anybody know where I can find it?

I never heard of that.

Technology to live forever? link me!

Flex--hospitals don't work that way. Hospitals aren't just "Okay, she's taking up resources, so let's kick her out." People pay to stay at hospitals and receive care because 1) it of course costs money to keep hospitals up and 2) it's not a completely government funded facility (though the government does put up funding many times). It's no one's decision to leave other than her husband's, and as long as he pays the bills, she stays.

Just wanted to say that.

Just that here, in the backwards-land of public-funded over-crowded hospitals, she WOULD be wasting resources.

Just wanted to say that. :p

But that's irrelevant, considering she's in the US.

:p

:p

She isn't even in a hospital. The United States has a huge network of private hospices, nursing homes, and other facilities to care for the old, sick, and incapacitated. Schiavo's care affects no one but herself and her family.

Even if she was able to regain some fuction, she won't be the same. I've been following this for a while now and I think the family thinks she's going to wake up and be herself again. It's definately not like that. I went through this with my mom. We had the choice to pull the plug or not; and we didn't...and she surprising came out of it. Of course this was only two weeks, not 15 some years. But she is definately not the same person and she probably would have never wanted the life she has now (in a nursing home.)

I say that it's only fair to the woman to let her die peacefully. The thing that's strange about it though - if they talked about it, why didn't she make a living will? meh...Oh, and apparently the husband gets a nice sum of money after she's dead too. But, while it may be the cause, I still think that letting her go would be the nicest thing that family could do, not only for her, but for themselves.

Prehaps he could be paying for her treatment. Or someone. I don't seem to find in the articles.

I hate it when people do this. Raol Duke's morality and his contributions to charity are not the topic of discussion here.

Concerning Terri... one thing to remember is that she will eventually die regardless of what happens. Even if she comes out of her state, and is able to live a somewhat normal life, a time will come where she departs the land of the living. Regardless of your religion or beliefs, you have to accept this fact as reality... everyone dies.

As for the discussion she and her husband had prior to all this, from personal experience I can say that I honestly tell my girlfriend a heck of a lot more about what I think about these kinds of things than I do to my parents or family.

I personally think that she should be allowed to die, but I will also be the first to admit that I dont know nearly enough about the situation for my opinion to be considered valid.

There are no words, only >_<;;;

The person who brushes Terri's teeth must do an EXTREMELY excellant job.

They're always so white and shiny.

Except she can't eat anything to get them dirty. :p

Seriously though, assuming the majority of Americans are pro-life and not pro-choice (I have no way of backing this up), if Bush is using this situation to elevate his popularity ranking, I'm going to be seriously disgusted.

I just wish they would let the poor woman die. Let her husband live his life. He's been through enough.

Anyone who is interested in this case, ought to see the movie "Million Dollar Baby," if they havent already.

Zing

First, I'd like to note that the only posts I have read are this one and the first one.



I agree completely. Starving to death is a very cruel punishment. I wouldn't want to be kept alive artificially in such a case, but I also wouldn't want to starve.