Except the character in Million Dollar Baby was able to express her wishes.

There are far too many questions in this case to believe that a judge should allow her to die. First, why have no tests been done to determine her brain function. Second, how can doctors accurately determine her state without such tests? How can a judge determine something so important on hearsay testimony of her husband and a couple in-laws, especially when the guy is shacked up with another babe and has children by her?

It's not like her life functions are kept going by machine. She is undeniably alive. She apparantly recognizes her name. I just think there are far too many unanswered questions her to kill her. I actually think it's scary that any court be given the power to kill the women with all these questions.

Hell, if she were a dog, PETA would be outraged. Thankfully she's only a person.

THOU SHALT NOT MENTION THY EVIL PETA.


Seriously. I can't think of a bigger group of seriously warped people.

Wookie, take a look at the CT scan somebody posted on the first page. She has nothing left of her brain.

Wookie: You don't even know what you're complaining about. What test to determine brain function are you referring to? I mean, numerous CAT scans have shown that her cerebral cortex has wasted away and been replaced with spinal fluid. It doesn't get much more conclusive than that.

And no, she doesn't recognize her name. She doesn't even respond to outside stimuli except reflexively.

And it's not the courts, but the husband, her next-of-kin legal guardian, who is having the feeding tube removed. The courts have simply confirmed that her wishes and affirmed the husband's right to carry them out.

If you're looking for accurate information, I'd suggest Abstract Appeal.

I am sure it has nothing to do with the 203-58 vote.

Let's not forget the portion of Democrats, and such, who wish not to take part of this bill. Possibly, many non-conservative politicans don't want to vote on to remove the feeding tube because opponents may use this vote against them. Voting to basically "kill" a person is a tough thing to do.

I don't think this issue is divided pro-life pro-choice. I've heard from many pro-lifers that either support have it removed or are indecisive.

She has been in this state for fifteen years. I'm pretty sure they've run the necessary tests on her in that span of time. And though you might try to attack the character of Terri's husband, you have to realize that she has been dead to him for fifteen years. Of course he has moved on and begun another relationship.



I despise PETA as much as the next person, but this is just silly. In fact, if she were a dog, PETA would recommend:

When animal companions become very sick and are suffering with no hope of recovery, and they seem incapable of truly enjoying life, it may be time to provide them with a peaceful death through euthanasia.

:p

And yet his approval rating as of March 2005 is only 52%. Go roll your eyes elsewhere.

Wuss, I was just thinking about that earlier.

But he's a Republican conservative.

I'm not sure where you are trying to go with Bush.

I wasn't trying to go any where with him, all I said is that I hope that he didn't pass the law he did this morning to improve his approval ratings. That's all.

It would be the kind of behavior to expect from any politician.

What the hell does he care about his approval rating?

It's the second term... what are they gonna do... NOT re-elect him?

There was a tabloid frenzy a few months ago when the Queen was walking about someplace, and came across a duck that had been shot and was bleeding profusely. The Queen put her hands around its neck, and killed it.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that when an animal is in mortal pain, the humane thing to do is to kill it. This is most often applied to horses.

It's unfortunate that the same courtesy isn't extended to humans.

If he becomes an unpopular president, representatives/senators cease backing him. Then he loses all power.

Okay, I got through half of the first page and my head almost exploded from some of the misconceptions, so excuse me if these things have already been stated.

She is NOT brain dead. She DOES respond to people by following them with their eyes and giving slight smiles.

She has been like this for 15 years because her husband has not allowed her to under go rehabilitative therapy. That is besides him just barely now saying that she told him didn't want to live like this. I'm sorry, but that is as transparent as a piece of glass.

There is a medical doctor that is up for a Nobel Peace Prize in medicine concerning these things that examined her for hours and has said it would be outright murder to just let her die. He has stated that had the husband allowed her to undergo therapy, she would be a lot better, and it is still possible to let her undergo therapy and she would get better.

From what I have been able to tell, her husband purposely keeps her like this, and that makes me very suspiscious. He denied her therapy, he tells people a long time after the fact that she wants to die, and he has also moved her from hospital to hospital every time after the nurses give affidavits that state that she is responsive.

I am all for pulling the plug on hopeless vegetables. But she is NOT a hopeless vegetable.

Thankyou for mentioning this. I'm so glad I've finally come across an artical on Massassi that I knew about beforehand. Anyway, here's the deal: a woman comes to speak at my small Christian Private school every Tuesday (I don't agree with some of the ultra conservatism bias, but she has some good, and informative things to say). Anyway, her husband owns World Magazine (please do not slam me, I do not necessarily support this website, but it is still interesting) and she mentioned this case. She also said how that the husband had been unfaithful and had been living with another woman for some years now (a possible reason why He'd want her dead). I don't know how "truthful" she was being, but this is what I heard. I'm too tired to research anything more tonight though. Hopefully someone else has heard/read similar, but it could just be a pack of lies.

He is with another woman and has had children with her, IIRC.

This case reminds me a lot of Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo and "One" by Metallica (based off the Trumbo novel).

But she has had therapy. They even went as far as to try to stimulate her with implants in her thalamus, which is what is complicating her receiving an MRI. Michael Schiavo halted therapy in 1992 after she didn't respond to it. He was advised by her doctor to do this.

Found some more stuff out. Evidently, the husband refuses to say whither or not he has a life insurance policy on her or how much it is. Now, this by itself doesn't mean much. But you stack this with all the other things and I can't help but look at this guy and think "Hmmm...". Another thing: She can swallow. Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but swallowing is NOT an involuntary movement. You have to consciously do that yourself.

Now that makes me curious as to why this other doctor that examined her(he was on the radio and tv, can't remember his name) said therapy would have helped.

No she can't.

Saliva supposedly goes down, but nothing else will.

And because I'm too lazy to type out a quote from a scanned document:

Was he the doctor the parents had chosen? In a previous hearing IIRC, Michael's doctor and the state-appointed doctors had all said that she had no hopes, while the parents' doctor said that she did.

I think someone had posted a link about that earlier.

From the same document as my previous post:

As I stated previously, there are far too many unanswered questions to allow this woman to be killed via starvation. Before continueing I would like to point out that this is different from euthanasia because we aren't directly "putting her out of her misery". We're simply going to let the woman starve to death so everyone can go to sleep with a clear conscience.

If you care enough to opine on the issue, I would ask that you read my two following cites.

exhibit 1
exhibit 2

Sure, like anything on the internet, you have to wonder about authenticity and accuracy but I think this case boils down to this: Is it responsible for us to put our faith on such a serious issue to the heresay comments of a few non-blood relatives when the outcome is as uninevitable as death?

In a purely hypothetical scenario, imagine yourself saying that you couldn't live a certain way. Maybe you even go so far as to put it in writing. Now, imagine you're in the scenario. Whether it be a life in squalor in a third world type setting or in paralysis on a bed with limited brain function. Maybe, just maybe, you have enough brain function that the sight of your family visiting you gives you pleasure. As much pleasure as you possibly imagine your wildest dreams might give you now if they came true. My point is that none of us really know what we might want to happen to us in that situation because we can scarcely imagine it.

Let the woman's parents do what they think is right and also let the husband continue his life with his common law wife. Grant him a divorce and let him move on, as well.

Rehabilitation is not going to fix brain damage in such a severe case. This isn't like getting rehab after a knee surgery or anything like that.

From everything I've read, and what I've gone through, I think she pretty much is. My mom went through rehabilitative therapy and I really didn't see anything that happened. To get through that kind of therapy you need the WILL to do it. My mom didn't and she can pretty much think (even if it's like talking to a little kid.) As we were talking about in one of my classes today - the case really isn't about Terri - it's about right to die and right to live. He probably isn't the one that keeps moving her either. Again, went through this with my mum. The insurance company we had kept moving her without asking us - they just told us. He probably had no choice. One last thing, everyone here knows why she's in this state right? She was bulimic, which caused her to have the heart attack that puts her where she is now. *gets off her soap box*

Yeah, I know about her being bulimic.
Kind of ironic... isn't it.

yeah...oy...my prof made terrible jokes today about it. They're the kind of jokes you laugh at, but then you feel horrible about afterwards.

...but the husband is trying to do what he thinks is right. Assuming that he isn't behind some conspiracy to prevent her from recovering, then he is attempting to do the right thing by honoring what he believes to be his wife's wishes. Assuming that he loved and still loves her, then it must be awfully hard on him seeing his wife subjected that which she never wanted. I agree; it certainly isn't a clear-cut case of right and wrong.

Once married, doesn't the spouse gain full power over all choices made in such circumstances?

The usually the case unless the person wrote down in a will (or some other form is more likely) what they wanted to happen.

That's because Dr. Stanton owns the world.

I’ve been reading up on the Terri Schiavo case. In truth, to summarize, it’s not hurting anyone other then the family who’s having to pay out the money to keep the body of Terri Schiavo alive. If she was going to “wake-up” and retake control of her body, she would have. After 15 years, this simply isn’t going to happened. The family needs to realize that Terri Schiavo is dead and isn’t coming back. Only her body, and empty shell, remains. They are spending thousands, if not millions, of dollars a year to keep these living tissues alive through artificial means. If that’s what they wish to keep doing, then they are entitled to it. Terri Schiavo has been dead for 15 years and has no realization of what’s being done to her body.

What has to be realized is that we are talking about two different things. We are talking about Terri Schiavo (the person) and Terri Schiavo's Body. These are two seperate things. Terri Schiavo exists only in her mind. Though she was once able to express herself through her body. Her body is how she communicated and interacted with the outside world. We know that Terri Schiavo's body is still alive. But the question is:

Is Terri Schiavo (the person) still alive?

The answer to this question is "No." This is actually due to two parts. First, she can no longer reason, make decisions, dream, or do any of the things your mind does 24/7. Secondly, she can no longer use her body to communicate/interact with her enviornment.

Resolution of this matter?

If her family wishes to keep their daughters' body alive by providing the financial means to do so, I see no harm in this. Personally, I find it silly that they would want to waste money on an empty shell of flesh. But I feel that it's their choice do so (in other words, 'whatever floats their boat').

Her husband should move on with his life and let it go. If he has put out financially in this matter, he should be compensated. The courts should rule that Terri is dead and this matter can be resolved (IMHO).

Just so you guys know, swallowing is handled by the brain stem. If it wasn't, we'd drown in our sleep from our saliva.

Kieran: Bull****.

1. She's not brain dead, but she is in a persistant vegetative state.

2. She does not respond to outside stimuli except reflexively. She does not recognize her name or her family members. Numerous doctors have been completely unable to substantiate her family's claims. Her state rules out them out by definition.

3. Her husband undertook intensive therapy for at least the first four years, including experimental therapy in California, all of which was completely ineffectual. He did not ask for the tube to be removed until more than 8 years after her collapse. (1)

4. Your Nobel Prize nominee is a ****ing charlatan. You can find the court order that mentions him here. Read the whole thing.

Wookie: I've watched movies that were extremely apt at manipulating emotions. People cry at fictional tragedies. You can't rely on feelings to determine the rational response to a situation.

It's simple.

1. Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. (1)
2. Terri Schiavo did not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. (2) [edit: Wow. Read the sixth page, if nothing else.]
3. What Terri Schiavo wants is the sole legal, moral, and ethical guideline in this case.

Where's the problem?

Excerpted from one of my, apparantly ignored, links above:



I think there may be reasonable doubt to your conclusions.

I agree with Ictus, except I think euthanasia should be legalized for situations like this. She should be euthanized by lethal injection. I think it's the right thing to do rather than withhold water from her.

And Wookie, I read that link, and I think it's highly doubtful.

Yeah...

I can see that being totally made up.