QFT...In cases like this, people can believe something is happening when it's really nothing.

Sure. Like believing she's in this "persistant vegitative state". And her "husband" is acting in her interest. I mean, it's not like there's video of her interacting with her mom, smiling or anything.

Let's see, we can take the heresay testimony of a man with possibly dubious motives over lawyers and health care professionals who are or have been involved in the situation.

I would prefer euthanasia over starvation because, one, it is far more "humane" and even PETAs preferred method for killing animals and, two, someone would have to assume ownership and responsibility for the womans death. However, I still would not be a proponent of euthanasia in this case as there is no living will.

Look, will the woman ever get up, walk, or hold conversations on her own. Probably not. That does not negate the fact that this woman is alive, on her own, and has been reported to interact with her surroundings in that she appears to show emotion and may have even said things such as "mommy" and "help me". If this decision was wrong, Terry dies, and we never find out. End of debate although we will once again show our indifference for innocent life.

Kill unborn and the incapacitated but don't execute criminals. If Terry was a murderrer in this incapacitated state we wouldn't kill her. Thankfully, she's an innocent woman.

This thread is really long, and I just kinda want to add my two cents, I believe she should be euthanized for my own reasons; but I direct towards a recurring theme in the first page the fact that even though her family is paying for it, the hours that nurses and doctors spend caring for what is essentially a corpse could be better spent tending to ER patients, or patients on waiting lists.
Wookie, the parent's claims are equally unfounded as compared to those of the husband... and why did you put husband in quotations?

Did you see the link I posted about the baby girl with the parasitic extra head?

The parisitic head was capable of smiling and blinking.

Smiling and blinking... don't really mean anything, and do not prove that something is truly alive.

Because although he is married to her he has plainly moved on and is in fact in a common law marriage with another woman. And I believe that if we are to say that the parents' and husband's claims are equally unfounded we should then note that following one will result in the starvation of a human.

And, I'm not sure how a "parasitic head" compares to a living breathing person but it's a well known fact that I'm ignorant.

I got online today and did some more research into Shiavo's condition. I was wrong and I apologize. While I still don't believe her husband truly has her interests first in his mind, she isn't coming back.

Wookie: This is just a small sampling of the links I posted. I would strongly recommend you read them. Reality-based community and all that.

Kieran: That's awesome. You're a better man than I.

I can't help pointing out, however, that the only people insinuating that the husband doesn't have her best interests at heart are those that insist that she is coming back. Since they aren't credible in one area, why would you believe them in another?

Wookie, no one has to "claim her death" with euthanasia. I'd do it in a heartbeat with a clear conscience.

You forgot that STATE APPOINTED DOCTORS declared that Terri just wasn't there anymore. Not Michael's doctor. Not the Schlinder's doctor.

Wookie, is it starving a human being if the "being" part of the human no longer exisits?

Does anyone know the name of the Shindler's appointed doctor.

The Nobel Prize related guy. And a link to his findings mayhaps?

I have always maintained that there are questions that should be resolved. I'm not going to convict the man's (husband) motives based on what is reported in the media. I have already admitted that there is little likelyhood of any type of recovery. I've actually been quite fair in most of the general beliefs I've expressed on the topic most of you would probably concede.

However, I think it is reasonable that saying this woman is in a PVS is a little deceptive and that there are other reasonable concerns in the matter. Regarding PVS, the implication is that she is in some sort of comatose state. Not only is there clear footage that she is capable of some movement and the apparant expression of emotion but her immediate family certainly seems to have her interests in mind.

In lieu of these, and other, reasonable questions it doesn't seem right to starve her to death. Regardless of our own personal beliefs of what we would want for ourselves, even though we can't realistically put ourselves in the position, we should err on the side of caution. With so much of the brain a mystery isn't it possible that the Terry the Schindler's love is in there looking forward to every visit they pay her?

If I'm wrong and she lives, a woman remains in her "PVS". If you're wrong and she dies, "you" may not only have robbed a woman of her life, but quite possibly everything she had to live for.

"you" because I don't mean to imply anyone here is actually a party to this.

What if her organs could save 10 other lives?

Is she an organ doner?

She'd have to die now if they wanted to save the organs.

Wookie: Supposedly, the husband only became completely dedicated to removing the tube when the parents testified in court that they would amputate all her limbs and then perform open-heart surgery on the torso if it was necessary to keep her alive. The parents are selfish: they aren't doing this for Schiavo, they're doing it for themselves. If I was in a similar situation, there's no way I let emotionally-needy neurotics torment my wife's husk for decades for their own benefit.

That said, the definition of a PVS includes the loss of "cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment". I noticed you backed off your claims that she interacts with her enviroment and expresses emotion and responds to her mother, but didn't admit she has no chance of recovery. Why? I mean, the part of her brain where her personality and memories used to reside is largely or entirely liquid.

Through dozens of court cases any uncertainty has long since vanished. There is literally nothing to debate.

Oh please stop with these ridiculous assumptions. They have absolutly no relation to the topic and are just plain wrong.

I think the problem here lies in people's unwillingness to believe that a human body can live without having a sentient person inside. I agree with whoever said she's basically a corpse. An d that thing about amputating all her limbs absolutly disgusts me. I think the husband is the one with her best interest's in mind. The family on the other hand makes me sick. Of course the husband has moved on SHE'S BEEN IN THIS STATE FOR 15 YEARS. Alot of you are just assuming alot of things about the husband without any evidence at all.

That and the family were the ones that told him to move on...

Note day, time, star alignment on this. I'm agreeing with Ictus. She will never ever be the same person again even if by some ingenius advancement in medical science. Her cerebral cortex is liquid. This is where cognitive abilities reside.

I feel I must say this. Let me share another person with similar syndrome. I watched my grandfather deteriorate from a good, honorable man to someone who had to ask me who I was every 15 minutes. I watched him barely recognize his wife of 55 years. His condition was irreversable and only further deteriorating. By no means was he wholly incapaciated or PVS but he was no longer the grandfather I've known all my life. Shortly after my grandfather died, my grandmother said to me "Brandon, this may seem bad but I'm glad your grandfather is now dead." I have never ever ever looked at my grandmother with the SLIGHTEST bit of shame or disgust for her saying that. I believe my grandfather is in a better place now. He is who is is now.

I believe Terry's parents should open the Good Book and read over some of it again. If it is claimed they are devoted to Catholicism, I'm skeptical of that. My grandmother is also a devout Catholic. She believes through her religion that one day she will see her husband again as she once remembered who he really is.

Yes, medical science might advance enough to find a "cure" to her current condition. But how long is that going to take? Will we find a solution when she's in her 70s? 80s? We to keep her hooked up to machines for the next fourty years?

My grandfather accused me of being a "God damned RED" over the phone about a week before he died..

(For you young kids, a red is a commie)

Wookie, you seem to be relying on video footage that makes it look like she's doing something approaching 'smiling'. That really isn't a very good medical analysis of anything.
I can make a corpse look like it's smiling.

Terri Shiavo died 15 years ago.

First I've heard of the dismemberment. I haven't backed off any claims. Other people are making the claims. Some of those personally involved in the situation. That's why I say there are questions. And I did, basically, admit to no chance of recovery although I think I said little or little to no chance. The only reason I leave the slightest chance is that things sometimes occur in this world that are beyond our ability to understand. A "miracle" if you will although I don't necessarily mean a religious connotation.

Many of you are also applying your values to the situation. You wouldn't want to live like that. I understand that but many of you are also critical when conservatives apply their values. It really doesn't matter what state this woman is in. There are still valid questions left, in my opinion, and allowing this woman to starve to death with there is still reasonable doubt as to what her wishes might be doesn't seem right.

Interesting medical analysis you've made.

Let's not make me backing up what mh said a tradition, but he's right.

I know there is brain damage and we can all agree that she is certainly not the woman she used to be but it is beyond anyone's capability to know what might actually still be in her "mind". It is true that she breathes on her own and her heart is beating. I understand, or agree with, the difference between physical and mental life but I'm not convinced her mind is completely gone. I'm not convinced that the proper exams have been done. I'm not convinced her wishes were to die.

I've pretty much said all I can say on the topic and, as I said before, I think I'm being reasonable.

I just watched the videos at http://www.terrisfight.net/ and her response is so limited... that I don't think it's fair to her to keep her alive. I've seen rats show more awareness, yet it's okay to kill them.

But then again, I believe in euthanasia.

I think that should be a moral given.

In this case, given the condition her neo-cortex (if I'm not confusing with someone else) is in, given the fact that she's not much more than a (limited!) input-output machine, I'd say let her go.

Well it seems you have your feet firmly planted and nothing is going to convince you so I think you aren't really being reasonable. Why are you so hellbent on the notion that she is still somehow alive in her mind despite the fact that her brain is mostly liquid?? Really, it's completely illogical and you are relying on pure emotion to make this judgement.

Appeal denied.

"A persistent vegetative state (commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as "brain-death") sometimes follows a coma. Individuals in such a state have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands."



While people can awaken from a persistent vegetative state is about 99.9% unlikely Terri will ever awaken from her persistent vegetative state. Mostly due to the fact that a realy good portion of her brain has basically rotted away and been replaced with spinal fluid.

If her parents want to keep her alive, then they have every right to. They should take her and care for her. Her husband is just using this as an excuse to get rid of her and get on with his life. Taking the feeding tube out is essentially murder. I don't think she should be kept at the hospital but should be with her parents, or with whoever else who wants to take her to care for her. The state that you all assume she is in is essentially the same kind of state where your parents have you under their care. Also, shut the **** up all of you who assume anything else about the ****ing mind, thought, perception, cognition, etc. ****ers. On the TV, she's seeing **** and smiling. That's a response. **** off.

Exactly. What - should he be cursed forever because his wife is a plant? (not even a big plant... more like shrubbery)



This is what I hate about ethics in the US nowadays. The same bull**** (which is equivocation fallacy btw) is being said about abortion: 'abortion is murder'. Note that calling anything 'murder' is not a reason, even though millions of people think it is. There are people violently opposed to taking newborn infants with insane neural tube defects, or who are born 4 months early, off the machine, because 'it is murder'. In the real world, that's not a reason though. If you can see through a baby, it's time to let it go.

The same goes for this woman. She's gone, and we should accept it (I probably come off as an ******* talking so coldly about something of such emotional value). The 'it's a human being' rhetoric is worthless as well.



It's not assuming man - this has been well documented. What we're seeing is nothing more than spasms. It's knee-jerk response.

Tonberry: There is no legal or medical doubt that Terri Schiavo
1. is in a persistent vegetative state
2. has no chance of recovery
3. did not wish her life to be prolonged artificially

You are not a lawyer or doctor. You don't know anything about the case, the family, the husband, or Terri Schiavo that you have not been told. You are not qualified to make legal or medical judgements. The most qualified lawyers and doctors (with, you know, degrees, experience, and actual interactions with Terri Schiavo) have presented the testimony before numerous courts in numerous cases and every single time the courts have affirmed the above three statements. There is no doubt left, just pandering and misinformation.

No, I am not whatever. This is my opinion. Furthermore, don't assume because I say it is "murder" which it ****ing is no matter what the **** you say. Nothing will change this truth. It is, by definition (EDIT: that is to say, as I understand it), murder. It is your assumption that this makes it whatever. It's murder, I'm not saying it shouldn't happen for this reason. I'm sure she didn't have a will that says that she wouldn't want her life "prolonged," etc. Her parents want her alive, she didn't state she wants this in a will.

I'm sorry.

All I mean is if someone cares to have someone remain alive, they should be allowed to have them alive. I don't know anything about this situation. So, forget I said anything. I would delete it, but that would imply other things I don't mean. So sorry.

Furthermore, are these also the same reasons that killing plants is so widespread, acceptable, and readily justifiable? PETA, vegan, Buddhists, etc.

You must have me confused with someone else in this thread. I have not even expressed a judgement. I have said repeatedly that I believe there are unanswerred questions and that we should not proceed with her killing untill satisfactorilly addressed. Apparantly the courts are more concerned with whether the parents have a significant chance of proving their case and won't step in to preserve the life of the woman. I don't understand how you apply words like hellbent, illogical, and pure emotion to my position. Nothing could be further from the truth.

WHY?! For their own selfish purposes??

Oh yes, I'd love to be kept alive if anything like this ever happened to me. It'd be loads of fun sitting in my own filth unable to understand a damn thing that was going on around me. But it's okay--other people want me alive. Not like it's MY life or anything.

But the argument is that she is not capable of having these experiences. And if she can then what is the justification for killing her, if she can want, feel, love, etc., whatever?

Tonberry: If anything, it's suicide. There is no justification for calling it murder. Schiavo expressed her wishes numerous times to unimpeachable witnesses.

When people die of natural causes they often lose their appetite and stop eating in the days before their death, as their bodies shut down. If they aren't lucid, and occasionally even if they are, their bereaved family members can insist that they get a feeding tube to keep them alive. Which it does, indefinitely. So that, instead of dying over a period of days, you die over a period of months or years, often in either significant pain or a drugged haze.

Similarly, people have been forcibly medicated, subjected to electroshock therapy, and lobotomized as treatment for perceived mental illnesses.

The right to refuse medical care is a fundamental human right.

Wookie: Ask one question you think is unanswered, and I'll provide the likely years-old response from one of the numerous court orders you still haven't read.