Many people here are arguing based on what they would want to happen to them if they were in the position, the hearsay word that she may have said she wouldn't want to live like that, and/or the assumption that NOTHING is going on in her brain. I think it is possible that she has some cognitive ability based on what those who have interacted with her have said. I'm not certain that Terri's husband has her best interests in mind or that she ever expressed a wish to be killed. *Note - the above are questions I have, not some hell bent, illogical, and purely emotional argument* And, I believe whatever we individually would prefer for ourselves is irrelevant to the situation.

Also, note, the doctors will say she is in a persistant vegitative state. They seem to leave a little ambiguity. Again note that the doctors on either side really aren't arguing whether she should be killed. The medical opinions are actually quite moot. The issue is really whether or not that man should have the right to order her to be killed via starvation when there is no clear evidence that that is her wish. Spouses or parents don't routinely have the right to make death choices for their loved ones so I think far more consideration should be given to the case.

Source plz.

Your arguments lose everything when you go on like a kid swearing and saying things are because they are.

You do know that, right?

Sure, but I'll ask more than one. First, though, I'll address the second paragraph. I think that there would be discussion with the medical personnel as to what actions would be appropriate treatment, either with the patient or guardian, prior to getting to that point. I'm sure some scenarios go as you describe and I'm also sure that they are sometimes what the patient would have wanted as well as the opposite.

As far as the right to refuse medical care, that may not necessarilly be a fundamental right but that is a broader topic, that I wouldn't mind discussing, I will not do now. (poor wording, sue me)

?'s - Who are the unimpeachable sources for her wishes?

What would be considered undeniable proof that there is no brain activity?

I would list more but those are my biggest concerns and, coincidentally, the ones debated continuously in the media.

It's not murder, because she's already dead.

If I shoot a corpse, I haven't committed murder. Perhaps something else, I'm not sure, but not murder.

Also, Wookie, the whole 'unanswered questions' like is a very good excuse for being deliberately vague. [Edit: okay, maybe less so now. I didn't read your second post before posting, sorry] Medically, there are no unanswered questions. She cannot respond to any stimuli. I have a cactus in my plantpot, and my cactus can respond to stimuli.
The 'undeniable proof that there is no brain activity' is the various EEG scans showing that there is no electric activity in her brain. If that isn't dead, what is?

Terri's wishes:
From abstractappeal.com:
From the original court case, emphasized with Paint:

From the original appeal:

I think I've already addressed Terri's medical condition. She's PVS and will never recover outside of an act of God. Her cerebral cortex has been replaced with fluid. She is unaware of her surroundings.

With all due respect Ictus, and I appreciate your post, I don't agree that that shows "unimpeachable". To dumb a portion of my position down, not because I feel you need it but for the sake of simplicity, I would suggest this: The courts have seemed to process this along the lines of the preponderance of the evidence. In other words, because they have found that she may have had a few conversations on the subject of life support with a few people and expressed a general view of the subject along with the fact that she is currently in a state of little to no cognitive activity she probably would have wanted to die therefore they all continue to deny appeals to the original ruling. My view is that her case should be dealt with a seriously as or, rather, more along the lines of a capital murder case where we go by reasonable doubt because a human life, regardless how substantial or productive it may be, hangs in the balance.

Mr Oreilly from FNC had a great talking points tonight. If you're an Oreilly hater, read it before you opine. Unfortunately they haven't posted tonights yet but basically the point is that if Michael had her food continued, no harm would come. He could allow her parents to assume guardianship, they would be happy, Terri would basically be oblivious, and the hatred over the issue could end. If he allows her to die, the hatred will simply not go away. It will become worse. I'm definitely paraphrasing this but when it comes up I'll try to post it. The biggest problem I see with this is if Michael really is acting upon some very clearly made wishes concerning the situation but since there is no proof of that, I doubt that is the case.

First off, I like O'Reilly...but I do disagree with him on a lot of issues.

What you say about allowing the parents to have guardianship over Terri...what if Michael wants to put someone he loved to rest? The hate on the side of the family would be gone, but what of that hate Michael would have for allowing something like this to go on? (If that's what he's thinking...all hypothetical of course.) I really believe in this case the parents are being selfish and inconsiderate to their daughter. Really...who would want to live like that?!

Personally, I think it should be law that someone's wishes to die under these circumstances be in writing for someone >= 18 yrs. Otherwise, the plug can't be pulled.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg

I believe its really hard to judge what the parents are going though without personally knowing them. Prehaps, they are very desperate to be with the daughter and do not see that her current state should break their strong "relationship" with her.

Corpselovers.

Could be...it's just sad she has to go through it

I addressed, abit, that if he was truly acting in her interest there would still be a confliction however there is no suffering involved. No one is claiming Terri is in any pain so no real harm is done by a concession on his part.

Regarding "who would want to live like that" querry, who knows? We make these assumptions when we are healthy. None of us really know what we would want when we are actually in the position.

Early in this thread someone said we should see Million Dollar Baby (although it has nothing to do with the Terri case, literally or figuratively). *obligatory spoiler alert for the spoiler whiners* Anyway, the female boxer character who had nothing outside of her ambition to box ends up paralyzed and wants to die. Eastwood's character doesn't want to kill her but bows to her wishes and kills her. What the person who posted the comment to see it may have missed was that Eastwood's character virtually destroyed himself in the process. I think that if I were a position similar to the boxer in the film, I may take great pleasure in every moment my wife would spend with me. I would feel great pain for making her suffer through my ordeal. But I don't think I would ever want my loved ones to have to anguish over "putting me out of my misery" or deal with the burden of having done it.

Terri's case is far different because even if there is abit of her left it will doubtfully ever substantially surface. It is true that no harm comes to Terri by allowing her to live and her parents and siblings will be happy to still have hope, however misplaced it is. It is not right to allow her to die when many that love her don't want it to happen. It doesn't matter if it's selfishness or misplaced hope. The woman is not in pain. But killing her causes much unneeded pain.

it is possible to make a dead body stand up and do a dance if you know which areas of the brain to artificialy stimulate. As she is haveing her body kept alive by artificial means, the brainstem is in shape as it iis the most resiliant part of the brain and there is the possibility that her bodies natural electric current is making her move.

About the paracitic head, it was moving becuse the signals to the nerves were being picked up by the nervous system of the parasitic head.

In closing, movent is just electric currents going to certain muscles telling them to contract. all movement means is that there is residual electric current. the following oif objects is due to the fact that if there is a single movig object, the brain makes the eyes follow it unless otherwise instructed.

Forgive me while I go on a political rant here but all my rationality on this topic leaves me wanting to vent abit. Inspired abit by the above linked image.

We send stormtroopers into a home to reunite a boy with his communist dictator and father and here we arrest one for protesting the starvation of a woman, trespassing with a glass of water.

Sometimes us conservatives get just as angry and disgusted with the goings on in this country as liberals.

Kind of off topic, but I have to agree.

Here I was, hoping massassi was going to be a little more government conscious than the rest of the U.S. I guess I was wrong.

Do none of you see the constitutional implications brought on by the Administration and people who JUST NOW realised that this was going on?

This case, like Ictus showed, is standard procedure in Florida when it comes to disagreements between relatives of the person. This standard procedure has been given due process of law in the state courts, and has been appealed to the highest level, then rejected. How many murder cases do you know of that have been given 15 YEARS of due process? This has gone all the way through the state court jurisdiction, finding its way to the Supreme Court, which then rejected to hear it, upholding the past rulings.

And then, from out of no where, people unaware of this case suddenly here about it, and a fury goes on of people trying to do something about it. AS IF IT HAD ONLY JUST HAPPENED. As if the courts had just handed out a ruling after a week of deliberation. A clear breach of the separation of powers has just happened. Congress just ordered the case to be switched to a federal jurisdiction.


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/03/21/967497-ap.html

Anyone care to show precedent where Congress is allowed to order the judiciary into something? Last time I checked they were separate powers.

I have been following this case since jeb decided to butt his nose into this case when he had no juradstiction (sp?). that was back in 2003 I think. I read it in a cover story that time magazine ran.

Actually, nobody needs show precedent. All they need to do is read Article 3 of the US Constitution.

Jesus, that pisses me off. This is none of Jeb's business, he should not be taking this into his own hands like that.

I didn't know you were Canadian, Axle. How's it going, eh? :p

I've decided, out of boredom, to further address this drivel (no offense, I'm cranky!)



Actually, I think most of us realize this is really more a debate about life than the government.



Maybe some just realized this was going on. Possible since the case reached the climax when the "ultimate" removal of the tube was permitted however you are wrong in suggesting the administration brought any of this on. I assume you're talking presidential.



While technically a refusal to hear a case could be considerred upholding a ruling I would not consider it so. If a court does not rule, it upheld nothing. It simply ignored it.



I agree that the presumptive "rush" here is simply perceived because the case is not continuosly in the news however perceptive people that care about current events are no stranger to the case. No breach of seperation has occurred though because the first sentence of Article III empowers the congress to do what it did.



Like I said. Article III. First sentence.

Wookie: The witnesses were unimpeachable. Their testimony was unrefuted and eminently credible. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that Terri Schiavo said on several occasions that she did not want her life to be prolonged artificially.

Also, "clear and convincing evidence" is a more strenuous test than the "preponderance of evidence" you're familiar with. As in, "there is clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavo would want her tube pulled".

This segues into your next point, that keeping Schiavo alive indefinitely wouldn't be causing any harm. Except, you know, it would. It would be deliberately and directly contravening her wishes as her body survives open sores, infection, and increasing invasive "therapies" as her parents enlist any quack who promises the improvement that will never come. Or they get tired of her after the media attention dies off and retire on the millions of dollars of well-meaning donations. Whatever.

And both the parents and the husband need to move on. The parents' fixation is not psychologically healthy.

[edit]
My high school government textbook said the Supreme Court's refusal to consider an appeal is equivalent to upholding the lower court's ruling.

Sorry but I disagree. Let's say you are gone for a couple weeks. I tell everyone at massassi you agreed with me on this issue in a private conversation. Other users here say you would never have done so but can't factually refute my claim. Overly simplistic on purpose.

Alas, I am tired of the debate. What will happen will. I appreciated and enjoyed the polite debate and I think my usual and rational oponents here will concede I've been reasonable.

Now screw all y'all!

Are you drunk?

As far as I'm concerned, I think they shouldn't play god. If god wants her to live, she'll live. If god wants her to die, she'll die.

Pull the plug and see what happens.

P.S. First things first, yeah I came back to make a post after an "I'm leaving" thread, but if you actually read anything I said there, you'd know I did it for school related reasons. I'm currently on spring break, so I decided to revisit this joint occasionally until Sunday when I go back.

P.P.S. I am not in any way, shape or form, condoning the belief of a higher being in any way, and, am not indicating any belief on my behalf. In fact, the comment is made to poke fun at the people saying we shouldn't play god by removing the tube. It's a joke. I hope you laughed.. er.. well.. no you shouldn't laugh at that I guess. I guess I should say "I hope you got the point."

They always come back...

Stop moving, I can't get the crosshairs on your head...

Congress isn't supposed to do that. Congress makes the laws not enforce them. Judiciary is in charge of law enforcement. If Congress passes new law, then Judiciary must obide by the new law Congress passed. No one Congressional person/committee can just say "You, judge do this!"

Aside from being informal fallacy (calling anything another name is not a reason, unlike popular belief), I think it's factual error as well.

One - the term 'murder' inherently implies it's unlawful
Two - she's dead. She's clinically, physiologically dead. You can't 'murder' a dead body.

She's dead, and I suggest we treat her as such, so people can move on. It's like the guy in psycho who treats his dead mother like she's alive... it's the same thing.

I'm probably going off-topic a bit, but I really hope this kind of reasoning will be exposed in the future. Equivocation is not a reason; it's an excuse for people who don't want to think, but still want to act like they do.

Abortion is murder. Homosexuality is sin. It's a human being we're talking about here.

Sound familiar ?

P.S: keeping her alive is sadism

Ictus and Tenshu: brothers in the long lost art of KICKING EVERYBODY'S ASSES!

Need a new cheerleading outfit, freelancer?

breaking news,

most recent appeal has been denied.

have to wait about another hour to see if Jeb and george junior can convince (whoever they need to convince) that terry's gaurdianship should be transfered to the state of florida.

That doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption to make. The healthiest person will eventually die with no food or water. You statement makes no sense because they pulled the plug and she is alive. So now do we start feeding her again?



And what does that have to do with this case? Congress didn't order an judge to do anything. They ascerted the power given to them in Article III of the constitution. It's in the first sentence. Not hard to find, really. Pesky constitution.

I was just trying to answer the guy's question about the American government. And it is pertinent because Congress has gotten involved. I think. Hell I can't remember who is involved in the bruhaha.

The point is, human beings are sentient. We have the ability to take care of ourselves. The woman doesn't know what's going on in life. Put her out of her misery and stop wasting money on her.

Perhaps if she hadn't been puking her guts out 15 years ago because she was so concerned about how "fat" she was, she wouldn't be in this situation today.

I still can't get over the amount of irony...

Then so many people are guilty of this. Do you know how much a coffin costs? I mean, its just a box that will be buried underground. And remember the cost for funeral services. And also, people perform expensive operations to "perserve" dead bodies and animals so they can appear "life-like."

steal her organs and save some poor kid with liver failure.

A life on a machine is no life at all.

/end dictator rant

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

No, she is not dead.

I didn't give a reason. I said this was murder.

Abortion IS murder. Homosexuality is NOT a sin. A human life is just as valuable as the life of a deer, a fish, a tree, a flower, a whale, or plankton.

If she is "dead", how can anyone "keep her alive" and how can this be considered "sadism"?

Hey, hey, hey! Dose anyone realize what has just happened? Massassi has just had a debate over something other than computers or games and has not been divided according to political preference!