Should she live? or should they take the feeding tube out and slowly starve her? I've heard numerous reports some saying she has some basic interactive abilities intact, others saying she has no mental capabilities. I want other's opinions because i heard Micheal Savage today and he made me sick calling those who want her to die mental defuncts. Personally i want her to live if she even basic abilities at interaction. But should evidence come to conclude she can't i want her to finally have some peace. But i think it should be done swiftly and not be a long drawn out process of her starving to death.
Her doctors say she is not aware of what is happening. Her doctors say that she has no hope of ever recovering. I say pull the plug if that's what her husband wants. I'd rather allow family members to make this difficult decision than let the government make it.
All this"right to live" shit is, well, bullshit. you have the right to live! unless your on death row, then its up to the government to decide who lives and dies, and thats all ok(sarcasm)... If I'm ever braindead or in extreame pain without hope of recovery, i want the right to die too. Terry shavio requested, i believe in writing, to have the plug pulled if she was ever in her present situation. Now whose rights are getting trampled? Fuck you george W, fuck you chistian right, this is another political wedge issue made into a blow to freedom.
I don't think she should die because.... 1) She is not on any form of life support (other than for the feeding tube), and she is not dying. 2) The state has no right to take the life of people unless they are convicted of a crime which holds the death penalty, or the person states in a living will that they want to be allowed to die if in a prolonged vegetative state. See the Fifth Amendment. 3) Starving somebody to death is cruel and inhumane.
Personally, I think no one will ever know what she truly wants. If she truly said to her husband that she would not want to live in a vegetative state, then yes she should be allowed too die, but because it wasn't in writing, we'll never know if that's what she really wanted. In the event that that is what she wants, I think she should be euthanized, not starved to death over the course of a couple of weeks. That is just inhumane and completely fucked up. I had this conversation today with my girlfriend. Its my life, but should such a thing ever happen to me where I am no longer fully functioning and require a feeding tube to survive, I would want the input of others of what they think. Its such a hard case.
People are taken off life support all the time. If this were a natural world, without our feeding tubes and other medical equipment, this woman would be dead already. I personally think it is wrong to keep her in this limbo for as long as they have, let alone to consider keeping her alive longer. Her parents are being selfish, and the media is being rediculous over this one paticular case. Ethically, in these cases, I think the ultimate decision over her life and death is up to her husband. A person doesn't choose who their parents are, but they choose their spouse. And the definite last person who should have a say are politicians with no medical degree and that have never met, let alone known personally, the injured individual. But in reality, I don't think it is any of our business, let alone the business of congress. And I think the media circus created over it is plain stupid, a mockery of what news should be.
Sunshine, she put NOTHING in writing. And that's why we have this controversy. That is called a Living Will, and she never filled one out. The courts are going by what Michael Schavio says she wants. It's basically a major "He said - She said" clusterfuck.
Terry is incapacitated. Michael is her closest living relative. He claims that this is what she wants. It's not hard to figure out the logical conclusion. Shouldn't the husband have more say in this than the federal government? Yes, he should. The government has no right to even be involved in this.
Fundamentally this is a civil rights issue, no? Since federal courts have juristiction over civil rights legislature i don't see why a federal court can't rule on this... But anywhos, the problem here is that there is no national consensus on when life begins and ends. To some people the fact that she doesn't have the mental capacity of a newborn (newborns can feed themselves and swim) and has no hope of recover means that she is in all intents and purposes dead. The thing that made her terry is gone, and all that remains is this shell of a body. On the other hand, people think that until the body is kaput a person is still alive, whether or not they need a tube to survive is irrelevant. Many people are alive today only because we have the medical apparatus to sustain them, diabetics, asthmatics, people on dialysis, people who have artificial organs, and people who have pacemakers to name a few. Just because in a "natural" i.e. medicine-free world these people would probably be dead is completely absurd. I think that, a, federal courts should have juristiction because this is a civil rights issue, b, that the decision should be left to the spouse or next-of-kin because most parents cannot pull that plug (on the discover channel they had a special where it said that when a baby baboon dies it's mother cannot give up the carcass, and acts like it's still alive until it disintegrates, don't underestimate the maternal instinct of mamels), C, everyone should right now write down what they want to happen in a case like this so we don't have to go through this again, D, a national consensus of when life begins and ends needs to be achieved, E, someone should just shoot the bitch so CNN stops their twenty-four hour terry watch....
She was essentially dead before the feeding tube was introduced into her system. Had she never had it, she would have died 15 years ago like she should have in peace, so she could move on to the next life. I find it ironic how there are so many right to lifers praying for her to live, rather than let her die and go to heaven. Do they not have faith that their God will intervein and allow for her to live if it is meant to be? Are they arguing with God, and fighting his decision to take this woman's life? I don't get it. I don't blame the parents though. I think they are doing what most parents would do. They don't want their daughter to be gone. They need therapy. It is going to be very hard for them to get over this loss. When my dog was ready to die, she stopped eating about 3 weeks before she died too. That is how we knew something was wrong. It would have been selfish of us to keep her alive and force her to live in pain just so we could have a pet. I suppose we could have force fed her, but that isn't natural. And yeah, I know what a lot of people will say that much of modern science isn't natural, blah blah what is natural. But you know deep down exactly what I mean. I have a question though, if this is a right to life issue, and somehow some law is passed forcing people to live, even if they want to die (or if someone they trust to make that decision says that is what they would want) does that open the doors up to overturn Roe V. Wade? Just curious, because I see how they could make that leap. Scary. Just so it is in writing for everyone to see, if I am not able to live life the way that I want it, to my fullest capability, then I would like to die. Even if someone has to come in the hospital and shoot me. I have told my boyfriend such (I'm assuming we'll be married before its my time). But my mom is a holy roller and she would probably try to keep me alive because she has mental issues (she still thinks my dad is coming back if she keeps praying). So in case you ever see me in the news, make sure you bring this post back up ok. Thanks. (yes, I have a living will).
Dont vorry, if you vant to die, take out a big loan from some slick greaseballs in miami then give me the money and dont pay. I dont care how many republicans cry on cspan, your ass is dead.
It's a cartoon. Lighten up. Here's another clever one: http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/031905.asp
lol, that's actually fairly accurate. I do think it's wrong to let Terry starve to death, but seriously, I have other things to worry about, children starve to death daily or are bombed, etc...I'm not getting sidetracked by this. Write out a living will everyone, save your loved ones the agony of this decision.
Let her die already... and yes it should be up to the husband and not up to the politicians, not even Bush himself. He doesn't know her, would never have met her or even heard of her if all this hadn't happened, and it's none of his business.
Check out this one from the Houston Chronicles. Texas has a law signed by Bush that allows this to happen. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3087387 "Texas law allows hospitals to discontinue life-sustaining care, even if a patient's family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient." .
