Let's just say for a moment that Terri had a living will or a copy of one was been found in the family safe and is deterimined to be the real deal. Written in Terri's handwritting, dated, witnessed - no doubt that it is real.

Now would the parents back down? Would it change everyone"s view of the situation and would the cameras and press go way?
Or would the parents continue to carry the fight completely against her will?

They than would argue that her condition is not as the doctors have said and she can recover and she should not be allowed to die. And they would get thier own doctors to prove it.

But wait isn't that what her parents are saying now? So I guess the living will really wouldn't change a thing would it?

It would still be a fight between the parents and the husband about how brain dead or PVS she is. Nothing would change.

The parents HAVE said on the record that they would fight even if she'd had a living will...

As I said, refer to the first point in my post. Someone can always claim there's "reason to doubt". Some people still think the earth is flat and that the Apollo moon missions were all a hoax. Well, doubt or not, someone has to decide this case.

Boiled down, here is the dilemma as I see it:

If the situation is (A) she in fact didn't want to be kept alive in a vegetative state and she is in fact in a vegetative state, then her wishes should be carried out - stop life support. Any argument there?

If the situation is alternatively (B) she in fact did want to be kept alive in a vegetative state or she is in fact not in a vegetative state, then her wishes should be carried out - continue life support. No argument there, I assume.

So, a decision must be made. Is the situation (A), or is it (B)? It is binary, basically. There is no way to avoid making a decision (skipdup's "what's the harm in keeping her on the tube" argument) because that is effectively the same as choosing (B) by default. And choosing (B) by default, if the situation is really (A), is an injustice to her wishes.

Who makes the decision? Ideally, the family - but they can't, because they can't agree. So the state courts are forced to decide.

Who else should make the decision? Do religious activists get to decide? Dime-a-dozen web bloggers? Random posters here on the OT board? Jeb Bush? George Bush? The US Congress? Do you or I want Congress taking control of our private lives whenever they feel a lobbyist's warm breath?

The law says that some unfortunate judge is handed the can of worms. He has to review all the evidence (which the afore-mentioned web bloggers, random posters, pandering politicians, etc, haven't done.) And his decision is reviewed by a panel of appellate judges, who also review all the evidence. And then by the state supreme court, who reviews . . . you get the idea.

Saying "there could be doubt" and "what would it hurt" is copping out. It is a nasty decision that has to be made, and has been made.

Hehe, what a nice "ethical" quandary these Republicans have created. We support the "right to life" even if it means superceeding your "right to die" (ie. living will).

Well thank God that's over...

Subject: CNN Breaking News

-- U.S. Supreme Court refuses to intervene in Terri Schiavo case. Lower court decision to remove feeding tube stands.

Those darn Nazis...

She will die on Easter. I can see this coming....

No argument.

Quote:

If the situation is alternatively (B) she in fact did want to be kept alive in a vegetative state or she is in fact not in a vegetative state, then her wishes should be carried out - continue life support. No argument there, I assume.

No argument.

Quote:

So, a decision must be made. Is the situation (A), or is it (B)? It is binary, basically. There is no way to avoid making a decision (skipdup's "what's the harm in keeping her on the tube" argument) because that is effectively the same as choosing (B) by default. And choosing (B) by default, if the situation is really (A), is an injustice to her wishes.

I agree. IF we are certain what her wishes are/were.

BUT, my comments above (what's the harm...) were based on people saying she "should" die b/c she's brain damaged, so you're taking out of context. My comments we based on peoples statements that we should end her suffering, while at the same time arguing that she was brain DEAD. Brain dead people don't suffer - I was trying to make a point.

Quote:

Who makes the decision? Ideally, the family - but they can't, because they can't agree. So the state courts are forced to decide.

I think that's an over simplification. For me, it's the husband that's the problem... How long were they married? A couple years? There was talk of divorce. The family has known Terri her whole life. Who better to know what Terri would want? Mom, dad, brother and sister that have known her the entire ~24 years before the accident? Or the husband that has known her a VERY small percentage of that time.

You've also got the question about whether she is PVS, lot's of neurologists have questioned the court's findings.

There are some serious questions about the husbands motives (refusing treatment, 1st girlfriend's testimony, forgetting her wishes for 7 yrs, no MRI & other tests, no autopsy, money, etc etc etc). Why have so many people come forward to report bad thing about this guy? Is it a grand conspiracy to torture Terri and "get" the husband?

I WOULD NOT want this guy in control of my life or death decision.

Quote:

... Saying "there could be doubt" and "what would it hurt" is copping out. It is a nasty decision that has to be made, and has been made.

Again I'll repeat, this is not a legal question/debate for me. It's purely ethical. I know courts can be wrong. My wife has stated the parents legal arguments were lacking, at best. She's scratching her head on what went to the 11th and the Supreme. Though, I have accepted the legal decision and rulings, I don't think it's "right".

Can I ask you something...
If you found out next month that a few, half or most of the negative accusations about the husband are true, would you still support this decision? Or, does the brain damage/dead issue trump everything?

- Skip

Can I ask you something...
If you found out next month that a few, half or most of the negative accusations about the husband are true, would you still support this decision? Or, does the brain damage/dead issue trump everything?

- Skip [/B][/QUOTE]

This is about the wife not the husband. Even if he was a dirt bag, it doesn't change her condition.

Ok, I don't think that made any sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ONLY reason her tube was disconnected is because the husband said that's what she said she would want, no? So if the husband said, "hmmmm, we never discussed it" then he would not have the right to have her killed, no?

Or does a spouse, regardless of the state of the marriage (entering divorce, separted, abuse, perhaps causing the coma, etc..) always have the right to end thier life when they cannot speak for themselves?

Thank you. This is ALL about the husband.

For instance, say they found Lacy Peterson in a coma behind a wharehouse or something instead of dead. Would Scott have had the full right in your opinion to pull her plug? Now I know it's a stretch, but the principle is the same.

ARgue argue argue all you want but yes the law is such that if the husband is the husband then he has the power of attorney. All allegations of his abuse of her have been deemed by the courts as false time and time again.

Now - Skip - You questions regarding wheather she needs to die or not are pandering to the masses of the unintelligent. Of course she doesn't need to die - nobody NEEDS to die. It isn't our place to even determine when it is someone's time to go but there are times in our lives where touch choices must be made. Some of those choices involve the length of our loved ones lives and I hope you never have to make a choice like that. Until you do it is unlikley that you will be able to understand.

Yes - because there was no murder then so there would have to be some method to determine who did it to her and there is no way to tell if Scott would have been convicted of her assault in that example.

Unless convicted of the crime then Scott would have had the POA as is appropriate for his position in her life.

If that's the law, then that's the law. I would disagree with it, but I would have to respect it.

Bear in mind that our laws are living things - they can change and evolve with our country's sensibilities. The law if enough people with the right influence disagree with it can be changed.

Have you missed the 15 times I said I don't care about the legalities of this? Courts can be wrong. It's the ethics of this particular case... I accept the rulings, but don't think they're right. Should I copy and paste this again?

Besides, are you sure the abuse allegations have been specifically litigated. I haven't seen anything on it. If I missed, I want to know. In fact, this is the first I've heard they were litigated.

WHAT??? does THAT mean? I'm not pandering to anyone? I'm asking the pro-death people specific questions, most of which go unanswered.
I agree. That's also the problem. I don't believe a loved one is making the decisions and the loved ones decisions are being ignored due to legalities.

- Skip

(I edited some of your quote, just to keep this post from being too long, not trying to quote you out of context)

On the "if we are certain" issue, my point is that to not decide because one cannot be 100% "certain" is in effect to decide by default. This is one of those situations where if the facts show it is 80% or 90% certain that a person's intent was X, then to deny that intent simply because one isn't 99% certain is to do an injustice to the person's wishes. Suppose I owe you money, and I say to you "yes, the weight of the evidence shows that you are owed this money, but because there is some tiny doubt, you are never going to see a cent." That's unjust. Now replace "money" with "carry out your last wishes".

On the "should we end her suffering" issue, I agree that if the conclusion were in fact that she never expressed any wish about whether to live or to die in a vegetative state, then this would not be about carrying out her wishes. It would simply be about whether she is suffering (I think not) and what would make the husband and the parents feel better (not particularly important, in my view). Then I would have no particular views on the matter.

On the questions about the husband's motives and her medical condition, as you can tell my view is that we and Jeb and George and Congressman X and Senator Y and whoever can debate this all we want, but our and their opinions on the facts don't matter in the slightest. We and they haven't studied all the evidence, don't even have a fraction of the evidence (you certainly won't get the complete picture by reading the terisfight website and similar grossly one-sided sources), don't have medical expertise or advice, and - most important - it is not our role or responsibility to make the final judgment of the facts. We and they are the peanut gallery.

My problem is the idea that if the peanuts yell loudly enough, they should be able to pressure a judge's decision on the facts.

The way this country is supposed to work is that the legislature makes the laws, the courts decide the facts. So if the legislators (Congress, for example) want to pass a law that says life support may never be withdrawn from a vegetative person regardless of his/her prior wishes and his/her medical condition, then they should make that law.

You'll notice that neither the Florida legislature nor the US Congress is willing to pass such a law. The religious right-to-lifers would like that to be the law, but it isn't (so far) happening.

Instead, they are trying to strong-arm the court's decision on this particular case - pressuring the judge into deciding that this particular woman never expressed such a wish or isn't in such a medical condition. That, to me, is a blatant case of the Congress and President (and the State Legislature and Governor) overstepping their legitimate authority.

Should President Bush get to control the outcome of a particular court case, simply because he personally desires a particular outcome or to get votes from a vocal political constituency?

Edit: I guess, as I understand it, your point is, regardless of how the courts ruled or what evidence they considered or what right different branches of government have to intervene, you personally think, based on whatever you have read and heard, that the facts are a certain way and thus that this woman's life support should be maintained. Okay, we all get to have a personal opinion on whatever we want. My point is that skipdup's personal opinion matters not at all, and neither does jyl's personal opinion, and - this is the key - neither does the personal opinions of George Bush and 200+ US Congressmen. We don't get to reverse court decisions and control other peoples' private lives simply because we have a personal opinion.

Well, Tom DeLay and GWB know the mind of God and Bryan, Steve and others know more than the doctors.

What a world!!

Let me pose a question which may be a bit too intellectual for some posters here.

How much of an individual can be taken away before that individual is no longer an individual? How many "parts" can be removed?

I can't answer that; all I know is, my concept of life must be flawed, because I would not want to be in Terri's situation, and if there is cruelty involved, it is in taking away her right to end a sithation where she is, in my opinion, neither dead or alive, but simply maintained. Quality of life is very important to me.

How sad for our civilization that there is so much partisanship in such a situation.

BTW:

Swallowing tests were done in 1991, 1992, and 1993. The results were negative. The food would have caused aspiration (drawn into the lungs)

Terri underwent more than three years of rehabilitative therapy after her collapse in 1990, and her husband took her to a California center in late 1990 to have an experimental device planted in her brain to stimulate activity.

Quote from Jay Wolfson: "In recent months, individuals have come forward indicating that therapies and treatments can literally regrow Theresa's brain tissue. restoringall or part of her functions. There is no scientifically valid, medically recognized evidence that this has been done or is possible, even in rats."

New England Journal of Medicine: "Most deaths from voluntary refusal of food and fluids were peaceful, with little suffering, although 8 percent of patiernts were thought to have a poor quality of death" These were conscious people; not with a persistent vegatative state..

Of course, there are those who will continue to believe what they want to believe and attempt to continue this charade.

What's the difference between George Bush and god? God doesn't think he's George Bush.

JYL- I find it hard to disagree with much of your last post.

Just a few clarifications...

I'm still not sure whether the feeding tube should have gone back in.

I know there's a real chance that Mike S. is not as trying to kill Terri for malicious reasons.

I do not think we are any where near 80 or 90% sure of Terri's intentions - if we were, this discussion is over. All we have is the word of Mike S., which he remembered 7 years after the fact... The parents and two siblings disagree that Terri would make such a request. That goes a long way with me - but is not conclusive. At best, I see it as 50/50.

You're right about personal opinion not mattering in this case. But, if it really doesn't matter, you've been wasting your time responding to this post as well. It is a discussion and exchange of ideas that I'm after. I may play devil's advocate to dig deeper into this issue, but hopefully I've kept my argument/point of view/questions honest. I admit, my opinion does swing to one (obvious) direction.

The biggest thing that got me tied into this whole discussion was how some felt absolute in their feelings that this lady should die. I don't understand how someone could be so "sure" with such an outcome as death for a powerless person. It seems the best I got was she's brain dead, "court said..." and "husbands said...".

For me, there are problems (the PVS state itself, husbands intentions, abuse, etc.) surrounding this issue and I wondered if and how others reconciled them. It seems most blame ANY & ALL problems on lies drummed up by the right to lifer's and/or conservatives. But to what end? To torture Terri? To keep her suffering? All for political gain, while knowing they would be crucified by the other half at the same time? The whole argument is weak and unimaginative.

I wonder if most the folks that put so much weight into these court rulings put as much weight into the Bush vs. Gore rulings...

- Skip