You guys are missing the point.

No one is "killing" her.

She is being "kept alive".

Her body is no longer able to sustain life on it's own.

How far back do we need to go to a time when she would have died of "natural" causes because the technology to keep her alive was not available, 20, 50 years?

Even if it's 100 years it's still a fraction of mans existence.

Draw a line in the sand of time at the death of Jesus. 2005 years ago.

If this had happened to her then do you think that even God would have intervened? Of course not, the religous right will explain it as God's will and part of his plan, we should not question him.

And what about that, "he/she is in a better place" position that religous folk love to toss at you? If it is a better place then are we not denying her the greater good by keeping her here?

I can't stand the flip/flop of positioning for the sake of an agenda. "it's gods will" flip "god wants us to preserve life", "it's a better place" flop "keep her here"

So why do we feel we have the right to play God? Because we can?

Sorry, not good enough for me.

Everyone is talking about her "right to life", what about her right to a dignified death in the manner that God has choosen?

And don't go there with "well God allowed us to develop the technology to sustain life and wants us to use it"

If this happened to her today, in some third world country, (throw a dart at Africa if you want) do you think she'd live?

No she would not.

So would that imply that God favors us more than them? That we are more deserving of life?

This is just pissing me off.

Let her go. She has suffered enough.

Scott

Removing the tube is a slow agonizing and painful death. Why don't they euthanize her, get it over with with as little pain as possible. that would be the humane thing to do, if the intent is to let her pass.
what they are doing now is torturing her through starvation.

Arrggh,

Just think of all of the lives that could have been saved with the money and resources that have been expended on this.

Lives that had the potential to further benefit mankind.

Maybe we could have saved the person that cures cancer or AIDS.

Terri's life ended the day she had a stroke.

Let her death have some value.

Pour the resources into rehabilitating stroke victims, educating children, helping those with a need.

Not this.

I bet if she could she'd say, "save a life that has not yet truly lived, I've had my time"

To a 'T'.

I too went through this with my mother...fortuantely she was able to make me her Medical POA just prior (days) to losing her battle with breast cancer...her wish was to go on her own terms. No tubes. Just she and her maker. I carried out this last wish. With a heavy heart. Toughest thing I ever had to do.

I don't pretend to have an answer here... But, can anyone answer these?

1. If she's a "vegetable", why does she need a morphine drip?

2. Is she alert? I thought there were videos showing her smiling at her parents???

3. Did the husband really wait 7 years? If so, WHY???

You know, as good as our judicial system is, Judges have been known to be wrong and/or driven by an agenda. The fact that a judge ruled doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

- Skip

This has a very detailed timeline of events:
http://www.inclusiondaily.com/archives/04/10/21/102304flschiavomichael.htm

bryan

Despite what you think, writing down your wishes does not guarantee they will be carried out. My mother had a valid living will and in the last few months of her life had lapsed into dementia. At one point her doctor at the nursing home insisted he was going to insert tubes. When I said she had a living will, he didn't care. I had to take over and sign a release. WHat if she had had no son to watch out for her? So much for living wills.

This is a situation that, unless resolved, can influence every family in the country facing a similar situation.

Those who claim to be onb the side of sanctity of life, in this case, are (excuse the pun) dead wrong. Government has no part in this situation. It is political, hypocritical and flies in the face of everything that the merciful Creator intended. More government intervention from those who eschew lrss of same.

Re-read the article you quote. 1992 and 1993? a permanent vegatative state is not arrived until five years have passed. Afterl that time, the experts agree there is astronomical odds against recovery. Spinal fluid cannot be morphed into brain cells.

Mikester, that just nails it.

So many resources spent re-re-re-re-re-re-re-evaluating the situation.

Her brain has turned to mush. Her husband figured that out many years ago, as did many courts.

This push, by the rebuplicans, to continue to re-examine, until they get the out come they want is straight out of the Democrat-Election handbook. -pathetic.

19 state court judges have ruled against the parents after hearing evidence from medical specialists who have exhasutively examined and tested the woman. Whatever impressions one might draw from a few minutes of home video shot who knows how long ago are worth - zip.

Same for Senate Majority Leader Frisch's professional opinion that she is sentient - presumably not a medical opinion, given that he's a heart surgeon (not a neurologist) whose only basis is watching under an hour of selected home video (has never examined her himself) - so no doubt he was expressing a political opinion.

Look, the Congressmen who passed the bill sending the case to Federal court, and the President who signed it, are after one and only one thing - political brownie points. For whatever weird reason, the right-to-life crowd have adopted this case as their latest cause celebre, and by voting to "save Terri" your local politician earns - political capital. As was noted by the memo circulated to Congressional Republicans, calling this a "great issue" for their party. None of which has the slightest thing to do with this poor woman, or the hope that when the sad day comes, you and I might have our fate decided in private without being turned into political ammunition. This truly is a disgusting spectacle.

Fortunately, it appears that the case was assigned to a federal judge with balls. For all the faults of the federal courts, they have traditionally appointed judges of high caliber (relative to state courts, anyway), and the lifetime appointments makes those judges quite resistant to political pressure.

I've been reading a little more about living wills, but I'm not a lawyer :)

From what I've been reading, most states require that the refusal of life-sustaining treatment declaration must be signed by the person, they have to be over 18, and be of sound mind. If they are unable to sign it, then they must have someone else sign it in front of a witness. The witness cannot be the person that signed it. It's not complicated, but it's a strict process.

Now, look at how simple it is to revoke the declaration. The person can revoke the declaration at any time, including if they are sick/incapacitated/nearly dead/whatever. All they have to do is communicate that they want to live to any attending physician, healthcare provider, or any other witness. only ONE person needs to witness the revocation, according to the laws.

Now... Why would they make it easier to revoke the declaration than it is to create it? Simple, because we value life. If there's the slightest doubt, we let them live! They can choose to die early on, then change their mind, but they can't do it the other way around, and there must be NO QUESTION that they want to die. there is a question of her wishes in this case. That's all it boils down to.

I agree with other posts stating the family should resolve this conflict.

I lost respect for President Bush today when he said we should "err on the side of life." Is "life" the ultimate? Does not quality of life enter the equation? If Republicans are so enamored with rights to life, why not ban capital punishment? Why start a war in Iraq in which innocent civilians are killed? Or, is it some lives are worth saving and some are expendable as deemed by the priveleged esteemed?

turbo..

How DARE you try to make sense in this room?

In the future, please stick to opinion, conjecture and above all, keep it mean spirited!!

We expect no less!!

<G>

We go out of our way to give review after review to those on death row. 99% of them won't ever see the electric chair or lethal injection. We treat prisoners better than she is being treated, and we reserve the death penalty for the worst of the worst in our society. This woman made the mistake of not being able to foresee her current situation, and she'll be starved to death for it.

After she dies, will it be okay to starve our prisoners? There'd be a good way to save some money, since everyone seems to think that her life isn't worth anything so we shouldn't spend the money fighting for what's right.

What have the republicans in power to loose in fighting this battle. Sure there are some who will see through it - some who can fathom this and a lot of us here qualify under those guidlines but the rank and file - the republican party's cannon fodder - they will take up arms over this effort. It will energize them and it will and has united them under the conservative flag - even though I would argue it is a very liberal thing to do.

What have they to loose? Democrats who can see that this is simply political chess. Democrats who wouldn't be voting for them anyway? Bush is not up for re-election so regardless of the legality of it or the constitutionality of it he is safe to sign this (and has) with zero negative impact. He looses nothing in pressing this issue and gains popularity in his core "demographic."

The law can be struck down in any court you want to strike it down in; but George Bush and his GOP still win the battle because they "fought the good fight" for this poor woman. Be damned the judicial process and be damned our sovereign rights.

Melodramatic program terminated.

Bryan - you are right to say that it is a tragic shame that we cannot help this woman or give her the dignity we give to death row inmates - convicted murders. The 8th amendment protects them but who protects Terri? This whole thing is bad and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to debate it not knowing what the husband knows and not knowing what the parents know. I would much rather set the three of them down and talk it out rather than see them in court again.

Island - I'm speechless - we agree.

Cheers brother - clink -

That would be humane, except the right to lifers would really be crying murder if we were to let teri pass on quickly.

Experts claim that the only thing in her head that still works is the brain stem and basal brain that handles the body's basic fuctions like breathing and muscle control. The ceberal cortex where conciousness and memory reside are gone. She is effectively brain dead even if she sometimes opens her eyes, grunts or contorts her face into something that resembles a smile.

They should let her go but the right to lifers are willing to lie and parade around a breathing corpse in order to promote their hypocritical cause.

Just like they do with the Pope :cool:

Aurel

:D yeah, I'm a bit worried . . . even widebutt and treefitty are sounding reasonable, on this.

. . must be the drugs from my dentist visit today. ;)

Anyway, I see that the Republicans trying to use this for image-building . . .kinder, gentler .. .
bla bla bla.

This stunt really has taken on a life of it's own. Tlak radio won't shut-up about the red horns just visible on the husbands head. . .And, about who wants to 'Kill" the poor girl. --news-flash; she was dead a loooong time ago.

If life is so damn precious, then the republicans have made a great case for socialized medicine. --Must . . do. . .everything . .possible, to keep the 101y/o alzheimer's patient alive. :rolleyes:

Geez, this is making me sick.

I had better leave this thread before i'm forced to agree with Aurel on something.http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/vuur.gif

the bully pulpit+ was used to win over movable Dem+ voters.. the best is that it cost the RNC nothing.