Down here, it’s still a hot topic, and lots of people will care. But I have no doubt, given their past behavior, that the feeders will misrepresent and falsely malign the results.
Your personal attacks grow stronger, but you have nothing to add. We don’t know what Terri wanted, yes, the courts may have acted in compliance with the law, but not in compliance with the truth, which was not available because Terri couldn’t answer the questions.
One of our founding fathers said: “Justice without mercy is tyranny.” That is what happened in the Scharvo case.
Unless law is tempered by wisdom it is our worst enemy. There is not a nation in the world where the starvation of a helpless worman is legal.
The problem is you don’t understand compassion, but most of the world does. That’s why they believe as they do. Remember, those “gullible, idiotic public that swims in the sea of willing ignorance.”
How wonderful it is we have such an intelligent person as you posting here.
Why wait 7 years to give this information? I don’t buy it.
Plenty of time to make it up, besides why are skeptics so ready to believe something as unproveable as personal experience, certainly not scientific.
lekatt, as I understand it, the witnesses were available all along; it just took 7 years for Michael Schiavo to give up hope that his wife would recover. If I wind up in a PVS like Terry Schiavo 20 years from now, I still hope my words on this message board as well as what I’ve told my friends will stand in evidence that I most emphatically do not want to continue to exist in such a state so that people like you and wonderwench don’t try to impose your will on me.
You spoke of tyranny two posts ago. Surely there is no worse tyranny than to insist one’s body remains tied to a world one’s soul has long departed? You speak of the importance of spirit and soul. What is the sense of sustaining an empty shell? You impose a truly horrendous tyranny on me if you tried to do to me what Ms. Schiavo’s parents tried to do to her.
Frankly, posts like yours and wonderwench’s frighten me because you would override my will because it doesn’t suit what you want, prolonging the suffering of those who love me and, given the way healthcare works in America, possibly bankrupting them.
How many people must I tell before you and people like you will leave my body the hell alone?!
CJ
Sorry, lekatt, I have seen no personal attacks on you, just your obstinance.
Who says the courts did not have mercy? The vast majority of the US public has shown in poll after poll that they would not want to be kept alive in the state Terri was in. If there is a silver lining to all this it is that many people are now writing living wills to clearly state their wishes should they ever be in the same situation.
It is not an unreasonable position to take that the real horror lies in keeping a vegetable alive indefinitely when there is ZERO (yes, zero) chance of her recovering even the slimmest modicum of consciousness. Not just a horror for her (although given that her brain was mostly gone she had no clue) but for her family and friends as well.
The ONLY reason to keep Terri alive was to assuage the feelings of her parents who simply could not let her go. I can understand their difficulty in this but it was horribly selfish. Terri has been gone for 15 years…sending her body after her was a mercy.
This shows a misunderstanding of how the courts work. The witnesses who gave the testimony in court had no place to “give this information” before a legal action was brought seven years later. What would have them do, go to a judge out of the blue after, say, six months and tell him or her about it?
And testimonial evidence is one of the standard ways that legal matters are decided. It isn’t perfect but it can’t be completely disregarded on ground, that it might possibly be fabricated when there is no evidence tha it is.
Actually, lekatt, I’m surprised at you. You’ve often written of the importance of the spirit and I gather that you regard death as something which is not to be feared since the near death experiences you talk about are ones of profound love. Why then, would you advocate sustaining a body which the spirit has long since departed especially since, judging from Ms. Schiavo’s bulimia, it wasn’t one she was especially fond of in the first place?
There is one other very relevant bit of information which hasn’t been brought up in this thread. The falling out between Michael Schiavo and his in-laws occurred when he refused to give them half the settlement money he’d received from the malpractice lawsuit. The reason he didn’t want to give them the money was because he wanted it to be used for Terry Schiavo’s continued treatment. Before then, after Ms. Schiavo’s collapse, he’d lived with her parents for a few years and they had encouraged him to date other people. It seems to me that, when he’s ready, Michael Schiavo has a pretty good case for libel.
By the way, the day Terry Schiavo’s heart stopped, I heard an NPR program on which people talked to her friends, including the boy who moved next door to her when they were 4 years old. It was the first time I heard people talk about Terry Schiavo, the human being. As I recall, the consensus among them was she didn’t want to live like she did for 15 years. Then again, what do the opinions of one friends count against those of misinformed strangers?
CJ
What you are saying can’t be verified, we have a different story from her parents and brother. We are still at square one. As for the spiritual aspect read my first post. And on your previous post I think you fell off the page and made a bunch of irrational assumptions.
What do you think can’t be verified?
Everything WAS verified…repeatedly…in court after court…for 15 years.
What “different story” are you referring to on the part of the parents?
lekatt, please itemize these “irrational deductions” or join me in the BBQ Pit. Your choice.
Siege
Then are we justified in withholding nutrition from disabled people who require a feeding tube?
The FL law has been sorely lacking in common sense and decency - nor should it be our moral yardstick.
Have they asked you to?
Define “disabled”…because there’s a huge difference between having a cerebral cortex that’s mush and needing a feeding tube because of throat cancer.
Agreed. If Terri had left a Living Will making her wishes known, then we would not be having this discussion.
For many people, there is enough doubt about what her true wishes were that the case for removing the tube was not justified.
Those people would be taking the same view if she had left a living will in a large number of cases.
The only other people who “recalled” Terri’s wishes were Michael’s family. Her family, whom one could reasonable assume knew her better than her in-laws, claim she had never made such wishes known to them.
So, we agree that Terri was not brain dead - nor was she terminally ill.
Do we really want a society in which the “normals” can determine that a severely disabled person’s life is not worth living?
Facts:
Terri was not terminally ill.
Terri was not brain dead.
She was severely disabled.
Issue:
How should we treat severely disabled people?
Do we really want a society in which total strawmen are allowed to live? 