Replies

It appears that my questions and comments have disturbed the lot of you. FL_engineer went off the deep end.

I'll tell you where I'm coming from on this Shiavo issue, and you can like it or not, agree with it or not.

To me, this is not about a judge, Mr. Shiavo, the Schindlers or any other player or misplayer.

I'm nearing 60. The chance that I may find myself in a similar shape as Terri Shiavo is a possibliity, and becomes more a possibility as I get older.

The thought that I may be trapped in a minimally living body, with endless days of mere existence, with no way out except death, with a lot of people who do not know me working overtime to keep me from going to my Lord makes me afraid and angry.

And questions to you all are based on these considerations. I believe in God. I believe in an afterlife. I wonder if many of you here do, too.

The Shiavo situaltion has the positive effect of motivating me to get a living will. My pity and compassion goes out to Mrs. Shiavo, who was too young to think of such a thing.

That's all I have to say. Blessings on you, and take it or leave it.

Look, as to your last post, I'd like to comment. If you so desire to not be trapped in a "minimally living body,with endless days of mere existence..." I have no problem with that, and I doubt other posters here feel any differently. You are free to choose what you wish for yourself! Get that living will if that would make you feel better.

In my opinion, and while I can only speak for myself, there are many here who object to the way the Florida law has been handled in Terri's case. The law allowing Michael to remove her feeding tube is being retoactively applied to Terri as if she could mind-read forward 9 years ahead of her collapse! How could she have known or consented to something which wasn't brought up (even in the law) by the time of her collapse? She couldn't have...no one could have.

If Terri would never have wanted to live hooked up to "tubes", and Michael was aware of this...why, oh why would he have had her resuscitated and hooked up to a feeding tube all those years ago? When she came out of her coma, she used to be able to swallow, she could eat small amounts. It is not up to us to decide if Terri would want to live or die. The law tells us clearly that if she she responds, she cannot have that feeding tube removed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that proves she would want to have it removed.

Furthermore, although she may not wish to live hooked up to "tubes", it is not mutally excluded that she may wish to relearn to swallow. She may wish to at least have liquid nutrition by mouth. Terri swallows her own drool. Just because she can't eat orally right now doesn't mean that her feeding tube should be removed without giving her the chance to try. Maybe Terri wants hope. Maybe Michael is taking away Terri's hope. He does not have that right! None of us do.

Terri has had many opportunities to move on to the afterlife if she and God both desired that outcome. Modern medicine is not keeping her from going. It may have kept her from going back in 1990, but it is not keeping her from going now. If Terri were to have a heart attack, or kidney failure, or lung failure, etc, etc, no one would suggest that Terri be resuscitated. That would be keeping her alive indefinitely. But a feeding tube such as the kind that Terri has (yes, there are different types) is not a modern medical device.

If you are so upset that Terri is leading a minimally-existent life, perhaps you should be more concerned that her so-called "husband" and guardian does not allow her to be removed from her room via wheelchair (which she has) to be in fresh air, to feel sunshine or rain.

You seem to think that BECAUSE YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND how life could be meaningful to Terri, that life couldn't be meaningful to Terri or anyone else in her same condition. Yet, I tell you that because you have not walked in Terri's shoes, you cannot know for sure how Terri views her life. You seem to think that because it wouldn't be what you want, it couldn't be what Terri wants. And you seem to think that, because we are reasonably sure that none of us knows what Terri wants, that Michael's word is as good as it gets. I'm sorry. That's where I disagree with you. And if the law says that's okay, that's where I disagree with the law, too.

I have family in Florida. I was born and raised there. I go there to visit. I take my own family there from time to time. What happens in Terri's case is important to me, too. And I don't agree with the decision to show this girl the exit door, because of the reasons I gave above.

There is too much doubt about what caused Terri's collapse.

There's too much doubt about the motives of her "husband" and his fiancee.

There's too much doubt about whether or not Terri's guardian has filed the paperwork approving his guardianship of her the way it should have been.

There's too much doubt about whether Terri would want to live like this or not.

There's too much doubt about whether or not rehabilitation methods could/would work for Terri.

There's too much doubt as to whether Terri is PVS (did I fail to mention that it is misdiagnosed almost 50% of the time - medical fact...look it up).

IN SHORT, there's TOO MUCH DOUBT about almost every aspect of this case!

Wouldn't you agree that when we're talking about the finality of death these grave doubts should be put confirmed one way or the other? I do. The fact that Greer seems to think these issues are settled does not make that it a reality.

May God bless you and yours, for in the end, as in the beginning, we belong to Him.