My point is if it's the starvation aspect that troubles you, that could be fixed. But I know that's not really what you care about.
You are confused...first of all there is no written request by Terri that she would want assisted death...it's all based on a corrupt and selfish husband who has possibly gotten in way over his head with the assistance by death advocates.
Since you already know that it's not about death by starvation, why do you bother with the gibberish?
It's both. Mrs. Schivo ISN'T at the end of her life. She is disabled, yes, but otherwise healthy. She's not on a ventilator to keep her alive. Because she is healthy, it will take a very long time for her to die. If she were at the end of her life, and dying, once nutrition and hydration are removed, death would come quickly. That is not the case here. I've seen a couple of relatives who WERE at the end of their lives. In one case, as death neared, she refused food and water, and she was gone in a couple of days. I understand that in Mrs. Shiavo's case, there is a feeding tube, of course. I think it is absolutely wrong in this case to remove food and hydration, because she is not near death, and it will take her a very long time to die, and she'll die painfully. I also believe it is wrong, because it is the killing of a person who is not near death. It is not simply "allowing" someone to die. If she were on a ventilator, and brain dead, that would be another matter altogether.
Hildy, I certainly don't hate you, but you have to face facts. This woman is handicapped, not in a "vegetative" state, and the only words we have that she wants to die are from the fornicating husband. Everything I read on here (and it certainly is biased toward her being "kept" alive) indicates she is functioning as a human being at some level, be it only retarded.
What many are asking is that this be evaluated as if she were an adult retarded person, who by the way has not received anything like rehabilitative services due to the husbands controlling access, money, etc.
Look at it from that view point and see what we see.
It is my belief (and I do not speak for everyone)that if you are unaware of what someone's wishes are in the event they are on life support/artificial means, you err on the side of life. Pretty simple, really.
Is it jujst me, or is this about the most convoluted statement you've ever tried to decipher?
Terri has, it seems to me, a very aware look in her eyes - and she reacts to things said to her - it seems she is aware - just can't make her body respond. This is murder...
Since starvation leads to death, it is both starvation and death.
It looks like MS and Judge Greer wants to end her life. So why not take her out and shoot her like they do horses. It would be a lot kinder.
I object to state ordered euthanasia by any means of an awake and aware individual.
Forced Exit....that's what we care about. This isn't a person already dying, this isn't a person being kept alive by a respirator, etc. Since, when she ALLEGEDLY made her remarks about artificial life support, feeding tubes were not considered life support, she should be given the therapy her husband swore he'd provide with the big fat malpractice award. I for one don't hate you, I just don't think her, or her case belong in the end-of-life issues catagory.
Tell me you honestly and absolutely know for a fact that Terri wants to die.
That there is nothing she wants to 'get off her chest' about what happened, before she dies.
That her mind is dead, there is no chance of her ever behaving and functioning as normal.
I have had two opportunities to visit Terri, most recently on the first Sunday of February. I have been able to talk to her, to listen to her struggle to speak, to watch her focus her eyes and smile and attempt to kiss her parents. I have prayed with her, blessed her, and assured her that she has many friends around the country and around the world, who love her and want her to enjoy the same protections we all enjoy, even when we're wounded.
I'm not talking about killing handicapped people,
THEY ARE.
Tis truly noble to take the lives of the helpless and innocent for a profit, and protect the lives of the dastardly and evil at a loss.
That allows the evil to reamain so one can be known by the company one keeps.
Hildy, what part of the right not to be killed do you not understand?
If you are going to comment, you should do your homework beforehand.
The issue is not "allow to die," in this case, the woman is deliberately being killed.
This woman can swallow (she does not have to be suctioned to handle her normal saliva and does not choke), but her husband won't allow her to be fed by mouth. A feeding tube was placed and artificial feedings were begun. The adulterous husband does not even want the right not to put food in the tube - he wants the right to have the tube *removed* while refusing to allow Terri oral feedings at all.
There is no physical evidence that Terri made any statement as to end of life decisions. Michael had a new concubine before remembering that Terri made any comments on the subject.
The long-standing legal standard has been a presumption that the preference is to live.
> is it the starvation or is it the dying?
Felos and HINO have steadfastedly held to the claim that Terri is PVS despite evidence and many reports that she's alert and responsive. There are no reports that she's unhealthy, and it is undeniable that she has lived close to 15 years in her current medical condition. She's 42 now and the medical malpractice suit projected that she would live till at least 50. Thus, there is no basis to presume that she is dying.
Felos' desire to have the feeding tube removed AND all fluids and nutrition withheld will result in death being forced on Terri. There's a well circulated report her father personally witnessed her desperately trying to get up and out of a chair to demonstrate that she doesn't want to die. But that would thwart HINO's, et al's designs. If, for this case, you are partial to the HINO/Felos/Greer position, then yes, you "talking about killing" a handicapped person.
> I just know I would not want to live like that.
I'm willing to accept that your position is your absolute right, although two Florida statutes make euthanasia (765.309) and self-murder (782.08) illegal. If you're OK with a starvation death, that's your decision. In Terri's case, there's nothing in writing. The decision was made for her on the basis of a casual comment and observation HINO and his relatives claimed Terri ostensibly uttered some 10 years earlier. Hardly reliable proof.
> My point is if it's the starvation aspect that troubles you, that could be fixed.
How do you propose that being fixed?
HINO/Felos/Greer have done everything they can legally do to prevent fixing of "the starvation aspect". This triumvir cares not that Terri will endure excruciating pain for at least a week. She's already been made to endure 6.5 days without food or water about 14 months ago.
Animals are better protected legally than Terri. Anyone caught starving an animal gets arrested and slapped with a criminal charge. Her survival from the last starvation episode demonstrates a strong will to live.