Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
gaarasgirl90

Terri Shiavo, let her live!

74 posts in this topic

[COLOR=DarkRed]The controversy that had our country on edge. Do you really think that this non-vegetative women deserves a worser fate than those of criminals on death row? Starvation, of all things, they would have been kinder to shoot her in the head! Her "husband", Micheal, had been seeing another women and had had kids with this women, and all while he is still legally married to her. He has denied using ANY of the money given to him for Terri's benifit and the medical experts who examined her have all said she could have been very re-habilitated by now, if she would have been given the proper therapies. Her family pleads for her life yet it wont be given by a bunch of thick-heads. Her husband claims she doesn't want to live, she is a complete vegetable. But she isn't and shows responses and awareness. What her unfaithfull scumbag husband wants, is the million dollars he receibes in case of her death. What is our country coming to when a girl who can't even defend her own life is being starved, when it is illegal to do this to criminals?

How do you feel? Agree, disagree? Don't respond if your going to make this an extremely heated debate.[/COLOR] :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not been following this case very closely, but most of what I had read in newspapers and heard on the radio made me lean toward the husband's side. On that note, would you mind providing some sources to back up your assertions? You've made him sound positively diabolical, heh.

~Dagger~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think all parties involved--that is, her parents and her husband--want what's best for her.
No parent wants to outlive their child, and I can identify with some one who says it is not desirable to live as a vegetable.

And, you have to look at her husband's situation before declaring him to be a scum-bag. His wife is in a coma--more specifically, one she shows no sign of ever waking up from. What is he supposed to do? Remain by himself and give up on ever having children because of this? It may sound cruel, but if some one is dead for all purposes, it's hard to continue to consider them your life-mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIZE=1]I thought that she [i]was[/i] a vegetable. She couldn't move, and would've died without the feeding tube. But starving her to death really is wrong... not exactly sure whose side to take. If keeping the feeding tube would make the husband poor, I'd let her starve. I mean, she's only going to make things worse for her husband, I'd probably let her go.

Yes, it's terrible to kill someone, but if they have [B]no hope whatsoever[/B], and won't be able to do anything for the rest of their lives, I know [I]I'd[/I] want someone to put me out of my misery.[/SIZE]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR=Navy]Last time I heard on the news about this, she was responsive to what was going on around her. Sure she may be disabled, but why starve or kill her?

Being responsive to your surroundings doesn't make you a vegetable.

If this was the case for all people with disabilities, our country will act much like the citizens in Sparta.[/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[size=1][color=DimGray][b]Terri Schiavo[/b] may not have much of a life, but she still has a life.

[i]I don't believe that it is anyone's right to deny that life to her, no matter how vegetative she is. Who's not to say they might find a solution, a cure someday? [/i][/color]
[/size][color=DarkRed][color=Gray][size=1][/size][/color] [/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Japan][COLOR=Navy]
If this was the case for all people with disabilities, our country will act much like the citizens in Sparta.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

No, our country would be acting like Germany in the '30's. Remember, Hitler "mercifully" killed all those with disabilities before he started on the infirm, the gay, and the Jewish.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my opinion on this case. It's a disgusting travesty, and, quite frankly, rather disturbing. It bothers me to learn the opinions of folks around me regarding this issue, and how many want to kill her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any other case I wouldn't say this. But if he truly think's it is wrong to keep her alive, against her wishes, then he should divorce her and let her parents take care of it. That or keep her alive until her parents die then take the feeding tubes out. This isn't the first time this has happened. My grandfather did not want to be kept alive on machines when he was dieing, cancer, should the state have stepped in and told us he had to be? The reason this is playing out in the media is purly political, with our fearless leader (President Bush) [/sarcasm] stepping in to pander to the christian conservative right. truly conservitaves think the government should stay out of personal affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ShadO MagE']In any other case I wouldn't say this. But if he truly think's it is wrong to keep her alive, against her wishes, then he should divorce her and let her parents take care of it. That or keep her alive until her parents die then take the feeding tubes out.[/quote]

Well, the only person who claims that it's against her wishes is Mr. Schiavo, based on a conversation he claimed to have had with her prior to the accident. Thing is, he never once mentioned this conversation for [i]seven years[/i], and suddenly he saus she wanted to die. His announcement of this happened to coincide neatly with his new engagement. If this were a trial, we'd call that "reasonable doubt".

{QUOTE]This isn't the first time this has happened. My grandfather did not want to be kept alive on machines when he was dieing, cancer, should the state have stepped in and told us he had to be?[/QUOTE]

Apples make cider and oranges make sherbert. Your grandfather made the request to die himself; in Terri's case, the decision is being made for her by a man with curios motives. That is the important factor in this case: Terri is not making the decision.

[QUOTE] The reason this is playing out in the media is purly political, with our fearless leader (President Bush) [/sarcasm] stepping in to pander to the christian conservative right.[/QUOTE]

Damn those conservatives for doing things for the people who elected them! What, do they think they represent those people or something? The bastards!

[QUOTE]truly conservitaves think the government should stay out of personal affairs.[/QUOTE]
Well...I still haven't seen them doing anything improper. It is within the right of Congress to determine the jurasdiction of a case if they so choose; see Article III of the Constitution. The new judge upheld the former decision, and now the parents are taking the case to the Supreme Court.

The only other legislature that's passing regarding this is "Sherri's Law" through the Congress. Where has the state made the decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[color=indigo]I disagree.

First, we should examine what the family means by responsive. Terri Shiavo has remained in a lower vegetative state for the past fifteen years. The responses that her family refers to are facial expressions, sweats, and rapid eye movements. From what I have read, these are common among nearly all coma patients.

Since she suffered heart failure that led to severe brain damage she has been hooked up to feeding tubes and occasionally respirators when she was unable to breathe on her own.

Michael Shiavo, as well as several of Terri?s cousins, state that she would not wish to remain alive in the condition that she is in. However, many of her other family members, including her parents, want to keep her alive in case she happens to awaken. Regardless of whether she comes to or not, her doctors all agree that her brain damage is so severe that she would remain in a vegetative state.

This whole debacle is occurring because Terri did not have a written copy of what her wishes would be should this situation arise. About five years ago, when this issue was first getting media coverage, my whole family wrote down there wishes on what actions should be taken if this were to happen and put them in a safety deposit box.

Personally, I would want my family to remove the feeding tubes if something similar happened to me I wouldn?t want to place such a tremendous burden on my family.

Also, when I first read this story I found Michael to be quite the ?diabolical? (as Dagger put it) character. However, his wife has been in a coma for fifteen years and has little or no chance of coming out of it alive. I don?t know how wrong it is for him to have fallen in love again (he didn?t begin seeing his ?woman? until about five years ago) in love again after ten years? This whole ordeal about letting Terri die began eight years ago, so the fact that he has let the memory of his wife alive and well fade a bit doesn?t seem so heartless.

I guess what I am trying to write is that both sides are just trying to do what they think is best for Terri. [/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You see? This is the problem! She is NOT in a coma! I repeat, she is NOT in a coma. The only reason you all think she is a complete vegetable is because of what the news media has been saying. But after an interview with two of her former nurses and a few other medical doctors and family members, she is very responsive. She gets excited she tries to help herself. Both nurses have said they heard her say "mommy" and "help me". She is NOT a vegetable!!! The one nurse said, after Terri had had a severe fever, that she always expected it might have been an unneccesary insulin shot. I'm not exactly pointing fingers but if that were the case, what would that look like to you? Also, a family was trying to sneak into her room and give her a glass of water before they were hauled away by police, the police then placed them in hand-cuffs out side, because they were [I]praying[/I]. Does this sound like America to you!? Her husband wants her immediatly cremated after her death, but why? Is there somthing to hide? If she dies they might as well file her death under 'murder' because they aren't giving her the luxery of lethal injection or anything. There are killing her by not giving her food or water! How long can a person last like that? What kind of death is to be wasted away into nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again... sources, please?

And it's a bit unfair to blame different opinions on the American "news media" when chances are that the media produced the very interview upon which your most recent comments are based. :animeswea

~Dagger~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR=DarkRed][QUOTE=Dagger]Once again... sources, please?

And it's a bit unfair to blame different opinions on the American "news media" when chances are that the media produced the very interview upon which your most recent comments are based. :animeswea

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]

Oh sorry, the sources I use are strictly talk radio, news papers and internet. I can't exactly give you specifics because once I read or hear them there gone. And also to the people that say they would rather die, look at it this way: Do you really think your family, who loves you would consider you a burden and want you dead? They would love you no matter what and would not be willing to "put you out of your misery" either. To Terri's family, what do you think it looks like? This man who supposedly loves her as much as you do wants to take her away from you forever by [I]killing[/I] her.[/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Apples make cider and oranges make sherbert. Your grandfather made the request to die himself; in Terri's case, the decision is being made for her by a man with curios motives. That is the important factor in this case: Terri is not making the decision.[/quote]
Actuly our family made the discision, as he had no living will.

[quote]And also to the people that say they would rather die, look at it this way: Do you really think your family, who loves you would consider you a burden and want you dead? They would love you no matter what and would not be willing to "put you out of your misery" either. To Terri's family, what do you think it looks like? This man who supposedly loves her as much as you do wants to take her away from you forever by killing her.[/quote]

If she's never going to recover, if she doesn't kniow shes alive, then she would not know she was dead. (And being an Aetheist) Once your dead, you do not know your dead. The best way I can describe what i think happens once you die is think of it as if you were never born that same state of existence (not impact on the world). So dieing really isn't that bad.

Edit: You make him sound like a monster. If he truly thinks she would not want to be kept alive on machines how is that bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find the media circus and the vicious rhetoric from both sides of the aisle to be appalling. This is a complex case, not a black and white issue of good versus evil. The conservative side has turned a heart-wrenching case into 'symbol of the struggle for the right-to-life' (Cal Thomas said something to this effect in his latest column) and thereby linking it to abortion and other right-to-life issues. The left takes the case and makes it into a symbol of the sovereignty of the individual over her own body versus the wishes of quasi-evil conservative administration.

The truth of the matter is that this is a real person we are talking about, a real person in a very difficult situation. I know I for one would not want to live in a coma for a decade. I would rather die. However, death by starvation is an equally horrific fate. It seems to me that the most humane option is the one that is both illegal and, according to some, morally reprehensible: chemically assisted suicide. It seems to be the least painful way to die of the options before Terri now. There is no 'right answer' here, because all three options are horrible. It's a terrible situation.

The issue is complicated more when the motives of the husband are brought to question (I personally find his motives to be extremely suspect). It's complicated when the issue of states rights versus federal intervention is brought up.

I wish people would realize that this is not a situation that gives people another excuse to retreat from objective thought and to spout loudly and proudly their extreme conservative/liberal rhetoric. It is not a case on which the future of our nation depends (for either side), or a clash between the forces of good and evil. It is a complicated and sad case about one individual person, in which all possible options hold both evil and good, and should be treated as such.

James Bierly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why am I getting into this...

I hear talk about Terri being responsive when her family is in the room, and how she seems like she's reacting to her dad and such, but my point somewhat relates to what HC has said.

When I see video footage of her, when she's apparently reacting to her parents' presence in the room, a few things come to mind:

1) When they're stroking her hair on the left side of her face--when they're sitting on her left--she will occasionally face to the right.

2) When she does look at them, I don't see her looking [i]at [/i]them. It seems more like she's looking [i]through[/i] them.

3) When she does smile when they're there, what are they often doing? Holding her hand, stroking her hair, etc., actions that, for all we know, could elicit that type of reaction no matter who is doing it.

4) I'm not entirely certain that the smiling is voluntary, either, because the more and more I see video footage of her, the more and more I'm thinking there has been some cognitive process damage.

During the accident back in 1990, no Oxygen was getting to her brain for a whole five minutes. We all know what it's like to get held under the water in a pool for 30 seconds, and that's dangerous.

Think about what 5 minutes would do. The brain cannot function without Oxygen, and no Oxygen for a whole five minutes...I don't think motor skills were the only thing damaged.

What Terri suffered from back 15 years ago was, for all intents and purposes, very similar to an aneurysm: a massive surge of pressure intracranially that caused permanent damage to at least her motor functions.

I think it had a much larger, much more severe impact, honestly. Within two years (you can find pictures on CNN.com), there's massive physical change, [i]particularly[/i] in her face. Within two years, her face is drooping, her eyes aren't facing straight, her chin is dropped...I don't think that's purely a motor function injury. I think a lot worse actually happened.

You can check out later pictures over the following years and her condition has only gotten worse and worse. If you compare the latest picture of her to the one taken before the accident, they're like two entirely different people. You can tell it's her from the eyebrows, because they've remained pretty consistent, but everything else...it's like night and day.

This brings me to the main point of my reply:

If she were going to get better, I think 15 years would have shown something. In that span of 15 years, however, she's gotten considerably worse, and I don't think keeping her on the tubes is going to help her recover. I'm not a doctor (duh, lol), but in 15 years, that's what has happened to her?

In another 2 (which apparently is the amount of time certain legal action prep time would take), what is her condition going to deteriorate to?

What about 5? 10? Another 15?

I don't think there's any hope of recovery for her, honestly, and even though I tend to shy away from these types of issues (though, if my Dad ever becomes...mentally absent, I will honor his wishes and put him out of his misery), I can't help but think letting her pass on is the most humane thing to do here, because there's nothing to suggest she'll ever recover in the slightest amount, and the evidence we have points more toward a massive deterioration in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i really don't know which side to take. i've been well informed and looked at both sides of the argument but i still can't decide which side for sure to take. ii might just remain neutral, but i'm leaning towards to just let her go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Siren]Why am I getting into this...

I hear talk about Terri being responsive when her family is in the room, and how she seems like she's reacting to her dad and such, but my point somewhat relates to what HC has said.

When I see video footage of her, when she's apparently reacting to her parents' presence in the room, a few things come to mind:

1) When they're stroking her hair on the left side of her face--when they're sitting on her left--she will occasionally face to the right.

2) When she does look at them, I don't see her looking [i]at [/i]them. It seems more like she's looking [i]through[/i] them.

3) When she does smile when they're there, what are they often doing? Holding her hand, stroking her hair, etc., actions that, for all we know, could elicit that type of reaction no matter who is doing it.

4) I'm not entirely certain that the smiling is voluntary, either, because the more and more I see video footage of her, the more and more I'm thinking there has been some cognitive process damage.

During the accident back in 1990, no Oxygen was getting to her brain for a whole five minutes. We all know what it's like to get held under the water in a pool for 30 seconds, and that's dangerous.

Think about what 5 minutes would do. The brain cannot function without Oxygen, and no Oxygen for a whole five minutes...I don't think motor skills were the only thing damaged.

What Terri suffered from back 15 years ago was, for all intents and purposes, very similar to an aneurysm: a massive surge of pressure intracranially that caused permanent damage to at least her motor functions.

I think it had a much larger, much more severe impact, honestly. Within two years (you can find pictures on CNN.com), there's massive physical change, [i]particularly[/i] in her face. Within two years, her face is drooping, her eyes aren't facing straight, her chin is dropped...I don't think that's purely a motor function injury. I think a lot worse actually happened.

You can check out later pictures over the following years and her condition has only gotten worse and worse. If you compare the latest picture of her to the one taken before the accident, they're like two entirely different people. You can tell it's her from the eyebrows, because they've remained pretty consistent, but everything else...it's like night and day.

This brings me to the main point of my reply:

If she were going to get better, I think 15 years would have shown something. In that span of 15 years, however, she's gotten considerably worse, and I don't think keeping her on the tubes is going to help her recover. I'm not a doctor (duh, lol), but in 15 years, that's what has happened to her?

In another 2 (which apparently is the amount of time certain legal action prep time would take), what is her condition going to deteriorate to?

What about 5? 10? Another 15?

I don't think there's any hope of recovery for her, honestly, and even though I tend to shy away from these types of issues (though, if my Dad ever becomes...mentally absent, I will honor his wishes and put him out of his misery), I can't help but think letting her pass on is the most humane thing to do here, because there's nothing to suggest she'll ever recover in the slightest amount, and the evidence we have points more toward a massive deterioration in the future.[/QUOTE]

This basically states how I feel about the whole thing. I would hate for someone to have to kill a person by starvation, but really if there is no hope for them getting better, is it better to let the family and the person in that state suffer? Although I do think the husband is just trying to get the money out of it and thats why he hasn't divorced her which is what he should have done after the first five years or so, I still can't help feeling that it isn't right that she should be kept alive. It's even harder for her family who can't accept the fact that she can't function as well, and if you want to argue about that look at what Siren has stated. I've seen all the news coverage and she truely has changed appearance wise and there hasn't been much growth in the past 15 years. Who's to say the next 15 years will be different? That is a long time. I think they should stop with the "yes we're feeding her" and then switching to the "no we should pull the plug" back and forth that keeps going on. It's like they starve her, then give her food, then starve her. There needs to be a decision soon. If she showed more progress, I might have felt differently, but I'm sad to say if I were ever in that position I would want my feeding tube taken away too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='gaarasgirl90][COLOR=DarkRed']The controversy that had our country on edge. Do you really think that this non-vegetative women deserves a worser fate than those of criminals on death row?[/quote]

A worse fate? It depends how you look at it. I don't think it's entirely determinable if she's concious or not - but I certainly would not want to spend the rest of my life in a bed, fed by a tube, unable to do anything except be.

A criminal, in most cases, is fully aware of their imminent death & while it is taking place. It's almost impossible to tell whether Mrs. Schiavo is actually aware of her surroundings or not.

[quote]Starvation, of all things, they would have been kinder to shoot her in the head![/quote]

What other method do you propose for a woman whose sole source of life is that tube? Euthanasia by any other means is illegal.

[quote] Her "husband", Micheal, had been seeing another women and had had kids with this women, and all while he is still legally married to her.[/quote]

His wife has been in a vegatative state for 15 years, I fail to see what impact this could have on the case.

[quote]He has denied using ANY of the money given to him for Terri's benifit and the medical experts who examined her have all said she could have been very re-habilitated by now, if she would have been given the proper therapies.[/quote]

Where did you get this information from?

[quote] Her husband claims she doesn't want to live, she is a complete vegetable. But she isn't and shows responses and awareness. What her unfaithfull scumbag husband wants, is the million dollars he receibes in case of her death. What is our country coming to when a girl who can't even defend her own life is being starved, when it is illegal to do this to criminals?[/quote]

I really don't think that this case would be going on should she have shown true responsiveness - as Heaven's Cloud said so far it's only seemed to be common coma-related body actions. As for the being starved, if I remember correctly she will be given morphine as a precautionary measure; in case she can actually feel it.

Again, it's illegal to do it to criminals due to the fact that they are known to be fully aware.

Where does he get the millions of dollars from?

[quote]Oh sorry, the sources I use are strictly talk radio, news papers and internet. I can't exactly give you specifics because once I read or hear them there gone.[/quote]

Sources from the internet & newspapers aren't going anywhere fast - it would be helpful to provide them for the things you've mentioned as I'm sure something along those lines would be quite significant in the case.

Personally, I think along the same lines as what some have mentioned in this thread: both sides are trying to do what they think is right for Mrs. Schiavo. I would very much so doubt that any parent would want to watch their child die, but at the same time I think the same can be said for Mr. Schiavo; after this many years of battling I doubt he's doing it out of anything but care for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The money he would be getting is basically gone. It has been going towards keeping her in the hospital if I remember correctly. So it isn't really about the money anymore.

I myself agree that the tube should be taken out. Who wants to live like that? I can only echo the points brought up by Red and Siren. She is what? Late 30's? Early 40's? Imagine how long it will be for her to relearn everything again were she to get better. That is a big if she were to get better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[size=1]My worst fear is becoming blind or deaf for the rest of my life, and as crazy as it may sound, I'd rather die. It would be torture beyond words. This woman has suffered for fifteen years, it's time to let her go. But then again, I don't feel death is the end of the line. If someone I knew was in that state, it would hurt me much more to have them be in constant pain on earth than to have them rest peacefully and move on.

Has it been mentioned that she's in this state due to fertility pills?

There's been a settlement between the family and company to keep that under wraps...[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[size=1]There are a few questions you need to ask before condemning this man, and before deciding on Terri Schiavo's right to live.

1) What kind of strain must the continued struggle of Terri be having on her husband? I know that this could be taken the wrong way, but the fact that she isn't dead, and can be continually sustained on life support, [b]with no hope of recovery[/b] must really be terrible. Imagine getting to the stage where you [b]resent[/b] someone you once loved. Try to understand how he feels.

2) She's been in this kind of state for what, 15 years? If she was going to make some kind of fantastic recovery, you'd think it would have happened by now. Considering she can't actually rspond in any helpful manner, this next part is purely hypothetical, but is it really in her best interests to leave the tubes in?

I knew a family who had a son who had cerebral palsy. He lived until 16, and then died because his body couldn't take it any more. Obviously, his death caused a lot of sadness for his family, but they recovered, and the strain was gone. I'm not saying that Terri is something to be just disposed of, but look at the facts: 15 years so far, and with no hope of recovery. Is there any reason to do this to her, or her family?[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE

If she were going to get better, I think 15 years would have shown something. In that span of 15 years, however, she's gotten considerably worse, and I don't think keeping her on the tubes is going to help her recover. I'm not a doctor (duh, lol), but in 15 years, that's what has happened to her?

[FONT=Fixedsys][COLOR=DarkRed]The reason she hasn't gotten better is because she hasn't been allowed any kind of treatment. Michael Shiavo had denied in court that he has not used any of the insurence claim money, on her benefit. The nurses that were interviewed said, she was not allowed to go through any therapy. Why? they don't know, but as I've already said, doctors that have examined her said that IF she had been given the therapy she should have been taking all these years, she could have been re-habilitated by alot. But in her room they don't have any kind of brain stimulators, no t.v no radio. The reason she isn't better is because noone is letting her get better. No one has paid for it.

Are any of you even listening to what I'm saying!/ you all keep saying she is in a vegetative state, and shes in a coma and she has shown no process. Well you are all either misinformed or partially informed. She ISN'T any of those things, got it? We are not talking about just some issue that has come up this is someones #@*&ing LIFE! You all say, well she should just get the plug pulled and I wouldn't want to live like that. Well they aren't asking wether or not you would want to live like that! This is her, she can't say wether or not she would want to die and you all just assumn that she would, but what if you knew that maybe you could be normal again? There not giving her that chance because they are murdering her and I don't care wether or not you think thats a harsh thing to say because in the most logical sense, it is MURDER.[/COLOR]. [/FONT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR=RoyalBlue][FONT=Palatino Linotype]It's really hard to try and believe just one source of information. And trying to believe many at once is just...I'm not even going to go there.

I've heard that her husband made a statement in regard of what her words were in the terms of letting her live. From what he says, that if..."She wishes to die peacefully and not put any of us, including herself, through any more pain. She would at least have her dignity going out like this."

And gaarasgirl, you're gonna kill me for this, but...

If I were Terri Shiavo, I think that I would have said the same thing. I would never want to just lay there, in that state for so long. But starving her...

I don't think that's right.

Now, I know that this isn't about any of us. And we will never (Hopefully) have to go through what she has. But think about it. If you were her, would you really like to live like that for the rest of your life? By dying like this, it will help everyone, including herself.

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by [B]Retribution[/B]
[I]I thought that she was a vegetable. She couldn't move, and would've died without the feeding tube. But starving her to death really is wrong... not exactly sure whose side to take. If keeping the feeding tube would make the husband poor, I'd let her starve. I mean, she's only going to make things worse for her husband, I'd probably let her go.[/I][/QUOTE] It's true, things would be a lot better for her not to live. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to sound like I want her to die. If things could be changed and she could get better, I'd be right there saying "Go for it."

But there isn't.

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by [B]Heaven's Cloud[/B]
[I]First, we should examine what the family means by responsive. Terri Shiavo has remained in a lower vegetative state for the past fifteen years. The responses that her family refers to are facial expressions, sweats, and rapid eye movements. From what I have read, these are common among nearly all coma patients.

Since she suffered heart failure that led to severe brain damage she has been hooked up to feeding tubes and occasionally respirators when she was unable to breathe on her own.

Michael Shiavo, as well as several of Terri?s cousins, state that she would not wish to remain alive in the condition that she is in. However, many of her other family members, including her parents, want to keep her alive in case she happens to awaken. Regardless of whether she comes to or not, her doctors all agree that her brain damage is so severe that she would remain in a vegetative state.

This whole debacle is occurring because Terri did not have a written copy of what her wishes would be should this situation arise. About five years ago, when this issue was first getting media coverage, my whole family wrote down there wishes on what actions should be taken if this were to happen and put them in a safety deposit box.

Personally, I would want my family to remove the feeding tubes if something similar happened to me I wouldn?t want to place such a tremendous burden on my family. [/I][/QUOTE]The doctors are reporting that she is showing signs of dehydration, and she has been without food or water for six days. I think that they should just get it over with now. But her parents still keep pleading with the judge "selfishly". It's going to be tough on everyone.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[size=1]gaarasgirl90, calm down. Ask yourself what kind of life it is to not know anything. Or to have no control over yourself.

Actually, don't do that. Because Terri Schiavo can't. She can't do anything. But of course, I suppose she'd rather be some feeble mushroom plugged into a dozen machines than to succumb to the release of death, and allow her and her family some release and closure.[/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0