Terri Schiavo

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
I, (Bride/Groom), take you (Groom/Bride), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.


Her "husband" is shacked up with another women and has two kids.

Why should I believe somone who can't keep his wedding vow?
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Kremlar
Look at the videos, staged or not. If she is obviously irritated by a swab being put in her mouth, she's going to be a bit more than irritated if she is starved to death. Use your head.

It seems that more are opposed to the way she has to die more than with the fact that her husband can and should be her "voice" and allow her to die.

So if it is the method.... would anyone like to guess why "starving to death" is the method doctors must legally use and whom we have to thank for that "humane" way of dying? Anyone?

I'm opposed to any method of killing her.

She's a living, breathing, vibrant person who is being loved and cared for by her family.

A neurologist who examined her said that she can improve with rehabilitative therapy, which her husband has witheld.

Can someone explain what's to be gained by killing her?

Kremlar, if you really wanted to know who we have to thank for this method ...

RIP what is there to explain? Let's just assume MS is telling the truth. They were married as adults and he should know her wishes better than anyone. Perhaps they had converstations or she once stated, God, I would not want to live like that...

If this were YOU and these were YOUR wishes, would you want your Mother and Father telling your wife what you would have wanted. Don't you think it would be your wife's call, not theres? Why can't you just respect her wishes?

I'm not going to assume anything. We don't know what her wishes are.

Yes we do. Her husband stated that her wishes that she not be kept alive in an event such as this. Its his wife and its amazing how the sanctity of marriage is only convenient for the republicans when its to their advantage. I have no reason at all to believe he's lying either. He turned down 1 million dollars to keep the tube in, so I think that proves he's acting on her wishes. And the government, mommy, daddy, and everyone else should respect her husband, who no doubt loves her more than anyone else on this planet.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Kremlar
Look at the videos, staged or not. If she is obviously irritated by a swab being put in her mouth, she's going to be a bit more than irritated if she is starved to death. Use your head.

It seems that more are opposed to the way she has to die more than with the fact that her husband can and should be her "voice" and allow her to die.

So if it is the method.... would anyone like to guess why "starving to death" is the method doctors must legally use and whom we have to thank for that "humane" way of dying? Anyone?

I'm opposed to any method of killing her.

She's a living, breathing, vibrant person who is being loved and cared for by her family.

A neurologist who examined her said that she can improve with rehabilitative therapy, which her husband has witheld.

Can someone explain what's to be gained by killing her?

Kremlar, if you really wanted to know who we have to thank for this method ...

RIP what is there to explain? Let's just assume MS is telling the truth. They were married as adults and he should know her wishes better than anyone. Perhaps they had converstations or she once stated, God, I would not want to live like that...

If this were YOU and these were YOUR wishes, would you want your Mother and Father telling your wife what you would have wanted. Don't you think it would be your wife's call, not theres? Why can't you just respect her wishes?

I'm not going to assume anything. We don't know what her wishes are.

Yes we do. Her husband stated that her wishes that she not be kept alive in an event such as this. Its his wife and its amazing how the sanctity of marriage is only convenient for the republicans when its to their advantage. I have no reason at all to believe he's lying either. He turned down 1 million dollars to keep the tube in, so I think that proves he's acting on her wishes. And the government, mommy, daddy, and everyone else should respect her husband, who no doubt loves her more than anyone else on this planet.

It doesn't "prove" anything.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I, (Bride/Groom), take you (Groom/Bride), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.


Her "husband" is shacked up with another women and has two kids.

Why should I believe somone who can't keep his wedding vow?

Rot in hell hypocrite. I hope this happens to you someday. I really do. It would serve you right. Try and pass of the sanctity of marrige so long as them queers can't get married but when it has to do with some veg's life and the right to it, it turns 180 degrees.

Face fact RIP, you could care less if she had a legal document, you would side with the Parents on this.
 

Yo Ma Ma

Lifer
Jan 21, 2000
11,635
2
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I, (Bride/Groom), take you (Groom/Bride), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.


Her "husband" is shacked up with another women and has two kids.

Why should I believe somone who can't keep his wedding vow?

Rot in hell hypocrite. I hope this happens to you someday. I really do. It would serve you right.
:music: And can you feel the love tonight... :music:

 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: Riprorin

It doesn't "prove" anything.

He doesn't have to prove anything, he's her husband.

Since when does matrimony confer the right to starve someone to death?

Would it make you feel better with a lethal injection? Although starving to death , she still wouldn't feel a thing in the condition she's in.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Whether you want to believe it or not, accpet it or not, the courts determined by clear and convincing evidence that those were what her wishes are. Everybody wants a "do-over" to try the case again because they didn't like the outcome. It doesn't work that way.

It has been determined what her wishes were. Period. To go against them makes TERRI suffer. How selfish is that? Her parents testified under oath that even if she had told them directly she would not want to be kept alive by feeding tube, they would keep it in anyway and disregard her wishes. How selfish is that?

So again RIP, why do you think you should speak for her? Did God leave you a voice mail while we weren't paying attention?
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Courts aren't infallible.

Know one knows what her wishes are because they aren't in writing.

Show me the proof that it's her wish is to be starved to death.
 

Yo Ma Ma

Lifer
Jan 21, 2000
11,635
2
0
Is is interesting how the courts have 'evolved' in a fairly short amount of time. There were a couple of similar cases, Karen Ann Quinlan 1975
Karen Ann Quinlan was the first modern icon of the right-to-die debate. The 21-year-old Quinlan collapsed at a party after swallowing alcohol and the tranquilizer Valium on 14 April 1975. Doctors saved her life, but she suffered brain damage and lapsed into a "persistent vegetative state." Her family waged a much-publicized legal battle for the right to remove her life support machinery. They succeeded, but in a final twist, Quinlan kept breathing after the respirator was unplugged. She remained in a coma for almost 10 years in a New Jersey nursing home until her 1985 death.
and Nancy Cruzan 1983
Like Karen Ann Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan became a public figure after entering a "persistent vegetative state." A 1983 auto accident left Cruzan permanently unconscious and without any higher brain function, kept alive only by a feeding tube and steady medical care. Cruzan's family waged a legal battle to have her feeding tube removed; the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that the Cruzans had not provided "clear and convincing evidence" that Nancy Cruzan did not wish to have her life artificially preserved. The Cruzans later presented such evidence to the Missouri courts, which ruled in their favor in late 1990. The Cruzans stopped feeding Nancy in December of 1990, and she died later the same month.
In both of those cases, the families sought to have the person disconnected/tube removed, but it was the government preventing the practice. Now in our more modern times, at least part of the family doesn't want the patient d/c'd and the courts are facilitating the disconnection.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Courts aren't infallible.

Know one knows what her wishes are because they aren't in writing.

Show me the proof that it's her wish is to be starved to death.

That's why we have courts RIP. Sorry, you can't just and only use them when they suit your agenda. You loose on this. The evidence was COMPELLING. These were her wishes. Get on with your OWN life.
 

Yo Ma Ma

Lifer
Jan 21, 2000
11,635
2
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: lebe0024
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I think the much of the push to keep her alive is based on emotional rather than logical thinking. The people who want to keep her alive use flawed arguments like they saw her smile, or that she might wake up. But if you get an expert's opinion on things, they'll tell you that the body is just randomly doing things and there's not much thought process behind them. It seems that the pro-life people are chasing a dream, basically. One that doesn't exist, but one that they want to exist. They hold an illogical hope that one day she's just going to wake up and be fine. Usually this belief is held by relgious people, who don't trust science and think anything can happen.

Let's look at reality here. You have a body being kept alive by machines. That's it. The person would really be dead, but you're artificially keeping them alive. At what point do you call it quits? Technically, with our science, we can keep someone alive:

1. If their brain is dead
2. If their heart isn't pumping
3. If their liver/kidneys/organs aren't working

I guess technically you could call them "alive", but you're really just keeping cells in their body functioning. The person that you remembered is gone forever, and it's time to let go. The people that want these bodies kept alive are just irrational people whose emotions are blinding out their sense of reason. They want them to come back so bad that they've fooled themselves into thinking that maybe they will if you keep them alive long enough. But they won't. It's time to let go.

Excellent post, and dead-on.

/Thread

I don't think he knows what he's talking about. Terri's not being kept alive by machines; she can swallow on her own, breathe on her own, pump blood on her own.
But that's not the point. Even if she had an artificial heart, couldn't swallow, AND IT WAS GUARANTEED THAT HER STATE WOULD NEVER IMPROVE, it's still gives the state no right to sentence her to death. This is not based on a false hope, but compassion.
Let this sink in: her parents are not allowed to feed her, even though she is starving.

The question is would she even know she is starving to death, can she even feel any pain?
If she truly is a vegetable the answer is no to both.
Dave, did you know they used to perform surgical procedures on newborns sans anesthetic, because it was "thought" they couldn't feel pain? I guess if you can't say "ouch dammit, you are hurting me" then you are SOL brutha.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Courts aren't infallible.

Know one knows what her wishes are because they aren't in writing.

Show me the proof that it's her wish is to be starved to death.

That's why we have courts RIP. Sorry, you can't just and only use them when they suit your agenda. You loose on this. The evidence was COMPELLING. These were her wishes. Get on with your OWN life.

There is no evidence. How can you believe the word of a man who can't even keep his wedding vow to his wife?

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
Is is interesting how the courts have 'evolved' in a fairly short amount of time. There were a couple of similar cases, Karen Ann Quinlan 1975
Karen Ann Quinlan was the first modern icon of the right-to-die debate. The 21-year-old Quinlan collapsed at a party after swallowing alcohol and the tranquilizer Valium on 14 April 1975. Doctors saved her life, but she suffered brain damage and lapsed into a "persistent vegetative state." Her family waged a much-publicized legal battle for the right to remove her life support machinery. They succeeded, but in a final twist, Quinlan kept breathing after the respirator was unplugged. She remained in a coma for almost 10 years in a New Jersey nursing home until her 1985 death.
and Nancy Cruzan 1983
Like Karen Ann Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan became a public figure after entering a "persistent vegetative state." A 1983 auto accident left Cruzan permanently unconscious and without any higher brain function, kept alive only by a feeding tube and steady medical care. Cruzan's family waged a legal battle to have her feeding tube removed; the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that the Cruzans had not provided "clear and convincing evidence" that Nancy Cruzan did not wish to have her life artificially preserved. The Cruzans later presented such evidence to the Missouri courts, which ruled in their favor in late 1990. The Cruzans stopped feeding Nancy in December of 1990, and she died later the same month.
In both of those cases, the families sought to have the person disconnected/tube removed, but it was the government preventing the practice. Now in our more modern times, at least part of the family doesn't want the patient d/c'd and the courts are facilitating the disconnection.

Well, I am happy then in this day and age the courts STILL take cases on a case-by-case basis. They determined these were her wishes. Previous court decisions should have little to no bearing in these types of cases IMHO. Everyones condition is different.
 

Schrodinger

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2004
1,274
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I, (Bride/Groom), take you (Groom/Bride), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.


Her "husband" is shacked up with another women and has two kids.

Why should I believe somone who can't keep his wedding vow?

"...until death do us part..."

She has been brain dead for how many years? I'd say he kept his vow.

To say that he was still married to an able wife would be a joke.

This is a sad situation and she should have the right to die.

Keeping her alive is cruel and unusual punishment.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Courts aren't infallible.

Know one knows what her wishes are because they aren't in writing.

Show me the proof that it's her wish is to be starved to death.

That's why we have courts RIP. Sorry, you can't just and only use them when they suit your agenda. You loose on this. The evidence was COMPELLING. These were her wishes. Get on with your OWN life.

There is no evidence. How can you believe the word of a man who can't even keep his wedding vow to his wife?


Keep obfuscating RIP. It was not my job or yours to believe him RIP. It is up to the courts. Here is a cookie for your next obfuscation.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Courts aren't infallible.

Know one knows what her wishes are because they aren't in writing.

Show me the proof that it's her wish is to be starved to death.

That's why we have courts RIP. Sorry, you can't just and only use them when they suit your agenda. You loose on this. The evidence was COMPELLING. These were her wishes. Get on with your OWN life.

There is no evidence. How can you believe the word of a man who can't even keep his wedding vow to his wife?

So you want him to be fvcking a vegetable? I know using vegetables for sex is a little kinky but I don't find that too kinky.
 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: Wheezer
I think it's a pretty sad stae of affairs when a woman who is not hurting anyone, she has a loving family ready to take care of her has less rights than this sick SOB......why can't we starve his ass to death?

He'll get it in prison...

Originally posted by: Lord Athlon
The irony in all of this is that the majority (the republicans and religoous groups) who are opposing Terri's death are also big supporters of the death penalty.

This is complete and utter hypocrisy.

Basically , they are both the same thing : Intentionally taking the life out of a person.

What did Terri do to deserve to die?

I just don't get it, the judge ignores Congress' subpoena (I hope he's punished somehow) and allows the removal of the tube, but a nurse is convicted of simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, etc. for cutting a resident's tube. :confused:
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Courts aren't infallible.

Know one knows what her wishes are because they aren't in writing.

Show me the proof that it's her wish is to be starved to death.

That's why we have courts RIP. Sorry, you can't just and only use them when they suit your agenda. You loose on this. The evidence was COMPELLING. These were her wishes. Get on with your OWN life.

There is no evidence. How can you believe the word of a man who can't even keep his wedding vow to his wife?


Keep obfuscating RIP. It was not my job or yours to believe him RIP. It is up to the courts. Here is a cookie for your next obfuscation.

The guy didn't keep the words he spoke in his wedding vow. Words obviously mean nothing to him.

He has no credibility.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Courts aren't infallible.

Know one knows what her wishes are because they aren't in writing.

Show me the proof that it's her wish is to be starved to death.

That's why we have courts RIP. Sorry, you can't just and only use them when they suit your agenda. You loose on this. The evidence was COMPELLING. These were her wishes. Get on with your OWN life.

There is no evidence. How can you believe the word of a man who can't even keep his wedding vow to his wife?

You know what RIP, I am so happy there are people like you in this country who have decided to come out of the closest and profess their true beliefs for the rest of us to hear. We always knew you existed, but most of us had never actually seen or heard one speak. You are a never ending lesson to me that what I have been doing all along as a human and as a parent is right. Sometimes it just takes someone like you for us to know that no matter how bad we might have it, at least WE AREN'T YOU Phew!

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Courts aren't infallible.

Know one knows what her wishes are because they aren't in writing.

Show me the proof that it's her wish is to be starved to death.

That's why we have courts RIP. Sorry, you can't just and only use them when they suit your agenda. You loose on this. The evidence was COMPELLING. These were her wishes. Get on with your OWN life.

There is no evidence. How can you believe the word of a man who can't even keep his wedding vow to his wife?


Keep obfuscating RIP. It was not my job or yours to believe him RIP. It is up to the courts. Here is a cookie for your next obfuscation.

The guy didn't keep the words he spoke in his wedding vow. Words obviously mean nothing to him.

He has no credibility.

Thank God that was not up to a fundamental hypocrite such as your self to decide then! There is a God and she is going to finally meet Him soon. He has been calling her for years but her parents have been listening to Rush too loud I guess to hear. You suffer from the same affliction I see.

 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Courts aren't infallible.

Know one knows what her wishes are because they aren't in writing.

Show me the proof that it's her wish is to be starved to death.

That's why we have courts RIP. Sorry, you can't just and only use them when they suit your agenda. You loose on this. The evidence was COMPELLING. These were her wishes. Get on with your OWN life.

There is no evidence. How can you believe the word of a man who can't even keep his wedding vow to his wife?


Keep obfuscating RIP. It was not my job or yours to believe him RIP. It is up to the courts. Here is a cookie for your next obfuscation.

The guy didn't keep the words he spoke in his wedding vow. Words obviously mean nothing to him.

He has no credibility.

Thank God that was not up to a fundamental hypocrite such as your self to decide then! There is a God and she is going to finally meet Him soon. He has been calling her for years but her parents have been listening to Rush too loud I guess to hear. You suffer from the same affliction I see.


You want her "husband" who is shaked up with a woman and has two kids while he's married to Terri to decide her fate?

There's no hypocrisy there. :disgust: