Terri Schiavo

[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.

 

[Genx87]

I fail to see how somebody being convicted of a violent crime getting the death penalty and Terry having heart failure are one in the same?

What was Terry's crime? Not dying immediately when she had heart problems?

 

[lebe0024]

I would rather see 1000 death row inmates be reduced to life inprisonment than to see one helpless innocent person be told by the court "you must starve to death".

But that is a different debate. I don't think your helplessness should condemn you to death.

 

[oldman420]

true true
I would normally be all for her beng if say she were on a respirator or some other critical autonomous life support system.
but she is not
they have to literally kill her.

what if it takes 2 months for her to die?
I call that torture.
I wouldn't treat a killer rapist like that if they had raped my mom or sister.

whats ironic is if someone were to kill her it would be considered a murder.

 

[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

 

[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 fight is not based on a false hope of recovery, but compassion for the helpless.
Let this sink in: her parents are not allowed to feed her, even though she is starving.

 

[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.

 

[Spencer278]

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 fight is not based on a false hope of recovery, but compassion for the helpless.
Let this sink in: her parents are not allowed to feed her, even though she is starving.

The state was tring to keep the shell alive. It doesn't really take much mental ablility to swallow the fish in my fish tank can swallow to and they are about as smart as Terri.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: oldman420
true true
I would normally be all for her beng if say she were on a respirator or some other critical autonomous life support system.
but she is not
they have to literally kill her.

what if it takes 2 months for her to die?
I call that torture.
I wouldn't treat a killer rapist like that if they had raped my mom or sister.

whats ironic is if someone were to kill her it would be considered a murder.

to a certain extent, I agree with you... but if the husband says that she would not have wanted this, I have to side with him. at least in my own case, I defintely know that my significant other has a better understanding of what I would or would not want than my parents.

 

[lebe0024]

Why on earth do people keep saying she can't feel pain?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: lebe0024
Why on earth do people keep saying she can't feel pain?

Have you seen a Doctor say that she can feel pain???

Also those Videos are garbage and don't prove a thing. Might as well have stage a play.

 

[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.

 

[umbrella39]

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 fight is not based on a false hope of recovery, but compassion for the helpless.
Let this sink in: her parents are not allowed to feed her, even though she is starving.

As well they shoud NOT be able to prolong her life. You people have a lot of nerve pushing marrige issues on us all but when it is convenient, forgetting them.

I, under no circumstances want my fundie parents to prolong my life should this happen to me. My wife, would know better than any one this wish. Her parents have stated time and time again that they DON'T care what her wishes were and if she would want to be sustained like this. They don't agree with it, so they are intervening. That is why spouses have/should have the legal right to decide, NOT parents. Tough SH!T for her parents or anyone else who does not like it. It is MS decision.

 

[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?

 

[Kremlar]

I don't know WHO should make the decision. In my mind, that's the tough decision here and I don't know what should be done.

However, I don't agree with the method of death, and don't think anyone should kid themselves by thinking she won't feel anything.

Makes me want to make a living will however...

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Kremlar
I don't know WHO should make the decision. In my mind, that's the tough decision here and I don't know what should be done.

However, I don't agree with the method of death, and don't think anyone should kid themselves by thinking she won't feel anything.

Makes me want to make a living will however...

I don't agree with it either. I have read on other boards how people are saying we don't starve dogs to death when we want to put them down. I agree. She should be given a lethal dose of a very happy soothing narcotic that will paralyze every muscle in her body and she would pass in matter of minutes. Not days or weeks.

 

[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?

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: lebe0024
Why on earth do people keep saying she can't feel pain?

Have you seen a Doctor say that she can feel pain???

Also those Videos are garbage and don't prove a thing. Might as well have stage a play.

they should send her head ct scans to every neuroradiologist in the country and have them come to a consensus. then they should get an mri and fmri and do the same thing. that would settle whether or not her cerebral cortex is functional.

from what i've read about the ct scans, her cerebral cortex is mush, but i'd like to see for myself.

 

[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 ...

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[umbrella39]

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.

Nice cop out RIP. I asked YOU if it were YOUR wish, and your Wife was trying to carry it out, would you support your parents right to interfere?

 

[Pandaren]

I think it is cruel and unnatural to keep Terri Schiavo in her current state. Everything I've seen and read in the news, and all the videos indicate to me that she's gone and she's not coming back.

Let her go in peace, I say.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

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.

Nice cop out RIP. I asked YOU if it were YOUR wish, and your Wife was trying to carry it out, would you support your parents right to interfere?

If I didn't have a living will I would hope that my parents would prevent me from being starved to death.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: umbrella39

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.

Nice cop out RIP. I asked YOU if it were YOUR wish, and your Wife was trying to carry it out, would you support your parents right to interfere?

If I didn't have a living will I would hope that my parents would prevent me from being starved to death.

Again, you did not answer the question but why am I not surprised? You should really run for President RIP, you have obfuscation and diversion down to a science.

Alright, I'll play it your way this one time.

You have stated your wishes! You want to be prolonged if pulling the feeding tube is the only way they will allow you to die. Your Mother and Father step in and say BS, pull the tube. Forget your living will, it is not worth the paper it is written on for sake of this discussion. Should your parent be allowed to speak for your wife?