Would You Want To Continue Living Like Terri Schiavo?

None | 10/20/03 | Self

[auggy]

Assuming therapy had been attempted and nothing has helped Terri, would you want to continue living in the same condition Terri is?

[auggy]

I personally would not, and neither would my wife. If therapy had already been tried and failed on Terri, I would not be supporting this attempt to keep her alive and , If I was Terri If I could I would be screaming at all of us, to stop what we are doing. Be truthful with your answer.

[EggsAckley]

P.I.N.G.!!

[supercat]

Assuming therapy had been attempted and nothing has helped Terri,

Therapy has been forbidden. That's part of what makes this case outrageous.

[TheBigB]

I believe the point is, many believe that Terri has NOT stated one way or the other. All we have to go on is her "husband's" sudden remembrance that, after he asked for and received lots of $$ to pay for her rehabilitation, he suddenly recalled she told him not to try and keep her alive in such circumstances.

[Catspaw]

Me, personally, no. And I have a living will to that effect.

But I'm not Terri's family.

[Notwithstanding]

You sound very selfish: life is not always about "what I want".

The pursuit of happiness is not an absolute right - there are limits, thank God.

[oreolady]

YOu have that right to your opinion on how you would want to live, Auggy, but the real question is this:

BY WHICH METHOD DO YOU WANT TO DIE?

[JoeSchem]

I wouldn't want to live if I was you. Where do we go with that?

[supercat]

Me, personally, no. And I have a living will to that effect.

Would you want therapy to be attempted before the decision was made, though?

[supercat]

I believe the point is, many believe that Terri has NOT stated one way or the other. All we have to go on is her "husband's" sudden remembrance that, after he asked for and received lots of $$ to pay for her rehabilitation, he suddenly recalled she told him not to try and keep her alive in such circumstances.

Another more important point to consider, with regard to the question asked, is that its fundamental assumption is contrary to fact: TERRI HAS BEEN DENIED THERAPY!

[sweetliberty]

Therapy has been withheld from Terri at the behest of her husband who conveniently remembered Terri's "wishes" after he had laid claim to the money awarded him for her rehabilitation, which, incidentally, he has been using to pay for the lawyers to fight for the "right" to have her terminated.

The will to live is strong and it is obviously strong in Terri. Would I want to live like that? Perhaps a better question is this: is it preferable to the alternatives? I don't know. I pray I am never in that position. But one thing I know is that I wouldn't want to be starved and dehydrated to death. I would not want anything done that would CAUSE my death. I would certainly not want to be submitted to the torture that Terri is enduring.

[oreolady]

Another thought:

Along with millions of posts, media comments, etc, I have yet to see anyone with any plan to ATTEMPT to design some sort of signal/communication method she could use to say her pregerences in this matter.
You would say she cannot make or opine anything, but HAS IT EVEN BEEN TRIED?
If it were one of my loved ones, I would try anything, to make sure.
Everyone teneds to think of traditional "therapy" by experts, yet many good ideas come from individuals or groups of people brainstorming, revolutionary ideas, !!!!

[libravoter]

I'm not sure it's relevant to the argument at hand. In fact, I think part of the reason why you can find people at such extremes (both ways) with the case is that our instinct is to project ourselves onto the Shindlers.

The question is not "Would someone want to not live this way?" The question is "Would Terri want to not live this way?" And there ain't a lot of evidence either way. And the law is supposed to err on the side of continuing support if there isn't clear evidence to pull the plug.

That said, if the chances are slim that I'll recover and I've been on tubes (feeding/respiratory/whichever) for more than a year and I can't communicate, then please, please pull the plug.

In fact, my father's living will demands that even if he's not attached to any tubes, we should find a way to "off him" if he has alzheimer's or other dementia. I have told him that's not legal, but that I'll fight whoever I need to if someone tries to force care on him that his living will says he doesn't want.

But, as I said, that's irrelevent. Because my mother is ver religious and would never want care withdrawn, and I'd fight armies to ensure her (living will) instructions were carried out.

I just wish to God that Terri had a living will, but she doesn't. And now all I wish is that her family can find some peace in such a horrible time.

[OpusatFR]

You see, that's the problem. We have opinion and desire. We have intellect and rationale. With those we can come to many decisions. Without Divine grounding we can justify anything.

I wouldn't want to watch a deformed and mentally damaged child struggle in life, or watch elderly people decline into painful debilitation. I don't want to see people suffer.
You can make all sorts of decisions upon what you don't want to do based on compassion. But is it just? Is it moral? Is it right? Who are we to determine when someone has outlived their usefulness to society as though humans are nothing more than cogs in a machine.

The suffering are a burden. Do they want to die? Not all. Not the ones I am around. I don't know that this girl wants to die. Basing decisions for others on what you personally desire for yourself is not good policy.

Euthanasia is not an option for me.

[TheBigB]

Another more important point to consider, with regard to the question asked, is that its fundamental assumption is contrary to fact: TERRI HAS BEEN DENIED THERAPY!

Hear, hear! Why don't YOU answer US, Auggy...you're alive and responsive, but handicapped. You can recognize your parents; you smile when you see them. You can obey requests. Therapy might very well help you regain many functions. Your parents have stated they will accept you into their home at their own cost, and provide whatever you need.

At that point, would you be trying to scream, "Naaah. Kill me." Answer honestly, if you've got the grapefruits.

[Catspaw]

Would you want therapy to be attempted before the decision was made, though?

No. I've made it clear in my living will.

[TYVets]

Examinations are forbidden, therapy has been forbidden, last rites are forbidden.

what is her condition?

I would not trust her husband or his lawyer of death to advise me about myself or a member of my family.

To be truthful, there is too much smoke in Terri's case. There is a lot of fire that has not been seen so far.

[oreolady]

Even living wills, which some are smug about, are not the complete answer.
Why? Because not everyone understands the legal (pertaining to ther own state) laws.
Some states include food/water in defining "life support", while others SEPARATE the two terms, food/water, and respirators/heart machines!!!

My state asks people to select ther own, separate preferences whether to withold food/water.
The respirator/heart machines are what the term "life support" actually means.
Which makes sense, because the food/water is not instantly needed to revive/support life. (at that moment).

[supercat]

Would you want therapy to be attempted before the decision was made, though?

No. I've made it clear in my living will.

All right. Your choice. Most people who say they wouldn't want to live like Terri are unaware that therapy has been deliberately withheld from her; some I've talked to seem to change their opinion of the case when I tell them that.

[supercat]

Which makes sense, because the food/water is not instantly needed to revive/support life. (at that moment).

And also because any person, no matter how healthy, will die within days if food and water are withheld.