[hocndoc]

Terri Schiavo's husband has no right to starve his wife, as she is not brain dead, did not write out her wishes or execute an Advance Directive, and she can evidently swallow and so may not even *be* dependent on "artificial" nutrition. (and, the woman shown on her parent's website is most definitely not in a "persistent vegetative state.")

Another factor is that the "tube" was placed. It was there to use and no machines are actually necessary. Removing the feeding tube was an action, requiring the use of people and devices that are regulated by the State of Florida, under their Medical laws and regulations. That makes the removal the business of the State and her citizens.

One of the Op-Ed pieces on the Schiavo case made a great comment about Terri's supposed wishes that every lawyer should understand: under what other circumstances would such hearsay testimony be allowed, much less used for the justification of a death penalty?

[MarMema]

Don't you think it is about her brain damage and dehumanizing the disabled, not about her husband's right to act as her surrogate in determining her right to die?

Don't you see this sometimes.....care for a patient is thought to be far less necessary and certainly less important if the patient is already either:
A. brain damaged or mentally delayed ( significantly)
B. has cancer
C. is suffering from a terminal disease of some kind (MS, etc)
D. has diabetes or another serious chronic illness
E. is a drug user, alcoholic, or transient