Skip to comments.
Feeding tube removed from comatose woman at center of long-running legal battle
Associated Press ^
| 10-15-03
Posted on 10/15/2003 12:18:18 PM PDT by Brian S
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:44:25 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 921-929 next last
To: MeeknMing
THANK YOU MEEKIE!!!! {{{HUGS!}}}
281
posted on
10/15/2003 1:49:57 PM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
To: Route66
Apparently the new definition of 'vegetative state' and 'comotose' is anyone who can't swallow food. I'm still trying to understand why an autistic child is not "vegetative" by that definition. (And therefore, expendible).
282
posted on
10/15/2003 1:50:37 PM PDT
by
sanchmo
To: greccogirl
I would do more than "tell" your family. Get it in writing.
Its called an Advanced Health Directive.
283
posted on
10/15/2003 1:51:34 PM PDT
by
diamond6
("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
To: sanchmo
Ah, but now you really do understand don't you? There are people that would like to expend the autistic child among us. They really shouldn't have been born don't you know? (NOT MY VIEW)
284
posted on
10/15/2003 1:52:13 PM PDT
by
TXBubba
(Conservative Soccer Mom and proud of it!)
To: texasbluebell
I heard the three minute rule most recently on CSI.
285
posted on
10/15/2003 1:52:21 PM PDT
by
Gophack
To: It's me
I want no part of the type of life that you describe in those facilities but that is just me. Nothing is more depressing than such places to me.
Then there is also the fact that most of the health care costs for individuals are spent attempting to prolong their lives for even a few months. They skyrocket during that period. I can see a time when almost all of our nation's health care budgets could be consumed by such costs if life is to be prolonged as long as there is a remote flicker detectable. At what point do we say we can't afford it? Certainly if individuals had to pay them they would not be paid except by the very wealthy.
It is very confusing to find those so opposed to taxation to do just such things so adament about this case. Maybe you can clarify it for me.
At some point the questions "how much will this cost" and "how will it be paid for and by whom" must be asked and answered. Certainly society will have to answer such questions not I (thank God.)
286
posted on
10/15/2003 1:52:25 PM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: Route66
Well, I suppose that may be some small "mercy." But the other day a person in the know described bleeding cracked lips, convulsions, etc. I think we should not be too happily swayed by euphemisms.
287
posted on
10/15/2003 1:52:26 PM PDT
by
Libertina
(Steadfast loyalty - The sign of a true friend and leader.)
To: george wythe
Nope, that most certainly is not the case. Originally she ate by mouth but the staff considered it too time consuming so the tube was inserted for their convenience. She has UN-learned how to eat by mouth.
There's no way the hospital staff ever tried to feed her; they were under strict orders not to. At one point, her brother and sister suggested to the nurse that she try to feed Terri pudding that they brought with them and Michael Schiavo was so angry that he kept them from seeing her for five months.
And actually, Judge Greer has read less and seen less information on this case than many concerned freepers. He has in court refused to review affadavits and dismissed testimony out of hand. He has declined to view video and has never one time gone to see Terri for himself.
288
posted on
10/15/2003 1:52:34 PM PDT
by
agrace
To: TexasCajun
The parents do not see it as a burden. They WANT to take care of her. If you saw her Dad on tv yesterday, you wouldn't question whether they would feel burdened by caring for her. You are right, though, that the decision should be Terri's. Since there is no written document, nobody knows for absolute certain. But with so much in doubt, the glaring conflicts of interest in this case, taking into consideration our natural instinct to survive, and hey, here's an idea - why don't they ALLOW A CHANCE FOR REHABILITATION and maybe Terri will improve enough to tell Judge Greer for herself? - I think pulling her feeding tube is the wrong decision.
289
posted on
10/15/2003 1:52:45 PM PDT
by
iowamomforfreedom
(Why is it illegal to starve an animal but not a human being?)
To: justshutupandtakeit
"She would be long dead without medical intervention." A good many of us would be long dead without medical intervention. We are not talking heroic measures here. We are talking about a woman who has been denied medical treatment, has been denied rehabilitative therapy, has even been denied antibiotics to fight infection. Now she will be denied nourishment and fluids as well. Maybe you can justify that in your mind. I cannot.
290
posted on
10/15/2003 1:54:13 PM PDT
by
sweetliberty
("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
To: Queen Jadis
So sad for Terri... So sad for all of us when a person like her so needs protection and in our twisted society, we can't protect her.
And more irony. I hear Andrea Yates (who murdered her 5 children) is trying to starve herself to death. I would bet the state would intervene to save her life and force a feeding tube down her.
To: RoseofTexas
God's miracle was the conception and birth of Terri. From dust to living, breathing loving human being. We as her breathern are tasked to be our brothers keeper. We must stive everyday to perform that task.
292
posted on
10/15/2003 1:54:22 PM PDT
by
mict42
To: texasbluebell
Not artificially prolonging life is not the same as putting someone to death. Death is the result of her being unable to eat/drink.
293
posted on
10/15/2003 1:54:22 PM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: texasbluebell
Yes, that's what I thought. Just heard that somewhere, the 3 minute rule -- 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food. CSI
294
posted on
10/15/2003 1:54:27 PM PDT
by
itsahoot
(The lesser of two evils, is evil still...Alan Keyes)
To: george wythe
Could it be that, some time in the past, the medical staff tried to feed Terry and she choked, or she got a respiratory infection?No. Michael Schiavo has strictly forbidden anyone to even try feeding Terri.
She probably can swallow, as has been noted earlier. Patients who cannot swallow invariably drool; Terri does not drool.
Whether she could swallow food now is not known, since no one has been permitted to try. Even if she couldn't, doctors have testified that with therapy there's a good chance Terri could relearn to swallow food and there would be no need for a feeding tube.
But then, Michael Schiavo couldn't legally starve her. See how it works?
To: agrace
Judge Greer has read less and seen less information on this case than many concerned freepers. He has in court refused to review affadavits and dismissed testimony out of hand. He has declined to view video and has never one time gone to see Terri for himselfWhat about all the other judges, including federal judges?
To: george wythe
fatal infection in her respiratory tracts
Oh and that WOULD be worse than starving her to death, wouldn't it? good grief.
To: george wythe
IIRC, the expert witnesses testified that mouth-feeding Terry will lead to her either choking to death or developing a fatal infection in her respiratory tractsDo you know how ridiculous the double-speak is? "No, your honor, she doesn't want to be hooked up to any tubes. WE know it will kill her if we remove them, but we wouldn't want any harm to come to her, sir. If you allow her to be fed orally, she may DIE from choking or a respiratory infection! No, sir, we don't want to HARM her, we only want for HER wishes to be fulfilled!" (/sarcasm)
Don't you get it? When they want to be allowed to "let her die" they are really saying they don't want her to LIVE!
To: erikm88
You forget that the pro-death movement DOES want to kill newborn babies. Only the most extreme of their side says it, but haven't you seen the numerous articles and news programs that tell you of the huge medical cost of caring for preemies--and then tell you that most of them are low IQ and will never amount to much, yada, yada.
It's people playing God, people thinking they can judge quality of life for another, people thinking that they have somehow been granted the miraculous gift of knowing who should live and who should die.
I have a pro-abort friend who is pro-abort because of minorities. Yep, he has no problem saying, "We either pay for them (the abortion) now, or pay for them later."
As the elderly population ages, there will be more of this. Right now, the liberals don't dare suggest old people be terminated because they are a huge constituency; but the time will come. It's just that now, people like Terri Schiavo and unborn babies have no one to defend them.
299
posted on
10/15/2003 1:56:26 PM PDT
by
Gophack
To: Brian S
My God in Heaven! They are going to starve her to death. Somehow I didn't think it would really happen. All we can do now is pray for a miracle.
300
posted on
10/15/2003 1:56:38 PM PDT
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 921-929 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson