Replies

My, MY... A lot of emotional outbursts, yet nobody can give me a straight answer...

I hope and pray that YOU don't ever end up like Terri! But if YOU do I hope that people show more compassion for YOU than YOU seem to have for other people!!!

This is a perfect example. After having watched some close relatives go through this, I asked my family (and they asked me) to not allow them to be artificially kept alive, if any of us got to a vegetative state, beyond any hope of recovery. I know first-hand what such measures do, and what the ultimate conclusion will still be. None of us (in my family) want to be brought so low...

The husband likely put her in this condition.

That is for a court of law to decide. You are making assumptions.

He is now obstructing justice. Do you think it's a good presidence to have on the books to allow a criminal to be in charge of the evidence.

If he is responsible, then it's very unlikely that anything new will be found at an autopsy, that hasn't already been determined by CAT scans, MRIs and the like. Again, you're making assumptions.

You obviously have not read ONE of the threads and links about Terri. I suggest you get to it; you're embarassing yourself here.

Nope. NOT embarrassed in the slightest. I ask an honest question, and I'm attacked for asking it??? And for the record, no, I haven't bothered to read the previous threads, since (as I already explained) I don't get the disconnect from reality that seems to have befallen all of the breathless, emotional participants on this subject.

I ask again, why???

Beyond the emotional outbursts, this case actually has two sides.

For example, all the judges who have seen this case have sided with the husband.

A columnist explains why:There is a another point of view:

"I don't think it is widely appreciated just how damaged her brain is," said Walker, an internist, who has followed the case closely by reading the public record.
Schiavo's cerebral cortex, he said, is mostly gone. It was destroyed by the loss of oxygen she suffered when she had a heart attack 13 years ago. Once gone, the cortex cannot grow back, Walker said. The space it once occupied in Schiavo's skull is now filled with spinal fluid.
"The cortex does all our thinking," he said. "Some people argue that it's responsible for personhood. Without a cortex, you can't think, feel, have consciousness."
Schiavo is "awake but not aware," Walker said. Parts of her brain that control reflexes and other basic bodily functions still work. So she can sleep, breathe, blink and make the other moves that fuel the faith of those who seek to save her.
Her lack of consciousness is so complete that, according to Walker, if her feeding tube were to be removed from her stomach, Schiavo would not suffer. His language is chilling; the picture he leaves, almost unimaginable.
"She cannot perceive thirst or hunger. She doesn't have the brain structures necessary for that kind of perception."

That is for a court of law to decide. You are making assumptions.

Instead of ranting on this thread, why don't you go and read the links which would easily educate you. The answer to the above statement will be found there as well, but I'll give you a clue. The courts have never investigated him. And yes, we WOULD like the courts to decide. But if they kill Terri, he has demanded her body be cremated immediately. Whoops.....no victim, no evidence. Ya know, I'm TIRED of trying to explain this to you. GO EDUCATE YOURSELF AND QUITE WASTING OUR TIME.

This is a perfect example. After having watched some close relatives go through this, I asked my family (and they asked me) to not allow them to be artificially kept alive, if any of us got to a vegetative state, beyond any hope of recovery. The hope of recovery you refer to, it wasn't allowed to exist. The husband refused therapy. As for artificially kept alive, it's food and water. Her life support is no different than that provided to infants and other disabled people, who are unable to feed themselves. You also are making assumptions, against much proof of denial of Mrs. Schiavo's rights. You are assuming Mrs. Schiavo wants to die. You are applying your emotional attachment to your 'close relatives' situation to this case. If you truly held an emotional disconnect, unless the close relatives were your financial obligation, what would you care if they lived or died? The only evidence that Mrs. Schiavo would want to die was provided by her husband, who has a vested financial and adulterous interest in her death. Some of us see the whole of the evidence pointing toward a criminal interest in her death. In short, we see a wrong being perpetrated, not only by the husband, but by the court system. It is wrong on so many levels, culminating with the state ordered starvation of a fellow human being.

This is a perfect example. After having watched some close relatives go through this, I asked my family (and they asked me) to not allow them to be artificially kept alive, if any of us got to a vegetative state, beyond any hope of recovery.

The hope of recovery you refer to, it wasn't allowed to exist. The husband refused therapy. As for artificially kept alive, it's food and water. Her life support is no different than that provided to infants and other disabled people, who are unable to feed themselves.

You also are making assumptions, against much proof of denial of Mrs. Schiavo's rights. You are assuming Mrs. Schiavo wants to die. You are applying your emotional attachment to your 'close relatives' situation to this case. If you truly held an emotional disconnect, unless the close relatives were your financial obligation, what would you care if they lived or died?

The only evidence that Mrs. Schiavo would want to die was provided by her husband, who has a vested financial and adulterous interest in her death. Some of us see the whole of the evidence pointing toward a criminal interest in her death.

In short, we see a wrong being perpetrated, not only by the husband, but by the court system. It is wrong on so many levels, culminating with the state ordered starvation of a fellow human being.