[george wythe]

Why not go in and killer her now?

As a Catholic, I will try to answer that question, although you might not find it satisfactory.

If I develop a Permanent Vegetative State, I have asked my wife to remove any feeding tubes.

I have not asked my wife to snuff me.

Although my Catholic conscience will allow me to starve to death, I will consider a sin any extreme accelleration of death.

I'm assuming the Schiavos are Catholic, since the Catholic Church has issued statements on this specific case.

[William McKinley]

Thanks for not making fun of my typo there (even if you did quote it lol)

There is a key difference, that I can see. "I have asked my wife"

This is one reason that the legal construct of a 'living will' came to be, so that such wishes can be made without it being a question of guessing what the person would want, often times with the sole witness being someone who could have alterior motives.

[Qwinn]

"I'm assuming the Schiavos are Catholic, since the Catholic Church has issued statements on this specific case."

Yes, they are indeed Catholic. That is the main justification for her parent's stance, that Terri was Catholic and that her husband's statement concerning her desire to die in such a state are therefore unlikely, as it would constitute a great sin.

I know that the Catholic Church does not balk at someone being denied "extraordinary measures". Someone would not be required to be kept in an iron lung, for example. But I can't imagine any way in which simply being -fed- would count as extraordinary measures, especially since no attempt has ever been made to rehabilitate her enough to eat and drink.

What precisely was the Church's statement on this, if I may ask? I'm curious.

Oh, by the way, to those who said it's okay to kill her because her cortex is "mostly gone"... I would point out that the key word there is "mostly". It's not all gone. That alone should be enough to keep her alive, especially when viewing the films shows she is clearly aware of people around her, and has occassionally shown indications that she may even be understanding speech.

As her doctors pointed out, she can almost certainly be rehabilitated to be able to eat and drink without a feeding tube. The fact that she does not drool shows conclusively that she has not lost the ability to swallow. The fact that she has not even been -permitted- to test this is what I find the most apalling, and I can't understand what would motivate someone to deny even the opportunity to determine this. If it turns out she can't even swallow food or water, FINE.... but why would someone like this judge be so maniacally opposed to just testing and finding out?

Qwinn