Posted on 03/22/2005 3:26:06 AM PST by tsmith130
Just heard on Fox....so sad.
If there had been a living will in this case, she would have been laid to rest long ago, and none of us (for the most part)would have a problem with it. There wasn't, so here we are. The ONLY people who have testified she would want to die are direct relatives of the man who is having children with another woman and just happened to 'remember' that "Oh yeah, she would not wnat to live" after the lawsuit was successful. His credibility is in the crapper.
I haven't seen where. Point it out to me.
I think you've hit it right on the nose jwalsh07.
But none of that is the case. We have a case where a hopelessly conflicted husband (as to Terri's interests), and an activist Judge and lawyer are HELL BENT on killing this woman. That cannot be allowed IMHO, her right to life trunps all of their jargon and corrupt and deluded aims.
Ok, Bye-bye.
You have it backwards -- the pro-DEATH, pro-euthanesia movement is the one who wants to use Terri as a symbol -- never mind, that there is NO evidence, other than hearsay from someone who has a personal interest in seeing Terri dead.
It became an unholy alliance between MS, who wants to kill his wife and the euthanasia crowd, who are willing to ignore such "minor" points, that there is no evidence that Terri did want to die, unless she was 100% normal. And what's normal?
The same crowd who can't wait to kill Terri, are moving the earth to save terrorists. Doesn't that clue you in?
Illegal or not those two brats are BASTARDS! I hope the kids at school call them that.
It was a five-year marriage between Michael and Terri -- not five months. They were married in November 1984 and she suffered cardiac arrest in February 1990.
He is not married to the woman. There is a difference between adultery and bigamy.
You evade my earlier question with attacks on other freepers. I ask it again directly (not rhetorically), and you evade again, and contort it and call it 'useless.'
I want to know directly. Do you think that murdering the handicapped is OK?
Answer that question, please. It is the heart of this debate.
If you don't answer it, you are more than just contrary. You are a coward.
I'm glad you brought this up, here's a big dilemma nobody wants to talk about. When my mother was in the hospital, she was very ill. My mother is 80 years old. It turns she had some big infections which were treated. After they did the brain scan, one of the Doctors approached me and told me he suspected hydrocephalus and he explained the shunt procedure and told me he performed one on a 90 year old person the month before.
We thought about it, and with her situation, our family Dr. and I decided it wasn't a good idea for her.
My mother, like all 80 year olds, is covered by Medicaid. If 80-90 year olds start getting this procedure, how on Earth can this country sustain the costs. I'm assuming it's a very expensive operation. I know this isn't a popular thing to talk about, but it's necessary. Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
This is the only poll I found on the FOX website. I used the word push poll because it assumed that Terri is in a PVS. Sorry, I cannot reformat from a .pdf file. It was taken long before this weekend's focus on her situation.
4 March 05
Polling was conducted by telephone March 1-2, 2005 in the evenings. The total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points.
34. If a patient has been in what doctors call a "persistent vegetative" or a coma-like state with no higher brain activity for a significant amount of time, who do you think should make the decision whether the patient should be kept alive or not? SCALE: 1. The person's parents or other family members 2. The person's spouse 3. The government 4. (The person's doctor) 5. (Not sure) Parents Spouse Government (Doctor) (NS) 1-2 Mar 05 38% 45 2 3 12 Parents 39% 46 3 1 11 Non-parents 38% 45 1 3 13 Married 34% 49 2 3 12 Unmarried 46% 38 1 3 13
v35. Terri Schiavo has been in a so-called "persistent vegetative state" since 1990. Terri's husband says his wife would rather die than be kept alive artificially and wants her feeding tube removed. Terri's parents believe she could still recover and want the feeding tube to remain. If you were Terri's guardian, what would you do? Would you remove the feeding tube or would you keep the feeding tube inserted? Remove Keep (Not sure) 1-2 Mar 05 59% 24 17 Parents 58% 23 19 Non-parents 59% 25 16 Married 58% 23 19 Unmarried 60% 26 14
28-29 Oct 03 61% 22 17
36. If you were in Terri Schiavo's place, what would you want your guardian to do? Would you have your guardian remove the feeding tube or keep the feeding tube inserted? Remove Keep (Not sure) 1-2 Mar 05 74% 15 11 Parents 72% 17 11 Non-parents 75% 14 12 Married 74% 14 12 Unmarried 74% 16 10
28-29 Oct 03 74% 16 10
One thing that hasn't been brought up is HIPAA. Doesn't it reinforce the wall between the primary caregiver and everyone else in the world?
No, it's not the heart of this debate. Don't sidetrack.
It's bogus...........unless you're a leftist, that is.
Indeed, Jeff. It is more -- it is shocking and scandalous. IMHO FWIW
No heart patient was ever helped by a cardiac cath until an enterprising young cardiolgist threaded a catheter up his femoral artery through his aorta and into a coronary artery.
Answer the question.
Touché
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.