Replies

I reverse the question some of you who thinks Mike schiavo is right and should be guardian- and Terri should die.

Assume, Terri’s your daughter. And assume the feeding tube has not been removed, and she exists healthy in body, but not in mind- in a vegetative state. .

Now you, her parent,in your heart, feel she’s suffering and you DON’T want her to live like that, and you want to pull the feeding tube. Fine. As her parent, that would be your right and within the dictates of your conscience and it would be none of mine or the government's business.

However, how would you feel if her husband, shacked up with another woman, maintained legal guardianship over your daughter, and each month was receiving disability benefits from her former employer. And this estranged husband told you that he was legally going to keep her alive? How would you feel about that?

In my view, Schiavo gave up his right to be Guardian when he shacked up with the other woman. He's got a conflict of interest, and shouldn't be making the life and death decision

In my view, Schiavo gave up his right to be Guardian when he shacked up with the other woman.

I agree. But the feeding tube removal is a fig leaf. It's intellectually dishonest. It is not equivalent to articifical means to maintian life.

As such, the feeding tube removal is simply a means to euthanize.

We need to face this and either do lethal injection or do no euthanization.

Starvation torture is no way to do it.

I would not want for my grown child (son or daughter) to live as Terri Schiavo is existing.

If the spouse decided to let them go, I would abide by their wishes. I might even encourage them to let go, rather than to encourage my child to hang on in the state that Terri Schiavo exists in.

It wouldn't matter to me if the spouse had gone on to make a life for himself/herself by finding someone new. The point is that Michael Schiavo was extremely dedicated the first YEARS of Terri Schiavo's incapitation. The Schindlers have fought against this decision for YEARS.

I wouldn't want it for myself. I wouldn't want it for my wife. [She's made it clear she doesn't want it for herself, too.]

I support your views on the subject, except that "shacking up" is not what made him wrong. It is fundamentally wrong to starve her. It would also be fundamentally wrong to keep her alive against her will, if her will could be determined.

Again and again, the courts recognize that she is a woman who has been in a "persistent vegetative state" since the day she suffered heart failure 15 years ago.

My understanding is that only Judge Greer made that factual determination; all subsequent rulings just addressed any errors of law. And I agree with you about the conflict of interest... no Judge would appoint a lawyer to represent someone if the lawyer had a conflict of interest of that magnitude. Yet Michael Schiavo is given the power of life and death over his wife without regard to his conflict?