Replies

They all deserve mention. That is why some of us are trying to make sure it does not happen again.

If a person decides to have their feeding tube pulled so they may die that is a different case.

If a person can not communicate and a guardian decides, after all hope is gone, that a feeding tube is to be pulled that is a different case.

Terri could have communicated her wishes- she was not allowed to. Her Guardian had a conflict of interest and would benefit from her death. There are numerous questions about how Terri got into that condition in the first place AND her parents wanted to care for her.

Thanks to the internet- and a large group of bloggers and Freepers Terri's case became familiar to us over the last four or so years. The case is so clearly a right to kill case and many people have issues with that. That is what makes her different.

Terri could have communicated her wishes- she was not allowed to.

Oh, come on. And Jesse Jackson is a wonderful conservative icon, too, I suppose. </sarc>

Give me an everlasting break. Mrs. Schiavo's EEG was FLAT. What wishes do you expect she could have communicated from or through THAT? And what stopped her from communicating those wishes? Was it that she was too busy making totally random movements and expressions, amazingly similar to a woman in a PVS?

Thanks for responding Diva.
I agree, the issue is larger than Terri and it is not a clear cut case of life over death in all instances.
Those who wish to die naturally and have stated their intentions in writing prior to becoming incapacitated should have their intentions granted.
I think the real argument is for those who have not done so in writing and without proof of their wishes we wish to err of the side of life.
The Pope did not wish to be kept alive in the hospital, he wanted to die naturally in the place of his choosing. This decision didn't mean he wished to be starved to death but he had decided how his life would end. One could argue that the hospital could have extended his life artificially for days, weeks, or years who knows but they didn't disrespect his wishes.
I personally couldn't ask that the feeding tube be removed, I couldn't live with it unless it was clear the person was in great pain and suffering and my whole family was begging me to stop the pain. It would also have to be clear to me the intentions of the family were just and not about inheritance of money or property.
I don't know all the inside information on Terri and whether or not she could communicate her wishes but I did hear that when she was receiving treatment she was learning words so had treatment continued I would be more inclined to believe that was true.
I may have ask a question that put the cart in front of the horse but it just seemed as though the board would be flooded with other cases even if not exactly like Terri's but close enough to mention.
I read where FOX News stated there were about 35000 to 40,000 other cases like Terri's out there. Did that mean with legal dispute? I don't know but that is a lot of cases to pull from if one would wish to continue the debate or expand it beyond Terri.
I think the fact Terri's family asked for help in a case in which no will existed should have provoked the court to prevent her death until all aspects of the case were cleared such as the notion she was abused and did it lead to her situation. I don't know but red flags were up.
I think the best thing that could have happened in this particular case would have been to grant the parents custody of the daughter.