Though I don't know the specifics on this woman's mental capacity or whether she can recover somewhat this case reminds of the Schiavo fiasco. So called Pro-Lifers lost quite a bit of credibility when they came out so ferverent against pulling Schiavo’s plug. There was no reason to keep that woman in a system that cost tens of thousands of dollars a year for dozens of years. That would be stupid and socially suicidal and most importantly, SELFISH. To let a person drain resources from people that need them is ridiculous and defies common sense. The Pro-Lifers blew the Schiavo case because they didn't focus on the true travesty of the issue and the stupidity of the medical system. If the girl would have been properly rehabilitated she would have been able to walk and chew her own food while her brain wouldn't have gone to complete mush. The girl doesnt get enough rehab and because of that shes a vegetable and we fork up thousands of dollars to keep these people alive.
That was the travesty, not that a lifeless brain was aloud to pass.
I think it is a VERY proper time to put this up again...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1368549/posts
I notice that you joined Free Republic YESTERDAY, so maybe you were under the impression that this is a pro-death forum -- you would be WRONG.
There was no reason to keep that woman in a system that cost tens of thousands of dollars a year for dozens of years.
Terri's estranged, adulterous and abusive spent MORE MONEY KILLING HER than a feeding tube would have cost for the remainder of her life.
To let a person drain resources from people that need them is ridiculous and defies common sense. . . The girl doesnt get enough rehab and because of that shes a vegetable and we fork up thousands of dollars to keep these people alive.
You will be pleased to know that you are not the first person to make this argument:
You would not have needed to fork out any money to keep Terri alive. Germany offered to take care of her at no cost.
You said: There was no reason to keep that woman in a system that cost tens of thousands of dollars a year for dozens of years. That would be stupid and socially suicidal and most importantly, SELFISH. To let a person drain resources from people that need them is ridiculous and defies common sense.
LK-—Communist materialists and National Socialist idealists liquidated in excess of 100,000,000 “human animals’ for the ‘common good.’ Your reasoning sounds just like theirs.
Prepare to be lit up.
Terri did NOT get the rehabilitation she needed, because her “loving, faithful husband” did NOT want her to improve—he just wanted her to DIE.
I guess I am one of those “pro-lifers” who as you say, “lost a lot of credibility” in 2005 over the schiavo case. I do NOT know how you can come to such a conclusion like that—It would seem to ME that “pro-lifers” would “lose credibility IF we had said “PULL THE PLUG” As YOU wanted—and got .
I just wonder—if it was YOU—would YOU want a CORONER to decide when YOU should be caused to die of thirst??
Read my poem.. maybe it will make you think a bit.
Remember THREE things:: (1--this woman is NOT "terminally ill, and suffering, or unable to swallow on her own. we are NOT talking about IV feeding or a "breathing machine"..
(2--the husband and FAMILY do NOT want her to die--the DOCTOR and CORONER feel they can decide her fate!!
(3--First they came for the Jews....
you know - you really ought to read up on your subject matter prior to spewing such ignorant garbage among people who followed this case closely for many years.
Because you are addressing people who are well aware of the fact that Terri was awarded a substantial amount of money for the purpose of her basic care and rehabilitation.
Why don’t you take some time, do a little research, and then come back and try again?
Since you are brand new here you might not be aware that Free Republic is a PRO-LIFE CONSERVATIVE forum and, just like the woman in this article the owner of Free Republic also lives in Fresno, California and he is also disabled.
When he was in the VA hospital a couple months ago should they have simply concluded that it would cost the taxpayers "tens of thousands of dollars a year" to care for him?