Replies

I'll admit I'm speculating, but it's the only scenario that makes any sense whatsoever.

Not at all. The chances of Terri making that much recovery are very, very slim, and I doubt that he is concerned about them.

The scenario which is very right is that this is simply yet another of the same situations which have taken place numerous times in the past. There is little unique or unusual about this situation except that the Schindlers have gone so far and fought so hard to save this country from the coming culture of death.

It is actually fairly uncommon for family to decide to allow a member to die by terminal dehydration. It is only when the family members disagree that it makes the news.

There is a long line of victims who have gone before Terri - I offer their stories here for your perusal.

MarMema, you have done wonderful research on the earlier cases of euthanasia even though the liberal establishment does not call this "euthanasia." Instead, they say it is a "natural process."

You seem to think that the starvation orders are the result of the growing popularity of the philosophy of "mercy killing" more so than money from insurance, trust funds, etc. going to the survivors.

I would imagine that has been true in some of these cases. Surely though Hugh Finn's murder was clearly one of a desire for life insurance by the estranged wife.

You are saying that Michael Schiavo is more motivated by the euthanasia doctrine than he is in collecting the remaining money in the trust fund. Also, he has no expectation of Terri ever recovering sufficiently to say what happened when she collapsed in 1990. Could Schiavo have been brainwashed by Felos?

As we discuss this case, this young woman's life is slipping away second by second. And we can do virtually nothing -- we do not feel empowered.