Replies

I sized you up for a troll, and you're convincing me I was right. If you'd even bothered to look, you'd have noticed that I've already posted the links -- in THIS thread -- as have others.

That is 3 replies to me, and still no answer. A link is hardly an answer to a simple question. Was is a statement she made verbally? A written statement? Her parents interpretation of her wishes? The doctors interpretation of her actions and movements?

Is it really that hard for you to answer the simple question. You said it was known that she wants to live, I merely asked you how you come to that conclusion. This is not a game, I am curious, as that would probably change my mind. I have yet to hear that claim made or substantiated - that she has expressed her wished to live.

I am aware of much of the speculation about her wishes, so you do not need to point me to that.

You are the one playing a game. My thoughts are clear and have been on every Shiavo thread I post to. I would error on the side of the individual rather than on government interference in medical decisions. I see a different slippery slope that others here - I see one where 3rd parties and the government try to make medical decisions for individual on the claim that they are promoting life.

If there is abmibuity, life should always be chosen. But if a clear intention is expressed by an individual, it should not be overidden by the State....regardless of the protestations of well meaning persons.

See my post 126.

There is no written statement. There is only the hearsay word of the husband who has plenty of opportunity for motves that are not in Terri's best health interests.

In addition, if there was a clearly stated intention for no life support, that usually applies to people who are brain dead and not conscious. This is not the case with Terri so killing her is at best assisted suiicide, which is also not legal.

Any casual review of both sides of this case simply reeks with ambiguity regarding Terri's condition and wishes concerning her state ordereed death. Therefore, as you say, life is the only viable and moral choice.

You offered, "If there is abmiguity, life should always be chosen." I for one, and many others at FR would agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. It is because there is a judge who has seen fit to do just the opposite, for reasons none of us have yet devined, that we are so outraged at the execution of Terri Schindler Schiavo. Terri is a severely disabled person, but her response level on a Glascow scale is well above that of comatose or even persistent vegetative state, the condition Michael and his euthanasia attorney, George Felos claim for Terri. In winning a malpractice lawsuit over Terri's disability, Michael and his then attorney calimed she was in persistent vegetative state but also claimed that Michael would require millions to give Terri the necessary rehabilitation she would require. Promptly upon receiving a large settlement, Michael began withholding any thewrapy for Terri and sworn testimony has established that he would ask her caregivers 'when is that bitch going to die?'

[Incidentally, the will to live is a presumption all alive individual human beings are afforded, and it is only the clear statement to the contrary that should be basis for arguing the right to die. By stating your question to Don Joe the way you have, you are arguing that there must be legally established the right to life.]

Sweetie, we are mentally exhausted. Most of us have had very little sleep, and have been posting all the information you are requesting over and over again. The deal is that MS said to the courts, to get his money from the malpractice, that he loved her, would help her, that is what she would want, blah-blah-blah. Then, when he got the money, he suddenly remembered that she actually wanted to die.That's the jist of it. He suddenly remembered that while she was watching a movie or something, she said that she didn't want to be hooked up. But that was to life support, as in completely brain dead, and it is very obvious that he only said that while he was awarded the money.