Replies

The revolution and desegregation were about respecting individuals' rights, just like I am doing now. Vigilanteism to deny a woman her right is NOT in line with those causes you cited.

If through due process it was determined that Mrs. Schiavo wanted pointless maintenance of her body in such a state, then I would be with you....but due process showed that she was NOT in favor of it. I am not in favor of slecting parental authority over spousal, either, though this is really a matter of the court decisions, not the guardianship.

Terri would not have done so either.

You have me at a disadvantage. I have never met the woman and didn't know her prior to her collapse. I couldn't say any better than Mr. Schiavo what she would have done or not done. I know that some of my preferences are not currently legal (e.g., I'd rather have a big shot of morphine than to have people wait for me to dessicate), so you can't judge them based on current law.

I find it fascinating that you can speak to her preferences and have her on a first-name basis. Did you talk with her about irrecoverable states and end care, or are you just interpreting this from knowing her?

I am not in favor of slecting parental authority over spousal, either,

Well, it's good to know that you belive in the so-called "sanctity of marriage." It has been the Schindlers who have demonstrated love to those with eyes to see -- it has not been the "Schiavos."

but due process showed that she was NOT in favor of it.

You ignore logic. It wasn't until 97 that Schiavo "remembered" his "wifes" wish to die. How convenient for him that the other 2 witnesses to her "wishes" were also named Schiavo. Where were they during the malpractice trial? Why didn't they cry about Terri's wish to die then? They forgot too?

And you aren't paying attention to law. It was ILLEGAL to deny hydration and nutrition in 1990. NO ONE would have had it in a living will or expressed a desire to dehydrate to death. It was unthinkable. Food, by whatever means would be used, was normal care.

determined that Mrs. Schiavo wanted pointless maintenance of her body in such a state,

You ignore Dr Cheshires' findings and Atty Barbara Wellers statements. What if they are correct and she's not just a body? This woman did not get due process. She got ONE judge who decided what was admissable evidence and what was not.

Terri has never had an MRI or PET. Only a CAT and that was years ago. The court would not allow any new testing. I wonder why.

I find it fascinating that you can speak to her preferences and have her on a first-name basis. Did you talk with her about irrecoverable states and end care, or are you just interpreting this from knowing her?

Again insults and sarcasm. Debate honestly or don't respond.