Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
NoCalMike

The latest twist in the Schiavo case.......

Recommended Posts

Anyone with a qualified level of expertise or knowledge want to explain what that bright spot in the center-right is about, or any other abnormal characteristics of this scan?

Well, for starters, that gaping black space in the middle should not be there, as you can see when comparing it to a normal person's brain scan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Doesn't it make more sense to, in the absence of a living will expressly stating a desire to die, to assume she wants to live?...

Not really, it makes sense to pursue what is least painful.

 

Looking at the current options, I'd say neither. What the hell is the deal with that? If she was a convicted child-rapist, she'd be quietly put away through injection.

 

If my brain was on the verge of collapse and I had sores on my body from well over 10 years of sitting in bed and everything was going decrepit, I'd be insulted if everyone assumed that i was happy like that and wanted to continue. Then again, in her case, she can't even figure out enough to be insulted about it.

 

Her condition is so sad, it's unfortunate that the people trying to keep her there are considered the "saviors" by so many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If my brain was on the verge of collapse and I had sores on my body from well over 10 years of sitting in bed and everything was going decrepit, I'd be insulted if everyone assumed that i was happy like that and wanted to continue.

In the first thirteen years of Terri's bedridden state, nurse's reports show that she did not receive a single bedsore. In fact, one medical staff member called Michael a "nightmare" because of his exacting demands for optimum treatment for Terri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crazy Dan

It is just sad, to be honest. I think the parents don't want to let her go, which is understandable. However, looking at her cat scan and that of a healthy brain, really makes me wonder how anyone could believe that she will ever make a recovery. Sometimes you just don't want to believe anything that might be unpleasant, yet the facts do not indicate any hope. The sad thing is that if Terry is allowed to live, she is just going to deteriate more and more and will only continue to look worse. I am tending to believe her husband when he explained that she would not want to live like vegtable. When you are twenty five, the thought of a living will never comes into your mind, you still have feelings of invincibility and you feel that you will live 60 or more years. I know I never thought of making a living will at that age. I was talking to my wife just today and I told her to pull the plug if I am ever in that state and my wife said the same. So I can believe his story, even if he is every unpleasant word in the dictionary. Since this did happen to her when she was fairly young, we don't have a living will, just one word against another. However, who really thinks that she will make a recovery with her brain having lost over half of its mass? I am not a doctor and I don't play one on tv, but just looking at it one time, I believe that there is not snowball's chance in hell of her ever recovering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Maybe the media and everyone else trying to stick their nose into this should mind their own fucking busines cuz it has nothing to do with them. This is a private matter, not a struggle in political points of view. This should NOT be on the news.

It's only a woman being starved to death despite her family's pleading.

 

Yup, no news there.

 

Again, making terrorists wear women's underwear on their head is torture. A woman starving to death because her husband wants her to shouldn't even be news?

 

Got it.

-=Mike

...Doesn't it make more sense to, in the absence of a living will expressly stating a desire to die, to assume she wants to live?...

No, there is NO NEWS here because it is a PRIVATE matter between the husband and the family. Comparing this case to how we treat detainees is just foolish. Apples and oranges. Got it? Assume nothing.

Actually, this is an 8th Amendment situation, which makes it exceptionally apropos. A woman is being starved to death. The only difference between this and, say, somebody in the depths of Alzheimer's is that the left is all-too-willing to allow her husband to kill her slowly.

No, you can't, because carrying out her wishes isn't a criminal act. We don't force Jehovah's witnesses to use life-support systems; American citizens have no obligation to accept artificial survival. The feeding tube is the only thing keeping her alive. Removing it doesn't violate the doctor's credo of "first do no harm."

You cannot prove his statement, either. I am less than inclined to believe a man who already has a shack-up honey while his wife is hospitalized due to a massive problem.

 

And saying something once does not mean anything. I've said I wanted to try acid once in my past --- it does not mean that I suddenly want somebody to dose me.

 

And it could be noted that the entire case laid out on the FL brief fails to actually prove that she WANTED TO DIE --- which is the only issue at stake here.

 

Since we cannot prove it, then the court is simply violating the 8th Amendment here.

 

If YOU want to die, then make a living will. Otherwise, NOBODY should be making that decision for you.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If my brain was on the verge of collapse and I had sores on my body from well over 10 years of sitting in bed and everything was going decrepit, I'd be insulted if everyone assumed that i was happy like that and wanted to continue. Then again, in her case, she can't even figure out enough to be insulted about it.

 

I would want to live in the same situation so your argument is invalid. I don't have a living will either, so should you kill me even though I don't want to die. That's murder.

 

And if one person thinks that way, another could easily want to live too.

 

However, who really thinks that she will make a recovery with her brain having lost over half of its mass?

 

Just because you won't recover, doesn't mean you want to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Frank_Nabbit

Nurse - Terri Can Eat

Normally, Mike Won't Allow It

"Michael would say 'When is she going to die?'

'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?'

NewsMax

3-20-5

 

 

A certified nursing assistant who cared for Terri Schiavo in 1997 filed a sworn affidavit in the case stating that she was able to feed Schiavo normally on multiple occasions - but that husband Michael Schiavo would only allow a feeding tube.

 

Heidi Law, a CNA at the Palm Gardens nursing home, testified:

 

"At least three times during any shift where I took care of Terri, I made sure to give Terri a wet washcloth filled with ice chips, to keep her mouth moistened. I personally saw her swallow the ice water and never saw her gag.

 

"[Another CNA] and I frequently put orange juice or apple juice in her washcloth to give her something nice to taste, which made her happy. On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely."

 

Law testified that the only reason she didn't attempt to feed Ms. Schiavo more frequently was "because I was so afraid of being caught by Michael."

 

Editorializing on the case in light of Law's account, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette said Sunday: "It is one thing to withdraw a feeding tube; another entirely to withhold that day's meal tray."

 

Carla Sauer Iyer was a registered nurse at the same facility. In her own affidavit Iyer testified that Ms. Schiavo was capable of speech, explaining, "[Terri] spoke on a regular basis, saying such things as 'Mommy' and 'help me.'"

 

When she put a washcloth in Terri's hands to keep her fingers from curling together, Iyer said, "Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy" that he had forbidden.

 

"Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death," the RN noted. "Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If YOU want to die, then make a living will. Otherwise, NOBODY should be making that decision for you.

          -=Mike

Regardless of the fact that this guy is clearly not the most gracious fella in the world, he is still next on the line of who makes the decision, not the parents. When you enter into marriage, you take joint custody of everything, including your health.

 

Even if you don't like the husband, you can't try to make exceptions and circumvent that just for this.

 

Nurse - Terri Can Eat

Normally, Mike Won't Allow It

"Michael would say 'When is she going to die?'

'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?'

NewsMax

 

Haahahahahahhahahaha. Best NewsMax Comedy Of The Year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is no way to know for sure she would want to be allowed to die then I can see the rationale in keeping her alive, but at what point do you take into account her quality of life ? If they keep her around much longer she's liable to sprout mushrooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
If YOU want to die, then make a living will. Otherwise, NOBODY should be making that decision for you.

          -=Mike

Regardless of the fact that this guy is clearly not the most gracious fella in the world, he is still next on the line of who makes the decision, not the parents.

She's not his property. Just because she's incapacitated does not mean Michael owns her. If he pulled out a gun and shot her, he'd still be arrested.

When you enter into marriage, you take joint custody of everything, including your health.

Do you realize how bad a precedent this causes? Do you want to fathom what this line of thinking can lead to?

 

Let's just hope that an unhappy marriage does not have one of the spouses end up incapacitated, because as it stands, it means all the spouse has to do is say that the other one said they wanted to die once.

 

Without providing any actual evidence.

Even if you don't like the husband, you can't try to make exceptions and circumvent that just for this.

This is torture. What is happening to Terri is the most cruel punishment in the history of the US. She is going to be starved to death over the next 2 weeks.

 

This is cruel punishment, no matter how one looks at it. Unless she has a living will, there is no justification in doing this.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
If there is no way to know for sure she would want to be allowed to die then I can see the rationale in keeping her alive, but at what point do you take into account her quality of life ? If they keep her around much longer she's liable to sprout mushrooms.

But who are you, her husband, or anybody to decide she doesn't want to live?

 

If she wanted to die, she should've put it in writing.

 

Her husband's justification for not divorcing her makes little sense.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there is no way to know for sure she would want to be allowed to die then I can see the rationale in keeping her alive, but at what point do you take into account her quality of life ? If they keep her around much longer she's liable to sprout mushrooms.

But who are you, her husband, or anybody to decide she doesn't want to live?

 

If she wanted to die, she should've put it in writing.

 

Her husband's justification for not divorcing her makes little sense.

-=Mike

I'm not saying she doesn't want to live. I'm just saying that at what point do you take into account that quality of life, if you can even call it that, that she has ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
If there is no way to know for sure she would want to be allowed to die then I can see the rationale in keeping her alive, but at what point do you take into account her quality of life ? If they keep her around much longer she's liable to sprout mushrooms.

But who are you, her husband, or anybody to decide she doesn't want to live?

 

If she wanted to die, she should've put it in writing.

 

Her husband's justification for not divorcing her makes little sense.

-=Mike

I'm not saying she doesn't want to live. I'm just saying that at what point do you take into account that quality of life, if you can even call it that, that she has ?

I don't feel anybody has the right to decide that her life is so bad that it's not worth living.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is torture. What is happening to Terri is the most cruel punishment in the history of the US. She is going to be starved to death over the next 2 weeks.

 

This is cruel punishment, no matter how one looks at it. Unless she has a living will, there is no justification in doing this.

-=Mike

Since we've already addressed the question of legal guardianship, I'll move on to this. This isn't "torture" or "cruel punishment" and your declaration of it as so is ridiculous hyperbole. Here's just one of a dozen debunkings of that myth.

 

What happens to patients without feeding tubes

 

Day One: Medical personnel use a simple surgical procedure to remove the percutaneous endoscopic gastrotomy tube, which is placed through the skin and into the stomach. Patients who do not have mental cognition to have a sense of thirst or hunger will not be uncomfortable.

 

Days Three to Four: Urine output decreases and patients begin to lose normal body secretions. The mouth begins to look dry and the eyes appear sunken. Patients will look thinner because the body tissues have lost fluid. Their heart rate gradually goes up, and their blood pressure goes down. In some patients, dehydration releases endorphins in the brain that create a state of euphoria.

 

Days Five to 10: People who are alert have a marked decrease in their alertness. Respiration becomes irregular with periods of very fast and then very slow breathing. Some patients will become restless, while others will be less active. For patients in a persistent vegetative state, there may be no discernible change in their movements.

 

Days 10 until Death: Patients do not appear to respond to their environment at all and may appear to be in a coma. The length of the death process is determined by how well-nourished patients were and how much body fat and fluid they had when the procedure began. There may be outward signs of dehydration, such as extremely dry skin. Kidney function declines, and toxins begin accumulating in the body. Toxins cause respiratory muscles to fail. Multiple organ systems begin to fail from lack of nutrition.

 

She's not going to feel a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
This is torture. What is happening to Terri is the most cruel punishment in the history of the US. She is going to be starved to death over the next 2 weeks.

 

This is cruel punishment, no matter how one looks at it. Unless she has a living will, there is no justification in doing this.

          -=Mike

Since we've already addressed the question of legal guardianship, I'll move on to this. This isn't "torture" or "cruel punishment" and your declaration of it as so is ridiculous hyperbole. Here's just one of a dozen debunkings of that myth.

 

What happens to patients without feeding tubes

 

Day One: Medical personnel use a simple surgical procedure to remove the percutaneous endoscopic gastrotomy tube, which is placed through the skin and into the stomach. Patients who do not have mental cognition to have a sense of thirst or hunger will not be uncomfortable.

 

Days Three to Four: Urine output decreases and patients begin to lose normal body secretions. The mouth begins to look dry and the eyes appear sunken. Patients will look thinner because the body tissues have lost fluid. Their heart rate gradually goes up, and their blood pressure goes down. In some patients, dehydration releases endorphins in the brain that create a state of euphoria.

 

Days Five to 10: People who are alert have a marked decrease in their alertness. Respiration becomes irregular with periods of very fast and then very slow breathing. Some patients will become restless, while others will be less active. For patients in a persistent vegetative state, there may be no discernible change in their movements.

 

Days 10 until Death: Patients do not appear to respond to their environment at all and may appear to be in a coma. The length of the death process is determined by how well-nourished patients were and how much body fat and fluid they had when the procedure began. There may be outward signs of dehydration, such as extremely dry skin. Kidney function declines, and toxins begin accumulating in the body. Toxins cause respiratory muscles to fail. Multiple organ systems begin to fail from lack of nutrition.

 

She's not going to feel a thing.

She is being starved.

 

To death.

 

Slowly.

 

This is a rather clear 8th Amendment issue. We are starving her slowly.

 

Again, if we did this to a criminal, we'd have civil rights suits.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
What is happening to her is the most cruel thing in the history of the US?

 

Shit, I'm too tired to make a Tony Schiavonne joke at this point.

Yes, it is. We've never had a court RULING that somebody should be starved to death that I'm aware of.

 

From Terri's parents former lawyer, the problems with the whole mess:

Terri’s parents have alleged that the law created by Florida courts in Terri’s case violated both Terri’s rights and theirs because:

1. The guardianship court compromised his judicial independence when the he appointed himself, rather than an independent guardian ad litem, to serve as Terri Schiavo’s health care proxy.

2. The Florida courts permitted Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo and his attorney to represent Terri’s interests notwithstanding the Florida courts own admission that his interests were adverse to hers.

3. The Florida courts did not appoint a guardian ad litem for Terri, nor did they provide her with counsel to argue and protect her interests. The result was a situation in which Terri herself had no assistance of counsel in a case in which her life hangs in the balance.

4. The way the Florida courts applied the state’s law and constitution to incapacitated persons with severe cognitive disabilities violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. After Terri’s case, the only persons in the State of Florida who are not entitled to an independent judiciary and effective representation are incapacitated persons who cannot speak for themselves.

5. The state court order under which Terri’s nutrition and hydration is currently being withheld was entered after a proceeding tainted by “structural defects” that call the integrity of the entire fact finding process in to question. As a result, we simply do not know either “what Terri wants” or what her current medical condition actually is.

6. The state court order violates the standards set out in both federal and state precedents that recognize the right to self-determination in health-care decisionmaking. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 280 (1990) and Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4, 12 (Fla.1990). Both of those cases recognize that accuracy, not finality, is essential in any case where a guardian has asked for a judicial decree authorizing the death of the a person with a severe disability such as Terri’s.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She's not his property. Just because she's incapacitated does not mean Michael owns her. If he pulled out a gun and shot her, he'd still be arrested.

Sure, but someone does have the right to request that they be taken off life support. And you could debate the symantics of that term, but since she won't live without machine assistance, it's life support. And in the abscence of any personal statement on the issue, the responsibility moves on to the partner.

 

If you don't trust your partner to make the right decision for your well-being, either make a living will or don't marry them. It's unfortunate for the parents, but that's the way it is.

 

Let's just hope that an unhappy marriage does not have one of the spouses end up incapacitated, because as it stands, it means all the spouse has to do is say that the other one said they wanted to die once.

 

Repeated, for effect: If you don't trust your partner to make the right decision for your well-being, either make a living will or don't marry them.

 

If you don't make the will, then you are trusting your life partner to do what they believe is best for you. It's unfortunate for the parents that they're her closest biological relatives and can't make the decision themselves, but it was her choice to marry this guy.

 

This is torture.

 

I'm not going to argue against that. I hope that this wakes people up and we have a humane way out of life support other than simply turning off the machine and letting the body make it's natural collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't make the will, then you are trusting your life partner to do what they believe is best for you. It's unfortunate for the parents that they're her closest biological relatives and can't make the decision themselves, but it was her choice to marry this guy.

 

And we finally get to an argument that I can listen to. This is actually a good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
She's not his property. Just because she's incapacitated does not mean Michael owns her. If he pulled out a gun and shot her, he'd still be arrested.

Sure, but someone does have the right to request that they be taken off life support.

But she hasn't. That's the entire point. ALL we have is Michael claiming that, at some point, she requested it. We have nothing concrete.

 

And life is pretty damned serious. You don't just ASSUME he's being honest.

And you could debate the symantics of that term, but since she won't live without machine assistance, it's life support. And in the abscence of any personal statement on the issue, the responsibility moves on to the partner.

Life support, historically, involves respiration, dialysis, or a machine that controls heart function.

 

She is on a feeding tube. Which by all definitions up to this point was not considered life support.

If you don't trust your partner to make the right decision for your well-being, either make a living will or don't marry them. It's unfortunate for the parents, but that's the way it is.

So, you're supposed to assume that your partner MIGHT want to see you die? That is a pretty horrible system.

 

If you want to die, you fill out a living will. Otherwise, you can't. Just that simple.

 

Nobody has explained WHY he won't simply allow her parents to take over. He CLEARLY has interests that don't coincide with Terri's --- and that, again, is from the FL Courts.

Let's just hope that an unhappy marriage does not have one of the spouses end up incapacitated, because as it stands, it means all the spouse has to do is say that the other one said they wanted to die once.

Repeated, for effect: If you don't trust your partner to make the right decision for your well-being, either make a living will or don't marry them.

And that's the most fucked-up logic I've read.

 

You're arguing for the ASSUMPTION that she wants to die, not the assumption that she does not.

 

If you want to die, then make a living will. OTHERWISE, it can't be done.

If you don't make the will, then you are trusting your life partner to do what they believe is best for you. It's unfortunate for the parents that they're her closest biological relatives and can't make the decision themselves, but it was her choice to marry this guy.

The guy didn't prove she wanted to die --- and he is NOT her owner. Again, she is not his property.

 

At this rate, a 13th Amendment AND 8th Amendment problem are in effect here.

This is torture.

I'm not going to argue against that. I hope that this wakes people up and we have a humane way out of life support other than simply turning off the machine and letting the body make it's natural collapse.

Do you think euthanasia is a better alternative?

 

No country is better off with euthanasia.

 

That is a Pandora's Box that should NEVER be opened.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
There is a difference between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia.

Euthanasia isn't legal.

 

And it would, at the bare minimum, require the consent of the to-be-euthanized ---- unless you want anarchy.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But she hasn't. That's the entire point. ALL we have is Michael claiming that, at some point, she requested it. We have nothing concrete.

Regardless of whether or not he or anyone else she requested it, the burden should fall on his shoulders as her husband to make the decision, or the next closest family member in the event that he wouldn't want the responsibility, etc.

 

This jumping to conclusions/assumptions stuff isn't acceptable, despite your insistance that it's the only way.

 

Life support, historically, involves respiration, dialysis, or a machine that controls heart function.

 

She is on a feeding tube. Which by all definitions up to this point was not considered life support.

 

As I said, you can argue the symantics, as you did, but the point is that without the machine she would die. She is machine-assisted in order to stay alive.

 

So, you're supposed to assume that your partner MIGHT want to see you die? That is a pretty horrible system.

 

You don't assume anything and that's the point. The point is that the partner is the person who will know best, and barring their participation, the closest bilogical family members that can be found.

 

If you want to die, you fill out a living will. Otherwise, you can't. Just that simple.

 

Of course, we should just automatically go with the conservative right-to-life stance and accept it as the only decent answer and not even give the alternatives a fair shake. Good enough.

 

Nobody has explained WHY he won't simply allow her parents to take over.

 

It was explained on the last page by Slickster.

 

He CLEARLY has interests that don't coincide with Terri's

 

Tough. She married the guy, and as her life partner he has the right to step up to the plate on this issue before her parents do.

 

You're arguing for the ASSUMPTION that she wants to die, not the assumption that she does not.

 

No, I am trusting that someone's life partner knows what that person's best interests are. I mean, considering that they only know each other well enough to have entered into marriage, it doesn't seem that illogical.

 

The guy didn't prove she wanted to die --- and he is NOT her owner. Again, she is not his property.

 

No, it's not property. It's shared responsiblity for one another. If the shoe was on the other foot and his brain decided to check out and she was left with the switch in her hand, it would be the same thing.

 

Do you think euthanasia is a better alternative?

 

I think it shouldn't be outright banned, but it's definitely not for every situation. Still, I don't understand how it's more cruel than letting the body fail on it's own and stop working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
But she hasn't. That's the entire point. ALL we have is Michael claiming that, at some point, she requested it. We have nothing concrete.

Regardless of whether or not he or anyone else she requested it, the burden should fall on his shoulders as her husband to make the decision, or the next closest family member in the event that he wouldn't want the responsibility, etc.

And I feel in THIS case, in the case of life-and-death, nobody should have the power to make that choice. If the victim does not make it clear in the case of surviving thanks to a machine but NOT on life support (this is an exceptionally unusual situation, let's be honest), I do not feel anybody should have the power to, effectively, kill somebody.

This jumping to conclusions/assumptions stuff isn't acceptable, despite your insistance that it's the only way.

The way I look at it is this:

 

What happens if he is LYING?

 

We couldn't possibly bring her back to life.

Life support, historically, involves respiration, dialysis, or a machine that controls heart function.

 

She is on a feeding tube. Which by all definitions up to this point was not considered life support.

As I said, you can argue the symantics, as you did, but the point is that without the machine she would die. She is machine-assisted in order to stay alive.

Her condition is no different than it would be for a premature baby being kept alive on a feeding tube. The child's parents wouldn't be permitted to kill it.

So, you're supposed to assume that your partner MIGHT want to see you die? That is a pretty horrible system.

You don't assume anything and that's the point. The point is that the partner is the person who will know best, and barring their participation, the closest bilogical family members that can be found.

We are, flat-out, assuming. If her parents were saying "Yes, she wanted to die" --- it would be no problem. But they're saying she said she didn't. So, it's her parents v him --- and I don't trust his word over her parents.

 

He wants to be no longer married so he can marry his shack-up.

 

Her parents only interest is HER well-being.

 

If you do not make it clear you wish to die, then the only way anybody should have the authority to make it is with some rather clear and concrete evidence that it was your desire --- such as people with no ties to you agreeing with your assessment.

If you want to die, you fill out a living will. Otherwise, you can't. Just that simple.

Of course, we should just automatically go with the conservative right-to-life stance and accept it as the only decent answer and not even give the alternatives a fair shake. Good enough.

This is life and death. If you kill somebody and they didn't want it, you can't fix the problem.

Nobody has explained WHY he won't simply allow her parents to take over.

It was explained on the last page by Slickster.

His explanation makes no sense. Whatsoever.

He CLEARLY has interests that don't coincide with Terri's

Tough. She married the guy, and as her life partner he has the right to step up to the plate on this issue before her parents do.

Again, she isn't his property.

You're arguing for the ASSUMPTION that she wants to die, not the assumption that she does not.

No, I am trusting that someone's life partner knows what that person's best interests are. I mean, considering that they only know each other well enough to have entered into marriage, it doesn't seem that illogical.

A husband who has been unfaithful is not somebody whose opinion I trust. If Newt Gingrich said that his wife who had cancer wanted to die, I wouldn't have believed him, either.

 

And, honestly, using your logic, spousal abuse isn't THAT bad, since you had to know it was going to happen before you got married in the first place.

The guy didn't prove she wanted to die --- and he is NOT her owner. Again, she is not his property.

No, it's not property. It's shared responsiblity for one another. If the shoe was on the other foot and his brain decided to check out and she was left with the switch in her hand, it would be the same thing.

And if she said "He wanted to die" and could only cite an alleged statement that only her family, who ALSO wants him to die seemed to have heard, I wouldn't believe her, either.

 

Hell, why not be humane and just shoot her?

Do you think euthanasia is a better alternative?

I think it shouldn't be outright banned, but it's definitely not for every situation. Still, I don't understand how it's more cruel than letting the body fail on it's own and stop working.

She's going to starve to death.

 

Not a fun way to go.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Her condition is no different than it would be for a premature baby being kept alive on a feeding tube. The child's parents wouldn't be permitted to kill it.

 

Premature birth is the same as having massive brain damage.

 

I'll keep that in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
Her condition is no different than it would be for a premature baby being kept alive on a feeding tube. The child's parents wouldn't be permitted to kill it.

 

Premature birth is the same as having massive brain damage.

 

I'll keep that in mind.

Incapacitation is incapacitation.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've really turned my back on this case. Starving someone to death just doesn't seem right. Even if the brain does no longer exist in the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×