Theresa Schiavo

[xtrasyn]

We all heard about this, right? If not, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4367201.stm
or http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/20/schiavo/index.html (indie news had not much to say about this)

So, in my opinion she has no quality of life whatsoever, so death is a valid option. But the unbelievable thing is that a senate that condones bombing countries came to special meetings on saturday to ´save her god given life´.

What is yours?

[Phalon]

If it were me in that situation i'd want to die, so i'm all for letting her go if there's no hope of recovery (which there clearly isn't after 15 years).

With regard to the bombing and whatnot: We all know the US government make 'decisions' based on what will gain them more support at home and they have decided accordingly here again.

[Stew]

Of course she should be allowed to die, it was her wish after all. Everyone else is just being selfish.

But nothing in this saga has surprised me at all, the next step has always been predictable.

[wu_trax]

the problem is that she can't decide on her own, can she? if someone has a terminal that means a long and suffering death and that person can still decide on its own then there is no problem. but with this, i don't know. the big problem with modern medicine is that it prolongs live, even if its no longer worth it.

PS i dont know the details of the whole case, because i don't really care

[xtrasyn]

The problem really is that the separation between the three constitutional forces really means nothing to nobody overthere.

Apart from that, I think the husband has enough legal rights to ask this simple thing to be done. He is the one paying for the treatment I think (normally the husband would be the one who handles the insurance things, not the parents etc.)

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Stew

Of course she should be allowed to die, it was her wish after all.

Well that is what is in dispute. Terri didn't leave a living will so her wishes are not at all clear. All we have are her estranged husband's claim that she wouldn't have wanted to live in such a condition. However, her parent's claim she never expressed such a wish to them, nor do they believe she would have.

Originally Posted by xtrasyn

Apart from that, I think the husband has enough legal rights to ask this simple thing to be done. He is the one paying for the treatment I think (normally the husband would be the one who handles the insurance things, not the parents etc.)

The parents have offered to pay for her medical care, so that's not an issue.

[xtrasyn]

I don´t know but what I´ve seen from the parents, I think they would have been as cool with her opinion about that as they would have been with her being gay.

The paying indeed is not really an issue.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by xtrasyn

I don´t know but what I´ve seen from the parents, I think they would have been as cool with her opinion about that as they would have been with her being gay.

The paying indeed is not really an issue.

if she was gay, her parents would have yanked the tube out themselves.

[All Systems Go]

I think either way this case goes the outcome is abysmal. Either she lives in a vegetative state wasting away with no dignity. If she is allowed to die the fact it is by removing her feeding tube is sickening. Basically just allowing her to starve to death wen a lethal injection would be a much more humane situation.

[Radical Edward]

allowing what to starve to death? she's essentially brain dead anyway.

[All Systems Go]

Apparently its going to take her 2 weeks to die using this method. that is not a pleasant or dignified way to die, whether you are aware of it or not.

[Phalon]

If your higher brain functions had got on the train to timbuktoo, i'm not sure concepts such as 'dignity' and 'pleasant' would worry you all that much.

[xtrasyn]

Starvation is not such a bad way to die. Really. I count it among the better ways to die. And so do doctors.

(ofcourse living in starvation is pure hell, when you are aware of it)

[All Systems Go]

talking from a ersonal perspective I would not want to live live a vegatable. I would want to die. I do not consider starving to death either plesant or full of dignity. Even if I was totally unaware of my situation I do not like the idea of lving or dying in those ways.

[NEWSBOT3]

I don't think a government should interfere in the way it has.

They've effectively said 'well, we disagree with the judge on this one, so instead of accepting that he's probably had a lot more information about the case and accepting his decision, we are going to draft laws to make the way we want happen'.

which i think is a bit shit.

[All Systems Go]

It's the Bush Administration, they pretty much do whatever the **** they want.

[Banned]

She's on my deadpool (may be nws), so I'm sort of hoping they don't put her back on the life support.

A miracle would be cool, but realistically there's no difference if she dies now or in 50 years.

[Vaio]

The US government is more concerned about keeping a brain dead woman alive than their own soldiers in Iraq ? Surely not.

~Vaio~

[JonnyBGood]

Generally I support the "right to die". Assuming her husband is her legal guardian in the absence of an expressed wish to "live" in such a state if she found herself in one I see no reason to prevent him taking the action he thinks is appropriate. Obviously I'm not aware of all the intricacies of this case but there'd need to be some fairly important extentuating circumstances.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Generally I support the "right to die". Assuming her husband is her legal guardian in the absence of an expressed wish to "live" in such a state if she found herself in one I see no reason to prevent him taking the action he thinks is appropriate. Obviously I'm not aware of all the intricacies of this case but there'd need to be some fairly important extentuating circumstances.

he is.

her parents keep taking it to court and losing.

politicians are twats and interfere without knowing all the facts.

business as usual for them i suppose.

[JonnyBGood]

Ah but the state does many good things like fighting unnecessary wars and beating up black people so I suppose it balances out.

[Kurashima]

You cant put GRAVY on your vegetables.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

You cant put GRAVY on your vegetables.

School dinnerladies do

~Vaio~

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Generally I support the "right to die". Assuming her husband is her legal guardian in the absence of an expressed wish to "live" in such a state if she found herself in one

Any "right to die" in this case is Terri Schiavo's--since she's the one who'll be doing the dying. The legal and moral presumption is (and arguably must be) that people want to live. If Terri Schiavo had left a Living Will spelling out the situations in which she did not want to live, then that would be one thing. However, she did not. In the absence of her explicit wishes, we only have her family's representations of what she wanted or would have wanted--and they disagree.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Vaio

School dinnerladies do

~Vaio~

Only in special needs schools.

[Knight Theamion]

Originally Posted by Phalon

If your higher brain functions had got on the train to timbuktoo, i'm not sure concepts such as 'dignity' and 'pleasant' would worry you all that much.

[Sarina_Joy]

What I will never understand is why people harp on about 'playing God' by letting someone die as if artificially sustaining life is not just another way of playing God.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Sarina_Joy

What I will never understand is why people harp on about 'playing God' by letting someone die as if artificially sustaining life is not just another way of playing God.

Same thing as people in concrete* houses with electricity complaining that their food "isn't natural".

*glass

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Any "right to die" in this case is Terri Schiavo's--since she's the one who'll be doing the dying. The legal and moral presumption is (and arguably must be) that people want to live. If Terri Schiavo had left a Living Will spelling out the situations in which she did not want to live, then that would be one thing. However, she did not. In the absence of her explicit wishes, we only have her family's representations of what she wanted or would have wanted--and they disagree.

Surely her husband, as her legal guardian, should have "higher authority" in this case than her family.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Surely her husband, as her legal guardian, should have "higher authority" in this case than her family.

Under Florida law it is the court which ultimately decided to pull the plug on Terri Schiavo (in response to a petition filed by her husband). They were required to hear arguments from anyone with relevant information in order to determine exactly what her condition was and to try to determine what Terri would have wanted. The personal preferences of her husband and parents have no real bearing. If their roles had been reversed with the husband arguing that Terri would have wanted to live and her parents arguing that Terri would have wanted to die the court might well have reached the same conclusion.

[JonnyBGood]

I was saying that surely her husband knows her mind better (as her legal guardian and husband) than her family rather than something about who gets to decide according to their personal preferences. I don't really see where the problem arised unless there was disagreement over whether or not he in fact was her legal guardian.

[Knight Theamion]

It would be 'humor-noir' if the judge would end his ruling with something along the lines of



'(....) and with that, pull the plug and put the bitch out of her misery.'

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I was saying that surely her husband knows her mind better (as her legal guardian and husband) than her family

As her husband that's quite probable--but the court wouldn't automatically assume that. As her legal guardian, no. He only became her legal guardian after her heart attack which left her in her present state. Presumably, she hasn't been sharing her preferences with him--or anyone else--since that time.

I don't really see where the problem arised unless there was disagreement over whether or not he in fact was her legal guardian.

His legal guardianship isn't really relevant. The problem arose because the family was not (it's now been 15 years) able to reach an agreement. In most cases the parents would have given in or the husband would have washed his hands of the mess and walked away. Both sides seem terminally stubborn, which is why it's ended up in the courts. :/

[Stew]

How did her 'husband' get remarried?
How did she sign the divorce papers?!

[JonnyBGood]

Yeah but there's some tacit acknowledgement by her that he is acceptable as her legal guardian if she didn't express a wish to the contrary. This is really some mindlessly pedantic disagreement over the extent to which her husband knows her mind better than her family and vice versa, and why it's taken the courts this long to decide which does.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Stew

How did her 'husband' get remarried?
How did she sign the divorce papers?!

he smeared her hand in ink then pressed in onto the papers, obviously

[xtrasyn]

Iff I heard right this morning, a judge ruled to pull the plug. AGAIN.

Now, I so hope the parents (and that terrible, terrible brother) will leave it be and move on wich is what they should do. They should have if she had died 15 years ago.

[Sarina_Joy]

You're right.

[wu_trax]

i heared they appeal again at some other court.

[xtrasyn]

That would not amaze me at all. The presidential action made them feel they are right in some way, so now it will rise to even bigger proportions.

[Yahwe]

they did appeal.

they lost that to.

see how it takes lawyers to put things right?

[Dante Hicks]

If she really is brain dead then who cares if she's kept alive?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Stew

How did her 'husband' get remarried?

It's a 'common law'* marriage.













* Non-existant.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If she really is brain dead then who cares if she's kept alive?

President Bush and the God Squad one imagines.

Actually there's a great cartoon in an Irish newspaper which has Bush giving his speech on theresa schiavo in which he says "In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favour of life".



And underneath is written "meanwhile in Red Lake High School, Minnesota...".

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

President Bush and the God Squad one imagines.

Well yeah I more meant who cares about wanting her to die?

Most cases like this I get really annoyed about people being denied the right to die. But if she's brain dead then she's already dead for all intents and purposes. There's no pain, no humiliation, nothing. Hell, once my brain had dead they can keep my heart beating for centuries to come and play with my corpse if they want ("they" being the local weirdos).

(Note : I haven't read much about this case so she may not be brain dead so feel free to correct).

[JonnyBGood]

Reading bbcnews reports it seems she's just brain-damaged and has been in a vegetative state for 15 years.

[Yahwe]

the parents keep telling people she 'responds to them'

this has not been supported by medical science.

hence the original judge, the next judge and the judges of the appeal court all ruling she should be allowed to die.

[roadrunner_0]

basically, her parents are a pair of god bothering bastards who want the shrivelled husk of their daughter to live on even though she will never get any better unless there is some kind of god given miracle (now, bearing in mind i dont believe in god you can see that im not really going to be with them on this one)

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Hell, once my brain had dead they can keep my heart beating for centuries to come and play with my corpse if they want ("they" being the local weirdos).

I trust you have that in your living will?

[I am Idler]

I especially like the argument from the christians that "No one has the right to decide who lives or dies".

But excuse me, isnt she hooked up on a machine that keeps her alive. Thats a choice, is it not ?