Brummie,
I think that your first post in this thread brought out some very good points to which I tend to agree. I do not think that it is right for her to be deprived of food and water which will result in her death. She was NOT dying until they pulled the plug on her feeding tube!
I do not think that the 'powers that be' and the news media want to address the potential abuse issues, rather they want to only bring out the 'right-to-die' issues. Needless to say I do not agree with them.
What IF Michael is lying?
What if Terri did not discuss this with him, as he claims?
Why did Michael 'remember' Terri's wishes only after he got the large money award from the courts?
What if HE is responsible for her having that so-called 'heart episode' that fateful night - by choking her?
Would SHE really want him to be her legal gardian if he is the one that did this to her in the first place?
These are all unanswered questions in MY mind.
What if Laci Peterson had been found in the same condition that Terri is in? Do you think that Laci would want Scott to be her legal gardian? After all, Scott tried to play the 'grieving husband' part too, before he got caught.
NewLight2
The brainwashing around the "Schiavo" case...
by Brummie 138 Replies latest jw friends
-
NewLight2
-
fairchild
Starvation? In this day and age? What exactly is this world coming to?
It certainly is not up to me to decide if letting Terri die would be an act of kindness toward her, or a cruel, criminal act, but I do know that starvation is outrageous and inhumane. What are people thinking? I'd be inclined to say, give the guardianship to the parents. After all, Terri is THEIR child. I can not even begin to imagine the sorrow they must be feeling right now. What if Terri is NOT a vegetable? Where is the proof that Terri indeed said that she would not want to live this way?
-
jeanniebeanz
Scott tried to play the 'grieving husband' part too, before he got caught.
So true...
Sadly, we may *never* know the truth here.
J
-
Brummie
Yep too many unanswered questions!
The husband should have moved on long ago and would have had it not been for his religious views on divorce. He'll kill her, but not divorce her.
Interesting obsevation J, ironical!
Brummie
-
rwagoner
Brummie,
I have posted on several other threads on this and similar topics so I don't mean to bore everyone with the same tired...obviously biased as someone with a disability, opinion.
I did want to thank you for adding yet another voice to the topic and giving people yet another means to express their thoughts and feelings by starting this thread.
First those in a "vegetative state"....who next ? The Mentally ill ? The Paralysed ? The Developmentally Disabled ? ME ? It is this slippery slope that scares me the most.
Now I know we'll all say it couldn't..wouldn't happen but it already has in nazi germany and even to an extent here in the good od USA. Below is a quote that shocked the hell out of me when I was told about it...
The American Journal of Psychiatry Published a debate on the "Ethics of Killing Children with Severe Disabilities" in which one individual stated...(emphasis added by me)
"I believe when the defective child will have reached the age of five years - and on the application of his guardians - that the case should be considered under law by a competent medical board; then is should be reviewed twice more at four-month intervals; then, if the board, acting, I repeat, on the applications of the guardian of the child, and after three examinations of the defective who has reached the age of five or more, should decide that that defective has no future or hope of one; then I believe it is a merciful and kindly thing to relieve that defective - often tortured and convulsed, grotesque and absurd, useless and foolish and entirely undesireable - from the agony of living"
As a person with a disability with twisted limbs, constant pain and a very different view of what "living" means than some...this thinking sickens and terrifies me. The idea that professionals could think this to say nothing of actually consider proposing something like this in an open forum is completely beyond me.
I certainly don't know Terri and have mixed emotions about her case specifically and I don't mean to imply that her condition is the same as someone like me who is fairly functional in a wheelchair but my point is that once it starts to be normalized and acceptible then wehre does it end....
-
NewLight2
Terry will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away. - - Michael Schiavo (see quote in context below)
Is not the above quote a classic example of DoubleThink/DoubleSpeak? Kinda reminds me of Bill Clinton's famous 'no sex' remark a few years ago!
Transcript: Michael Schiavo on 'Nightline' - March 15, 2005
BURY: Your wife's family and their supporters have been arguing in the most graphic terms that what you are going to allow happen on Friday, in their words, is in effect condemning your wife to a cruel death by starvation.
I'd like you to address that charge from them.
SCHIAVO: That's one of their soapboxes they've been on for a long time.
Terry will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away. This happens across this country every day.
Death through removing somebody's nutrition is very painless. That has been brought to the courts many of times. Doctors have come in and testified. It is a very painless procedure.
Here is another 'gem' comment made by Michael!
Michael Schiavo on Larry King Live - Mar 22, 2005
"We don't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..."
Michael Schiavo is truely showing signs of being 'brainwashed'!!
NewLight2 -
AshtonCA
Brummie,
Terry's hubby said she told him that if she were ever in a situation like that that he was to pull the plug, that she didn't want to live like that. This is what he is going by. I bet they did have that conversation. My hubby and I both have had it and we both agree that neither one of us wants to live like that. The problem is, many people say it, but they don't go and get the paperwork to back it up, so then the spouse is stuck trying to carry out their wishes without the proper paperwork to back up their story. I and hubby are going to go get living wills written up, just in case we ever find ourselves in this situation.
Ash
-
prophesariah
Brummie,
I think that your first post in this thread brought out some very good points to which I tend to agree. I do not think that it is right for her to be deprived of food and water which will result in her death. She was NOT dying until they pulled the plug on her feeding tube!
I do not think that the 'powers that be' and the news media want to address the potential abuse issues, rather they want to only bring out the 'right-to-die' issues. Needless to say I do not agree with them.
What IF Michael is lying?
What if Terri did not discuss this with him, as he claims?
Why did Michael 'remember' Terri's wishes only after he got the large money award from the courts?
What if HE is responsible for her having that so-called 'heart episode' that fateful night - by choking her?
Would SHE really want him to be her legal guardian if he is the one that did this to her in the first place?
These are all unanswered questions in My mind.This situation is so tragic. I feel for Terri's parents. If they are willing to care for her I do not see why that's a problem. I question Michael's unwillingness to allow this. I also have an issue with his plans for her when it is she dies. Cremation? What is he trying to hide? What is to become of her remains? Will there be a battle over them? Why no gravesite for loved ones to visit?
There are, unfortunately, just so many questions.
-
Been there
I was not sure how I felt about this case earlier. I could see both sides of the issue. I felt like it was a typical custody battle with both sides doing what they had to, to keep the kid, with alot of he said, she said stuff.
I was more confused on my thoughts because Terri was not in a coma. That makes it harder for me because to me "Coma" "Unconcious" is vegitative, she is not vegitative in my mind. I had to try and think hard if I would want to live the way she is living. We would not kill her if she was born that way, why would we do it now? I have still not decided if I would want to live like that but I have decided one thing is for sure.......This is Inhumane, Barbaric, Murder. We are dehydrating & starving a defenceless, living, conscious (to what ever degree) human being, to death. Our most vial criminals on death row have more humane treatment at death then an innocent victim of a tragic (questionable) what ever it was that put her there.
Let her family have her back to treat her and rehabilitate her the best they can. The "Loving Hubby" can go on with life (which he has), the parents get their daughter back, they want her, he doesn't, isn't that simple enough? There is nothing in writing to prove anything and we know our system works on "In Writing". How far would a contested Will or lack there of, get in the courts if some suspect relative said "Uncle Joe told me he wanted me to have all his earthly posessions, and I have a couple people (closest and dearest friends) that heard him say it". If no written will was found, I don't think it would get very far.
Terri.....I am sorry and ashamed of us that your life has come to this.
-
rebel8
Whatever opinions people have are fine with me. Just a few thoughts though.
2nd, she is "Vegetative", this terminology is used to seperate her from us humans, only by accepting this will people think its ok to kill her. She is a vegetable, she is not a person!
This is not accurate. People very often misunderstand medical terminology, and this is a primary example. Taber?s Medical Dictionary defines ?vegetative? as ?functioning involuntarily?. It is a valid medical word and has absolutely nothing to do with dehumanizing her.
(Think of the term ?plastic surgery?. Many people mistakenly think that this term means surgery involving implantation of a plastic material. In medical terms, plastic means repair.)
Regardless of the state of this woman?s brain, it is her right to die in peace. People choose to decline life support, nutrition, and hydration every day in every hospital, and this has been going on for eons. They do so when they are conscious, too. A person need not be unconscious to have any of this care withheld. It is their choice to make.
Please watch CNN to listen to an expert speak about the ?starvation?. To a layperson it sounds barbaric, but it actually is not.
Terri chose to allow her husband to made medical decisions for her when she failed to put anything to the contrary in writing. That was her choice, and she had a right to make it. She knew she had a very dangerous medical condition that could result in this situation, too. It?s not as if this situation was sudden or an accident. The failure to put anything in writing defers decision-making to the spouse. It?s the same situation as a wife not executing a will; everything is inherited by the husband unless a will states otherwise. Choosing not to act is a choice; IMO it's terrible to disregard that choice.
I hope no one ever overrides my wishes or my husband?s ability to enforce my wishes. If there are suspicions as to his behavior, then I hope they are investigated. However, I wonder why this is still an issue after 15 years.
It is not uncommon for family members to disagree, but legally it is the spouse?s decision to make. Like I said, this scenario plays out every day in hospitals all over the country. It is far from being an unusual situation. I fear the politicians are jumping on this case because they can get free publicity on it.
The article BigTex posted is rational and gives some insight into the facts of the matter. A layperson could easily be tricked into believing that the facial ?expressions? they are seeing is evidence of life instead of reflexes. I fear that is what?s happening.
If these people are lying about this woman talking this morning, they are truly evil.