Libs calling it a "right to die" case

[DesertFox]

Link (http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050322/2005-03-22T002434Z_01_L21552842_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-SCHIAVO-DC.html)

TAMPA, Fla. (Reuters) - A judge weighed the fate of a brain-damaged Florida woman on Monday, taking on the emotionally charged right-to-die case hours after the U.S. Congress and President Bush intervened to push it into federal court.

[Melz]

ahhh everyone has a right to die. Handicapped women. Innocent babies. Everyone has that right!

The compassionate party gets to decide who has a right to live and who has a right to die. And when given that power and those choices, they show themselves for the true darwinists that they are.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

This judge is now complicit in the murder of Terri Schiavo.

Woe to those who will have to stand accountable before the Lord for committing this woman to a merciless, painful, inhumane death. This is indeed a sad, sad day.

[Suzie]

Is there some kind of form I can fill out for the right to smack the death mongers in the back of the head? If so where do I sign up? http://www.discussionforums.us/forum/images/smilie/fache.gif (http://www.discussionforums.us/forum/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1#)

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Yes, I am losing hope for mankind too. It saddens me that some (who should know better) don't see what is really going on here.

[Rink]

If you people want to know whats in store for America and the world, just take a look at the smaller version of this 65 years ago.

Hitler did the very same thing to Germany and Europe, he embraced the idea and philosophy of Eugenics, as in those days Eugenics was a popular idea amongst the educated elites, and that is why the educated elites of 'Enlightened Germany' willingly went right along with Hitler in what he wanted to do concerning Eugenics and Euthanasia.

This is no different, the only thing thats changed is the fact that it has taken 60+ years for Eugenics to become popular again in the educated elites of today to embrace and implement again willingly.

This has been a slower creep than what Hitler did in his day as well.

And it is more insidiously global than national anymore.

Take a look around you and read the signs of the times.

One thing to keep in mind, this may be depressing as people may think all is lost for this nation.

Yes it may be for this nation but NOT for the Individuals within this nation.

Now I know why God has been tugging so hard on my heart for, he wishes to protect and keep those he loves close to him.

All we can do is continue the good fight the best we can and pray for a miracle in this case and if not keep praying for this nation and find a more closer relationship between ourselves and God, as thats our best hope right now.

[Golgo 13]

"I'd expect any of you to do the same for me."

- Lieutenant Jean Rasczak, Starship Troopers

[whipple]

I don't get it. What's the big deal? This person isn't going to get better and is dying of natural causes. Keeping them alive makes no difference to the eventual outcome. Death is as much a part of life as anything and will come to us all in the end. It has nothing to do with the right to live or the right to die for that matter. There is no such thing as a 'right' to live.

If you believe in God then why can't you see that God obviously wants to take this person back? Keeping them alive isn't Gods will.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I don't get it. What's the big deal? This person isn't going to get better and is dying of natural causes. Keeping them alive makes no difference to the eventual outcome. Death is as much a part of life as anything and will come to us all in the end. It has nothing to do with the right to live or the right to die for that matter. There is no such thing as a 'right' to live.

If you believe in God then why can't you see that God obviously wants to take this person back? Keeping them alive isn't Gods will.

whipple,

1. She is NOT dead. She is alive -- by all standards and measures. Her lungs function on their own -- she breathes. Her heart functions on its own -- a heartbeat. Her bowels and kidneys function on their own -- she has bowel movements and urinates. Being alive has NOTHING to do with quality of life.

Terri is disabled. She is not living a life you or I would want to live, but she IS alive. Our Consititution is supposed to uphold the rights of the weak, infirmed, disabled, and helpless.

2. The only thing she "needs" to live is food and water -- that is NOT life support. We ALL need food and water.

3. In THIS COUNTRY we have an unalienable right to life -- it can be read no other way -- in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. Unalienable means non-transferable, cannot be revoked, cancelled, or eliminated.

4. The right to life is NOT about quality of life. We are not guaranteed a quality of life. It doesn't matter that YOU would not want to live that way, or I would not want to live that way. This country should not make a distinction regarding one's "quality of life" as a REASON for life, or reason for ending it.

5. Terri did NOT have a living will. Barring written instructions from HER, this case should have ended immediately. The husband and "witnesses" (HIS brother and sister-in-law) have a conflict of interest, and his obligation as her guardian should be revoked on this basis ALONE.

6. If God were "calling her home," food and water would make no difference, she would be gone already. Hunger and dehydration are NOT natural causes. Her husband has withheld every other medical intervention, and she still will not die. THIS is why he must kill her. If she was "dying of natural causes", food and water couldn't stop it.


You do not live here. You have no vested interest in this inssue in OUR country. This is a VERY heated subject, and you are ONLY posting to fan a flame. Please, I am asking you, as kindly as I can, stay out of this and move on to other threads. You offer nothing to either cause. Can you not recognize this is a deep, emotional issue, and should not be made light of? Again, I ask you please, just keep comments like the ones above to yourself.

[DesertFox]

If that's the case, Whipple, then you won't mind if we go ahead and starve you to death. I mean, you're gonna die someday anyway, keeping you alive will make no difference to the eventual outcome (your death), and you have no "right" to live.

:rolleyes:

[whipple]

If that's the case, Whipple, then you won't mind if we go ahead and starve you to death. I mean, you're gonna die someday anyway, keeping you alive will make no difference to the eventual outcome (your death), and you have no "right" to live.
:rolleyes:

Here's a scoop for you, I can feed myself. She can't. In the natural order of things I will continue to live and she will starve, the 'right' to live is irrelavant.

Homes, I did not mean to offend and will try not to make light of the situation.

[ILikeIke]

Here's a scoop for you, I can feed myself. She can't. In the natural order of things I will continue to live and she will starve, the 'right' to live is irrelavant.

Homes, I did not mean to offend and will try not to make light of the situation.

:duh:

No, here's the scoop, "whippie:"

Are you hunting your own food? Are you farming it?

If not, you aren't "feeding yourself." You are probably dependent on truck drivers and stock boys to bring it to your local grocery outlet.

So, desertFox's point still applies. How about we get the police to blockade attempts of the stock boys and truck drivers to bring food to you, as the police did in the case of Gritz and Shiavo?

Are you actually real? Do people actually exist who think in such a shallow manner?

[DesertFox]

Here's a scoop for YOU, whipple. Babies can't feed themselves. Many, MANY sick people can't feed themselves. Many, MANY injured people can't feed themselves. In the natural order of things they would all starve.

If there is no "right to life," as you aver, then the entire underpinning of Western civilization is gone. You might want think that one thru again.

[whipple]

Here's a scoop for YOU, whipple. Babies can't feed themselves. Many, MANY sick people can't feed themselves. Many, MANY injured people can't feed themselves. In the natural order of things they would all starve.

If there is no "right to life," as you aver, then the entire underpinning of Western civilization is gone. You might want think that one thru again.

This is hilarious coming from the same group of people who think social welfare is robbing them of their hard earned money. You can't have it everyway you know.

[Kathy29]

Come on. Get real. There is a right to die, there is no right to life.

This is the way it's going. Can't you all see that. As ugly and gruesome and grotesque as it is there is a liberal/populist concept that right to life is an unwelcome and Christian ideal, but the right to die is actively sought. More than that, the right to die is fast becoming an obligation to die as soon as you become a useless eater.

The way this is going down, legally, should strike fear into the hearts of every single person in the nation.

[DesertFox]

This is hilarious coming from the same group of people who think social welfare is robbing them of their hard earned money. You can't have it everyway you know. You may not have noticed, whipple, but that wasn't from some "group." I personally posted it. I am not a group; I am one.

You have your principles confused. Social welfare IS thievery because it robs ME of MY right-to-life -- the fruits of my own labors.

You might wanna study John Locke and get a handle on what the Enlightment was all about. It astounds me that the British, who gave the world so much, have fallen so low by turning their back on all that they taught the world.

[whipple]

You may not have noticed, whipple, but that wasn't from some "group." I personally posted it. I am not a group; I am one.

You have your principles confused. Social welfare IS thievery because it robs ME of MY right-to-life -- the fruits of my own labors.

You might wanna study John Locke and get a handle on what the Enlightment was all about. It astounds me that the British, who gave the world so much, have fallen so low by turning their back on all that they taught the world.

Okay, so who is funding this persons right to life?

[DesertFox]

The taxpayers. Not at my behest, I assure you.

America, like every other country in the world, has its priorities screwed up and its principles submerged under mountains of expedients. That the world is inconsistent, ignorant of history and socially self-mutilating doesn't mean I am.

[whipple]

:duh:

No, here's the scoop, "whippie:"

Are you hunting your own food? Are you farming it?

If not, you aren't "feeding yourself." You are probably dependent on truck drivers and stock boys to bring it to your local grocery outlet.

So, desertFox's point still applies. How about we get the police to blockade attempts of the stock boys and truck drivers to bring food to you, as the police did in the case of Gritz and Shiavo?

Are you actually real? Do people actually exist who think in such a shallow manner?

Another scoop? Vanilla flavour for you? Since I am fully capable of 'hunting' and 'farming' I am only dependant on truck drivers and stock boys out of convenience. So no the Fox's (or should that be foxes) point doesn't apply. Again, unless it's a full scale military embargo I think it's unlikely that you will be able to starve me so it's a moot point.

People like me must exist or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

[whipple]

The taxpayers. Not at my behest, I assure you.

America, like every other country in the world, has its priorities screwed up and its principles submerged under mountains of expedients. That the world is inconsistent, ignorant of history and socially self-mutilating doesn't mean I am.

So lets get this straight.

You are pro keeping this person alive but anti paying for it? I think it is you who has his principles confused.

[uncommon1]

Come on. Get real. There is a right to die, there is no right to life.

This is the way it's going. Can't you all see that. As ugly and gruesome and grotesque as it is there is a liberal/populist concept that right to life is an unwelcome and Christian ideal, but the right to die is actively sought. More than that, the right to die is fast becoming an obligation to die as soon as you become a useless eater.

The way this is going down, legally, should strike fear into the hearts of every single person in the nation.

The right to terminate life was part of Hillary care back in 1993. I think that the Rats have decided that the way to save Social Secuirty is to kill those who are on it. It's a very simple solution. Once you reach retirement age, you will die.

Additionally, Terry has still not received HER day in court. They can't sentence her to death without due process. It's in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. What happened to equal protection?

[ILikeIke]

People like me must exist or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

Yet another statement that isn't thought out at all.

I don't see your name anywhere. You could be anyone posing as anything. It happens all of the time on discussion forums. There are even little attempts at "turing machines" that think their posts through even better than you do, by the looks of things.

In fact, I'm going start assuming that you don't exist as a discrete human being, and end this "conversation" between us. I would learn more by talking to a turing machine, I believe.

[MichaelS]

The right to terminate life was part of Hillary care back in 1993. I think that the Rats have decided that the way to save Social Secuirty is to kill those who are on it. It's a very simple solution. Once you reach retirement age, you will die.

Additionally, Terry has still not received HER day in court. They can't sentence her to death without due process. It's in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. What happened to equal protection?

You mean the Hillary care back in 1993 that produced the Patient Self-Determination Acts of 1989 and 1990?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

So lets get this straight.

You are pro keeping this person alive but anti paying for it? I think it is you who has his principles confused.

With all apologies to DesertFox if he doesn't mind, I'd like to answer your question. We, I should say I (don't want to speak for others) do not agree with government (i.e. taxpayers) paying Terri's bills BECAUSE Michael Schiavo -- her husband, her legal guardian -- is the executor of her MEDICAL trust that was/is supposed to be used for her care and maintenance. This man is stealing money from this account, and refusing care for his WIFE (you know, the woman they are killing, not the one he is living with and fathered two children with WHILE still legally married to his WIFE). He stands to retain all of this money after she dies. This is a BIG red flag in this case -- he has refused care for his WIFE, i.e. he's not doling out any of the money set aside for her care, FOR HER CARE -- he's pocketing it! IF, and that's a BIG IF, he's not, let him disclose financial records proving it untrue.


I would, now, like to ask you a question:

Define what it means to be "alive", to have "life". But there's a condition -- do so WITHOUT referring to quality of life. Just the biological fact of being alive, what does it mean?

[jag]

If you believe in God then why can't you see that God obviously wants to take this person back? Keeping them alive isn't Gods will.


We feed babies we can feed the helpless.

[Warlady]

whipple this issue does not concern you. I would appreciate it if you would take your foreign opinions to another website. This is an American issue and we do not need or want your input. Thankyou.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Whipple, while we enjoy debating with you on other topics, it isn't pleasant to debate with someone who hasn't been following this particular issue as closely as many of us have. This also isn't the appropriate thread to get into a debate over social welfare.

[Kathy29]

Michael Shiavo won a 2 1/2 mllion dollar settlement in a medical malpractice case to be used for his wife's care and rehabilitation for her lifetime.

Immediately after receiving the money, he asked Judge Greer (same judge who ruled she should die) to preserve the settlement by putting Terri on medicaid. Mr. Schiavo also stopped all medical care and rehabilitation. He refused routine treatment for infections and even denied her toothbrushing or dental care.

What Michael Schiavo did with the settlement money is obvious. He purchased a Mercedes Benz for himself and his girlfriend, a beautiful home for his new family and spend much of it on the right to legally kill his wife.

[Golgo 13]

Which part of "persistant vegetative state" did you guys miss, because that much was pretty clear to me.

Terri is dead. She died awhole ago. Now all they're doing is debating on what to do with her vegetative body.

It's clear to anyone who knows what they are talking about, neurologists and such, that she is never coming back and all her movements are autonomous reflex motor actions.

All the parts of her brain that hold the characteristics of personhood are dead. There is nothing to salvage here.

Move along folks, nothing more to see here.

[Rink]

And you Golgo are a willful fool to believe in ONLY One side of the story.

When time and time again there's been countless neurologists have stated she is NOT in a PVC state she is not brain dead she is not in a coma, one is a Nobel laureate yet they're all ignored for the hand-picked 'doctors' that Michael schiavo wants everyone to hear alone.

Yer a willfully blind ignorant fool to believe in one side only.

[Golgo 13]

I tell you what. All the courts have to do is get a panel of independent neurologists to each give their own personal evaluations. If there is a concensus that she is in a PVS, then she should be treated as such, and if not, then they should treat her accordingly.

I haven't seen anything that would indicate that she is capable of consciousness or conscious thought.

Yer a willfully blind ignorant fool to believe in one side only.

And which side do you subscribe to?

[Rink]

I'm on the side of giving Life a chance, what other side would you think?

Gee learn ta read kay?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Which part of "persistant vegetative state" did you guys miss, because that much was pretty clear to me.

Terri is dead. She died awhole ago. Now all they're doing is debating on what to do with her vegetative body.

It's clear to anyone who knows what they are talking about, neurologists and such, that she is never coming back and all her movements are autonomous reflex motor actions.

All the parts of her brain that hold the characteristics of personhood are dead. There is nothing to salvage here.

Move along, nothing more to see here, folks.

What part of ALIVE don't YOU understand???

She breathes on her own. Her heart beats on its own. She defecates and urinates on her own. She has sleep and wake cycles. She responds to some stimuli -- granted it's limited, and sporadic, but it DOES happen and cannot be ignored, overlooked, or swept under the rug. She has limited swallowing ability (which suggests that she MIGHT be able to swallow food and water if given rehabilitation).

The ONLY thing Terri needs is food and water, as does every living breathing human being on this planet. She is NO different than any other disabled person struggling with their own limitations. She has two loving parents who WANT to and are WILLING to take care of her for the rest of her natural life. Why shouldn't they be allowed to?

If she is NOT alive, I want to know what YOUR definition of alive IS. And you can leave out ANY reference to "quality of life," as that is NOT relelvant. I want to know the biological definition of LIFE (from you). In this country, in America, we are granted by our Creator an unalienable right to life (not QUANTITY or QUALITY of life) -- that means it's non-transferable, cannot be revoked, terminated, or infringed upon. That these judges cannot even correctly interpret LAW, is devastatingly terrifying for the rest of this nation.

There's nothing more on THIS THREAD for you . . . move along, you are not wanted or needed here.

[Golgo 13]

http://img199.exs.cx/img199/5042/schiavoctscan9jr.jpg

Looks like nobody's home to me.

Anyways, yeah. That's no way to live.


And you can leave out ANY reference to "quality of life," as that is NOT relelvant. I want to know the biological definition of LIFE (from you). In this country, in America, we are granted by our Creator an unalienable right to life (not QUANTITY or QUALITY of life) -- that means it's non-transferable, cannot be revoked, terminated, or infringed upon.


I'm reminded of Joe in the novel "Johnny got his Gun".

A little background for anyone who has not read it. Joe (the main character) is bady injured during WW1. He has no eyes, no leg or arms, no mouth and no ears. This leaves him as what he describes as "A dead piece of meat with a brain.". This leaves him with a view of "speaking for the dead".

He is in a completely sensory-deprived hell. He is in a fate worse than death.

The KGB experimented with sensory deprivation during the cold war. They drugged the person then slicked their body with oil, put them in a wetsuit and attached vital monitors, a breathing apparatus and IV lines to keep the body nourished. Then they used a device to kill their own voice by inverting the waves of the noise which effectively mutes it. After this they submerged them in a large tank and killed the lights. The person then woke in the tank, without feeling, hearing, touch, sight or smell. They discovered that within 48 hours,( and often as little as 11) the person would suffer extreme hyperventilation and fear causing a nervous breakdown of a massive magnitude.

Now if someone were in a totally sensory deprived state like Joe from the novel, or the person in the Metallica song "One" that stepped on a mine and was plunged into this black void of sensory depravation, they would still be alive.

Do you mean to tell me that if someone were like that, that we should maintain that state? We should proactively become engaged in keeping people in the same position as those KGB torture victims?

If you were put into such a state, would you want to continue going on? You can't feel, taste, see, touch, smell, or hear. You are just stuck in an existential black void for as long as your body holds out, which may be for several decades.

I can tell you for a fact that if anyone were to be put into that state, they would beg for the sweet merciful release that can only be had by death's embrace.

There are points when life no longer makes sense to continue on. When we put down animals that are suffering, we say that it is acting humanely and is the humane thing to do. Shouldn't we be no less humane to our fellow human beings?

[DesertFox]

I'm not persuaded she's a veggie, Golgo. Were I thus persuaded, I'd withdraw my concern.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Now if someone were in a totally sensory deprives state, they would still be alive. Do you mean to tell me that if someone were like that, that we should maintain that state?" --Golgo 13


You mean like Christopher Reeve? Oh, I forgot. He was able to jack his jaws to expound upon the virtues of using murdered baby parts to help crippled people to walk again.

[Golgo 13]

Christopher Reeve and Stephen Hawking are not totally sensory deprived, they are just paralyzed. Big difference there.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Looks like nobody's home to me.

Doesn't matter what it looks like to you, it's not about YOU.


Anyways, yeah. That's no way to live.

YOU may think so, I may think so, and anybody ELSE may think so -- none of which negates HER RIGHT to life.


I'm reminded of Joe in the novel "Johnny got his Gun".

A little background for anyone who has not read it. Joe (the main character) is bady injured during WW1. He has no eyes, no leg or arms, no mouth and no ears. This leaves him as what he describes as "A dead piece of meat with a brain." This leaves him with a view of "speaking for the dead,".

He is in a completely sensory-deprived hell. He is in a fate worse than death.

The KGB experimented with sensory deprivation during the cold war. They drugged the person then slicked their body with oil, put them in a wetsuit and attached vital monitors, a breathing apparatus and IV lines to keep the body nourished. Then they used a device to kill their own voice by inverting the waves of the noise which effectively mutes it. After this they submerged them in a large tank and killed the lights. The person then woke in the tank, without feeling, hearing, touch, sight or smell. They discovered that within 48 hours,( and often as little as 11) the person would suffer extreme hyperventilation and fear causing a nervous breakdown of a massive magnitude.

Blah, blah, blah. This is NOT about the story you just "honored" us with. It is about ONE woman, about whom we do not KNOW what is going on in her mind/brain. I don't care what the scans say -- there have been case after case of people (saw one just last night, lady was said to be brain mushed, she said she couldn't speak or communicate, but was trapped inside her body and mind) that RECOVERED from brain damage/trauma that weren't supposed to. (How about the lady who was in a COMA for 20 years???? and woke up!!!) Besides the fact, this is NOT about quality of life --- it's about life itself.


Now if someone were in a totally sensory deprives state, they would still be alive. Do you mean to tell me that if someone were like that, that we should maintain that state?

I am saying there are TOO many variables in this case, for certainty. BESIDES the fact that there is no written PROOF of her wishes in this respect. So, "life" should ALWAYS be given the benefit of the doubt. She has a father and mother ready, willing, and able to take over her care, she has a MEDICAL TRUST FUND that should be paying for this care. WHY SHOULD SHE BE KILLED?????? Just because YOU or I, or somebody else "wouldn't want to live that way"??? Again, she IS alive. She already has been granted, not by state, not by federal government, the right to life, RECOGNIZED and GUARANTEED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE -- it says NOTHING about quantity or quality of life, only the right to LIVE. To DENY this BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL, SELF-EVIDENT, UNALIENABLE right is to MURDER HER.


We should proactively become engaged in keeping people in the same position as those KGB torture victims?

You can keep the red-herring, we are not having fish for dinner.

[whipple]

With all apologies to DesertFox if he doesn't mind, I'd like to answer your question. We, I should say I (don't want to speak for others) do not agree with government (i.e. taxpayers) paying Terri's bills BECAUSE Michael Schiavo -- her husband, her legal guardian -- is the executor of her MEDICAL trust that was/is supposed to be used for her care and maintenance. This man is stealing money from this account, and refusing care for his WIFE (you know, the woman they are killing, not the one he is living with and fathered two children with WHILE still legally married to his WIFE). He stands to retain all of this money after she dies. This is a BIG red flag in this case -- he has refused care for his WIFE, i.e. he's not doling out any of the money set aside for her care, FOR HER CARE -- he's pocketing it! IF, and that's a BIG IF, he's not, let him disclose financial records proving it untrue.


I would, now, like to ask you a question:

Define what it means to be "alive", to have "life". But there's a condition -- do so WITHOUT referring to quality of life. Just the biological fact of being alive, what does it mean?

The fact that the husband is creaming it off this womans suffering is certainly something I am appalled by. That was something I hadn't picked up from the news stories so thanks for filling me in on that one. It certainly cast the case in a whole new light.

re your question.

To me, with particular reference to the human condition, it would mean functioning as an organic engine. By that I mean heart beating, blood circulating and organs functioning properly. Obviously I know there is more to it than that but on a basic level that is what being alive means to me.
I must add that in this womans case, I don't particularly want her to die. However, I do believe that if people want to keep her alive then instead of protesting they should put their money where their mouths are and pay to keep her alive.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Christopher Reeve and Stephen Hawking are not totally sensory deprived, they are just paralyzed." Golgo 13


Correction there, Golgo. Chris is dead. He died without getting his wish for medical research mad doctors to work on butchered babies to make crippled people walk again. Besides, look at all the liberals walking around sensory-deprived. Nobody puts them out of my misery!

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

The fact that the husband is creaming it off this womans suffering is certainly something I am appalled by. That was something I hadn't picked up from the news stories so thanks for filling me in on that one. It certainly cast the case in a whole new light.

whipple,
We can only deduce that he is. A large medical malpractice settlement was received, and a medical trust fund set up for Terri's care. The husband then asked the judge (same judge that said take the tube out) to have medicad take over funding her care, as he was seeking her "right" to die. His request was honored. There have never been any financial documents produced (to my knowledge) with an accounting of WHERE that money is NOW. Her husband was appointed as her guardian, i.e. in charge of the distribution of that money. If it's not being used for her care, one can only assume one of two things: he is withdrawing the money for his own personal use, or he is saving the money to be received upon her death. If it were otherwise, they should produce the evidence.

re your question.

To me, with particular reference to the human condition, it would mean functioning as an organic engine. By that I mean heart beating, blood circulating and organs functioning properly. Obviously I know there is more to it than that but on a basic level that is what being alive means to me.

And she fulfills all those requirements. The ONLY thing she cannot do is feed herself and drink herself. Granted, it may not be a life that any of us may desire, but it is the only option of LIFE (quality of life) that she has available to her. In all honesty, it is easy to say "I would not want to live that way," but reality may produce a different reaction, as most people would rather LIVE than DIE.

I must add that in this womans case, I don't particularly want her to die. However, I do believe that if people want to keep her alive then instead of protesting they should put their money where their mouths are and pay to keep her alive.

There is no reason for her to die, at least not this way. Again, she has loving parents willing to take over her care, she SHOULD have a medical trust fund to financially support her care, and she is harming nor bothering anyone with her existence. Why should she die? And why should she die by starvation and dehydration? Wouldn't it much more humane to just give an injection and "put her to sleep"? It is not about death with dignity, it is about death at all costs, so a greedy murderer can be rid of his wife to get on with his life.

[DesertFox]

Golgo, the videos I've seen of Terri don't show someone who's sensory deprived. They show someone who obviously has damage, but she does respond to stimuli.

[Warlady]

Golgo please post a source for your CAT scan. Terri responds to physical stimuli which means she suffers pain. If God were calling her home he would have already without court intervention. Everyone needs food and water to survive. She's breathing on her own. Her organs are functioning on their own. Her husband has been heard stating "When is this bitch going to ever die?". Some caring husband he is.

[Rink]

Home on this:


There have never been any financial documents produced (to my knowledge) with an accounting of WHERE that money is NOW. Her husband was appointed as her guardian, i.e. in charge of the distribution of that money. If it's not being used for her care, one can only assume one of two things: he is withdrawing the money for his own personal use, or he is saving the money to be received upon her death. If it were otherwise, they should produce the evidence.


Those financial documents have been sealed and locked up and nobody can view them.

I wonder why?

[Kathy29]

Christopher Reeve couldn't jack his jaws anymore than Stephen Hawking could. Both used artificial voice boxes.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Christopher Reeve couldn't jack his jaws anymore than Stephen Hawking could." --Kathy29

I stand corrected. I wonder if Hawking will be visited by the murderous vultures to put him "mercifully" to rest?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

I stand corrected. I wonder if Hawking will be visited by the murderous vultures to put him "mercifully" to rest?

:shame: Of course not! He's a foaming-at-the-mouth liberal wacko nutcase.