WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE?

by Mary 95 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  slimboyfat

  What do I think about the case?

  1. I think that Fox News and the Republicans are having a field day at this woman's expense.

  2. While I find it touching that Bush shows such respect for one human life that he would cut short his holiday, I am left wondering where such values were when he sent his troops into Fallujah and showed a shocking disregard for human life.

  I cannot read the heart of the husband, but his motives do seem suspect. To be on the safe side, if the decision was just up to me and politics could be removed from the case, then I would definitely choose to let this woman live.

  For once I agree with Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes against Mort Kondrake
• 

  prophecor

  The judge who is holding this situation up in limbo is an asshole!
• 

  Simon

  I think it is bizzarre that Bush now wants to rush to stop someone dying (who obviously *should* be allowed to die) and yet normally is dead keen on killing people.

  This is a strange thing that some religious people seem to share: people who are perfectly healthy they are happy to see die and then others who are essentially already dead they want to keep alive artificially.

  It is sick. They seem to imagine that them playing at being god will make him more real.
• 

  franklin J

  my personal reaction is that the husband is a control freak; and the fact that she is insured for one million dollars does make him suspect.....especially since he has another woman and two children .

  If this girls parents want to assume guardianship and there is no living will; why can he not grant them this?

  as for the governments involvement; I think it is good to rule in favor of life; however this does conflict with the laws governing abortion....
• 

  catchthis

  1. On the Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night, he illustrated a perfect example where Bush puts his priorities. Remember the tsunami? Why didn't Bush leave Crawford, TX to come back to DC to sign a bill to give assistance to those countries affected, but cut short his vacation this time to sign a bill over a single human that he has never met?

  2. Terri didn't have a living will, power of attorney, etc. prepared beforehand. This makes her husband the de facto caregiver and guardian. If she were to have preferred that her parents take over in case of something such as this, one, she should have said so in a will, and two, she shouldn't have married her husband. She made the decision to marry him, it wasn't forced upon her. This just shows how everyone today needs to plan for the future without putting it off. Your *life* is in the care of your closest kin, including by marriage.

  3. The money. At this point, no one knows the motives of either the husband or the parents. It could quite possibly be that the parents never liked the husband and he never liked them. If it's personal, that is their problem, not Congress.' After all these years, I'm sure both parties are drooling over the payout. If you were to take away the money aspect, I wonder where everyone would stand then? Threatening to cut a baby in half comes to mind.... I would love to hear either party say that they would give all money received to a charity. That would be the truest indicator.

  4. This entire political drama is just disgusting. Why on earth the government would get involved in this case is beyond me. A rallying of the religious right? Sounds about right to me.
• 

  adelmaal

  What is your viewpoint of her situation? Would YOU want to live like that, or would you rather die?

  I believe it should be the spouse's call as to whether or not someone remains on life support if they have no chance of rehabilitation (unless there is proof of foul play on the spouse's part; not sure whether or not that applies in this situation). If there is foul play then the parents should be the natural guardians. I would just hope they are thinking of her and not themselves.

  A marriage mate should know best what his/her spouse's wishes would be and it's ludicrous to keep someone alive when he/she is in such a state. I don't get Bush's stand on this issue. Without life support (intervention) her body will naturally die. It's completely different from abortion where without intervention (abortion) the baby will continue to live.

  Didn't Bush already approve legislation to make it the spouse's call? Why did he flip flop? Who knows. Can't stand by him on this one.

  Personally, the only way I would want to be kept on life support is if there were a chance I would eventually be able to take care of my children and watch them grow up. Otherwise, I would rather not be a burdan and I would prefer to be allowed to die.
• 

  coffee_black

  The whole thing is awful, and I can see both sides. I wouldn't want to live like that, but I also think there's more going on here than meets the eye. I'm not sure that a "husband" who has long since gone on to build a new family (and who could blame him?) is the best guardian of her wishes. What 26 year old do you know that has had this conversation with their spouse? At that age you're invincible. How do we really know that she ever expressed such an opinion?

  Just think of our own background. What if you were married to a JW...and were unconcious and you required a blood transfusion? Your spouse, as next of kin could deny it, even if you didn't hold the same belief system. My ex tried to do this with our son...tried to make him carry a blood card even though he no longer believed in the borg...puting him in the potential position to die for something he doesn't believe in. Of course, my son told me, and we destroyed the card...

  My point is that a spouse is not always the best person to trust your life to....there are plenty of bad marriages... Something bothers me about Michael Schiavo. I'm not sure I can put it into words.

  I would er on the side of life.... Why not let her parents assume guardianship (they obviously love her) and explore all therapy options? I have heard several reports that therapy was denied to her by her "husband". She doesn't have to die for him to go on with his life.

  It bothers me that there are those who would fight to save murderers from the death penalty, and yet watch this innocent woman die slowly without exploring every possible option .

  One reason why it's so important to get your wishes in writing...a living will or medical proxy. I think this case has taught millions of people just how important that is. If Terry Sciavo had done that, we wouldn't be talking about it on this forum.

  Coffee
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  Poor Terri has had no life since a few months after her heart attack, when she came out of her coma, and went into the Persistant Vegitative State. She has had MRI's CT's, and special non-FDA approved neruological treatments, all pushed by her husband. All the money he won by his medical malpractice suite has gone toward her care.

  This body has lived with feeding tube, catheter, and whatever is used for excrement. She has had her monthly pads changed for her. She has a loving family, but she has no life... not even a glimmer. And there is no medical glimmer of hope for her either.

  I am a firm believer in Quality of Life and Death with Dignity. If the courts interfere with the removing of the feeding tube, it will have drastic negative ramifications on Oregon's Death with Dignity law which has been active since Oct 1997.

  She will not suffer from her starvation. She will be sedated through the process of dying. It's just too bad they can't (legally) go ahead and give her enough sedation to end it immediately.
• 

  Seeking Knowledge

  She will be sedated through the process of dying

  Lets hope that's true...

  My 6month old niece was born with severe brain damage. There was hope, then there was none, then there was hope again. It was never determined exactly what was wrong with her, but one Sunday she lapsed into a irreversable coma. After every doctor told my brother and his wife there was no hope, they made the choice to "just let her go". It was the most painful decision I dare say they've ever had to make. They removed the feeding tube (that she'd had since about 2month of age) and she died about a day later. Her body just shut down. There was no recognition, no emotions nothing. In fact, her eyes had been shut since it was determined she slipped into the coma. She opened them for the first time since the moment she passed. My brother and his wife, up until then, had done EVERYTHING they could do to determine what happened and what could they expect. She didn't suffer, she was gone a week before she actually passed on.

  I hope that Terri's parents know what their daughter wants, and do what is right by her. It's not an easy decision, but they must think of HER and what's best for her. It's very hard, but if it's in HER best interest to "just let her go" they should.
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  Oh (((( Seeking )))) I am so sorry for the loss of your neice! And happy that it happened so quickly.

  Where your neice had only a few days, Terri has been in this vegitative state - post coma - for over 5 years. The doctors say her brain above the cerebellum is basically mush. There appears to be little form to is from recent MRI's. Her body is alive and reflexive. She the personage, the soul, has been gone for years.