IG-64 Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 Click. :/ I had hope for her too. Lets remove the husbands feeding tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 Finally she can be relieved. The parents are idiots, and the husband is also a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Pfft. Could have done it sooner. Before you guys get pissed, this is what Im thinkin': 15 years as a vegtable? What are you gonna do with a guy who has been in a vegitable state for 15 years and will never recover? Why should they keep taking up (I assume) a few million dollars to keep a woman alive whos only possesion is her pulse? If this is covered by the insurance company, that money could go to others, like people who need heart transplants, or have cancer or something. Sometimes I belive this stuff is okay. TiE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 She is not a vegetable, she has brain damage. She can still see, smile, sit up, follow objects with her eyes, recognise family, ect. Doesn't sound like a vegetable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfnshannon Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 I'm very very torn between this. There is a website http://www.saveterri.com/ In which you can see the videos of her - now some argue these have been spliced from hours and hours of footage. After seeing the footage I feel that she should be left alive - after all it is only a feeding tube. How can you let someone starve to death for 2 - 4 weeks?? I mean if you want her to die - we don't even let people do this dogs. We give them the shot - so why should we allow the courts and her husband to starve her to death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rad Blackrose Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 She is not a vegetable, she has brain damage. Right, and I'm Ron Jeremy. I suggest before anyone even begins to think about throwing opinion in this thread, you sit down and review ACTUAL case material. I suggest you start with the Guardian Ad Litem report filed by the doctor comissioned by the government to assess Teri Schaivo's status (which in fact acts as a neutral party). If you want to go even further, attempt to access any opinon from a doctor with a clue, especially someone who has knowledge of the brain and it's functions. And just for future reference, saveterri.com is nothing more than a slanted site favored towards the parents. But at it's core, I'll have to agree with InsaneSith: both sides are idiots. After seeing the footage I feel that she should be left alive - after all it is only a feeding tube. How can you let someone starve to death for 2 - 4 weeks?? I mean if you want her to die - we don't even let people do this dogs. We give them the shot - so why should we allow the courts and her husband to starve her to death? The problem is that society views euthanasia with animals differently from euthanasia with humans. Many states (if not all of them) have anti-assisted suicide laws (that is what it would fall under if Terry Schiavo was to be let go under any circumstance other than starvation/dehydration). For a while this all came under media scrutiny when Dr. Kevorkian was arrested/tried/sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Rad Blackrose And just for future reference, saveterri.com is nothing more than a slanted site favored towards the parents. Yesh.... "Terri Schiavo, found guilty of being disabled and wishing to die, will, on March the 18th, be executed by removal of her feeding tube." Yes, sounds a little biased. TiE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Eh, it's not like it's permanent. For the next two weeks anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Wow! People sure don't mind bandying on and on when it's something that doesn't involve them directly. Suddenly, everyone's an expert when they have no idea what this is like. Bravo to each and every LF user that's posted a half ass guesstimation in this thread so far. Which is basically to say bravo to you all, some of you more than others. Get this damned thing to the senate asap please. With sugar on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by IG-64 She is not a vegetable, she has brain damage. She can still see, smile, sit up, follow objects with her eyes, recognise family, ect. Doesn't sound like a vegetable to me. the level of recovery following brain damage is dependent on several factors. Chiefly the location and extent of brain tissue damage, and subsequent death(necrosis) of the neural tissue. The neural plasticity(or the ability of the brain to regenrate/adapt) is possible, but only in a very limited extent... Having worked in neurological rehabilitation I have seen some amazing things and some very sad things Im not sure about the particulars of this case, but "execution by removal of feeding tube" sounds damn strange. Are they going to starve her to death ?? because that is equivalent to murder... Surely they mean take her off her ventilation support, in which case she would die within a matter of minutes. Taking someone off life support is not illegal as they are being sustained by artifical means.. The chief qualifier for the pronouncement of clinical death is the lack of ability to self respirate and provide the brain/body with Oxygen... all very sad mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legameboy Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 I don't approve of this at all. If they end up killing her, I'd like to starve the lot that thought that that was such a bright idea. Execution by starvation my ass... ... ****ers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by CapNColostomy Wow! People sure don't mind bandying on and on when it's something that doesn't involve them directly. Suddenly, everyone's an expert when they have no idea what this is like. Bravo to each and every LF user that's posted a half ass guesstimation in this thread so far. Which is basically to say bravo to you all, some of you more than others. Get this damned thing to the senate asap please. With sugar on top. "I'm your huckleberry!" *moves thread to the senate* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rad Blackrose Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by legameboy I don't approve of this at all. If they end up killing her, I'd like to starve the lot that thought that that was such a bright idea. Execution by starvation my ass... ... ****ers. Once again, I must reiterate my point from earlier. The problem with the words cited from that biased opinion is the fact that it does not take societal views, such as the current dilemma of euthanasia, into account, thus blowing things out of proportion. The reason why she is to be dehydrated/starved is due to the fact that society has not come up with anything more "humane" to end the life of a human. Sure, we can inject a substance into an animal to put it down, but if it comes to a human life, the only time we could do it is if the due process of the law has successfully deprived the individual found guilty of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (read: conviction followed by death sentence). This is obviously not the case, so she gets shafted over a societal issue. Wow! People sure don't mind bandying on and on when it's something that doesn't involve them directly. Suddenly, everyone's an expert when they have no idea what this is like. Bravo to each and every LF user that's posted a half ass guesstimation in this thread so far. Which is basically to say bravo to you all, some of you more than others. Get this damned thing to the senate asap please. With sugar on top. Do you REALLY want me to start? I'm serious here, if you want to start digging at me I will gladly open up some potshots in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 why don't they just cut the power to the whole damn place and let them all ****ing die!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 According to the doctors (who are the only ones with proper knowledge about the subject), Terri is a vegetable unable to notice or respond to anything that happens around her. What her parents alledges to be responding is, in fact, only reflexes. In all good definitions of life and death, Terri is already dead. I'd say we stop tormenting her husband and let him bury her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Rad Blackrose Do you REALLY want me to start? I'm serious here, if you want to start digging at me I will gladly open up some potshots in return. I'm sure in some alternate reality or timeline, like the Bizarro world or something, you could probably post something like that and find me intimidated. But this isn't Bizarro world, and I'm not skeert, so I'll leave you with a quote I like to use from time to time. "You must do what you feel is right, of course." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by CapNColostomy ...."You must do what you feel is right, of course." now I'm skeert, the CapNs quoting SW mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Several experts have testified that she is in fact brain dead, and without 15 years of heroic artificial measures she would have died within hours of the attack that put her in this condition in the first place. Her body is just an empty shell, existing on purely autonomic functions. Everything that made her her is gone. Even if you really believe that there might be the slightest possibility of a spark of what she once was left buried in there somewhere, is the idea of another 15 years or more spent confined to a hospital room totally unable to communicate, or even control her most basic bodily functions something that you believe that most people would truly wish for themselves? Do you think someone would want to burden thier loved ones by having them watch you in that state every day? Do you think she might want her husband and her parents to be able to get on with thier lives after all this time by putting an end to an existance that is little more than a living death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 It's about time. That collection of organs and cells plugged into a "feeding" tube wasn't human anymore. Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago and her body can finally catch up and the family can get on with their lives. Many doctors and specialists testified that she was not aware or able to respond in anyway to suggest that she was. Her smile was a permanent grimace. Even if she were responsive, her cerbral cortex was gone, removing all hope for any kind of recovery. But what amazes me the most is that it was her parents, through the use of the so-called "Religious Right" that pushed for her to remain in this perverted state rather than let her go. Aren't they supposed to be the assholes that believe their place in heaven is assured? The should have been fighting to have her tube removed so she could meet that mythylogical end! Freakin' hypocrits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 That money should go to something different rather than artifically keeping alive a dead body. Such as to cancer research. Or heart transplants. Or feed the poor in Sudan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 But what amazes me the most is that it was her parents, through the use of the so-called "Religious Right" that pushed for her to remain in this perverted state rather than let her go. Aren't they supposed to be the *******s that believe their place in heaven is assured? They should have been fighting to have her tube removed so she could meet that mythylogical end! And I'd say keeping a nearly dead person with no hope of recovery alive for 15 years is against the Bible, too;) . Funny how religious activists only use the parts of their religion that suits them. I say let her die. She's a vegetable and non-responsive. "Terri Schiavo, found guilty of being disabled and wishing to die, will, on March the 18th, be executed by removal of her feeding tube." Sounds like an anti-abortionist on crack:D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Rogue15 why don't they just cut the power to the whole damn place and let them all ****ing die!!!!! Most intelligent post, evar. Keep it civil, maggots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 I kinda feel bad about the situation. Every life has a purpose, in my opinion. I can think of several ways of how her "condition" can help others (please don't misunderstand this) you know, have some kind of impact on their lives. Like I said, don't take that the wrong way. This situation itself could change the world. Thats a big impact. But I can also see how this must be aweful for her (if she even knows anything about anything...) and her family/husband. And I'd say keeping a nearly dead person with no hope of recovery alive for 15 years is against the Bible, too . Considering they didn't have the tech back then to preserve a nearly dead person for 15 years... I don't know. Jesus raised Lazerus from the dead to show a purpose and to bring glory to God, but this is a totally different situation. Many people were healed in the Bible. The difference is all those people made full recoveries, while this woman may not, unless through an act of God. Really. Medical science can only go so far, but I believe God can go further and do more than we can possibly imagine. I'll pray about it. Let His will be done. Like Astrotoy7 said, it feels like murder... but I can also everyone's point of view here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Jedi Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 New news. Okay, so they take out her feeding tube, which is basically her life support, yet rather than dying peacefully, she will be starved to death? That just seems totally wrong. I found out just this afternoon that my great-grandma died this way. She had cancer, and eventually they took away the tube, and let her starve. Now, I never even met her, but my Mom was very close to her, so this kind of hit home with me. Apparently my Mom didn't even find out until years later that that was how it happened, and that it was her mom who had made the decision. A very sad situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 Originally posted by Lady Jedi Okay, so they take out her feeding tube, which is basically her life support, yet rather than dying peacefully, she will be starved to death? That just seems totally wrong. [/b] Well, it's not like she can feel anything anymore, so that way to die is, for her sake, as good as any other. Besides, you have to separate between active and passive enuthanasia. - Passive enuthanasia is to remove life support. In other words, to stop artificially keeping alive another person. Not exactly murder. - Active enuthanasia is to physically kill a person who'd otherwise be living. Such as an elderly who doesn't want to live any more. In my book, passive enuthanasia is OK, but active isn't. So by me, removing the feeding tube is the only correct way to do it. What else should they do, plant a bullet in her forehead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.