We've Finally Killed Someone via the Judicial System - Page 2




View Poll Results :Should we have let her die?
Yes 12 63.16%
No 7 36.84%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
April 2nd, 2005  
Warwick
 
This case is all the more reason to have an iron clad will.
April 3rd, 2005  
silent driller
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Quote:
Guys, i'm all for saving lives if that means that person will come out ok. But in regards to shcaivo, what would she do if she was alive still? Nothing.
So if a person isn't just fine and dandy and isn't able to contribute to the workforce we should just let them die huh? Hitler started out with that notion and you know where it led to.
This is what my mother actually told me. According to her, she has watched this country gradually slip into a mentality of Euthanasia. We started with the unborn(abortion, etc.) and are appearantly moving to the mentally ill and disabled.

It would have been no trouble at all for Terry's husband to divorce her and let her parents take care of her. But he wanted her gone, so he had her judicially starved to death.
April 3rd, 2005  
WarMachine
 
 
Apparently no one read the rest of my post. I'm saying that the republicans care about this case only because it would garner support from conservatives and religious voters. Does anyone here at all believe in congress's involvement in a domestic medical issue? They turned it into an emergency meeting with the president and everything, that's a travesty.
--
Boots
April 4th, 2005  
LIPS
 
 
On one of the TV stations down here they were debating this should she die or let her live and so on. But what caught my attention was that one of the speakers told a story about an eight year old boy who was in a similiar condition to this lady and the doctors had let him die because his parents could not afford the medical costs. I dont know the full details or even if this is a true story but it just makes you think who would be better off or their quality of life or in some cases the quality of the coma. It is clearly written in my will and my wifes will what our wishes will be when if/when either of us are in the same state as her. But it is a hard thing to come to grips over.
April 4th, 2005  
Lizzy
 
In my opinion she wasn't brain damaged according to the definition of brain damage...but the states might have different definition.

''Only God and God alone decides who is to die or not but if God dosent want to decide we always have the FSK boys'
April 4th, 2005  
Bootboy82
 
I think, it was absolutely wrong to let her die, especially in this way.

I'm no medical expert at all, but from what I have heard and read about people in a vegetative state is that most of them who 'came back' were at full consciousness during that time. they saw everything, they heard everything, smelled everything, etc.

I'm a supporter of medicide in certain situations, but there are several facts in the Schiavo case that I disagree with.

- There is no legal proof that Terri Schiavo wanted to die in such a case. Only her husband said so. I will bring this up later in my post again.

- She was not reliant on a life-support machine. She could breath by herself and her cardiovascular system was still working, so her brain couldn't be that damaged.

- Even if there was a good cause to let her die, there are much 'better' ways to do so instead of dying from thirst.

A normal person can live for approximately 3 days without water, Terri made it for 13 days. This is only possible if you are either a highly trained survival expert or if you have a very strong will to survive. In my opinion, this was a clear signal of her in the only way she was able to communicate.

Now let me say something about her husband.
When Terri Schiavo was taken to hospital, it was her husband who wanted the best treatment she could get. He even had her transferred to Florida when there seemed to be some kind of new therapy methods. Why did he change his mind in 1998?
I'm not trying to make up some conspiracy theory, but could it be possible that this has something to do with his new relationship? It was more than unlikely that he could have get a divorce....

The last point that I don't get is why did Michael Schiavo have the sole power of decision instead of her closest relatives (parents & brother)?
April 4th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Bootboy82, I do not completely disagree with you. I hesitantly share the belief that Terry should not have been allowed to die. But some of the things that you cite as proof are no proof at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootboy82
I think, it was absolutely wrong to let her die, especially in this way.

I'm no medical expert at all, but from what I have heard and read about people in a vegetative state is that most of them who 'came back' were at full consciousness during that time. they saw everything, they heard everything, smelled everything, etc.

I'm a supporter of medicide in certain situations, but there are several facts in the Schiavo case that I disagree with.

- There is no legal proof that Terri Schiavo wanted to die in such a case. Only her husband said so. I will bring this up later in my post again.
True, we probably can never conclusively prove that matter one way or the other.

Quote:
- She was not reliant on a life-support machine. She could breath by herself and her cardiovascular system was still working, so her brain couldn't be that damaged.
A completely braindead, "there really is absolutely nobody home", person will not necessarily lose those functions. The Medula and Cerebellum and other parts of the brain will keep ticking without any need for there to be any conscious thought. The portion of the mind that contains the actual person, personality, ability to make decisions, love, hate, convictions and desires is the Cerebrum. The body can keep ticking just fine with an almost completely dead Cerebrum. The continuation of the bodily functions you're citing completely fails to prove or disprove a vegetative state.

Quote:
- Even if there was a good cause to let her die, there are much 'better' ways to do so instead of dying from thirst.
Nothing that would be legal though. Sad, isn't it?

Quote:
A normal person can live for approximately 3 days without water, Terri made it for 13 days. This is only possible if you are either a highly trained survival expert or if you have a very strong will to survive. In my opinion, this was a clear signal of her in the only way she was able to communicate.
Does that constitute proof that she wanted to live? No, it really doesn't. This is largely an emotionally based speculation. It does not prove or disprove anything at all. I honestly am not going to speculate about whether or not Terry wanted to die. I do believe that her husband was not the best person to make the decision. But my opinion does not make him wrong.

Quote:
Now let me say something about her husband.
When Terri Schiavo was taken to hospital, it was her husband who wanted the best treatment she could get. He even had her transferred to Florida when there seemed to be some kind of new therapy methods. Why did he change his mind in 1998?
I'm not trying to make up some conspiracy theory, but could it be possible that this has something to do with his new relationship? It was more than unlikely that he could have get a divorce....

The last point that I don't get is why did Michael Schiavo have the sole power of decision instead of her closest relatives (parents & brother)?
The legal status of marriage trumps the legal status of blood relationship in every circumstance that I am aware of (where there is no legal separation.) But had Michael Shiavo divorced Terry, his rights in the matter would have ended then and there. I would have been absolutely fine with that happening simply because Michael's motives with regards to Terry seemed very questionable. But how do we know anything for sure? That is the one thing that makes this a controversy. We simply can't know for sure.
April 4th, 2005  
Bootboy82
 
Well, I never tried to prove anything. As I already said, I'm not a mecial expert. I know a few things, that I've learned in biology class and on the telly

What I posted before was NOT a scientific comment, but my personal opinion, based on my own beliefs regarding euthanasia and a more than questionable judicial desicion on this subject.
April 7th, 2005  
silent driller
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
The last point that I don't get is why did Michael Schiavo have the sole power of decision instead of her closest relatives (parents & brother)?
The legal status of marriage trumps the legal status of blood relationship in every circumstance that I am aware of (where there is no legal separation.) But had Michael Shiavo divorced Terry, his rights in the matter would have ended then and there. I would have been absolutely fine with that happening simply because Michael's motives with regards to Terry seemed very questionable. But how do we know anything for sure? That is the one thing that makes this a controversy. We simply can't know for sure.[/quote]

This is the very part of this that pisses me off. Why didn't the dumb ass just get a divorce and let her parents take care of her. He would have had his new wife, Terry's parents would have their daughter(brain dead or otherwise) and the courts would have saved themselves a lot of trouble. But he wanted her dead. He is therefore a worthless, lowlife piece of scummy shit in my eyes.

...As for the judge that ordered her tubes to be removed, he should be charged with nothing less than manslaughter.