We've Finally Killed Someone via the Judicial System

Should we have let her die?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
im sorry, but when someone is brain damaged like that, i personally think its painful for them, especially since they used to live normal lives, and that they should be let to die because shes in an "unconsious state" for 10 years, chances are she isnt going to come out of it and be all fine and dandy again...
just my 10 cents
 
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. Let her die of natural causes and she would have accomplished no progress anyway with her condition i'm almost positive. And why should we care so much.

It creates a bad precedent for government to get involved in these kind of affairs. Can anyone approve what congress did, i can't. It should've been a family affair, not national opinion. If we're so concerned about saving lives in government, why have the iraq war for. There was no good reason and thousands died.

The whole thing was brought up since daschle (the speaker of the house), wanted to distract people from what he was doing the whole time. And it blew up in his face and i'm glad, people like him are hyprocrites since he pulled the plug on his own dad, this is true.
 
i think that the plug should have been pulled from her a while back. but what i dont agree with is the government stepping in and making a law on a case this unique. other people have been kept alive with feeding tubes and the government hasnt passed any laws. what makes this case different than the others?
 
personally i think it was right to let her go (not by starvation etc though)

however don't beleive everything you hear in the media;

heres are cople of vids - http://gordonwatts.com/ConversationWithTerri.wmv
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ccb/videos/hows_that_cold.rm

also, check out this site
http://www.katesjourney.com/

this lady was in a 'vegetative state' just like terry, but with rehabilitation and care she is now leading a pretty decent life again. not saying that terry would of ever completely recovered, but she WAS NOT completely brain dead.

also, http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html

here terrys CT scan results are disputed. not a bad read.

http://www.rense.com/general63/mmk.htm
heres an article where one of terrys nurses says she can eat normally, but her husband will not allow it

heres a huge collection of news articles http://www.rense.com/Datapages/terrydata.htm
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 why it's important to have a living will. I've had one since I was 21. No life Support, Do not resuscitate and no heroic measures clauses.

In my mind it takes the pressure off your family. My 2 centavos.
 
Truthfully, if we're talking about the ethics and saving a life in cases like that of Terry Shiavo, we seem to be ideologically screwed up. In terms of ideology lets alternately consider Abortion, where we also have "the debatable right for the human being to live." In the case of Terry Shiavo, we have a woman that is extremely unlikely to ever wake up and it is extremely likely that, were she to have woken up, she'd just be an awake vegtable. In the case of Abortion, we're dealing with the termination of the life a a human being that is pretty well guaranteed to be conscious, coherent, and lead a normal life if allowed to live. So if Abortion is not murder and taking Terry Shiavo off of her feeding tube was murder ... kinda makes humankind contradictory as all hell doesn't it??

Consider that the Republican Party that is outspoken against abortion also generally advocates and defends capital punishment. The Democratic Party, by in large denounces Capital Punishment as "barbaric and cruel" but staunchly defends the right for a woman to terminate the life of her unborn child.

By the way, didn't Scott Peterson get convicted for a double homicide: Having murdered his wife and unborn child. And yet, wasn't that murder committed in a state where abortion is legal? So you have an established law that an unborn child is not considerred to be alive, but a man gets convicted of murder for killing just such an unborn child in that same state.

Bear in mind, I'm not taking sides on any of the issues here, I'm just saying that when it comes to valuing a human life, humankind is currently very self contradictory. Seems we need to make up our mind about a lot of things, when it comes to saving human lives. Now we're just adding one more debate to the whole mess.[/code]
 
I'm just saying that when it comes to valuing a human life, humankind is currently very self contradictory. Seems we need to make up our mind about a lot of things, when it comes to saving human lives. Now we're just adding one more debate to the whole mess.
Click to expand...

Well society is obviously evolutionary. As we progress as a society we come across "life altering decisions" just as an individual does. We go through growth spurts in a society just as an individual does too. We're just in one now so things seem rather "messed up" to many folks. Think of it as national adolescence. Oh and before you "older countries" start chiming in, most of your societies aren't any better off and are, in fact, further behind. That's what happens when you change governments every so often. The US government is one of the oldest in the world actually.
 
03USMC said:
This is why it's important to have a living will. I've had one since I was 21. No life Support, Do not resuscitate and no heroic measures clauses.

In my mind it takes the pressure off your family. My 2 centavos.
Click to expand...

That's been the way with my family ever since my mother died from cancer about 5 years ago. She said that if it was down to being on some sort of apparatus or being dead she prefered death since she did not want us to see her like that and figured it would be easier on us to grieve over her death than spend money, time, hope, and be in a continous state of semi-depression. She passed away painlessly the day after she was completely hospitalized.


Also, didn't Terri do this to herself?
 
Charge_7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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'
 
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)?
 
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.
Bootboy82 said:
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.
Click to expand...
True, we probably can never conclusively prove that matter one way or the other.

- 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.
Click to expand...
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.

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

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.
Click to expand...
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.

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)?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
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)?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top