Funkyalligator Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Nice one codeorama.....the doctors have said that her brain isn't functioning....breathing is a reflexive action....she is being kept alive by artificial means .i.e the feeding tube......simply put they should let her die.....she had told her husband that she didn't want to live as a vegatable........that is the end of discussion...... As for doctor assisted suicide I am all for it and it should be up to the individual states to decide that....that is why I was happy to see that Oregon had the guts to pass the law....and why I was supremely pissed at Ashcroft when he went after the state law and the doctors as personal religious agenda..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Even if that was true it's still his call. But it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 psst this trumps all: However, during the 1992 malpractice lawsuit, Schiavo, in pursuit of a 20 million dollar award, pleaded with the courts for money he said he needed for Terri’s extended long term care. He presented this case based on Terri's estimated life expectancy of 50 years or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 No, that doesnt trump anything. It has no relevance whatsoever. Of course he would say that during the malpractice phase. Any decent lawyer would have instructed him to present it that way. And while I have serious problems with hiom attempting to bilk the Ins Co out of money, that doesnt change his responsibility in following her wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 psst....she is brain dead.....people don't come back from being brain dead.....I could understand if she was in a coma and there was sign of brain activity but guess what there isn't, her bopdy continues to function but she has no brain.....would you want to live like that? Would you want your wife to live like that? Would you want to burden your family with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 if you need somebody to feed you.....a machine to feed you. Then you need help from a machine to stay alive. This isn't somebody with no arms asking to be fed. I'm sorry, but she's not in a coma because she might be totally brain dead...and if she's not. Then she's trapped in her body. Unable to talk or convey anything. Why not just torture her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Stu Spoon feeding her by your definition would also be "mechanical". This woman has no voluntary motor function at all. She isn't even conscious. Someone who is spoon-fed can at least swallow. She can't even do that. And those "two guys" left out in the wild in a different time period would also be dead. True, but they are also conscious. This woman has had no real signs of life in a 15 years. She's basically a vegetable. The situations still don't compare. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Destino 1 - The fact that the frenzied zealots have made it impossible to have mercy on anyone drives me up a wall. You can't put someone out of their misery, you have to stand by and starve them to death or leave them brain dead on a tube. 2 - This situation should have NEVER gotten this far. A choice should have been made final long ago in this case. The fact it's been dragged out has done nothing at all to ease anyone's pain, not Terri's, not her parents, and not her husband that is being accused of all sorts of things by anti-right to die advocates and Terri's parents. 3 - Laws need to be written to clear this crap up. If the law calls for a legal guardian to make the call between life and death, then that is how it should play out. No more of this court inference and political grand standing. If I get in an accident I want to know that one way or another I don't end up draining anything my wife could have kept from a settlement or caused all this terrible pain. Terri would not be happy if she knew what was happening to her. The rules are all in place right now. The burden is on people to make provisions for this via a living will. The Schiavo's didn't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by ntotoro This woman has no voluntary motor function at all. She isn't even conscious. Someone who is spoon-fed can at least swallow. She can't even do that. True, but they are also conscious. This woman has had no real signs of life in a 15 years. She's basically a vegetable. The situations still don't compare. Nick If being able to swallow food is the defining element of "life" then many more are in trouble of being starved. Whether she has signs of life is debateable. Did you by chance read the other article I posted about the woman who was in a "vegetative state" but made a recovery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 No, that doesnt trump anything. It has no relevance whatsoever. Of course he would say that during the malpractice phase. Any decent lawyer would have instructed him to present it that way. And while I have serious problems with hiom attempting to bilk the Ins Co out of money, that doesnt change his responsibility in following her wishes. Can we at least agree that he has demonstrated the ability to lie when it comes to this issue and therefore might be less than honest about his wife's desires? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 No, that doesnt trump anything. It has no relevance whatsoever. Of course he would say that during the malpractice phase. Any decent lawyer would have instructed him to present it that way. And while I have serious problems with hiom attempting to bilk the Ins Co out of money, that doesnt change his responsibility in following her wishes. So he went before a court and Lied. Now he went before a court and ???. Again, a truthful husband trumps parents. He is a proven liar as he has said both sides to a court. You can not present it one way to a court and then say I did it for the money, she REALLY told me this? can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 He isn't a proven liar at all....you can come up with plenty of news articles that say so.....this really has come down to a religious thing and that is what is causing problems...the driving force behind the parents is a rightwing christian group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Destino You want to compare a man that fought every day after an accident to rid the human race of what happened to him.....and a man that is considered one of the greatest minds in human history...... to a case involving someone who doctors say is almost completely brain dead? Not to take this thread off track, but what was Christopher Reeve fighting to rid the human race of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Spinal cord injuries I believe is what Destino was getting at.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Thiebear So he went before a court and Lied. Now he went before a court and ???. Again, a truthful husband trumps parents. He is a proven liar as he has said both sides to a court. You can not present it one way to a court and then say I did it for the money, she REALLY told me this? can you? He isn't a proven liar. You haven't shown proof of a "lie" at all. He never claimed that Terri wanted to live in the original lawsuit so your "she REALLY told me this" statement is dishonest. Also you haven't provided any evidence that the surrounding factors in this case didn't cause his change of mind. Did the doctors update her condition to hopeless.....did he simply run out of hope? You don't know, but you are more then willing to assume . It's fairly disgusting how people are willing to smear this guy. They call him a liar, hint at a crime cover up, accuse him of misconduct for daring to have a family of his own. It's amazing how low people will go to push their beliefs on everyone else. This should have been handled as the law was written....actually she should be able to die without having to be starved but that is possible because the nuts won't allow it. Starvation is SOO much more moral and good then just letting people die wthout pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Rocky21 Not to take this thread off track, but what was Christopher Reeve fighting to rid the human race of? Paralysis. He beleived that through research methods to repair spinal cord injuries could be discovered that would free him and others from ths horrible condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 so, are we saying that if she could talk for 60 seconds. She would say "I want you to keep my alive as long as possible, in this state"? again, what if she is thinking inside? how awful must that be? have a tube down your throat all the time? can't move, can't speak, can't communicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Its a question of quality of life in addition to the fact that she is brain dead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 The bottom line is that no matter what Michael Schiavo did in a previous case, no matter what you may think his motives may be. Not matter what. He, and he ALONE, has the legal right to do what HE see's as appropriate. If Im Teri, I hope and pray I have a spouse with such strong convictions to fight my parents. He has NOTHING to gain by doing this. There is no money to be had. There is no fame, no fortune. He can very simply get a divorce and move on. But he's staying on to fight. Why? The answer is obvious. He loves Teri and will do everything he can to listen to her wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 The bottom line is that no matter what Michael Schiavo did in a previous case, no matter what you may think his motives may be. Not matter what. He, and he ALONE, has the legal right to do what HE see's as appropriate. If Im Teri, I hope and pray I have a spouse with such strong convictions to fight my parents. He has NOTHING to gain by doing this. There is no money to be had. There is no fame, no fortune. He can very simply get a divorce and move on. But he's staying on to fight. Why? The answer is obvious. He loves Teri and will do everything he can to listen to her wishes. Give me an example of his Love? Was it getting the money and then trying to kill her? Was it trying to do therapy? Was it getting another woman? you lost me on the obvious love thing also... Parents appear to have the obvious love. He appears to have the obvious motivaiton to kill her. Its costing HIM every month in the money he got to keep here alive. I can understand YOUR personal feelings, but this man has lied about this on more than one occasion. His Trust is gone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Didnt someone just wake up after 20/30 years in a coma? A PATIENT woke up from a coma after 19 years and greeted his mother who was at his bedside. Terry Wallis, 39, had been unconscious since a car crash in July 1984. Ask him? Life after coma: A patient's tale When Ruth West woke up in her MGH hospital bed in April 1997, she did not have any idea what day it was or what had happened to her. Nor had she seen the baby girl that she had given birth to three days earlier. West had been in a coma caused by the onset of preeclampsia, a rare condition among pregnant women characterized by high blood pressure and other metabolic abnormalities. Preeclampsia can have dangerous consequences for both mother and child. or her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 The parents have offered to pay for it going forward. So he could simply walk away. His love is obvious. It's love that's making him stay in to fight for her wishes. It would be nice though if you could show us an example of his lies. Or how he has tried to kill her. Or any other absurd claim you've parrotted from her parents cries. Bu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Thiebear Didnt someone just wake up after 20/30 years in a coma? A PATIENT woke up from a coma after 19 years and greeted his mother who was at his bedside. Terry Wallis, 39, had been unconscious since a car crash in July 1984. Ask him? Coma-Brain dead, no hope of recovery apples-porsches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Show me her wishes... I've shown in quotes on a previous page his actions. Show her quote? or was that his quote after his original quote that said he wanted to keep her alive for 50 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Okay, I'll play this game. Show me a link to where he said that and the context surrounding it. As for her wishes, the law is crystal clear. HE, and HE ALONE, get's to tell us what her wishes are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.