BuffettNews.com

I don't know, I think that this decision is setting us as a society on to a slippery slope....I agree with Sam, who's next?
Already in Denmark they have been quietly euthanizing babies that are born with defects, is that next here in the US? Are we willing to allow this?
Or people who suffer multiple strokes and their family's can not take care of them?
The consequences of this decision are vast, obviously controversial and in the end extremely dangerous. I understand everyones point here, even Shane's. Ijust think that the precedence is dangerous. I don't think it has a lot to do with the Religious Right as someone stated, to me at least it is about morally right.
As for the husband, I don't think he is a scumbag. However, my only question to him is really why not just divorce her and let her parents take this battle on? I just don't understand the thinking on his part.
Either way, I hope it just ends in a quick fashion for her. No need for more pain.

dancelikeafool wrote:I just don't understand the thinking on his part.

Maybe his wife really told him that she wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state and he's interested in making sure she's no longer kept alive in what seems to be a permanently debilatating condition.

Not really that slippery a slope... no one's suggesting we go and gas anyone with Downs. We're talking about a woman who has been barely kept alive for over a decade on life support. If she were conscious, well, that's different. But she's not.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

dancelikeafool wrote:I just don't understand the thinking on his part.

Maybe his wife really told him that she wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state and he's interested in making sure she's no longer kept alive in what seems to be a permanently debilatating condition.

Not really that slippery a slope... no one's suggesting we go and gas anyone with Downs. We're talking about a woman who has been barely kept alive for over a decade on life support. If she were conscious, well, that's different. But she's not.

True Lee, I don't know, but again neither does the court....
We aren't suggesting that we gas people here, but is that next?
Do I think what she has been through is horrible, yes, but i just don't know if letting her starve to death is appropriate. I don't know, Shane says they give pain meds to help avert that, I just hope its a lot.

dancelikeafool wrote:I don't think it has a lot to do with the Religious Right as someone stated, to me at least it is about morally right.

This case has everything to do with the church vs. the state.
The courts have been fairly consistent in ruling for rights of the husband to choose his wife's fate, given the testimonies of many physicians over the course of many hearings. Gov. Jeb Bush, with backing from right-to-life groups (translation: religious hardliners), have continued to fight the court's rulings, throwing whatever they can (the latest: abuse by her caregivers!) into the path of resolution. I have a problem when these organizations (whose existence and rights are inherently guaranteed by our government's constitution) decide they cannot accept judgement from said government when it doesn't fit THEIR idea of what is morally right.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

dancelikeafool wrote:I just don't understand the thinking on his part.

Maybe his wife really told him that she wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state and he's interested in making sure she's no longer kept alive in what seems to be a permanently debilatating condition.

Not really that slippery a slope... no one's suggesting we go and gas anyone with Downs. We're talking about a woman who has been barely kept alive for over a decade on life support. If she were conscious, well, that's different. But she's not.

Maybe his wife really did not tell him what he claims.........are you so ready to kill someone based upon one person's word? No matter what you may think of that person's life or what they might have REALLY wanted based upon one person's say so.........

Did anyone mentioning gassing anyone? The fact of the matter is that "inferior" babies are being killed and murdered if you want to face up to the actuality of what is going on.
Fact is she has not died on her own...if she were to die so easily then the argument would not be taking place, she would die immediately without it .

If they remove the feeding tube she starves to death. How many of you are willing to volunteer to starve to death or watch someone,....let alone your child starve to death. I mean so many of you seem to think it is so pleasant a way to die even with drugs.

It is also law in some places that a man can beat his wife..........how many of you are for that? No jokes please!

The murder of Terri is just that.........if we have to euthanize an animal at least it does not take 15 PHREAKING DAYS or so.

You want talk of torture and suffering ........I notice no one has bothered to answer any of my questions. People blame the Religious Right to the whatever.

I take it that they have forgotten what is morally Right and compassion to our each other.

People have seen nothing wrong with her husband making a small fortune off of killing her.....If she had the Living Will this conversation would be non existant... I would be the first one to protect her Right and wishes.

Apparently she did not ever express her views or wishes to anyone else.... Those views were not so important to her or to her hubby!

Please tell us when her hubby FIRST wanted to remove the tube....What year? and document it, please! Can or will you go back to the original ruling on what the judge said and awarded?

The killing, murder, or taking of people's lives in such cases will be determined by who or whom? Based upon what decisions? (WITHOUT A LIVING WILL) So please tell us where you would stop on the taking of lives and murder of innocent people and "undesirables"?

Where will it end and how can you prevent the abuse?

Again, I am all for the end of suffering and end of pain....but who determines what suffering is and if that person needs to be killed, pardon me....euthanized.

Again I ask of you who is next..........Stephen Hawking, perhaps? How do you base your decision upon who shall live and who shall die when no living will is in place and someone stands to gain financially upon their death..... Would you admit the posssibility of ulterior motive ( ie GREED) is there in at least some cases?

Lightning Bolt wrote:

dancelikeafool wrote:I don't think it has a lot to do with the Religious Right as someone stated, to me at least it is about morally right.

This case has everything to do with the church vs. the state.
The courts have been fairly consistent in ruling for rights of the husband to choose his wife's fate, given the testimonies of many physicians over the course of many hearings. Gov. Jeb Bush, with backing from right-to-life groups (translation: religious hardliners), have continued to fight the court's rulings, throwing whatever they can (the latest: abuse by her caregivers!) into the path of resolution. I have a problem when these organizations (whose existence and rights are inherently guaranteed by our government's constitution) decide they cannot accept judgement from said government when it doesn't fit THEIR idea of what is morally right.

Please show us where in the Constitution, we have the Right to Die.....Everyone and everything that is concieved and born is going to die.
I am not aware of any mention of anything in any Constitution that says we have the Right to die.......

You can blame anyone you want or any organization you want ...........but I do not recall anything about the Right to die in Our Constitution. I do recall something about the pursuit of life,liberty, and happiness, but please by all means go ahead and show us.......

If you want to ignore what is moral and just for society, and everyone and society as AWHOLE and blame the Religious Right then so be it. That is clearly up to you. But who are you going to start killing next once you got your foot in the door and a license to kill? Where will you start? Paras? quads? invalids? Mentally Retarded or Downs ? MS? MD? Parkinson's? the list goes on and on once that door is open........One has to think of long term repercussions and what they can and do lead too.

Do you really want to kill her if there is even a possibility of hope ..... would you want some one killing you if there was a possibility of hope ? Perhaps, but what gives you the right to judge others or deny parents the right of hope for their child?

Would you really want that for your child? Would you so readily give up hope and not give them every opportunity that you possibly could?
I know what I have seen and experienced first hand......and I know how I feel about such similiar situations....

I jus hope FIRSTMATE would of done it much sooner.......and I know she would

Key Lime Lee wrote:

dancelikeafool wrote:I just don't understand the thinking on his part.

Maybe his wife really told him that she wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state and he's interested in making sure she's no longer kept alive in what seems to be a permanently debilatating condition.

Not really that slippery a slope... no one's suggesting we go and gas anyone with Downs. We're talking about a woman who has been barely kept alive for over a decade on life support. If she were conscious, well, that's different. But she's not.

Lee, I don't understand why he just wouldn't divorce her....that's the thinking I have a hard time understanding. If her parents are so hell bent on keeping her alive, let their conscience's bear that weight. I guess that is what I probalbly should have made clearer

Tony5150RN wrote:

Mplsfins wrote: Needless to say it was a long 2 weeks and he finally passed in his sleep.
Jason

Dying in your sleep, peacefully. Now that's the way to go!

Exactly, just like my Grandpa - not like my Grandma in the passenger seat screaming as the 18 wheeler headed for them..

ok, sorry, couldn't help that one...

Sam wrote: I do not recall anything about the Right to die in Our Constitution. I do recall something about the pursuit of life,liberty, and happiness, but please by all means go ahead and show us.....

Please show us where the Constiution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

12vmanRick wrote:As much as I love my family if they leave me in a vegetated state for 15 YEARS when I finally do die I will come back and haunt them mercilessly!!!!!

sorry to break the gloom and doom but that's funny right there, I don't care who you are

dancelikeafool wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

dancelikeafool wrote:I just don't understand the thinking on his part.

Maybe his wife really told him that she wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state and he's interested in making sure she's no longer kept alive in what seems to be a permanently debilatating condition.

Not really that slippery a slope... no one's suggesting we go and gas anyone with Downs. We're talking about a woman who has been barely kept alive for over a decade on life support. If she were conscious, well, that's different. But she's not.

Lee, I don't understand why he just wouldn't divorce her....that's the thinking I have a hard time understanding. If her parents are so hell bent on keeping her alive, let their conscience's bear that weight. I guess that is what I probalbly should have made clearer

I would not divorce her I would have to look at my face for the rest of my life.

Even if the divorce is granted, no matter who the legal guardian is, her parents or otherwise, the feeding tube will be removed on the 18th of March... it's the ruling of the court.

Felos has said even if Michael Schiavo were to divorce his wife, any new guardian would be obligated to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube because the court has ruled it is her wish not to be kept alive artificially.

and here's the article...

http://www.local6.com/news/4239447/detail.html

This is an emotional topic ... everyone has their own opinion, and there will always be different feelings about it. I respect the fact that everyone discussing this has done it eloquently, with many pro/con thoughts discussed in a sane manner.
I too, had to make such a decision recently.When it became evident that my dear JP would survive only as a very physically and mentally impaired person (basically in a vegetative state), the decision was made (with full family support) to remove everything that kept him alive. Just kept a strong morphine drip going to keep him pain free. He lasted 8 hours, and then peacefully slipped away. We had a living will, but even if such a document doesn't exist, an ethics board in each hospital can help. It also varies from state to state. (The fact that I live in California made this easier).
I totally agree with the saying that "if you haven't walked in my shoes, then don't judge me".

Sam wrote:I take it that they have forgotten what is morally Right and compassion to our each other.

That is apparent by YOUR opinion. It is not reflected by the Florida Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals.

Sam wrote:...I would be the first one to protect her Right and wishes.

Hey, it's an open forum, but you're only surmising what her wishes may be.
I'm only basing my opinion on other's professional opinions and the court definitions of privacy and defined rights to them.

Sam wrote:Again, I am all for the end of suffering and end of pain....but who determines what suffering is and if that person needs to be killed, pardon me....euthanized.

Again, that would be the courts. I'm guessing your choice would be the church? I, too, am for the end of suffering, and I am placing that responsibility in the hands of the judge(s).

Sam wrote:Again I ask of you who is next..........Stephen Hawking, perhaps?

Now you're just being melodramatic. Let's just stick with this particular case.
No one is asking for sweeping changes here. The perception that it may be, sounds pretty much like your own conspiracy theory.

Sam wrote: Please show us where in the Constitution, we have the Right to Die.....Everyone and everything that is concieved and born is going to die.
I am not aware of any mention of anything in any Constitution that says we have the Right to die.......

I said earlier that I believe we should have the right to die.
I find it ironic that in a country that values and boasts freedom, we are not given the right to end our own lives (in cases deemed as long-suffering) with humane assistance. The state of Oregon has passed a "Death with Dignity" act, and others are currently following suit. It is also going to be challenged at the Federal level, thanks to pressure from the aforementioned Religious Right. It's all in the news for us all to read if we choose. I'm not making this up as I go...

What was offered in the decision of the Florida Court of Appeals of the Schiavo case was that a person also has the right to privacy.
If the husband states that her wishes were to not endure years of a tube-fed "semi-life", then he is entitled to act on her wishes without OUR interference.

rednekkPH wrote:

Sam wrote: I do not recall anything about the Right to die in Our Constitution. I do recall something about the pursuit of life,liberty, and happiness, but please by all means go ahead and show us.....

Please show us where the Constiution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

Nice dodge...

Go back and read what I said .....I said nothing about guaranteeing them to ANYONE...,only that I recalled something about the PURSUIT of such being said....It is in the Declaration of Independence.

Lightning Bolt wrote:

Sam wrote:I take it that they have forgotten what is morally Right and compassion to our each other.

That is apparent by YOUR opinion. It is not reflected by the Florida Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals.

Sam wrote:...I would be the first one to protect her Right and wishes.

Hey, it's an open forum, but you're only surmising what her wishes may be.
I'm only basing my opinion on other's professional opinions and the court definitions of privacy and defined rights to them.

Sam wrote:Again, I am all for the end of suffering and end of pain....but who determines what suffering is and if that person needs to be killed, pardon me....euthanized.

Again, that would be the courts. I'm guessing your choice would be the church? I, too, am for the end of suffering, and I am placing that responsibility in the hands of the judge(s).

Sam wrote:Again I ask of you who is next..........Stephen Hawking, perhaps?

Now you're just being melodramatic. Let's just stick with this particular case.
No one is asking for sweeping changes here. The perception that it may be, sounds pretty much like your own conspiracy theory.

Opinions are like A$$holes, everyone has one including you,me, and anyone else that voices their view/opinion.
Your opinions/my opinions/ anyone else's opinions are just that...opinions... no worse... no better. You may or may not like or appreciate the difference between what is legally Right and what is morally Right, that I do not know.

I never claimed to represent anyone else's opinion, only my own....I merely point out the possibility that her husband is the only one saying that Terri said such and he stands for financial gain and the posssibility is there that she possibly never said it.

Can you or will you admit that it is quite possible that she never really did say that?

The law is the law ....does that always mean all laws are always correct and proper?


Keep guessing about why I feel the way I do.

As for the courts, it seems many people feel the courts have no place in this, so now you seem to be saying it is a matter of the courts to decide on who lives and who dies....including you your family and everyone else, by leaving it in the hands of judges.

Pehaps you need to and should look at the far reaching consequences of such rulings and the precedences they set. Just like the atomic genie...once released.......

Someone already mentioned in an earlier post of "undesirable" ( my word) deformed babies being killed in another country...so you tell me melodrama....fact or fiction....where does and where will it stop? Do you really want to say who lives and who dies or how they die or do you just want the courts to decide and wash your hands of it and accept their decision and go along peacefully? As I said earlier, life is precious and a gift...

Can you 100% guarantee she is not inside? I don't think you can. I know I cannot guarantee anything about that and I don't want it on my concious on killing her if there is a chance for her...Are you for people going to be forced to go to the courts, to find out if they are sick or injured? Come on...get real.
*************************************************************
mrsmcg,
I share empathy with you and your pain and loss. HUUUUUGGGZZZZ!

nycparrothead wrote:

dancelikeafool wrote:.....she will die a long and painfully, removing the tube will only make her starve to death

Unfortunately starvation is the only legal way to euthanize someone in this country. It takes approximately 15 days and "IN MY OPINION" that's better than the suffering that she's gone through for 15 years and would continue to go through for the next 30 or so years.... Besides, they DO give her sedation to assist in pain management so it's not as bad as you might think...

Agreed.

Sure, the husband may be a scumbag...but do you REALLY blame him? His wife is been a veg for 15 years. I'm sorry, but if I knew my wife was never coming back, I'd like to move on with my life as well. She should have had the tube removed years ago. I know I'd rather die than live (using "live" loosely) like that.

Now the parents are attempting to move for a divorce. Good Lord!!!!!!!!!


Now who's the scum bags?