SillyDog701

[Ron Williams]

For those who dont know who terri schiavo she is a woman whom had her feeding tube removed because her husband requested it. Her parents are appealing the decision that was agreed to by 18 (thats right eighteen) judges. On saturday congress held an emergency meeting to allow the case to goto supreme court. You can find more information at http://www.terrisfight.net/. So whats your opinion, should she live or should she die?

I think she should live.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1

[Don_HH2K]

I heard recently that the Supreme Court has elected to not reinsert the feeding tube.

Personally, I believe that she should probably be put out of this anyway. After staying in a coma for so many years, it's kind of hard for someone to expect a recovery. Plus, if and when she does recover, it'd be hard on her to have to adapt to the changes of the past however many years, like if relatives have died, etc... And although it would be easy to rule this case out with an EEG, it could always be possible that parts of her brain have been conscious that have kept her thinking in some sort of way for however many years, and THAT would be pretty bad.

Another opinion -- keeping somebody on life support for so long isn't exactly good either. If the body isn't able to do something full-time anymore, like eat or circulate blood, then there's no reason that such a body should be kept on life support for so many years. Basically what I'm saying is that life support is good in the case of those who need it temporarily, while somebody that's been on it for many years and has shown no signs of improvement might see it as a bad thing.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Donzilla/0.6PR2 (like Netscape/7.2; wml/1.3)

[Ron Williams]

Terri is not on what is considered traditional life support (breathing, blood movement). She is only getting food and water via a feeding tube. A person will not recover without therapy and she has not had rehabilitative therapy since 1991. She has not been outside for 3-4 years. All because of her husband not allowing. If she dies I could only consider him a murderer and a neglectful so called husband.

Why so called husband you ask?
He has a new woman in his life.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1

[Antony]

For those who dont know who terri schiavo she is a woman whom had her feeding tube removed because her husband requested it.

I believe the sentence should amend to "Michael Schiavo, Terri's legal guardian, wanted to complete Terri's wish - NOT to be kept alive artificially."

Her parents are appealing the decision that was agreed to by 18 (thats right eighteen) judges.

I don't see any point to empharise 18 judges that agreed to hold an appealing.

Fact (taken from Terri Schiavo's Timeline (CNN)):
2000
In February, Florida Circuit Judge George W. Greer rules that Terri's feeding tube can be removed

2001
The feeding tube is removed on April 24, but reinserted two days later after a ruling by Florida Circuit Court Judge Frank Quesada. In October, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issues an indefinite stay while it hears the case.

2002
In a week of appeals and court hearings, three doctors -- two chosen by Michael Schiavo and one chosen by the court -- testify that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state without hope of recovery. Two doctors chosen by her parents say that she can recover. In November, Greer rules the feeding tube can be removed in January 2003, but stays that order in December pending another appeal.

2003
On Greer's order, after his previous ruling is upheld, Terri's feeding tube is removed for the second time on October 15. Six days later, the Florida Legislature passes "Terri's Law," allowing Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to stay the judge's order and direct that the feeding tube be reinserted. Bush issues that stay two hours later.

2004
The Florida Supreme Court declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional. Gov. Bush appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On January 24, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case ("Terri's Law") , ending any further avenue for appeal.

So whats your opinion, should she live or should she die?

I think she should live.

I think we should respect her wish - not to be kept alive artificially.

It's a serious problem for her husband. Her husband has been suffering from this for 15 years. Terri's live is not to be decided by politicians, and definitely NOT the religions group (extremists).
Respect her life, respect her wish, and don't waste medical resources.
Michael is fighting for Terri's right to die.

If she dies I could only consider him a murderer and a neglectful so called husband.

You need to justify the sentence.

Why so called husband you ask?
He has a new woman in his life.

You can't blame him for not finding and having a new companion.

Michael has been suffered for being married to a woman who can't talk, who can't express herself. Terri is in persistent vegetative state (PVS), and the courts have agreed.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Ron Williams]

For those who dont know who terri schiavo she is a woman whom had her feeding tube removed because her husband requested it.

I believe the sentence should amend to "Michael Schiavo, Terri's legal guardian, wanted to complete Terri's wish - NOT to be kept alive artificially."

She never wrote this on paper

2002
In a week of appeals and court hearings, three doctors -- two chosen by Michael Schiavo and one chosen by the court -- testify that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state without hope of recovery. Two doctors chosen by her parents say that she can recover. In November, Greer rules the feeding tube can be removed in January 2003, but stays that order in December pending another appeal.

The doctors have not been allowed to do complete testing on her because of the husband.

It's a serious problem for her husband. Her husband has been suffering from this for 15 years. Terri's live is not to be decided by politicians, and definitely NOT the religions group (extremists).

HMMM extremists? What would you do if someone was trying to kill someone that you loved or cared for? Because I know you will say kill it not kill just removing a tube, here is what google definition says

killing: the act of terminating a life
cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly

Michael Schiavo is knowingly causing her to die

If she dies I could only consider him a murderer and a neglectful so called husband.

You need to justify the sentence.

Sorry it is manslaughter

murder: action that results in an unintentional death of another person

I doubt that the U.S. President George Bush would take action on this unless he believed in it, even if his brother is Jeb Bush (floridas governer).


By the way the case is right now in an appeals court.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1

[Antony]

For those who dont know who terri schiavo she is a woman whom had her feeding tube removed because her husband requested it.

I believe the sentence should amend to "Michael Schiavo, Terri's legal guardian, wanted to complete Terri's wish - NOT to be kept alive artificially."

She never wrote this on paper

Any statement said or express by anyone can be used. That does not need to be written.

For your information, verbal agreements are legit (as long as not against the laws) in the court.

2002
In a week of appeals and court hearings, three doctors -- two chosen by Michael Schiavo and one chosen by the court -- testify that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state without hope of recovery. Two doctors chosen by her parents say that she can recover. In November, Greer rules the feeding tube can be removed in January 2003, but stays that order in December pending another appeal.

The doctors have not been allowed to do complete testing on her because of the husband.

It's a serious problem for her husband. Her husband has been suffering from this for 15 years. Terri's live is not to be decided by politicians, and definitely NOT the religions group (extremists).

HMMM extremists? What would you do if someone was trying to kill someone that you loved or cared for? Because I know you will say kill it not kill just removing a tube, here is what google definition says

killing: the act of terminating a life
cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly

Michael Schiavo is knowingly causing her to die

What are all those supports outside the hospital got to do with Terri Schiavo? With a huge number of them carrying religious related signs.

Terri's legal guardian did not (and is not going to) kill Terri. Michael Schiavo has been keeping Terri alive artificially for 15 years, that has been against Terri's own wish, mainly due to the resistance from her parents.

Michael is helping Terri, not killing her or causing her to die.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Antony]

I doubt that the U.S. President George Bush would take action on this unless he believed in it, even if his brother is Jeb Bush (floridas governer).

U.S. President George W. Bush has already intervened into this case.

It was a sad day for Americans (according to Michael Schiavo) that the government, including president, is involved into this family issue.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Ron Williams]

I doubt that the U.S. President George Bush would take action on this unless he believed in it, even if his brother is Jeb Bush (floridas governer).

U.S. President George W. Bush has already intervened into this case.

I stated that, I guess it was unclear

It was a sad day for Americans (according to Michael Schiavo) that the government, including president, is involved into this family issue.

If he was not trying to inflict manslaughter to his wife there would be no problem. I hope someone puts a bullet in Michael Schiavo's head and his attorney!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1

[Antony]

It was a sad day for Americans (according to Michael Schiavo) that the government, including president, is involved into this family issue.

If he was not trying to inflict manslaughter to his wife there would be no problem. I hope someone puts a bullet in Michael Schiavo's head and his attorney!

"Inflict manslaughter" to his wife? He is helping his wife (as his wife's wish), and he has a life to carry on. He could not freely marry a woman (whom can speak, react at very least) because he is married to Terri still.

For someone who is trying to help his wife, and also help himself to a better life, I don't think calling him "inflict manslaughter" is appropriate.

If her parents were not so resisting on keep feeding persistent vegetative state patient and the politicians did not involve into a private family case, there would be no issues at all.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Ron Williams]

He could not freely marry a woman (whom can speak, react at very least) because he is married to Terri still.

Since he is her legal guardian or whatever they call it for adults, he can legally get a divorce and speak on her behalf, for example he could say he wants a divorce and then say for his wife that she wants a divorce.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1

[Antony]

He could not freely marry a woman (whom can speak, react at very least) because he is married to Terri still.

Since he is her legal guardian or whatever they call it for adults, he can legally get a divorce and speak on her behalf, for example he could say he wants a divorce and then say for his wife that she wants a divorce.

Not really. Legal guardian is not allowed to make all decisions when she is not under certain age.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Antony]

Timeline (from BBC News):

• 18 Mar 2005: Florida court again allows removal of tube
• 22 Mar 2005: Federal judge turns down parents' appeal
• 23 Mar 2005: Appeals court backs federal ruling

The three-judge panel in Atlanta, Georgia, ruled 2-1 to deny the parents' appeal, a day after a judge in Florida also refused a similar request.

Apparently, Terri's parents are not ready to give up, they will file another appeal.

Exactly, how many appeals can someone file for the same case?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Ron Williams]

Another messed up thing is that in a state where it is a felony to starve a dog to death, they are legally doing it to a person.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1

[Antony]

Another messed up thing is that in a state where it is a felony to starve a dog to death, they are legally doing it to a person.

Well, you may pass back to where you got that example from, that analogy is very bad.
1. People are allowed to pets to sleep.
and the euthanasia for human? thanks to the resistance from religious extremists
2. Is that dog in persistent vegetative state?
3. Is that dog unable to bark, express itself and requires the owner to use a feeding-tube to keep him survive?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Ron Williams]

Have you not considered that the husband is poisoning her? Why would he with-hold the medical records from the parents? Euthanasia of a dog last minutes (I have had to put enough down) not 5 days and possibly 6. The first definition for euthanasia according to google is "The putting to death, by painless method, of a terminally-ill or severely debilitated person". Painless thats a joke there are doctors that have stated that her cerebral cortex is in tact. Why risk causing such pain to a person when running test could solve it? Heres why he has wasted so much money on his attorneys fees (over $300,000 US) that he does not want to use any on her. He also has stated he will not benefit from her death, there has been approximately $550,000 US removed from an account that had $900,000 US. That would leave him with $350,000 US, if he does not need to pay for her medical bills and his attorney then there is nothing legally stopping him from taking it. Now lets say she dies, definately by friday, if Michael Schiavo refuses to allow a full autospy to be conducted there would be reasonable doubt that he possibly poisoned her. As soon as he refused he would be in court for murder and most likely a civil suit would be filed. Why would he be in court? Simple a police officer is required to take information on the case, passing it to a hearing. At the hearing (since there is so much pressure from outside sources) the case would go to court immediately, if there was a possibility to have him arrested he would be (satan should help him because he does not believe in God and someone will kill him in jail). Once the states attorney receives the case there would be an immediate autospy, because the states attorney has that right. The autospy would happen immediately because insulin disolves into sugar making it impossible to find out if her blood sugar was low.

Who knows we will have to wait

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1