I'm sure most of you heard about this but I still find it hard to believe in this day and age we are allowing this to happen:

http://www.terrisfight.org

Feel free to join the petition or donate on her behalf.

Thanks.

 

There are two sides to every story, and the husband's side is gruesome as well.

You have on one hand the parents of this unfortunate soul, who insist that their child has some kind of functional ability. After all, it's the parents and this is their daughter. Add to this the right-to-lifers, who really have no business in the matter.

On the other hand, you have the husband, the courts and the doctors all stating the person is brain-dead, with no signs of brain activity. This has gone the full run of the court system-- in favor of the husband and there's no one else to go to now.

Yes, I'm appearing to show a bit of bias here. Especially when you read what the other side has to say. Of course that also goes along with my personal beliefs that if this had happened to me, that it should never have gotten this far before they pull the plug.

13 years in a vegetative state? Even if someone was partially aware of their surroundings, isn't this a fate worse than death?

 

This is a personal choice. All of us should have our wishes documented in case something like this happens.
I have been in this situation and unless you have, you really don't understand. Believe me, it's very difficult for the husband also. I'm sure the parents are devastated too. Nobody should have to make this decision for another.

rworne: Not to mention the indignity. It's just a tough situation where there is no right or wrong. Make your wishes known. Make a will and give somebody a medical power of attorney. That is the only answer. I'd say that she has run her course and it's time. And then again, there is always hope. Without machines, nature will take it's course.

Gym: I feel your sadness however unless you've had to put a loved one down (give them that last sedative mixed with morphine and place it under their tongue) you have no idea. Unless you have cared for a sick person's every need around the clock, you can't understand. When it's time, it's time. Unless all of us make our wishes know, the courts end up having the last word. What do they know?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gymniac
I'm sure most of you heard about this but I still find it hard to believe in this day and age we are allowing this to happen:

http://www.terrisfight.org

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ubetit

 

No, I've never been into this situation before. BUT in this case, IMHO, the "husband" has just too many conflict of interest ($$$ and his new "mistress" etc.) to be the legal "guardian" for her...in which case, given that Terri did not have a will (clearly stating that she WOULD want to be killed in a circumstance like this) before the "accident," I think the ultimate decision has to be made by non other than her own flesh and blood, the Schindler family. This, regrettably, did not happen this time.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ubetit

 

Here is what I meant by "conflict of interest."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...22/165543.shtml

BTW, I'm not some ultra conservative, god-fearing christian who is against killing her this way for religious reason. I don't even agree with everything that's written above. But given some of the evidences stated, it is rather obvious that Michael Schiavo has A LOT to be gained if Terri was dead.

 

I'm in an Anthropology class right now where we are discussing these things; end of life decisions, euthanasia, active/vs. passive assisted suicide, etc. In this case, it is clear that the victim is beign kept alive artificially at a lower quality of life than she ever had before. The case reminds me very much of that concerning Robert Wendland in california. He was an alcoholic, and while driving drunk he crashed and was left in a coma. He awoke from it with irreversible brain damage in a state called minimal consciousness, which meant he could answer questions on occasion, and sometimes was able to place round and square blocks in corresponding holes. However, he could not recognize his own childrena nd often when the physicians attempted therapy he would be utterly unresponsive. he was more mentally competant than this Terri woman, and also had no living will. He had been heard to say things such as (in this case to his brother, after a conversation with him about robert's drinking habit and the likelihood of an accident) "If anything ever happens to me, don't let them make me a vegetable."

His wife petitioned to remove his feeding tube, and allow him to die. His mother, however, filed a lawsuit to stop the action, citing a conflict of interest in the wife's decision due to child custody laws and associated taxes, and Life Insurance payouts. She(the mother) also won conservatorship of Robert's estate, essentially usurping the wife's authority over Robert's future(despite the cold nature of robert's relationship with his mother prior to the accident). The California courts, which issued their decision after Robert's death(without having the tube removed), indicated a need for "clear and convincing evidence" of the patient's own wishes before any cessation of medical treatment. They failed to find this, and supported the mother's position. I think that his wife, having lived with him in day to day contact for longer than he had lived with his mother during his childhood, and at a more proximate time to his accident, should have legal standing to make decisions on his behalf, and Robert Wendland's life should have been ended to minimize the obvious agony of his situation.

Now....Florida statutes may be different, but to me the removal of a feeding tube and the removal of a respirator are absolutely analogous. I support the husband's decision, and find it appalling that the family would have the audacity to allege that he is trying to kill her so that he may profit; he could have divorced her at any time over the past 13 years, but he, too, was hopeful. From what I have read, he reached this decision after extensive consultation with her treating physicians, and I tend to agree that it's the correct choice. The fact that law prevents the hastening of her passing by active euthanasia to minimize suffering is the real injustice in this case. The fact is, in any case, that the florida court has ruled that the husband's action is legal.

Furthermore, that website is propaganda, through and through. I think it's a sick and twisted attempt to defame the husband, and incite fire in the hearts of people who do not realize that there is much more to the story than the deformed image the family of Terri wishes to paint.

I apologize for my lack of brevity, but this is a complex issue. Florida has obviously rejected the idea of "clear and convincing evidence," adopting a stance more akin to Oregon's Death with Dignity law. I am sorry for all parties involved, for it is now a slam-fest which will result in the destruction of many more than one life if it continues unabated. I can't imagine this was as easy a decision for her husband as the family wishes to portray it; he is not a cold hearted murdered, and I am sicked by their assertions that he and "his doctors" are such.

Quick2K

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gymniac
Here is what I meant by "conflict of interest."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...22/165543.shtml