I really feel sorry for that poor bastard, whatever his motives. St. Francis of Assisi would come across like Satan given the type of coverage Mr. Shiavo has been getting.

 

I watched the brother and sister interviewed and they basically said husband was trying to kill her by not letting her wake up (so she could not tell on him). But when asked if husband sought treatment for wife in beginning, they said yes, 2 years worth. So how could he be trying to kill her if that were the case. Contradiction. Poor family and husband. Both are grasping at straws.

What is the difference in suicide and deciding not to live in circumstances like this? Suicide is illegal and pulling the tube is not. Why? Both are desparate acts.

I wonder what decision I would make. At the moment, I say don't let me live that way, but I might change my mind if I were put in that situation. No win situation.

 

I watched a doctor on George Stephanopoulos' show talk about how Terry's brain is liquid, and how starvation is a nice way to die. Over on FOX, Terry's old friends are bringing up unexplained bruising and how controlling her husband was.

Whatever happens, I feel like one of the sides is lying to advance their position. In that case, do they care about Terry or just care about getting their way?

 

[QUOTE=Honda 367,Mar 22 2005, 04:16 AM]

Contrary to what some people may think, the Judiciary branch is the weakest of the three branches of our government.

 

Nobody on either side of the case really wants the legislature to get involved--each is hoping that the judge will make the correct decision. In this case, there are quite a few people who feel he's not making the right decision. That's when it the legislature is supposed to step in.

As for the poll, the question put forth said that Terry Schiavo was on life support and unconscious, which are both untrue--it was a misleading question.

I guess there's no such thing as "unbiased" any more.

 

Isn't a feeding tube as much life support as forced oxygen? And you can't say she is conscious, when she is in a vegetative state, can't communicate, can't comprehend and can't think. Eyes being open isn't conscious.
I say let the poor woman go.

 

I imagine watching Terry Schiavo slowly waste away due to dehydration would give some measure of satisfaction to those who argue for "letting her go." That is such an arrogant euphemism to explain away the reality of horrible death. If everyone couldn't resolve the issue until now after 15 years of all kinds of court battles, why now? Why not let her live and see what happens? I mean is it evil to keep her alive? If the husband simply turns away and allows those who love her to continue with their care for her, why is it such a terrible thing? When this woman finally succumbs to her death, will those who stand with Mr. Schiavo cheer and exclaim they won? It has become a contest of will, it seems. Just let the woman live! Live and let live!

 

It would be nice to err on the side of life.

Strangely enough, I started thinking of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

There's an unforgettable skit when the Plague is ravaging the countryside. The "undertaker" has a kart full of dead people--"Bring out yer dead." Except some of the townfolk dump some questionable cadavers on the pile.

"I'm not dead yet!"
"Your nearly dead."
"I'm getting better!"

End result--money changes hands, and a club ends the discussion.

I know it's not a funny situation, but my thoughts follow strange paths...

 

You know, if that was true, then Congress would have/should have passed a law back when the Brown vs. Board of Education decision was handed down as well. Or do you want to argue that there weren't "quite a few people who [felt] he's not making the right decision"?

 

I will not cheer when she is gone. But what if her husband is telling the truth and it's HER wish not to live in such a state as she is in? Shouldn't society, courts, you and I respect her wish?