Removal of Feeding Tube (pray)

[Melody]

Originally Posted by EEWRED

I can't believe what I am reading here. You guys actually think that it is alright for this womans piece of crap husband to have her killed because she is an inconvenience to his extramarital affair? She is ALIVE. It may not be the life that you or I would prefer, but it is still life. What gives us the right to decide who lives and who dies? Who empowered us to make that decision? Who do we think we are? Does this mean we can now indiscriminately go from hospital to hospital, pulling feeding tubes because, "I wouldn't want to live like this." What kind of reasoning is that? I am just amazed that anyone would agree with this decision. Boggles my mind.

Please explain how she is an inconvenience to his extramarital affair? She obviously hasn't hindered it so far. How will her death change anything?

[Draka]

As far as I know when this whole thing started there was no "extramarital" affair. So one has nothing to do with the other. I, personally, am just thinking..."about time". Her only problem was not just that she couldnot feed herself, she could NOT interact with others, the doctor's even have said that she might be able to see faces of sorts but had no comprehension or communication abilities at all. She was, in essence, a wide awake vegetable. And that is no way to live.

[jamaesi]

Is her husband not allowed to move on?

To want your loved ones to hang on to your death bed for decades while you are in a vegative stage is selfish. If I was in a coma for so long I would want my plug pulled and my SO happy, even if it is without me.

Does this mean we can now indiscriminately go from hospital to hospital, pulling feeding tubes because, "I wouldn't want to live like this." What kind of reasoning is that? I am just amazed that anyone would agree with this decision. Boggles my mind.

This slippery slope is laughable. This is her husband, not some random person traversing the hospital. Spouses and family decide; they, actually knowing the person, will probably choose best.


And again, Terri will not starve to death and be in agony. This is an entirely different case than the ones of hungry, third-world nations. She will pass peacefully... and I hope she finds her way to a safe and happy place on the other side.

[rhb100]

The removal of the feeding tube was the morally proper thing to do. The medical opinion is that she has no feelings and therefore she will not suffer as the result of withdrawal of food. The evidence we have indicates that this is what she would have wanted. The judge who made the decision to remove the feeding tube is doing what he believe is the morally proper thing to do and he is certainly better qualified to make the proper moral decision than the yokels gathered outside the hospice putting on a demonstration. We should always respect the right of a person to bring about his own death. And this includes the right to use an assistant (i.e. assiosted suicide).

[Jaymes]

Originally Posted by EEWRED

I can't believe what I am reading here. You guys actually think that it is alright for this womans piece of crap husband to have her killed because she is an inconvenience to his extramarital affair?

How is she an inconvenience? It would be more than simple for him to go before a judge to get a divorce. I'm not buying that line.

She is ALIVE. It may not be the life that you or I would prefer, but it is still life. What gives us the right to decide who lives and who dies? Who empowered us to make that decision? Who do we think we are? Does this mean we can now indiscriminately go from hospital to hospital, pulling feeding tubes because, "I wouldn't want to live like this." What kind of reasoning is that? I am just amazed that anyone would agree with this decision. Boggles my mind.

What boggles my mind is how you refuse to let her pass on. People can be complete vegetables with no chance of recovery, and they are arguably alive. Should we keep them breathing and force food into their system when they're like that?

[Green Gaia]

Ok... I admit, I haven't read everything about this case, but if the only that is wrong with this woman, as some assert, is that she can't feed herself and her family wants to keep her alive, why don't they take her home and feed and care for her? Let the husband get on with his life if that's what he needs to do.

[Green Gaia]

How long do we keep people like Terri "alive"? Indefinitely?

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by EEWRED

I can't believe what I am reading here. You guys actually think that it is alright for this womans piece of crap husband to have her killed because she is an inconvenience to his extramarital affair? She is ALIVE. It may not be the life that you or I would prefer, but it is still life. What gives us the right to decide who lives and who dies? Who empowered us to make that decision? Who do we think we are? Does this mean we can now indiscriminately go from hospital to hospital, pulling feeding tubes because, "I wouldn't want to live like this." What kind of reasoning is that? I am just amazed that anyone would agree with this decision. Boggles my mind.

It doesn't matter a jot whether or not it is the life any of us here would or would not prefer. What matters is that the court has ruled that it is the life Terri would not prefer, and they are making the decision based on what they think her wishes would have been. If you want to get into the nitty gritties of us not having the right to decide who lives or dies, well, that decision was made 15 years ago when the feeding tube was inserted. Without it she would have been dead for the last 15 years, instead of stuck in the middle of a nasty **** fight between her parents and her husband, who quite frankly I don't think people have the right to call names unless they know him personally. I knew nothing about this until the first thread surfaced on here a month or so ago, but since then I've heard a lot about it, and quite frankly I think many of the people working so hard at badmouthing Michael Schiavo are so busy seeing the worst in a man none of them know that they can't see the forest for the trees.
'He's doing it for the money!'
He knocks back vast sums of money to walk away and what does he get for that?
'Well, obviously he's being paid off by someone else.'
'He just wants her dead so he can continue his affair!'
This would be the 'affair' that her continued existence has apparently been no impediment to prior to this? There's a motive for ya:'I want her gone so she no longer interferes in something that she hasn't interfered in.'
Someone come up wth a sinister motive that makes an ounce of sense (and hasn't been refuted) as to why he's spent so many years of his life fighting this battle when it would have been so much easier for him to just get a divorce and walk away. Please.
All I can see at this point are parents who can't bear to let go (because you're not supposed to outlive your children, are you) and some bloke who is getting verbally spat upon at every turn.
And please. lets not get into the whole 'will of God' thing, because quite frankly if it hadn't been circumvented with a feeding tube, the 'will of God' would have seen her dead for the last 15 years.
Let the woman die in peace.

[Majikthise]

My wife and I have discussed this issue at length.I do not want my parents to decide what happens to me and make my wifes life any worse than it would be .My parents have not been my legal gaurdians for 22 years even though they still treat me like a child sometimes.As a result we are going to have legal documents drawn up to protect each other in the unlikely event of this situation.I'm sure someone would try to attack my wife's character in any event.