Terri Schiavo Dead...

[Mzeppelin 0]

Thoughts on this woman's recent death?I thought they should've at least killed her in a more humane way, not starving her to death.

[clagnol 0]

Starving is only an unpleasant sensation to organisms that can feel. I imagine Terri Schiavo's pain was approximately equal to that of a dying tree. I'm sure many people of the conservative Republican persuasion will argue that she could feel and laugh, and dance the Charleston. But this is simply false. The lady was a vegetable, and the only ones in pain were her family, especially her husband, who has been unforgivably impugned by her misdirected parents.

[snlildude87 0]

Think about it, guys. This woman got herself into this situation by being bulimic (check out https://www.wikipedia.org/ if you don't believe me). She should not have been doing that anyways, so basically, she starved herself to death.

But since she was basically dead for 15 years, I think it's good that she died because the her parents can finally stop pestering about putting the feeding tube back in.

[psyfish 0]

I think that it was good that they let her die. A lot of people keep saying that they're killing her because she has a feeding tube. THat's not the reason. They're taking her feeding tube away because she's brain dead. She can't feel anything. People are comparing her to handi capped people but she's not even that. She's like a plant that can move.

[dark 0]

HiWell there is two ways to look at it, and I don't think one is wrong, it's just different ways of approching the problem.One was to let her die as it happened and the other to let her live even in her vegetative state as she was still one of us, a human being and you just don't finish off a human being like a dog.I belong to the second group, without judging the first group that is. Maybe if she was a member of your family you would think differently, maybe not.RIP terryPatrick

[clagnol 0]

... you just don't finish off a human being like a dog.

I belong to the second group, without judging the first group that is.

68018[/snapback]

Hahahaha! Do you not see the inherent contradiction in these statements? You can't have your cake and eat it, too, fellow. Either you stop with the melodramatic similes or you admit that you are judging the first group.

[dexter 0]

But since she was basically dead for 15 years, I think it's good that she died because the her parents can finally stop pestering about putting the feeding tube back in.

67835[/snapback]

I was under the impression that it'd only been a a few weeks that she'd actually been brain dead for. Anyway, I can't really say one way or another whether it was right or not. On one hand it seems cruel to let her starve to death, yet on the other, if she was braindead, was she more than just a vegetable. It's a difficult thing to judge.

 

Heh, I found this to be a -slightly- amusing take on the whole thing...

 

[KingdomSlug 0]

But since she was basically dead for 15 years, I think it's good that she died because the her parents can finally stop pestering about putting the feeding tube back in.

67835[/snapback]

I feel bad that the parents spent a lot of money on the whole thing. Didn't they spend their retirerment money on it too? Atleast now new laws or something somewhat good might come out of this.

[snlildude87 0]

I was under the impression that it'd only been a a few weeks that she'd actually been brain dead for.

68123[/snapback]

Nope. She's been a vegetable for 15 years...or at else wikipedia lied to me

who later moved to St. Petersburg, Florida, spending the last 15 years of her life in what several doctors determined to be a persistent vegetative state (PVS)

Atleast now new laws or something somewhat good might come out of this.

68410[/snapback]

Yes, they did made a law about her...or at least that's what her LJ (livejournal) said. (the LJ is a joke...please don't take it seriously...and if your eyes have not lost their virginity, now is not the time to lose it [scattered bad words] )

[eiteljoh 0]

just so you know ... this actaully made international news. but ... at on that note ... it is an important issue that needs to be addressed more. i think i'm changing my views, in light of the pope's death, that there is something to be said about nature, god, etc by going through suffering. now, of course, easy for me to say when i'm not the one doing any suffering. i do, however, believe 100% that they have the right to terminate her life if that was her wish. i don't care if it's from a gun or not... it shouldn't even be an issue.my point is that, from the pope's lessons, that suffering a part of life ... you shouldn't run away from it. actaully i don't have a concrete thought now, but i'm not against suffering.

[dundun2007 0]

Well starving her i dont think was a option that the family got to make but i dont think she felt anything when she died. She was hooked up with alot of pain killers and probably didnt feel anything. They starved her to death so that the feeding tube actually killed her and it wasnt by any other means. I really think that they shouldnt of killed her that way either. The best way i would want to go is in my sleep i am sure others will agree with me on this one.

[Se?or Maniac 0]

The big question to me about this how she got in a vegitative state. I know that it is from an increase in potassium. But the thing that is curious to me is the fact that it shoot down so fast in such a short amount of time. Statistics have proven that a person at her age at that time does not usually have such a decrease in potassium without some type of help wether being medicine or what not. But this is just my opinion.

[Neutrality 0]

This is a VERY hard issue to discuss. I'm seeing this issue from both lights it seems. On one hand, she was in a vegetable-like state for 15 years suffering immensely (as did her parents). On the other hand, I don't know is she actually wanted to die if she ever ended up in a statelike that. Some sources say yes, some sources say no, so it's prettyup in the air.I don't know...the only thing I find abit awkward is how some people talk about her or how they refer to her as. "The brain-dead woman", "The vegetable", etc. I don't think people would like to be called such names if they were ever in a situation like that. SometimesI just don't understand people.

[snlildude87 0]

The big question to me about this how she got in a vegitative state.

68662[/snapback]

She starved herself there by being bulimic. Then, she got a stroke and became a vegetable. Therefore, if you look at it in a long-range point-of-view, she starved herself to death.

[no9t9 0]

the big question is not how she got in that state. The big question is how to deal with people in similar situations. The reason why this case is so important is because it could set precedence from a legal standpoint.The are a few fundamental issues here. First, is that if you allow her husband to "let her die", is he committing a crime? By the letter of the law, correct me if I'm wrong, manslaughter is the killing of a person without malice. Murder is killing WITH malice.Second, if one is allowed to perform "mercy killings"... where will it stop? there are people who would like to take their own lives because they lost their job, or their wives, children, whatever the reason. If you allow the right to die, does that mean these people will be allowed to? They are suffering. If they choose to die, should they be allowed? I believe, currently... it is illegal to commit suicide. The right to die would change this law.I believe that the supreme court did the right thing. They stayed out of the case, instead of ordering the feeding tube be put back in. I believe this is the right decision for this case. By staying out of the case, the supreme court essentially made the decision to allow her to die without actually coming out and saying they supported it. In this case, I believe that the victim was suffering for the past 15 years and it was the humane thing to do.I believe that euthanasia should be considered on a case by case basis. I know this is subjective, but this is exactly why law makers are having such a hard time with this subject.