AbstracT 0 Report post Posted April 5, 2005 Honestly I don't understand what is the big fuss over her because plenty of people have went thru this before and it wasn't put out to the public. From my understanding her husband has his own life and in a relationship with another woman i don't understand why didn't he just give her up for the govt to take care of her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
clagnol 0 Report post Posted April 6, 2005 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. 68719[/snapback] There is no "big question". And this case isn't that important. It would have become important if Terri's family had won any of their cases, as that would have set some precedence. However, the law is pretty clear on these matters, and as such, the husband won every legal battle. The only battle he lost was for the hearts and minds of the religious right. And who wants that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
no9t9 0 Report post Posted April 6, 2005 LOL. the case WAS important for everyone BECAUSE there was the possibility that it COULD set a precedence. If you read the rest of my post, you will see that I say the supreme court made the right decision and in the end NOTHING CHANGED besides the issue getting more media exposure. How can you say there is no big question? Obviously AFTER THE FACT, it is easy to say. But, I am explaining WHY it was in the news and WHY it is a big deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wyllt 0 Report post Posted April 6, 2005 Honestly I don't understand what is the big fuss over her because plenty of people have went thru this before and it wasn't put out to the public. From my understanding her husband has his own life and in a relationship with another woman i don't understand why didn't he just give her up for the govt to take care of her. 68755[/snapback] He still felt an obligation to her, obviously. And according to him he felt it was his wifes wish not to continue her existance by artificial means. I know that if my wife was in a similar situation that she would want me to do the same, however I am quite sure I would have a VERY hard time actually letting go. The big fuss was becuse she did not document her wishes, and her parents had different thoughts on what she would have wanted than he did. The problem was since no one knew for sure what her wishes it had to be assumed that the husband knew best Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dvs 0 Report post Posted April 7, 2005 First let me give my opinion.And it's my opinion.I thank it was it was wrong to starve her to weather she was in a vegitative state or not.If you have a dog in that shap you take it to a vet who will put it to sleep (lethal injection) much the same way they do muderers.So that is to say that dogs and muderers are better than she was.Also for those here that think is right let me ask this.Do you think it's ok for doctors like jack kevorkian to assist people with terminal cancer in committing suicide?Scince this story became a big public issue our local tv news has been showing story of other people in the same condistion.One of the stories that they showed was about a women in our state that was in a similare vegitative state and the doctors told her family that there was not much chance that she live long.But her family desided not to remove her tube.She stayed like a few years and then began to recover and now she has recove (I think they said something like 82%).I remember a years ago a report about a guy in our state that had been brain damaged and stayed in coma for 13 years and came out of it and there recovered almost 100%.Let me also say that these news reports also said that those cases were very rare.But they did happen even if they were rare.Well any way that my 2 cents. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NilsC 0 Report post Posted April 8, 2005 I'm going to keep my opinion on this issue to myself. What we in the US can do is prepare a living will and make sure we register it. That way there is no question on how to handle our case if we ever end up in a situation where someone else has to make a judgement call on our behalf. U.S. Living Will RegistryYou can search the net for for state specific document, get kits or talk to your lawyer to setup a living will.Links to state formsSo make your own decision and fill it out and register your living will.Nils Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
saladferk 0 Report post Posted April 9, 2005 I agree that starving her to death was not humane at all, but leaving her to vegetate like some sort of Chia Pet wasn't humane either. Imagine that someone you care about was like that. They'd never get better and would be completely unaware of their condition. What's the point of seeing them like that and remembering them for what they used to be, knowing you could never have them back? It was a pointless life, and I feel the husband made the right decision. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dexter 0 Report post Posted April 9, 2005 Also, this situation is different from people in comas waking up 10 - 15 years later and fully recovering. Terry Schiavo was supposed to be in a vegetative state, which I understood to mean that she was brain dead.But the question that has to be asked is... how on earth could she move if she was brain dead? (seen footage of her moving in her bed) Even reflexive activity is still dependent on the brain being active. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites