Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 3/16/2005 9:42:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 9:43:13 AM EST by magnum_99]
The courts aren't going to help.

While slim perhaps, there is a chance that she will recover, or that she has higher cognitive function that we understand at this time.

I can't believe it's "right" or moral, or even ethical, to just let her starve.

So, if no one in "the system" will help her, what would you do if she were your loved relative?

Take a gun to the hospital like that Denzell Washington movie?
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:47:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 7:48:15 PM EST by thebeekeeper1]
<Removed. Please don't post this.>
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:47:34 AM EST
Pull the tube and let her pass on.

Just because we can keep someone alive - does not mean we always should.

If she had a chance to recover and become functional again, I would suggest keeping her alive.

She can not function at all. I have DNR orders in my will - I would not want to spend my "life" owing my existence to a machine.

Av.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:48:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 7:48:47 PM EST by thebeekeeper1]

Originally Posted By Lennster:
.



hahaha..... idiot.

Av.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:48:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 7:49:06 PM EST by thebeekeeper1]

Originally Posted By Lennster:
.



come on man...... thats in pretty poor taste.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:49:31 AM EST
I've made damned sure after all that crap that my wife and friends know that there is no way in hell I would want to be kept alive if doctors say I am brain dead. I would hope someone would have the balls to kill me.

But that's just me.

I say that her wishes should be honored. There seems to be no reason to think her husband is lying.

(tough one)
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:49:43 AM EST
I would let her go.

I wouldn't want to live like that, no one I've asked would want to live in that condition. Let her go.

I've made it very clear in my living will (as my wife has as well) to pull the plug in that type of situation.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:51:14 AM EST
The evidence, as I know it, is in.

Let her go.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:52:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Avalon01:
Pull the tube and let her pass on.

Just because we can keep someone alive - does not mean we always should.

If she had a chance to recover and become functional again, I would suggest keeping her alive.

She can not function at all. I have DNR orders in my will - I would not want to spend my "life" owing my existence to a machine.

Av.



You do realize that food and water are all the "life support" she requires.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:53:15 AM EST
Stop being a selfish prick for just a moment and let them go.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:56:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 9:58:53 AM EST by magnum_99]
She doesn't have a living will.

As far as I know, she never said to "let me go."

Her parents at least seem to think that she does have some understanding of her environment and perhaps has some latent higher brain function.

Imagine if she knows what is going on around her but is trapped in that body.

"Why the hell aren't they feeding me?"

Why exactly is it proper to let her die?

But that's not really right though is it?

Not feeding her isn't really "letting her die" is it?

She can survive off of life support, but just can't feed herself.

Isn't that more like killing her?

If you didn't feed a baby and it died, you've be charged with murder.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:56:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By axmurderer:
I've made damned sure after all that crap that my wife and friends know that there is no way in hell I would want to be kept alive if doctors say I am brain dead.



FWIW, I don't think anyone is claiming she's "brain dead"

having said that...if I were in her position, I'd hope that someone would put me out of my misery.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:57:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By go3:
Stop being a selfish prick for just a moment and let them go.



"Letting them go" takes a couple weeks when you're talking about dehydrating and starving someone to death.

Do it to a dog and you'll get arrested.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:58:10 AM EST
Instead of anyone reacting based on what they don't know, interested parties should go to this website www.terrisfight.org/ and get the facts about her condition before agreeing that starving her to death is just peachy. Click on "Myths about Terri" on the home page.

Scott
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 9:58:44 AM EST
I think the guy should take the $million offered and let her live. I'd also give her to whoever is making this offer.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:00:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
She doesn't have a living will.

As far as I know, she never said to "let me go."

Her parents at least seem to think that she does have some understanding of her environment and perhaps has some latent higher brain function.

Imagine if she knows what is going on around her but is trapped in that body.

"Why the hell aren't they feeding me?"

Why exactly is it proper to let her die?

But that's not really right though is it?

Not feeding her isn't really "letting her die" is it?

She can survive off of life support, but just can't feed herself.

Isn't that more like killing her?

If you didn't feed a baby and it died, you've be charged with murder.




Someone answer my questions.


Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:01:06 AM EST
I would put her out of her misery. I hope someone would do me the favor were I in that position.

Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:10:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By magnum_99:

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
She doesn't have a living will.

As far as I know, she never said to "let me go."

Her parents at least seem to think that she does have some understanding of her environment and perhaps has some latent higher brain function.

Imagine if she knows what is going on around her but is trapped in that body.

"Why the hell aren't they feeding me?"

Why exactly is it proper to let her die?

But that's not really right though is it?

Not feeding her isn't really "letting her die" is it?

She can survive off of life support, but just can't feed herself.

Isn't that more like killing her?

If you didn't feed a baby and it died, you've be charged with murder.




Someone answer my questions.






there is a very CLEAR difference between a baby and the lady in question. A baby is supposed to be that way and eventually matures and doesn't require that attention any longer.

Killing? Yes of course if she dies because the plug is pulled then her husband killed her. When we gave the DNR to my grandmother's doctors we were killing her as well. Killing is not the same as murder.

If she had a living will this would not even be a question and it would still be killing her. The case has jack and shit to do with killing. Its about who has the legal right to make the decision for her, since she doesn't have a living will.

Is it her husband?

Or her parents?

Imo, the husband has more right than the parents.

Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:13:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By magnum_99:

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
She doesn't have a living will.

As far as I know, she never said to "let me go."

Her parents at least seem to think that she does have some understanding of her environment and perhaps has some latent higher brain function.

Imagine if she knows what is going on around her but is trapped in that body.

"Why the hell aren't they feeding me?"

Why exactly is it proper to let her die?

But that's not really right though is it?

Not feeding her isn't really "letting her die" is it?

She can survive off of life support, but just can't feed herself.

Isn't that more like killing her?

If you didn't feed a baby and it died, you've be charged with murder.




Someone answer my questions.





Trapped in a non-working body, if my brain was still working, my mind would be screaming "Kill Me!!!!"

I don't agree with the starvation method but there is no other legal choice, a lethal drug to quickly bring death would be better but I guess thats only good enough for our old dogs, humans on the other hand need to suffer and starve to death.


Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:13:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 10:15:04 AM EST by MrClean4Hire]
Her husband would have a drunk driving accident and run into a telephone pole doing 80mph. No shit.


Starving someone to death is wrong, when told that was going to happen to her she reacted the best that she could to say no imo. Miracles do happen. Love is eternal, not just while she had a use to you.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:14:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 7:50:34 PM EST by thebeekeeper1]
<Removed. Don't post this.>
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:15:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Her husband would have a drunk driving accident and run into a telephone pole doing 80mph. No shit.



+1

Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:16:37 AM EST
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:17:50 AM EST
Still tons of ignorance from the "kill her" advocates.

Go to the website. Get the facts.
She is not vegitative, she is not non-responsive, with therapy, she might improve, but she has been denied therapy.

terrisfight.org/

Don't be ignorant.

It's kind of ironic, the outrage expressed here over the mistreatment of animals, but here's a woman who needs therapy and many of you want to starve her to death.

Scott
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:18:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 7:51:31 PM EST by thebeekeeper1]
<Removed>
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:19:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dino:

Is it her husband?

Or her parents?

Imo, the husband has more right than the parents.




under most circumstances I would agree with you. I would rather have my husband making decisions for me than my parents but in this case there is a fair amount of evidence to believe Terri is in this state BECAUSE of her husband. Then what?

Patty
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:22:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By pattymcn:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Is it her husband?

Or her parents?

Imo, the husband has more right than the parents.




under most circumstances I would agree with you. I would rather have my husband making decisions for me than my parents but in this case there is a fair amount of evidence to believe Terri is in this state BECAUSE of her husband. Then what?

Patty




I think the rat bastard caused it myself and doesn't want her to recover. He doesn't want to spend all that money he got either. I believe he has kids from another woman as well. That alone disproves his loyalty to her and would make me think he doesn't love her. So in that case leave life or death decisions to people who do love you.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:25:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
I believe he has kids from another woman as well. That alone disproves his loyalty to her and would make me think he doesn't love her. So in that case leave life or death decisions to people who do love you.



From terrisfight.org/

Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide?

Terri's husband has started another family



Conflict of Interest.

Scott
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:27:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire: I think the rat bastard caused it myself and doesn't want her to recover. He doesn't want to spend all that money he got either. I believe he has kids from another woman as well. That alone disproves his loyalty to her and would make me think he doesn't love her. So in that case leave life or death decisions to people who do love you.


+100% If you love someone you're willing to try as long as it doesn't cause too much physical pain. HE's not even willing to allow the parent's doctors/physical therapists the right to try. You can always start and say "This is causing her too much pain, I won't allow it", but he's not even allowing them to start.

When you have the ability to make decisions of life or death for one human being over the other you do so out of what's best for that human, not yourself. If you can't, then you're not the person who should be making these decisions.

Patty
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:30:05 AM EST

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)

FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.

MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:

Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)

NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley $10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell $65,607.00
Atty Steve Nilson $7,404.95
Atty Pacarek $1,500.00
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) $4,511.95
Atty George Felos $397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank $55,459.85

Michael Schiavo $10,929.95

Total $545,852.34
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:31:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Scottman:
Still tons of ignorance from the "kill her" advocates.

Go to the website. Get the facts.
She is not vegitative, she is not non-responsive, with therapy, she might improve, but she has been denied therapy.

terrisfight.org/

Don't be ignorant.

It's kind of ironic, the outrage expressed here over the mistreatment of animals, but here's a woman who needs therapy and many of you want to starve her to death.

Scott



I've read the site before. It appears to me her family isn't accepting the fact that their daughter will never be anywhere close to 100% again and will need constant care for the rest of her life. Wishful thinking is the minimum her parents are guilty of. Personally I would never want to live that way and apparently she told her husband she did not as well.

What really gets me is if her husband is such a bad guy there is an easy solution for him. Divorce her. Give her back to her parents with whats left of the trust fund. He's already made an offer to donate whats left to a charity when she dies, but the offer was rejected by her parents.

It appears to me that he is trying to do what his wife would have wished. There is no gain for him or his wife in the current scenario. Most of the medical fund is being used to pay for lawyers.

The fight he is putting up has to be taxing on him and his new family.



Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:32:38 AM EST
I went to the site linked above. I've been loosely following the story.

This woman should not be allowed to die at her estranged husband's hands, regardless of Florida code.

Sounds to me like if you follow the trail of dollar bills, it becomes readily evident what this 'legal battle' is about.

Learn from this...get your affairs in order while your faculties are keen.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:35:26 AM EST
I would put her out of her misery by making sure her husband had a fatal accident.Problem solved.
The husband is the only one that has a problem with her continuing to live.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:37:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 10:40:17 AM EST by russr]
1 look at her cat scan tells you to pull the plug 10 years ago..
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:43:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By magnum_99:

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
She doesn't have a living will.

As far as I know, she never said to "let me go."

Her parents at least seem to think that she does have some understanding of her environment and perhaps has some latent higher brain function.

Imagine if she knows what is going on around her but is trapped in that body.

"Why the hell aren't they feeding me?"

Why exactly is it proper to let her die?

But that's not really right though is it?

Not feeding her isn't really "letting her die" is it?

She can survive off of life support, but just can't feed herself.

Isn't that more like killing her?

If you didn't feed a baby and it died, you've be charged with murder.




Someone answer my questions.





1. No she didn’t have a living will.
2. It was established in several court cases that she did say that.
3. Her parents are clouded by unconditional love, false hope - ignoring all of the medical evidence.
4. "Why the hell aren't they feeding me?" This assumes that she has the brain power to think. It has been established in several court cases that she does not.
5. Why exactly is it proper to let her die? Because she died in 1990.
6. But that's not really right though is it? That’s a good question that I have no answer to.
7. Not feeding her isn't really "letting her die" is it? See answer #5.
8. She can survive off of life support, but just can't feed herself. She’s not on “life support” only has a PEG tube inserted into her stomach. Her autonomous functions (breathing and circulation) remain intact and that is about it.
9. Isn't that more like killing her? See answer #5
10. If you didn't feed a baby and it died, you've be charged with murder. It’s the same argument when they talk about equating this to starving a dog. She feels no pain. This has been debated ad nausium in the courts and proven to be a false argument.

To answer the original question. I would let my loved one go home to the Lord. That’s faith.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:43:09 AM EST
the capper for me is this:

If my sister was in that situation my family would offer to let the husband keep the trust fund or find a way to pay him off if that was not legally possible, in exchange for the gaurdianship being tranferred to our family.

Yes the money would be nice to help care for her, but if she REALLY only needs food and water and care, then its nothing we could not provide ourselves.

I can't help but think that money does play a part in this, but its on the family's side, not the husbands.

Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:46:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 7:52:57 PM EST by thebeekeeper1]
<Removed>
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:47:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
Originally Posted By Dino:
in this case there is a fair amount of evidence to believe Terri is in this state BECAUSE of her husband.

Patty



What evidence? I've been following this case for 15 years and only recently have the Schindlers proposed this to try to prolong this whole sad affair..

Fact: Terri Schiavo had an eating disorder, bulimia. Her constant binging and purging caused a chemical imbalance (potassium deficiency) and, one night, her heart stopped. Her brain, starved of oxygen, died.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:47:48 AM EST
I think the court should grant a divorce to Terry and Michael, then turn Terry and the settlement money over to her parents custody.

Let Michael, the spineless dirt bag, go about his business. Let the parents care for Terry.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:49:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLGreg:

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
Originally Posted By Dino:
in this case there is a fair amount of evidence to believe Terri is in this state BECAUSE of her husband.

Patty



What evidence? I've been following this case for 15 years and only recently have the Schindlers proposed this to try to prolong this whole sad affair..

Fact: Terri Schiavo had an eating disorder, bulimia. Her constant binging and purging caused a chemical imbalance (potassium deficiency) and, one night, her heart stopped. Her brain, starved of oxygen, died.



I was about to post that myself. Her condition is sad, but largely due to her eating disorder and the actions of her doctors. I have never heard her husbadn is somehow responsible.


Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:51:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 10:56:19 AM EST by Dino]

Originally Posted By DPeacher:
I think the court should grant a divorce to Terry and Michael, then turn Terry and the settlement money over to her parents custody.

Let Michael, the spineless dirt bag, go about his business. Let the parents care for Terry.



I would have no real problem with that solution either. Not much is left of the settlement money at this point, most of it has gone to pay for lawyers :(

The problem is the husband maintains it was her wish to be allowed to die. It appears as if the husband no longer has any motivation to allow her to die other than her wishes. Most of the money in her account is gone and he's gonna leave himself open to a civil lawsuit if she does finally die.

I still can't get anyone to give me a believable answer about what he gains from her death. $50K? He already got 600k for himself in the malpractice suit. The lawyer fees have been paid by her medical fund and only 50k is left. He's already offered to give it to charity if the parents allow her to die.

IMO, he should have offered to let them have the money if they allowed her to die. It might have worked better :(

Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:51:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 10:59:13 AM EST by sonofbp]
Call Jack Quavorkian (spelling?)

Let her go.

Anybody ever see the video for the Metallica song "One"?
It pretty much wraps it up.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:55:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Avalon01:
Pull the tube and let her pass on.

Just because we can keep someone alive - does not mean we always should.

If she had a chance to recover and become functional again, I would suggest keeping her alive.

She can not function at all. I have DNR orders in my will - I would not want to spend my "life" owing my existence to a machine.

Av.



X2
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:55:25 AM EST
The spineless thing to do is to keep her alive in a vegetative state.

logic:
It takes some guts to put a maimed animal out of it's misery, a spineless person would let it suffer.

From what I've seen, her husband has 10 times the class of her parents. They throw all kinds of meritless accusations against him, but he doesn't respond in kind.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:56:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By axmurderer:
The spineless thing to do is to keep her alive in a vegetative state.

logic:
It takes some guts to put a maimed animal out of it's misery, a spineless person would let it suffer.

From what I've seen, her husband has 10 times the class of her parents. They throw all kinds of meritless accusations against him, but he doesn't respond in kind.





Guess what, your user name fits you
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:58:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 11:00:12 AM EST by FLGreg]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By FLGreg:

Originally Posted By pattymcn:
Originally Posted By Dino:
in this case there is a fair amount of evidence to believe Terri is in this state BECAUSE of her husband.

Patty



What evidence? I've been following this case for 15 years and only recently have the Schindlers proposed this to try to prolong this whole sad affair..

Fact: Terri Schiavo had an eating disorder, bulimia. Her constant binging and purging caused a chemical imbalance (potassium deficiency) and, one night, her heart stopped. Her brain, starved of oxygen, died.



I was about to post that myself. Her condition is sad, but largely due to her eating disorder and the actions of her doctors. I have never heard her husbadn is somehow responsible.



Ironic isn't it. A woman who starved herself to death 15 years ago isn't allowed to finish the act.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:59:12 AM EST
If i was the one who was comatose I wouldn't want to live like that. But I wouldn't want to be starved or die of thirst. I would want a quick kill.

But thats me. For her she has no living will. SO the husband said she said she would want to die, while the family said she would want to live. In this case I'll err on the side of the family. If he doesn't want the burden of her, the family said they will take care of her. SO him wanting to kill her in this case seems greedy to me. If this one someone in my family and I really felt they wanted to live(even tho I woldn't want that for myself) I would do anything to keep them alivce. In other words I wouldn't want to be her husband if I thought he was trying to kill her if I thought she wanted to live.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:59:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:

Originally Posted By axmurderer:
The spineless thing to do is to keep her alive in a vegetative state.

logic:
It takes some guts to put a maimed animal out of it's misery, a spineless person would let it suffer.

From what I've seen, her husband has 10 times the class of her parents. They throw all kinds of meritless accusations against him, but he doesn't respond in kind.





Guess what, your user name fits you



I agree with him, the kindest thing anyone could do would be to end her life.

The sad thing is the law won't allow us to do it in a humane way.

Florida is far kinder to inmates on death row than it will be to Terri. At least they get a quick and relatively clean death when the time comes.

Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:01:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By Chaingun:
I think the guy should take the $million offered and let her live. I'd also give her to whoever is making this offer.



Another wealthy person offerd him 10 million to give up custodial rights.

He said No.

So he's not doing this for the money or popularity. That leaves he must be fighting to fullfil her wishes.

Personally I would NOT want to be in her condition. If I ain't going to be able to recover to atleast 90% do not bother.

Family knows this.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:04:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Scottman:
Still tons of ignorance from the "kill her" advocates.

Go to the website. Get the facts.
She is not vegitative, she is not non-responsive, with therapy, she might improve, but she has been denied therapy.

terrisfight.org/

Don't be ignorant.

It's kind of ironic, the outrage expressed here over the mistreatment of animals, but here's a woman who needs therapy and many of you want to starve her to death.

Scott



It a biased website. Post one that is truely unbiased. What can't find one?
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:10:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 11:13:08 AM EST by FLGreg]

Originally Posted By Synister1:

Originally Posted By Scottman:
Still tons of ignorance from the "kill her" advocates.

Go to the website. Get the facts.
She is not vegitative, she is not non-responsive, with therapy, she might improve, but she has been denied therapy.

terrisfight.org/

Don't be ignorant.

It's kind of ironic, the outrage expressed here over the mistreatment of animals, but here's a woman who needs therapy and many of you want to starve her to death.

Scott



It a biased website. Post one that is truely unbiased. What can't find one?



Here is the one I've read. It gives all of the unbiased information that EVERYONE is ignoring - Timeline, court cases/transcripts. You can read about his fight to carry out Terri’s wishes here.

This case has been adjudicated at every court level in the State of Florida. Each time the court agreed with the husband or Terri’s court appointed representatives (guardian ad litem). Each time the parents appealed and each time they were denied (they were given some "stays" but have lost at every level). Now the ruling allowing him to have his wife's feeding tube removed sets the date for 18 March – everyone should just accept it.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top