If you check out Yahoo News, Terri Schiavo is bound to be the first thing that you see. This is absolutly ridiculous. This woman should be allowed to die in peace, her expressed wish, which has been supported by the husband Michael Schiavo and dozens of Courts in the State of Florida. Bravo to the US Supreme Court refusing to get involved in the battle, realizing that this is not the government's place to get involved. What do you all think? Does she have the right to die?

What do you mean does she have the right to die? You are saying this like she wishes to die. We do not know what she wants because she cannot at this time communicate like any one of us could. Her parents should have the final say in this. But with the stupid judges of today's world, this will most likely not happen.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11025.msg105309#msg105309 date=1111687722]
her expressed wish, which has been supported by the husband Michael Schiavo
[/quote]

This information is not substantiated.  I believe that Michael Shiavo has reason to want her dead; he has had two children with a lady who is essentially his new wife, except that she's not; and no doubt he has life insurance on Terri, and so he would stand to gain financially as well.  If she has not made a will that indicates that she does not want to remain on life support, then I believe it is the responsibility of the government to support her as long as is necessary.

Holy crap, I think we agree on something Hazard!!

I support euthenasia when the patient's intent can be, or has been, reliably determined.

How the hell can you determine what another person wants. Can you read minds? No one knows what she wants because she can't talk! There's absolutely no way that her intention is to die.

Perhaps not in this cases, but there are plenty of cases where people can express their intent.

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11025.msg105342#msg105342 date=1111699214]
How the hell can you determine what another person wants. Can you read minds? No one knows what she wants because she can't talk! There's absolutely no way that her intention is to die.
[/quote]

Why is there no way of that? One moment you're saying noone knows, the next you're so sure she doesn't want to die? In some situations, death is the natural way. Accept it, embrace it.

Think of it this way, why would anyone spend that much money just to keep a person alive until they die of old age? Her brain is dead, so naturally she should be dead already, but is kept alive by machines. What is the goal for keeping her alive? Hoping that one day she'll regain her conciousness somehow?

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=11025.msg105327#msg105327 date=1111695781]
I believe that Michael Shiavo has reason to want her dead; he has had two children with a lady who is essentially his new wife, except that she's not; and no doubt he has life insurance on Terri, and so he would stand to gain financially as well.
[/quote]

The guy has repeatedly said he will not gain financially, although we really won't know until the days after her death.

This is an awful story . . . I'm rather disgusted.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=11025.msg105404#msg105404 date=1111712910]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=11025.msg105327#msg105327 date=1111695781]
I believe that Michael Shiavo has reason to want her dead; he has had two children with a lady who is essentially his new wife, except that she's not; and no doubt he has life insurance on Terri, and so he would stand to gain financially as well.
[/quote]

The guy has repeatedly said he will not gain financially, although we really won't know until the days after her death.
[/quote]

Actually we do know. Any life insurance money that these pro-Terri people point to is ridiculous, because it has clearly all been spent on her medical care. Anybody that says that her husband is doing it for unpure reasons is just plain ignorant. It is a fact that he did not even move to have her removed from life support for some 8 years after she entered the coma. 8 years. He gave all these so-called miracle procedures 8 years to work, and none of them have. Thousands of doctors and dozens of state and federal judges have found that she has no chance of recovery, no quality of life, and that her wish was not to be kept alive. Let the woman die in peace, its that simple.

Death is the only gurantee we have Adron, we can agree on that.

Arta, we do agree. I trust the doctors, the professionals in this field. She has no life, and no hope. Let the woman die.

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11025.msg105314#msg105314 date=1111688585]
What do you mean does she have the right to die? You are saying this like she wishes to die. We do not know what she wants because she cannot at this time communicate like any one of us could. Her parents should have the final say in this. But with the stupid judges of today's world, this will most likely not happen.
[/quote]

It was her expressed wish to not be kept alive like that, I believe the man. Her parents should not have the final say. By United States law, her husband has the legal grounds to make the decision. The judges are following the law. They can't just make things up as they go along, tack a little on here, take a little off there. Its the most unconstitutional thing imaginable to pass laws to govern the life of a SINGLE person.

I wouldn't want to be alive for even that long of a time just sitting there, doing nothing, being a burden & a vegetable

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11025.msg105465#msg105465 date=1111729024]
Any life insurance money that these pro-Terri people point to is ridiculous, because it has clearly all been spent on her medical care.
[/quote]

I always thought life insurance was paid out upon the person's death? But in any case, the guy has said she has no life insurance what so ever.

She does have life insurance, but every nickel has already been spent on her 15 years of total and complete care and medical procedures. 15 years of 100% care. Food, water, hospice, hospital, doctors, experimental procedures, and now, court fees.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11025.msg105508#msg105508 date=1111758788]
She does have life insurance, but every nickel has already been spent on her 15 years of total and complete care and medical procedures. 15 years of 100% care. Food, water, hospice, hospital, doctors, experimental procedures, and now, court fees.
[/quote]

I think you're confusing life insurance with medical insurance.

You think that her medical insurance was adequate to handle all that she has been through for the last one and one half decades? Of course not. Besides, medical insurance almost never covers experimental procedures, and that is pretty much all she has had for the last 12 to 13 years.

You can cash in your life insurance prematurely, can't you?

Ill be honest with you: I was out of town so I have not read this thread because I am lazy.

That being said I will just toss in my opinions.

I have no Idea whay the family of Schiavo wanted her to live. It seems like there was no real good intention and it was just selfish. They acted like Michael harmed her and that they need to do an odd topsey. If it really looked like Michael had done anything criminal the state would have pressed charges long ago, they did a whole investigation in the matter. It seems to me like the family just does not like Michael because he is tired of this whole fiasco and wants it to end. But also: How come Michael did not try this sooner? I mean I know the feeding tube was removed before, but that was still long after Terri had been in her state. This whole situation is just stupid and weird. I say remove the tube, she is not going to get better, and lets all put this behind us. It is wasteful to keep her alive.

She dies.

[quote author=Newby link=topic=11025.msg106576#msg106576 date=1112289955]
She dies.
[/quote]

Finally, this horse race can end. I wish her a safe journey, even though in my opinion she took that walk 15 years ago.

Such a pity that she had to starve to death, instead of dying peacefully. People are so irrational about some things.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11025.msg106607#msg106607 date=1112301002]
Such a pity that she had to starve to death, instead of dying peacefully. People are so irrational about some things.
[/quote]

Agreed.

She could've even died violently. When your cat is seriously injured and beyond hope it's considered compassionate to put it out of its misery. When a human is beyond hope, it's considered compassionate to prolong the suffering as long as possible?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11025.msg106607#msg106607 date=1112301002]
Such a pity that she had to starve to death, instead of dying peacefully. People are so irrational about some things.
[/quote]

Thats so ignorant. You don't really understand what it is to die of starvation do you? In fact, when your body begins to break down its own tissues to feed itself your body releases endorphins, which actually ease pain. Patients who have gone to the edge of nutrion-deprivation in hospitals and who have recovered describe a sort of euphoria. It is actually quite a painless death.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11025.msg106614#msg106614 date=1112305262]
She could've even died violently. When your cat is seriously injured and beyond hope it's considered compassionate to put it out of its misery. When a human is beyond hope, it's considered compassionate to prolong the suffering as long as possible?
[/quote]

When I was younger my father and I took a critically wounded dog out and shot it while hunting in Kansas. But damn you Adron, because if you had your way you would have taken my gun :P.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11025.msg106623#msg106623 date=1112310852]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11025.msg106607#msg106607 date=1112301002]
Such a pity that she had to starve to death, instead of dying peacefully. People are so irrational about some things.
[/quote]

Thats so ignorant. You don't really understand what it is to die of starvation do you? In fact, when your body begins to break down its own tissues to feed itself your body releases endorphins, which actually ease pain. Patients who have gone to the edge of nutrion-deprivation in hospitals and who have recovered describe a sort of euphoria. It is actually quite a painless death.
[/quote]

Get a grip. I know that's true in the very final stages of death by starvation, but it's not at all true for a lot of it. You really think the starving masses in Africa are all euphoric because their bodies are consuming themselves? It's horrific, slow, painful and tortuous until the very end, where it probably gets ok.

That said, she was braindead, so in this case it probably doesn't matter.

She shouldn't've died like that, but she should've died.

But starving and being clinically nutritonally deprived are different. Look it up Arta.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11025.msg106623#msg106623 date=1112310852]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11025.msg106607#msg106607 date=1112301002]
Such a pity that she had to starve to death, instead of dying peacefully. People are so irrational about some things.
[/quote]

Thats so ignorant. You don't really understand what it is to die of starvation do you? In fact, when your body begins to break down its own tissues to feed itself your body releases endorphins, which actually ease pain. Patients who have gone to the edge of nutrion-deprivation in hospitals and who have recovered describe a sort of euphoria. It is actually quite a painless death.
[/quote]

... except that she died of dehydration...which is far more painful than dying of starvation.

Nutritional deprevation. How do you know the way that she died? Is it your extensive medical expertise? Are you a hospice worker in at her care facility in Sarasota? Or are you just repeating the rhetoric repeated by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Schindler family?

...how do you know?

Well, the hospital said she was suffering from dehydration before she died.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11025.msg106697#msg106697 date=1112342874]
Well, the hospital said she was suffering from dehydration before she died.
[/quote]

There's a problem like that, she wasn't at a hospital.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11025.msg106671#msg106671 date=1112323818]
...how do you know?
[/quote]

Because I trust the word of the leading doctors in their respective fields that have come forward to dispell the ruomors that you believe.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11025.msg106803#msg106803 date=1112381510]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=11025.msg106697#msg106697 date=1112342874]
Well, the hospital said she was suffering from dehydration before she died.
[/quote]

There's a problem like that, she wasn't at a hospital.
[/quote]

Well, whatever it's called. Don't mark words. Give "schiavo dehydration" a google and see what you get.

All of those are just news reports on the subject. None of that is the comment of the trained, professional doctors because if they were, it wouldn't even  be an issue. All of the credible doctors said that it was not a grueling and painful death.

I doubt the doctors would know whether it was painful as they aren't in her place, but if her brain isn't working, then theoretically she won't feel anything.

Exactly, because her brain isn't working she is unable to feel anything. Comments of trained, professional doctors said that she would die from dehydration before she died from starvation.

Nutritional deprivation is the word they used, never starvation or dehydration.

For God's sake, who cares? Can't we all just agree that it was less pleasant than an injection?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11025.msg106670#msg106670 date=1112323662]
Nutritional deprevation. How do you know the way that she died? Is it your extensive medical expertise? Are you a hospice worker in at her care facility in Sarasota? Or are you just repeating the rhetoric repeated by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Schindler family?
[/quote]

No. I know for a fact that you die from dehydration far before starvation. You're wrong.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11025.msg106905#msg106905 date=1112412556]
For God's sake, who cares? Can't we all just agree that it was less pleasant than an injection?
[/quote]

Only if we agree it was murder?

If you think euthenasia is murder, then it's murder anyway: she died because they witheld treatment. I don't see any difference.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11025.msg106952#msg106952 date=1112445886]
If you think euthenasia is murder, then it's murder anyway: she died because they witheld treatment. I don't see any difference.
[/quote]

Was she well enough to think and feel and experience "pleasant" or "not pleasant"?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11025.msg106902#msg106902 date=1112411910]
Nutritional deprivation is the word they used, never starvation or dehydration.
[/quote]

Like I said, try google and see what words were used.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11025.msg106952#msg106952 date=1112445886]
If you think euthenasia is murder, then it's murder anyway: she died because they witheld treatment. I don't see any difference.
[/quote]

I think the argument is against euthenasia as something that is not a last resort. The idea is that it could not only open the door to legal suicides, but assisted suicide by people who are not trained professionals. There was a very interesting Law & Order on that subject that I actually found quite compelling and thought provoking. A woman who was dying of some rare disease that had also left her deaf (she was actually dying of kidney failure caused by the disease) began a program called "Catching the Train" or something to that effect. It was a support group for people who no longer wanted to live with the "pain" of living and who were, for all practical purposes, plotting to kill themselves. This woman served to assist them morally in their "quest" but also provided the means for them to kill themselves. This woman was not a doctor, not a psychologist/psychiatrist, and had no medical training whatsoever. Who was she to say when people had to live and when it was okay for them today? Thats the question that  ultimately convicted her. Not to mention that there is a certain amount of dignity in suffering.

If someone wants to die, they will find a away whether or not there is a help group.  There a few cases, ie Schiavo, where she couldn't do it herself.  I honestly believe no one on earth would want to lay there like that, I believe she should've had an injection.  & I guess, technically, what DID happen to her was murder.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11025.msg106956#msg106956 date=1112448115]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11025.msg106952#msg106952 date=1112445886]
If you think euthenasia is murder, then it's murder anyway: she died because they witheld treatment. I don't see any difference.
[/quote]

I think the argument is against euthenasia as something that is not a last resort. The idea is that it could not only open the door to legal suicides, but assisted suicide by people who are not trained professionals. There was a very interesting Law & Order on that subject that I actually found quite compelling and thought provoking. A woman who was dying of some rare disease that had also left her deaf (she was actually dying of kidney failure caused by the disease) began a program called "Catching the Train" or something to that effect. It was a support group for people who no longer wanted to live with the "pain" of living and who were, for all practical purposes, plotting to kill themselves. This woman served to assist them morally in their "quest" but also provided the means for them to kill themselves. This woman was not a doctor, not a psychologist/psychiatrist, and had no medical training whatsoever. Who was she to say when people had to live and when it was okay for them today? Thats the question that  ultimately convicted her. Not to mention that there is a certain amount of dignity in suffering.
[/quote]

If euthenasia was legal, people wouldn't have to do that. I don't think we should be knocking off ill people left right & centre, but if the person's wishes can be reliably discovered - and that's a big if - then I don't see a problem with it.

The question is when the person has the right to choose. For example, does a cancer patient going through a very painful process have the right to commit suicide and skip the pain, even though they have a chance to recover?

No, I think it should only be allowed when the doctors are reasonably certain that the condition is terminal. I also think that there should be 2 or 3 diagnoses from different doctors, preferably that don't know eachother.

I find an amount of dignity in suffering, so I personally don't understand when it would be okay.

When the suffering is pointless. When someone is suffering, but will probably (or even just 'might') live though it, then I agree. When someone is unquestionably going to die, and their suffering will make that death slow and painful, and they have no chance of recovery, then it's pointless. They may as well just get it over with.

Of course, it has to be a personal choice. I don't advocate euthenasia as a matter of policy: but if I was faced with a long, slow and painful death, I think I would want euthenasia as an option.

But when does the question end? Everybody was sure that JPII was going to die after being shot by that assassin in '81 but he pulled through. Lance Armstrong's cancer should have killed him but he pulled through. You're never sure until the end.

Well, I don't think that's really true. Sometimes you are sure. People who get cancer and leave it too late so that it metastasises and gives them secondary cancers all over their bodies... people with incurable degenerative diseases... these people die.

If several doctors tell someone there's no hope, that's enough for me.

[quote]If several doctors tell someone there's no hope, that's enough for me.[/quote]
Same here.

Isn't she atleast partly aware of whats going on? They could do some kind of thing like a lie detector on her, to see what how she reacts to the question, couldn't they? Of course, what does a 14 year old really know about this..

The question is when should they be "allowed" to die. Steven Hawking has Lou Gherig's Disease and is still incredibly productive. I know plenty of people with MS that will eventually kill them, but they are productive even with their bad days. When is it okay?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11025.msg107224#msg107224 date=1112577592]
Well, I don't think that's really true. Sometimes you are sure. People who get cancer and leave it too late so that it metastasises and gives them secondary cancers all over their bodies... people with incurable degenerative diseases... these people die.

If several doctors tell someone there's no hope, that's enough for me.
[/quote]

Hi, I'm Grok.  I have completed my self-determined purpose in this life and existence for me is suffering.  I will check out now.  Thank you and goodbye.

What is to say that self-determination of existence (right to choose death) should be granted only to people with medical conditions by which doctors agree it should be allowed?  If we are to have equal protection under the law, we cannot have doctors opinions determining who gets certain rights while other people cannot get it.  Either make self-determination legal, and give it an implement of law, or keep it illegal.

I'd say society should do a profit-loss calculation. Do some numbers on how likely it is they'll produce usefulness in the future, vs the costs for keeping them alive. Anyone who's a liability should have the right to die at any time they like.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11025.msg107324#msg107324 date=1112645467]
The question is when should they be "allowed" to die. Steven Hawking has Lou Gherig's Disease and is still incredibly productive. I know plenty of people with MS that will eventually kill them, but they are productive even with their bad days. When is it okay?
[/quote]

Well, hes not in a vegitative state, is he?