Asymmetrical Information

I find it nauseating that anyone would contemplate hauling a vegetative woman before Congress. That's an insult to her memory and to Congress itself.

Terri's end will not be painful or unpleasant. She has never regained consciousness following massive hypoxic brain injury. She is in a persistent vegetative state. Her cerebral cortex has been destroyed and replaced by fluid.

The moral imperative is one of individual rights. The courts have ruled repeatedly that there is clear and convincing evidence that Terri would not have wanted a feeding tube. Therefore, it is morally imperative to remove that unwanted intrusion with all due haste.

But Lindsay, when other patients have woken up from their persistant vegitative state, they claimed that they were conscious the whole time and that having their feeding tube removed was unbelievably painful. Consistent with this, when they told Terri what was going to happen to her she cried. It's not at all clear that this procedure will be painless, unfortunately.

It's nowhere near as clear cut as you're pretending. First of all, people in a vegetative state do feel pain, and starvation is extremely painful. Second of all, as the Listless Lawyer points out, there's not some magic bright line for determining vegetative states; people have woken up to inform their horrified doctors that they were conscious the whole time. And third of all, the evidence offered that Schiavo wanted to be kept off a feeding tube is offered by the same man who stands to gain financially by her death, and who swore to a jury not all that long ago that he would keep her alive no matter what.

I'm not saying that Schiavo will wake up. But I think it's the height of smug to accuse Republicans of grandstanding on this. They've taken the other side on an extremely hard case. As I say, I agree that the courts should have the final say. But imagine that congressional democrats were doing this about a death penalty case, rather than this one. Grandstanding? Or is it just remotely possible that they might legitimately believe that the power of the state was being used to wrongly take a life? Would it be appropriate for me to say that I found their moral grandstanding on the back of the convicted killer's helpless victim nauseating?

There are no human beings who are "vegetables"!! Think about that term.

There are - it is true - human beings who meet the criteria that someone set up and defined as "PVS", which is, I might add, a truly idiotic and disgusting (and, unscientific as hell) term. There is dispute over whether she meets these criteria, I suppose, but I confess not to understand why.

If she does meet the (arbitrary) criteria defined to be PVS, then ...we can kill her?

I'm a conservative, and a libertarian, and I generally find myself coming down on all fours with sites like NRO's The Corner. Not this time.

All these putative "disputes" are factual issues: did she tell her husband to pull the plug? Is she truly in a vegetative state? (I find it hard to believe that this case has gone through the courts for however many years without definitive testing -- as definitive as the technology allows, anyway -- having been done.) The claim that people learning the facts through news reporting have a better handle on these issues that the parties and the judges actually involved is a claim I find highly unpersuasive.

Drum has a point. The pandering aspect of this is what raises it to the "nauseating" level. Did legislators truly intend to bring this woman to a committee room and question her? Despite all their claims of concern for Ms. Schiavo, the very fact that they propose such a travesty demonstrates a truly disturbing lack of respect for her dignity and her humanity. It suggests that their only use for her is as a background prop for their posturing.

As Kant would have put it: they are treating her as a means and not as an end in herself.

Whether she's in a "vegetative state" is a "factual" issue only in the sense that PVS has an arbitrary definition invented by someone, and whether she meets that definition, can and presumably has been tested.

But still nobody can explain why being in the state designated "PVS" makes it ok to kill them. Run that by me?

As for the subpoena showing lack of respect for her dignity and humanity, I suppose starving her to death shows respect for those things up the wazoo?

I get the dignity impression that people who wring their hands about her "dignity" are really saying little more than that looking at her makes them feel uncomfortable. They are speaking about their comfort, not "her dignity".

But yes, by all means let's kill her so that she may have dignity.

But still nobody can explain why being in the state designated "PVS" makes it ok to kill them. Run that by me?

I suggest you have the argument backwards. Feeding and nutrition tubes imposed without the consent of the patient constitute an assault under the law, and the patient has every right to refuse them. The question here is, who is the proxy for the patient, the husband or the parents?

If the poor woman's brain is actually as far gone as the husband maintains, then she is beyond all suffering. What difference does it make, then, if her body remains in a nursing home with a feeding tube, as opposed to being six feet under the turf?

Sorry, but if the only evidence that she did not wish to have such procedures done on her body is the hearsay testimony of one person who stands to gain financially, well, that would be about as convincing as Warren Buffett dying without a will, and having one child claim that Warren wanted the whole pile to go to him. That said, if the laws are such that only the husband's desire matters absent written proof, well I guess that is what the law says. Legislatures, however, have it within their power to change laws, although I'm not sure whether this is an area in which the national legislature should involve itself. Still, from where comes the imperative to starve this woman?

You need to get your facts straight before you go posting about her being in a PVS, she is not, she is concsious, AND she isn't on life support, she only had a feeding tube until yesterday, which isn't even medical care, that's basic care that everyone of us needs. Get your facts straight before you opine that someone deserves to die, when all you have been told is lies by the media, go here for more information, er, for the facts which seem to have been missed by so many.

There's also the question of what decisions the proxy gets to make. I recognize the right to make one's own decision in these matters, but I'm not at all sure that that right can be passed on. I'm also a little leery that in this case at least, Mrs. Schiavo's decision was inferred, rather than clearly stated.

That is what makes me uncomfortable, Zach. There really seems to be a paucity of evidence as to what the woman's desires were. If one wishes to simply argue that the spouse shall have all final say in such matters, I wish that argument would be made in a straightforward manner.

I would like it known now that if I am ever in a condition like Terry's I want the damn feeding tube out. Please save this post as evidence in the event that my brian liquifies.

Given that every judge has sided with Terry's husband, including most recently a conservative appointed judge who is not known for his liberal record on ANYTHING, nor for hus "judicial activism", I tend to think the matter should be over with.

I know I'm going to get a lot of crap for this, but keeping Terry "alive" is prohibatively expensive. In addition, it is an emotional drain beyond what someone with a healthy spouse can possibly imagine. There is no money left. Terry's husband won't make anything if she dies. While I suppose we can pass various judgments on both parties based on whatever agenda we support, this matter has been settled in the only way it could have been, through our legal system. Every court has ruled in Terry's husband's favor. And that's in Florida, not in some bastian of liberal judges. Our legal system is the backbone of our country and, just because you don't like the decision the courts have come to, it is your duty to respect them in the absence of misconduct by those courts.

Congress' actions are a clear abuse of power for political purposes. What makes it more disgusting than a general crappy policy to win re-election is that it is specifically targetting an individual. I tend to find that nausiating as well. Doesn't mean I don't find other things congress has done in recent years nausating...this is just another example of their awful behavior.

On a bsaic level this comes down to what your definition of "life" is. I don't consider Terry "alive". When your brain is gone, so are you. I just think that we should now let her body go with her soul.

I suspect that Terri's parents are in fact wrong about the extent of her consciousness. On the other hand, her husband is a real piece of work. Kevin (and most of his commenters) simply gloss over the fact that Michael Schiavo stands to inherit whatever money remains from the malpractice settlement — money he explicitly sought for her care; that he put a DNR order on her soon after the settlement; that he had her removed to a hospice when she was not, in a physical sense, terminally ill; and all the rest of it. (Not to mention the fiancee and the two kids . . .) It's plain enough that the guy was expecting she'd die fairly quickly and eventually got impatient. Had he come forward immediately with his wife's desire not to be kept alive by "artificial means," and refused to take the settlement money (or donated it to the care of other severely brain-damaged patients, or something), I'd feel less queasy about this.

But there's another question that's bugging me. Why is it that whenever there's a question of snuffing someone who's damaged or defective in some way, there are always enthusiastic proponents on the Left and vigorous opponents on the Right? Take the "Infant Doe" case from the early 80s. A Down Syndrome baby, born with what is apparently a common Down Syndrome defect — a gatrointestinal obstruction that was easily correctable by surgery, but did, pre-correction, basically make it impossible for the baby to receive any nourishment. Parents refused surgery, which is to say that they preferred to let the baby starve to death, which it did.

Reagan, as I recall, made a case of this, arguing (correctly) that the baby was being discriminated against on grounds of disability, since no court would have allowed a child to be refused life-saving medical care were it not mentally retarded. George Will (who had a Down Syndrome child of his own) wrote some pretty potent columns about this at the time. But on the Left I remember only the usual "these are difficult decisions to be made by the parents in consultation with their physicians and their spiritual advisors" boilerplate that had adorned abortion rights for the previous decade and still does. Never mind that this child was already born.

It's the same all over. Euthanasia enthusiasts are all on the Left. Kevorkian's fan base was mostly Left, and his opponents mostly conservative. I gather that the Netherlands is contemplating augmenting its voluntary euthanasia policy with involuntary euthanasia for children under 12 (children 12 and up, I believe, can already ask for euthanasia if they are terminally ill; under 12 they would not have to ask, or indeed be expected to). Estimates of involuntary euthanasias in the Netherlands already run into four figures, despite the fact that the euthanasia directive explicitly requires the patient's consent. And again, who objects to all this? Conservatives, mostly.

I don't understand this. There's the Left that cares most for the powerless and defenseless, and then there's the Left that wants to build the Perfect Society with no "useless eaters" in it, and for a while I really thought we'd gotten rid of the latter. Doesn't look like it these days.

I think many of us can agree that the ultimate arbiter, in principle, ought to be Terry Schiavo. It is largely problems of evidence as to what her intentions were that make the case a hard one.

That said, it seems obvious that the law needs to make some provision as to who should presumptively speak for her when there is no hard and fast evidence of her own intention. That of course merely states the problem as to who it should be, but surely there is a colorable argument, by analogy with other areas of law, that it ought to be the spouse.

Finally, a personal statement: if I should ever be in a condition like that of Terry Schiavo (and I have read the various articles linked above by Ryan Scott, including the links in the footnotes) I want someone to pull the plug. I don't care if it's possible to quibble about whether it's PVS or something else -- if I'm in a condition identical to that described in those articles and footnotes, I want the plug pulled. And if death by starvation and thirst is a hard one, well then hopefully someone will have the compassion to move me to Oregon.

Tom,

If the only issue is who's the proxy, then the whole "is she PVS" debate doesn't matter. Which is, partially, my point. If Michael's the proxy and he declares that she wouldn't wanna live This Way, then she should die. Doesn't matter whether or not This Way meets the (arbitrary, human-invented) criteria of being "PVS". Capisce?

Of course, the position that Michael's the "proxy" because he's the husband amounts to saying that anytime a married person is incapacitated and cannot speak for themselves, their spouse can declare them dead, because they're the presumptive "proxy", and the state should make it so. Which is, to me, absurd on the face of it, but apparently YMMV.

The real answer, of course, is that nobody ought to be considered the legitimate "proxy" on this sort of matter. Proxies for financial matters and signing documents are one thing; proxies deciding death is quite another. The state has a valid interest (see 5th, 14th amendments) in protecting innocent life, even over and against the objections of a spouse. Nobody should have that power by "proxy". Conflict of interest is the least of the moral problems here.

"Wants to live" and "wants to die", moreover, should not be considered on a even playing field, and it puzzles me that this is how so many people treat it. We should kill her unless we know for a fact that she wants to live-- that's effectively how everyone is acting. Bizarre.

The presumption ought to be that she wants to live unless actual, objective evidence to the contrary surfaces (which it has not), and the state should protect her right to life.

p.s. Am I the only one who finds the idea of feeding=assault rather Orwellian?

If the only issue is who's the proxy, then the whole "is she PVS" debate doesn't matter.

I think you're right about that. The fundamental question is, what does the patient want? The secondary question is, how do we determine that when the patient can't speak for himself/herself?

There seem to be two fundamental approaches developing: one is to focus on the individual decision, and to approximate that as best as possible through proxies when the person in question can't speak for himself; the other is to assert a presumption of life whenever the patient cannot communicate. I favor the former because I can imagine situations in which I would not want to have a presumption favoring life imposed upon me when I was unable to communicate my wishes.

The obvious rejoinder is that I should execute a living will or a durable power of attorney. Well, maybe; the problem is foreseeing in such a document all the possible factual scenarios which may be visited upon on one.

All medical treatment, not just tube feeding, is an assault in the absence of consent. And we as a society are going to face this problem more and more as medical capabilities for keeping people alive increase. My own take is that keeping people alive just because we can is not a very good answer. And I favor an individualized approach to how that question should be answered in individual situations.

Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex was massively damaged by hypoxia and has subsequently atrophied and been replaced by fluid. All the physicians who have actually examined her have concurred. Several courts have agreed. The so-called experts who allege that Terri has a higher level consciousness state in their affidavits that they are basing their opinions on the few minutes of heavily-edited video available through Terri's parents' website. Judge Greer and the neurologists who have seen the 4 hours of unedited footage conclude that the tapes in question show no evidence of cognitive function. There is simply no evidence that this woman has any higher conscious life whatsoever.

Terri's CAT scans show a gaping void in her head where her higher brain centers should be. She will never "wake up." No adult patient has ever emerged from a vegetative state of more than several months' duration. Terri Schiavo has been in this condition for 16 years and her brain only continues to deteriorate, as is the norm for PVS patients.

Just to return, however briefly, to Jane's original point -

IF the Senate subcomittee really did subpoena Terri Schiavo to appear in DC, that's incredibly nauseating. (To be fair, I don't have any independent knowledge that they did so, and I'm not prepared to assume they did based on third-hand blogging.)

Jane, I can easily agree that folks in congress may honestly believe they need to step in here. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that. (Whether their views on the matter are "correct" is a different matter, as you and many of the commenters have pointed out.)

But to demand Terri's presence at the subcommittee? Hard to see that as anything other than grandstanding of the most exploitive, pandering sort. (Again, IF that's what happened.) If congressfolk feel a need for first-hand observation of Terri's condition, shouldn't they go to her?

qetzal,

I think they did in fact subpoena her — but the point was not to make an exhibition of her, but to prevent her imminent death before her parents could try yet other legal angles (though I'm not sure what they would be — frankly, I'd thought they'd long since ran out).

Sorry, I hit "post" before I meant to. The idea, I take it, was that if Terri Schiavo was under subpoena, she would need to be kept alive at least as long as the date on the subpoena, and in the interim other legal means might be tried. It's not a very attractive legal tactic, I agree, but I don't think anyone anticipated her actually appearing in Congress; the idea was that by the time the date rolled around, the matter would have been resolved some other way and the subpoena could be withdrawn.

They were never going to actually force her appearance before Congress. It was merely a means by which her starvation could be delayed.

Michelle, what I'm not getting is that those two parts of the left are the same people. The people who are mad at me because I don't want generous welfare benefits for able-bodied adults are the same ones who are mad at congress for trying to stop Michael Schiavo from pulling the plug.

As I say, I think ultimately the spouse should make the decision, even though as you say, this particular spouse is a real piece of work. But the people acting as if having second thoughts about pulling out the feeding tube were some sort of outrageous moral lapse really mystify me.

Take a look at the steroid hearings and you will see why some people are sceptical about the politicians' motives. If this bit of grandstanding, which also involves subpoenas, weren't occurring at the same time as the Schiavo subpoena, the latter might have a little more credibility as an act of principle rather than headline chasing.

All of which has nothing to do with whether she should be allowed to die, where my inclination is to say no.

Question, would it make a difference if she were being supported at the state's expense rather than by her family?

Gene

Thinking it over more carefully, I'm less happy with the idea of proxy rights.

I'll stipulate that the idea of being that brain-damaged is pretty nightmarish, I'll stipulate that she will never recover. I'm just not happy with the idea of human rights that can be withheld by somebody not measuring up to our standard of human.

Two questions:
1)Why can't Mr. Schiavo simply get a divorce and pass the guardianship to the parents?

2)If Mrs. Schiavo could be fed with a spoon instead of a tube, but was otherwise equally brain-damaged, would that change the decision?

IF the subpoena was issued solely as a legal tactic, to prevent/delay withdrawal of the feeding tube, then I agree it's not 'nauseating.'

The question of whether Terri Schiavo is in fact in a permanent vegetative could be resolved, or at least clarified, if she were given an MRI or a PET scan, which she has never received and which I understand is now standard diagnostic procedure. Her parents have sought such tests; her husband has refused to allow them, and the judge has refused to order them.

What would the harm be in ordering non-invasive tests? Well, if you've got the result you want, you wouldn't want to risk messing it up, would you?

Michelle brings up an interesting question that I've wondered about. It often appears that what many liberals really object to is value judgements. Hurting people in response to something that they've done is wrong, because it's judgmental (and we could probably blame their mistakes on others, if we tried; is there ever really a right and wrong?), whereas hurting people for convenience doesn't involve moral values, so it doesn't bother them. Thus, it's wrong to kill murderers who have been sentenced to death, because you're killing them based on their own actions, but you're in no danger of making a value judgment when killing a newborn. If it's convenient, do it.

Maybe I'm being too hard on them, but I've been so disappointed at the lack of liberal concern for the Iraqi people under Saddam, or for North Koreans or others. The philosophy seems to be that going after dictators because they've hurt people is judgmental and therefore wrong, whereas letting the people in those countries suffer and die is regrettable but is the lesser of two evils.

But liberals are willing to judge rich white guys, especially businessmen. It's OK to say that businesses are evil, but it would be wrong to say that a dictator is evil. Maybe the only value judgments allowed are against businesses (but not governments), and rich people can be considered businesses. I have a hard time putting it all into one coherent approach.

Ann wrote: "I have a hard time putting it all into one coherent approach."

That's because you have nothing of substance to say. You simply resort to idiotic generalizations of what you perceive to be liberal positions on issues. I dont' know a single liberal, and I am sure I know more of them than you do, who doesn't want to punish criminals. Many of us simply disagree on the punishments. For example, I oppose the death penalty, but it doesn't mean I don't want to judge them or to not punish them. I want them to serve life in prison without parole.

Lack of conscern for the Iraqi people? Not at all. I just don't think that it was worth the cost in American dead and wounded, to say nothing of dollars and the resources which could have been deployed against a real threat to us, like Al Qaeda. Lack of concern for the people of North Korea. Nope, not here. But I don't want to start another Korean war, or more correclty restart the old one, as I have concern for the people of South Korea too as well as our own troops.

Jane, it is precisely the protection of the weak that those who support the removal of the feeding tube are doing. The courts have spoken on the issue and have consistently ruled that what Terri wanted was not to be kept alive by these means. To me, protection of the weak most certainly encompasses the ability to make the medical decisions you want in extremely personal matters such as this free from outsife interference from politicians trying to score cheap political points with constitutionally suspect subpoenas and people filing frivilous appeal after frivilous appeal.

Eamon --

"These means" by which Mrs. Schiavo is kept alive are nutrition and hydration, alias food and water, which are the same means that keep you and me alive.

"The courts have ruled" what Mrs. Schiavo wanted, and their rulings are poorly reasoned and based on very scanty evidence. The bill now pending in Congress would do nothing more than allow review by a federal court, much as habeas corpus does. Do you regard habeas corpus or other appellate procedures as "outside interference"?

Jim,
I don't have my food and water supplied to be via a tube inserted into my abdomen.I also make a conscious choice to intake both of those items. I believe that one has the right to say one doesn't want to be kept alive in that manner. You make it sound as if Terri is simply eating lunch the way you or I would, but it is just not so.

Secondly, what you have written is your opinion. The appellate courts don't share your opinion about the judge's reasoning and the evidence. Is it your position we should simply get a do over, even after after the appellate process has gone all the way to the US supreme court?

Finally, as to outside interference. I don't regard either of those maters "outside interference" since they aren't half assed grandstanding on the part of a Congress hell bent on pandering to the pro life movement. We have followed the appellate process in this matter. It's gone all the way up to the US CT and the Schindlers have lost. As for habeus proceedings, they aren't relevant here, since those concern criminal matters and this is not criminal case. Habeus proceedings are an old procedure that weren't specifically invented to help one party that has lost every step on the way and now sees time running out. .

On the one hand, if I'm a vegetable, ...

Why are we presupposing that you're not a vegetable. Given many of your posts, one could easily conclude otherwise.

Eamon,

[ . . . ] an old procedure that weren't specifically invented to help one party that has lost every step on the way and now sees time running out.

Um, not the most tactful choice of words there, my friend.

Let me stipulate that I don't think Terri Schiavo has any consciousness left, and that I don't believe that she will suffer being dehydrated to death, and that I think dragging the Congress into this is a really bad idea. Still, I'd ask Eamon, and anyone else still reading: if someone tried every legal maneuver to postpone the execution of a man on Death Row, even patently hopeless maneuvers that could at most delay the execution date, would you think that "nauseating"? Because I wouldn't.

      In discussing the legal issues, there is something here that I think is being overlooked.

      I am not a lawyer, so I may be wrong, but my understanding is that appeals courts will not review "findings of fact" except under very special circumstances.

      If I am correct about this, then the statements that "The appellate courts don't share your opinion about the judge's reasoning and the evidence" are just wrong.  What they will have said is something like 'Given the judge's findings that Terri Schiavo is in a persistive vegatative state, and that she wished to die if she is in that state, FINDINGS WHICH WE REFUSE ON PRINCIPAL TO REVIEW, the question is whether the legal reasoning applied to these alleged facts is proper?  We find it is proper."

      In short, all this supposed agreement by the appellate courts probably isn't really there.

      Another place where I think the legal argument is wrong is statements such as "Feeding and nutrition tubes imposed without the consent of the patient constitute an assault under the law."  My understanding is that if a patient is conscious, then one must have consent, but that with an unconscious patient, care is allowed because it is not objected to.  Otherwise, an unconscious car accident victim could not be treated in any way.

      Of course in this case, there is an objection, that of MICHAEL Schiavo, the tearful, loving husband known for tenderly asking the nurses "When is that bitch gonna die?"  This brings us back to the question of whether or not Michael accurately conveyed Terri's wishes in this matter, or is acting in her best interests.  I don't find that nearly as clearcut as some here do.

THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED!

Michelle,
I wasn't aiming for tact in my choice of words, as so little tact has been involved in this debate to date.Further, I am not your friend, as much as I appreciate the figure of speech. As for exploring all legal avenues, I have no problem with using the ones that are available. What I do have a problem with is creating new ones aimed simply at helping one person, who at least according to the law of the case, doesn't want such measures taken. And while I don't find it "nauseating" when, for example, a death row inmate files frivilous motion afer frivlious motion, I am opposed to that abuse of our legal system and think the same principle should apply here. The subpeonas were an absolute travesty. An attorney in private practice would be subjecting himself to sanctions for issuing such garbage.

Stephen, you are quite wrong in that the appelllate courts can and do review trial court decisions for errors of fact in the absence of special circumstances. It happens quite frequently. What they usually do is apply a different standard of review to an error of fact than they would to an error of law. What they won't do is retry the facts and pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses.

Unfortunately the media has given no attention to the doctors who have provided information that is contrary to the one that the Schiavo side of the case has made. Out of the total number of doctors who have lookt at both Terry and the available medical tests, 15 have states that she can be rehabilitated, and six have stated that she doe not have PVS. The testimonies of all of the doctors (somethiing like fifty) are all online.

The fact that the primary physician who signed off on the necessary documentation to remove Terri's feedin tube is the head of the laregest pro-euthanasia organizations is not mentioned.

Another fact not mentioed is that the talk of Terri not having a cerebram cortex was statred by doctor who claims to be an expet in such diseases. Unfortunately he is not an M.D. but has a PhD. in Psychology to practice as a counselling psychologist. on the other hand one doctor who treats PVS and examined Terri reported the following:Impression:

The patient is not in coma.

She is alert and responsive to her environment. She responds to specific

people best. She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal

praise. She responds negatively to poor tone of voice. She responds to music.

She differentiates sounds from voices.

She differentiates specific people's voices from others.

She differentiates music from stray sound.

She attempts to verbalize.

She has voluntary control over multiple extremities

She can swallow.

She is partially blind

She is probably aphasic and has a degree of receptive aphasia.

She can feel pain.

On this last point, it is interesting to observe that the records from Hospice

show frequent medication administered for pain by staff.

http://www.hospicepatients.org/william-hammesfahr-md-09-12-02-report-re-terri-schiavo.html

There is a good deal more in this doctors report, as well as others, on both sides. Even on the husbands side, the medical information varies, with most of the reports not going far enough to report the non-existance of cerebral cortex OR even point to the CT scans, which the doctor noted above points to as being incomclusive due to them not being clear, and requesting that they be repeated, along with other visual studies that have been developed since Terry's condition started.

Those who make the claim that Terri will feel no pain remind me of my dentist when he tells me "This wont hurt a bit"

He is coorect in one sense only...

It wont hurt him.

Eamon,

I wasn't aiming for tact in my choice of words, as so little tact has been involved in this debate to date. Further, I am not your friend, as much as I appreciate the figure of speech.

It was a "figure of speech," and I am sorry if it caused any offense.

Re "tact," all I meant was the "time is running out," which does seem — forgive me — ghoulish in the circumstances. If Schiavo is as utterly gone as her husband and his supporters say she is (and I'm inclined to agree, as I said), then she is not suffering now, and wasn't suffering while she was being fed either. Why (to be blunt about it) the urgency of rendering her legally dead? Obviously her husband hasn't considered himself married to her for some years, except in the legal sense. If he'd divorced her long ago, he might have looked a little nasty (a la Newt Gingrich), but not half so nasty as he does now.

Michelle, No offense taken.

On a more serious note, I don't really see it as a case of "Suffering" per se, as it doesn't appear as if Terri's brain has the capacity to experiene suffering as we know it. It's a question of forcing someone to "live" in a way that they didn't want to. To me, anyone trying to stop this at this point is being incredibly selfish and while I give a pass to the family, I think the motives of many on the other side are political and these peopl won't lift a finger to help her or anyone else like her after this case is resolved.

As for Michael, I am not really sure about him either, but this case really isnt' about whether he looks "nasty" or not. It's about whether a person has the right to refuse this type of treatment and more in a larger sense, whether our court system is worth a damn, or if we can simply have people granted "do overs" when they don't like the results after having exhaused all judicial avenues. I think this case sets an atrocious precednet that is harmful to our right to privacy, our right to determine our medical are and to the rule of law in general. We could certainly have a better advocated than Michael Schiavo, but then, you could probably have a better one than Tom Delay or Randall Terry.

Just wanted to make a couple of points:

1) Whether or not Mr. Schiavo "stands to make several thousand dollars" if Mrs. Schiavo dies is irrelevant, but the suggestion of some base hidden motivation is without merit. The facts are: there was a $1M dollar judgment that was awarded in the medical malpractice case related to the precedent incident that placed Ms. Schiavo in the PVS. Mrs. Schiavo was awarded $700K of that, an amount that is in a trust account, administered by a private party, and not available to Mr. Schiavo. Mr. Schiavo was awarded $300K for "loss of consortium." My understanding is that a significant portion of the trust fund award is now depleted.

2) Mr. Schiavo has no "say so" as to Mrs. Schiavo's end-of-life decisions. He gave iup that role when he petitioned the Florida courts to act as his wife's surrogate and determine what her wishes were. Following Florida state law, it was the trial Judge, acting as her guardian, who found that Mrs. Schiavo intended that she be allowed to die if she were in a PVS. Mr. Schiavo could entirely change his position today, and that finding would still be legally binding. That finding, incidentally, was based on the totality of the entered testimony.

Since it appears that we have an insatiable need to insert ourselves into this poor family's private pain (are the rest of our lives really so boring that we have to feed like vultures off of someone else's drama?), at least we could have the decency of knowing what in the heck we're spouting off about... I'll suggest we start here: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html.

Why dont they give her sthn tht will let her die right away, the chances tht she wakes up from her coma r very small, n if shell wake up, mayb she wont b able to take care of herself, talk etc. tht aint no life. What if she can hear all the ppl around her. She will just lie there all day, she cant talk, move or do nething. Can u imagine tht lying somewhere all day long while u wont b able to do nethin. The judge had decided tht they shud stop feeding her, bush shudnt hav signed tht law.

How about this. Instead of the argument that "Terri stated she would never have wanted to go on like this" but somehow didn't get the chance to legally document it, maybe the concept was presented to her and she denied it. No document would exist then if you decided against it. You have a donor sticker on your license for in case of these types of situations, right? We don't need legal documents stating "In case of emergency or death, DO NOT take my organs out". Do we need to make documents saying that "In case of a serious accident, I want hospitilization"? No, its not only automatically assumed, but just plain realistic. I mean does one have to legally state "I do NOT want to have the plug pulled on me in the unlikely case that...."? Although this scenerio just as unlikely as her ex's BS statements, we can't assume a legal statute from Terri that doesn't exist.

We need a license to drive, a license to purchase a gun, a license to fish, a license to hunt, a license to buy fireworks, all sorts of legal documents for everything but NOT any legal document for taking ones life, just someones verbal statement is good enough for this?

Why isn't her ex being held for perjury? He coomitted a crime by lying in court about needing extra money to keep Terri alive when it was against her wishes?? This right here is completely obvious he's a scam artist. A liar. How can the liberals especially women, stoop so low to stand up for this guy? Why don't womens rights groups discuss about Terri's broken bones she received sometime during or after her 'accident'?

As a supporter of euthanasia, I fully believe that Terri should be allowed to die, but not by starvation. The simplest and most humane way would be to put her to sleep similar to a lethal injection. If we can do this for our pets, why not for another human being? I know, I know: "It's murder!" No, its not. It's mercy.

And not to be harsh, but Darwin said survival of the fittest. In a natural environment without medical intervention she should would have been dead a very, very long time ago. Furthermore, not to say I am against doctor's and medicine, but it is because of advances in medical technology that the population is so overblown today and that the gene pool is gradually declining. Might explain why there are so many conservatives these days.

Oh, look, even Peter Singer, famous euthanasia supporter, would not agree with having Terri Schiavo euthanased. He states that the only right to life a human without much consciousness (i.e. an unborn foetus or someone in a "PVS") has is the degree to which someone else wants them to live.

In this case, Terri Schiavo's family very much want her to live and would be traumatised if she died. Therefore she should live. End of story.

She is not taking up a great deal of resources - feeding tube, nursing and a room. She is certainly not in a coma. She does respond to people, albeit infrequently. What she may or may not have stated before her heart attack is completely irrelevant, because she is clearly not the same person. She probably feels differently about it now.

Go and view the videos of her responding to her parents. Yes, she is gravely disabled, but she still has consciousness and she still responds. There is definitely something there.

I'm a liberal non-Christian pro-choicer (and proud!), but I think in this case there is sufficient ambiguity to insist that Terri be allowed to live.

RJ, the reason Michael Schiavo isn't being held for perjury is that he has never been convicted of it. Pretty simple, eh? If you think he should have been charged show me the exact testimony, not some right wing pro life blog's interpretation of what he is alleged to have testified but exactly what he said and why it is a lie and you might have a point. Until you can do that, you are blowing smoke.

Kate B. You have amazing talents. You can read the minds of a dead man and a woman with a fluid filled cerebral cortex. Why have a judicial system at all when we can just turn everything over to a omniscient person like you?

The way the current laws are written, there isn't much that can be done to have this woman fed and given water. I would think it wise, however, that states pass laws in which witholding food and water from a noncommunicative citizen would require a prior, specific, and notarized order from that citizen. Testimony as to what someone heard the citizen say in the past is simply far too unreliable. I should note that many prosecuters would not like to have me on a jury, given the degree to which I have skepticism about even recent eye-witness testimony. People "remember" what they wish to "remember".

This just upsets me. My father died last November after having a heart attack and being in the hospital for 6 weeks living off of blood pressure medicine. He was very conscious and he was the one who decided that he was ready to go. He didn't want to suffer anymore. No one in their right mind would like anyone in their family to die. It took my family a little while to understand that our Dad was suffering and that if he did make it, he could be a vegetable, so we sided with our dad and let him go. The reason why I'm upset about the Terry Schiavo case is because her family does not realize what she's going through. If they were to live in that state of mind, I don't think they could handle it. None of us know until we are in that position. Her parents are cruel to keep her alive and not let her be at peace. They are stuck in their own little minds that physically she's probably okay, but it's not the case. It was hard to let our Dad go, but we spent the last few moments of his life, laughing with him, taking last minute advice from him, and just enjoying how peaceful he looked. He's not suffering anymore, he's whole. What more can you ask for. Terry's parents ought to be ashamed of themselves and also our government. I can't believe I voted for President Bush. What is he doing? To get involved with private matters. Terry's parents? Is that how they want their daughter to remember them? What is wrong with this world. Anyone who is kept alive artificially, does suffer, but we don't care, we only take what we see. We are selfish people. Terry's family is very selfish to let their daughter and sister suffer the way she is now. They will only be at peace when their sister is at peace, but they are too selfish to even realize or understand what she is going through.

Laiza,
I was not sure how I felt about this matter until I read your post. My brother died several years ago at the age of 25, he had cancer. When he stopped breathing, we could hooked him up to machines that would have breathed for him. But we did not, because he had told us not too. As much as I, my mother and his wife loved him. He wanted to be at peace, he wanted not to fight for every breath, we had to respect that.

There have been many people on this blog who say that they would not want to live in that state. If we do not want to what makes us think that she does.

I am a non conservative Christian (yes we do exist). I dont understand these religious people. They spout pro-life this and pro-life that, but if they paid attention in church they would know that once we belong to God we have eternal life and Terry will never be lost. She will be okay, She will be away from all of this hell on earth. I get so sick and tired of people using Christianity to further their agendas, if they read their Bibles they would know that To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Get off your selfish, right-wing, religious high horses!

I think, in some ways, her own parents have actually exploited her by allowing that edited video to be played over and over. Talk about loss of any dignity - how would you feel knowing everyone saw you staring blankly into space with your mouth hanging open? I am no expert, but I really do think that the video we see contains all of her coincidental "responses" and that if you or I were to try to get a reaction out of Terri, it might take hours for that to coincidentally occur again - her reactions are just random and the video has made people think otherwise - these parents have manipulated things and they have taken away any chance for their daughter to die with dignity.

I am a Canadian stunned that this case has come this far. Thank God that would never happen here. Keeping Terri alive after her husband AND two other witnesses stated this was not her wishes is so wrong, and that the government is stepping in is a gross injustice to your rights, to your constitution, to the very freedoms that America is supposed to be based on.

I want to point out a couple of things here: First of all, Terri's parents gave up their right to make these decisions when they trusted Michael to care for her in the eyes of God at their wedding. He would know her wishes better than they would. Secondly, any Christian knows that Terri would be finally allowed a peaceful rest in Heaven and I am disgusted that these people are denying her that. Its selfish and wrong, and a place the government has no right sticking their noses in. Third of all, considering that the majority of Americans seem to feel that a person has a right to die, I believe that you have a government representing their own personal beliefs and not the beliefs of the people. If the majority of people feel one way, how can a government who is supposed to be representing their interests go in the opposite direction?

Kate B:

If you follow your reasoning about falling into a coma or PVS changes what one has earlier stated with respect to life prolonging measures changes everything, then we have to do away with living wills and perhaps the concept of wills and trusts altogther. People often make wills with no trouble on the horizon and things often do change, but in the absence of evidence of that person wanting to make a change, who are we to deny their last-expressed wishes.

Unless you have been a fly on the wall during every hearing, doctor visit, etc... no one can comment on the motivations of any of the parties. To do so is wrong.

It irks me to no end that the media represents Mr. Schiavo as not being a member of Terry's family and that he is some swarmy guy. I'm sorry but I would not expect my husband to wait around. I would want him to to be happy.

It also irks me that her parents contend that that Terri would have wanted to stay alive. I have had conversations about life and death with my husband that I have not had with my mother because he is my husband and I would presume he would speak for me. I believe the majority of Americans feel the same way because aren't we taught in this society to cleave to your spouse? I think the better argument is that she would not have wanted to die because of Roman Catholic beliefs. Yet I find that argument flawed as well because wouldn't she want to be with God?

I also have a problem with the argument that because she didn't have a living will, she didn't say don't keep me alive. How many people in the early 90's knew anything about living wills?

As a laywer, once a trial judge makes a decision, that's it unless the Appellate Court thinks the issue is worth reviewing once a party has appealed. If they agree with the trial judge, that's it unless the state supreme court thinks they should review it. Very rarely does a state court decision make it to the US Supreme Court. If it does and the court decides, that's it. To get to each level the side appealing has to meet a certain standard. I haven't read all the court documents so I don't know how strong each case is, but it seems to be me if judge after judge makes the same decision, then that's the decision everyone should go with. This isn't a case of where only 4 judges have heard it, over 15 have. I understand the parents pov yet they are just waiting for someone to agree with them. And the fact is the judges have not. Both sides have and have had competent, exceptional attorneys so this is not a case of shotty laywering for the parents.

I will end with this - who cares about Terry Schiavo? I say that to say how is she any different than any of the other people whose families have had to make this decision. It isn't far to those families. This Congressional action is going to set a bad precedent. They can say it won't all they want. They are lying to the public. The law is 95% precedent.

Oh one more thing, how can we fight to keep her alive when we have the death penalty? Life is life. Right?

Well, there it is. Now its the conservatives stealing peoples right away, damn us. Fighting for a persons life instead justifying killing her because she's no longer productive in life. Liberals amaze me. They speak as if they fight for more rights, yet they fight to take them away from people and try to find a legal way to kill them off. First its an unborn cxhild has no rights, now a comastose person. What next, all comatose people should be killed off, because they are no longer productive? How about a 6 month 'wake up' period for them, then we pull all their plugs, I mean liberals can now take their right to live away. Whatch what they will do next. Next it'll be maimed war vets, then children born with aids and cancer, and mentally retarded people. Childrens hospitals with terminally ill, leukemia, etc. Better yet, liberals will impose a mandatory death at age 60 because senior citizens are too old, cost too much to maintain with hospitalization and all, in fact I think I just gave the Democrats their answer to Social Security reform. We'll never run out of money now. I mean none of these imperfect people can be productive enough, screw them all. We'll just kill them all off and then turn around and blame the religious or conservative society and call them monsters, taking away ones right to kill off the weak. Oh, UNLESS of course its a criminal. Then the criminal has more rights.

Ever notice how liberals are against and opose like everything societal? I mean who else is so screwed up that they want to take away the rights and kill off as many people as they can legally can except for when it comes to a murderer? Then its "Oh, he has the right to live, we must save him". Save the elk from the oil drilling rigs and stop windmills because it kills too many birds, but kill the coma lady cause we can. I mean what an ego-trip and rush that must bring. Killing off the most defenseless non criminal that you can besides a fetus. And finding some legal loophole to do it to, that must mean they are better than me. They'll be raising their champagne glasses tonight.

Some of your answers made me laugh so much. One person has more knowledge from a 6 week endurance than Schiavo's parents do going through this for 13 years. Just imagine, Schiavos whole stupid unexperienced family. Another claims if you care about preserving Terri's rights and life, then you are a selfish right winger with an ego. Others seem to know what Terri wants without ever knowing her. Hey, lets just assume she wants to die because you wouldn't want to live and couldn't envision it in her place. One person can't tell the difference between people deserving to die of the death penalty and those who have a right to live. Sounds like Scott Peterson got the wrong lawyer. Someone says her husband (who clearly doesn't care about her), is a better legal guardian than her parents, who want her to live. It doesn't matter over 50% of marriages end in divorce not to mention abusive relationships, he definatley is better, don't question that. Who else would sue for $700,00 more claiming the money was needed for her well being and care, and then after the settlement fight to get her removed from life suport? Oh, and that was stated officially from Terri's siblings, not some right winger website. Just because its not on Frankens liberal talk show or hasn't been used in a Michael Moore production, doesn't mean its a right wing non-factual propaganda site. How dare Congress get involved in preservings ones life?? Ok, well being its a non criminal life, I can understand how you's would be against that. Just watch, the foot is in the door, liberals will soon bring you euthanasia.

Amazing that we don't even need a legal documentation from Terri to take her life, just hearsay. And I'm the monster on my high horse because I'm standing up for her rights that others want to dismiss. Any serial killer/child murderer and liberals would scream its 'cruel and unusual punishment' to let him starve to death, but then they choose that way for a non criminal to die.

Im praying for Terry. There is a reason she is still alive and God only knows why. God can end our lives in seconds, but he spares Terry's for a reason. God can end life with feeding tubes or without. Have Faith and God will take care of the rest. I also pray for her husbands soul.

Im praying for Terry. There is a reason she is still alive and God only knows why. God can end our lives in seconds, but he spares Terry's for a reason. God can end life with feeding tubes or without. Have Faith and God will take care of the rest. I also pray for her husbands soul.

I'm Christian. I believe that when Terri dies she'll be in the best of hands with her Creator. But I categorically deny that my heartsickness at the probability that her husband will finally succeed in killing her, after all these years of trying for whatever his reasons may be, is hypocritical. That equation - Christians ought to want to die - ought to start at birth, oughtn't it? Barring that, oughtn't all Christians to live as dangerously as possible in the hope of dying sooner? Ridiculous. And you who put it forward know it's ridiculous.

Michael Schiavo won Terri's medical malpractice suit, receiving settlement moneys for her treatment. He then signed a DNR and started trying to get her to die, somehow, anyhow, including by refusing her antibiotics for an infection (my toddler was hospitalized last year for what was initially diagnosed as dermatitis; it was golden staph, "flesh-eating bacteria," and if he hadn't received massive AB doses, he might have lost his leg if not died. I don't know what kind of infection Terri had, but I do know Michael tried to keep her from being medicated for it). He began using her treatment moneys for his legal fees. He stopped her physical therapy in the early '90s. She has profound limb contractures, had teeth pulled last year because she'd had no dental care, has suffered bedsores - bedsores! In the New Millenium, in the US! -, has never had an MRI, has not been evaluated over time as to her neurological condition in spite of the opinions of many neurologists that that's the only way to diagnose a PVS correctly. Michael Schiavo began a relationship with another woman and has had two children with her; Terri's parents found out about them through Michael's father's obituary. Michael Schiavo has asked for and been granted the right to have Terri's body cremated after her death, over her parents' strenuous objections. The bone scan Terri had, which showed evidence of broken bones including a lumbar vertebra, has been discussed here; cremation would certainly take care of any inconvenient evidence of abuse. Nurses who did have care of Terri for long periods, whose observations certainly ought to be relevant to any finding about her neurological state, have been under a gag order for several years not to discuss her responsiveness. The initial diagnosis of PVS came after a 45-minute examination by a doctor - Robert Cranford - who also diagnosed a PVS in, for instance, a man who could operate a standard wheelchair with one hand and foot, an electrical wheelchair with a joystick, and hand colored pegs or blocks to a therapist on request - which sounds like cherry-picking your experts to me. (Cite: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp)

A study reported in the British Medical Journal found that of 40 patients diagnosed as being in a persistent or permanent vegetative state (PVS), 17 (43%) were found to have been misdiagnosed by their referring physicians, 13 (33%) slowly came out of the vegetative state during rehabilitation therapy, and only 10 (25%) remained vegetative. The study also found that the incidence of misdiagnoses increased toward the end of the 3-year study period. In the first year (1992) there were two misdiagnosed patients, while in 1995 ten patients had been misdiagnosed by referring doctors.

...

[Dr. Keith] Andrews [neurologist at London's Royal Hospital for Neurodisability] noted that all of the misdiagnosed patients were severely disabled; 65% were either blind or profoundly visually impaired. "Since demonstration of awareness needs a motor response, such profound physical disability complicates assessment of awareness," Andrews wrote. "The very high prevalence of severe visual impairment, to the best of our knowledge not previously reported [by referring doctors][brackets in original], is an additional complicating factor since clinicians making the diagnosis of the vegetative state place great emphasis on the inability of the patient to visually track or blink to threat."

Both from http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/iua4.htm.

Please note that I've been misrepresenting Cranford all over the place today - he is a neurologist. But he's not one especially sympathetic to the disabled, by all accounts, unless by "sympathetic" you mean "compassionately wants to spare them the horror of a life he deems without quality." ("In a BMJ editorial, Minneapolis neurologist Ronald Cranford pointed out that the quality of life of the 17 misdiagnosed patients was still questionable. 'I would speculate,' Cranford wrote, 'that most people would find this condition far more horrifying than the vegetative state itself, and some might think it an even stronger reason for stopping treatment' (i.e., food and fluids)." From the same report.) I apologize for my error.

**Ever notice how liberals are against and opose like everything societal?**

That is a gross generalization and unfair.

**Some of your answers made me laugh so much. One person has more knowledge from a 6 week endurance than Schiavo's parents do going through this for 13 years.**

Aren't you in the same group (knowledege from 6 weeks endurance)? I never said I knew more than those personally involved. And anyone that claims that they do is full of it.

**One person can't tell the difference between people deserving to die of the death penalty and those who have a right to live.**

I don't claim to be an expert on Christianity yet I do know enough to know that a life is a life. I totally agree that some people totally revoke their right to be a part of the human race yet I don't think it is anyone's place but God's to end their life. I don't know, call me crazy.

**Someone says her husband (who clearly doesn't care about her), is a better legal guardian than her parents, who want her to live. It doesn't matter over 50% of marriages end in divorce not to mention abusive relationships, he definatley is better, don't question that. ...Oh, and that was stated officially from Terri's siblings, not some right winger website.**

You are absolutely right that some people do not marry the best people and those bad spouses should not be in the position to make certain decisions. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who marry great people but for some reason their family does not like the spouse. I worry just as much about those family interfering because of their dislike of the spouse rather than focusing on the best interests of their family member in need.

It is too easy to paint the picture that the parents are good and the husband is evil. Especially when we don't know these people and our information is second-hand, third-hand whatever.

**Amazing that we don't even need a legal documentation from Terri to take her life, just hearsay.**

Clearly you have never read the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hearsay is not allowed in court unless it falls under an exception, which number around 31. So if that hearsay was allowed in it is because it fell under one of the exception standards, which are not easy to meet in all circumstances.

**That equation - Christians ought to want to die - ought to start at birth, oughtn't it? Barring that, oughtn't all Christians to live as dangerously as possible in the hope of dying sooner? Ridiculous. And you who put it forward know it's ridiculous.**

If you are talking to me, I did not say Christains want to die because they believe in God. I should have been more clear. I would think that UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES someone who did believe in God and heaven would feel that it is ok to be taken off of life support or a feeding tube, whatever it may be, because they are going to be a better place. My grandmother has been in and out of the hospital for the past 5 years and a lot of the time she said she would be ok if it was her time because of her faith in God.

If Terri couldn't breathe on her own I may be able to understand but she can breathe, and in my opinion, is alive. I can't imagine starving someone to death who can breathe. It seems like murder to me. I do believe that her husband just wants her money.

I have a very strong personal opinion on this issue, but will instead rely on FACTS, which many people seem to be avoiding. Do not use facts which are posted on a biased (conservative or liberal) site. I have found one that offers no opinion, simply clarification of the legal issues involved:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
This site supports many of the stories I have read in various newspapers and watched on various news reports. It also points out some things I didn't know:
It wasn't until 8 years after Terri's heart attack that Mr. Schiavo petitioned a court to act
on her behalf. Each side produced information and evidence regarding what they thought her wishes would be and court determined she would not want to be in this condition. Mr. Schiavo did not make this determination, a court did. He was not the only witness to state that she told them she would not want to be kept alive in this condition.
Those who are stating that Terri's Roman Catholic beliefs would prevent her from wanting this are ignoring that facts that she did not regularly attend mass, nor did she have a relationship with a member of the clergy who could suggest what she would want based on her faith.
Additionally, Terri's cerebral cortex (for more info on the cerebral cortex http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/functional.html or http://ifcsun1.ifisiol.unam.mx/Brain/cercox.htm ) has been reduced to spinal fluid and can not be repaired. (Modern medicine is wonderful--you can replace your heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, in some cases, with artificial ones, but not the brain.) Anyone who argues that she will suffer if her feeding tube is removed is ignoring medical research. She doesn't feel anything anymore. You can't compare her situation to someone who was in a coma and was able to overcome it, because she is not in a coma.
I, too, have witnessed the videos where it appears Terri is responding to her parents, to the balloon, to being told her feeding tube was to be removed. After seeing these brief images, I thought she was cognizant of her surroundings. However, the court documents reveal that these images compose brief moments out of hours of footage. The rest of the footage shows no response to some of these same stimuli and shows these same responses (smiles, sounds, etc) when no one is even present in the room. Medical experts have concluded that these responses are simply uncontrolable reflexes, not personal responses.

Whatever your opinion on this issue, you are entitled to it, however, make it one based on actual facts, not hearsay.

In observation, i like to get all the facts, the fact is the facts have been misleading, the whole story is not being told. I like to ask the question, whats in it for her husban? Why did he say in a court of law that he needed the money to keep her alive? Lastly, i have observed while trying to get to the truth, why is it that i can only find weeb sited that propose to tell both sided however become one sidded (pro-pulling the plug). I dont find the same tactic eing made by the (keeping her alive) crowd. This comes accross as being evil and gives me doubt regarding the pro-pulling the plug crowd.

Why is this single woman's case so consuming? Liberals and Conservatives alike should be ashamed for even being involved. Liberals seem to want her to die, even though they will fight to keep every criminal on death row alive. Conservatives want to keep alive a person who has a major portion of her brain destroyed by chemicals, but will gladly pull the plug on anyone convicted of a crime. It is appalling hypocrisy on both sides, so they should all stay out of it.

Ms. Schiavo is in a PVS. All brain scans show that the only intact portions of her brain are in the cerebellum and medulla which control muscles and autonomic functions (circulation, respiration, digestion). She cannot ever have cognitive function unless somehow the cells of the cerebrum can be restored. This would likely involve using embryonic stem cells, which the Conservatives who so want to keep her alive will never allow. Hypocrisy all around. Just let the poor woman end her existence of suffering.

What is at issue is simple. Some things need to stay where they belong. This is something that needs to be dealt with by ONLY the husband (in this case). Now think about this, would you want to live like that, not being able to speak to anyone about anything, not being able to move at will.

If you wouldn't want to live like this, what makes anyone think that she wants to live like this. The problem is that Terry's parents can't accept the fact that their daughter is gone. The parents say they love Terry, so why are they forcing her to live like this.

I'm speaking from experience. Back in 1973 my 14 month old son drowned, this happened while stationed in Germany. When I took him to the local Dr, she tried to revive him. I knew that after 20 mins of trying, if he came back he would have been a vegetable. I could not let my son, my baby, be nothing more than a shell. He deserved better than that. I deserved the right to have memories of him happy and laughing. I didn’t deserve memories of him in a hospital bed for years till he finally has some complication and dies. His mother and I deserved better than that.

Terry’s mother has to accept that her daughter died the day she became brain dead. She (Terry) is not there anymore. I feel for her parents, I can understand their pain, but it’s time to let her go. The bad thing about it is that her mother would not want to put this much stress on her family, and would not want to be kept alive. So, how can she justify her trying to Force Terry to live like this?

Terry is never going to get better, and I'm sure that if she was awake inside, she also knows that she is not going to get any better. And we're back to the one question. If she were trapped in a shell, awake but not being able to communicate, not being able to make any controlled movement, even the most private of bodily functions is now the business of some stranger, do you really think Terry would want to live like this?

My view, and the view of people that I have talked to, nobody would want to live like this. The only reason there are people hanging on to life through life support, are people that don’t write down they didn't want to be kept alive. But, this is something that newly weds talk about. Many things are talked over by couples in the bedroom, and there are things that are only discussed between lovers, and parents and other family members are not always privy o that talk. At least not in good relationships.

Things like that would come up in "Pillow Talk", and didn't have to leave the bedroom. Sadly, there is always someone that will fight to keep someone alive, and force them to live a life of a plant on a shelf. It needs to stop somewhere.

Terry's husband abused her. Did anyone ever think about that. Would you trust someone she wanted to divorce who has a history of physical abuse. He probably caused her demise. In that case, he's not qualified to take care of her.

"Terry's" husband has not abused her. It was a desperate allegation by desperate parents. 19 (now 22) judges all agreed that there is no merit to the allegations raised by the parents.

The parents just can't let go, apparently neither can some other people.

Leslie:

Some of the "facts" you cite from abstractappeal are contested. For instance, the "fact" that her cerebral cortex has been completely replaced by CSF is not accepted by all neurologists who have reviewed her case and/or examined her and/or the CT scan. Also, while Mr. Schiavo wasn't the only witness to attest that Terri had said she wouldn't want to live "this way" (whatever "this way" is - I understand one occasion he cited was after watching a movie about Karen Ann Quinlan, who was in a coma and on a ventilator, which is not remotely the same as Terri's current state), he was one of only four, of whom his own brother was one, his sister-in-law another, and no member of her family was represented. While it can't be ruled out that she did mention this wish to her own family but they "selectively forgot" it as readily as Schiavo "tardily remembered" what he says, what it creates as far as I can see is a huge grey area where her wishes are concerned. Third, Kate Adamson for one, who had her feeding tube removed while in what was diagnosed as a PVS, and who then recovered from her supposedly permanent state of limbo, states that removal of her feeding tube and its aftermath was excruciatingly painful. I'd venture that she has a better line on the experience than anyone who has never been in such a condition.

Furthermore, I understand that according to Florida statute 765.101, a person is not in a PVS if s/he is *at all* responsive to his/her surroundings - whether for a moment or for a year. Judge Greer, for some reason, elected to use a different standard to make his finding of fact about Terri's state - the one put forth by Dr. Cranford. Dr. Cranford has a rather low threshold for PVS.

Frank, what a devastating loss for you. I can't imagine how a parent recovers from such a terrible thing. I know, however, that parents do go on after losing a child - they may never "get over it" but they do go on. Although I want to respond to parts of your post, I can't bring myself to do it; this issue must feel deeply personal to you and I have no desire to cause you or anyone else in a similar situation pain.

First, do I want my parents and not my wife determining whether to pull the plug? Not on your life!

Second, who is paying for her treatment and hospitalization? Her family? Her husband? Taxpayers?

Finally, do we really want the U.S> COngress taking up cases like Ms. Schiavo's each time there is a dispute?

Let us all get out of this and leave it to existing law. Sure, her husband may not be a model guy; but the next husband, who is acting out of pure love for his wife--or a wife for her husband and his wishes--do we take that decision out of his or her hands too?

GIVE IT UP!

I am perplexed as to why the media isn't talking about the anorexia that put Mrs. Schiavo in her vegetative state in the first place. The irony of this woman having to be force fed is the real story here. The fact her parents want to keep her alive at any cost to Terri is what makes me very uncomfortable. It speaks volumes as to the kind of upbringing this young woman must have had.

Anorexia is a disease of control. It happens when the patient feels they have no control over their life or their life's situation. In young woman, it can oftentimes stem from a mother's relentless control over her daughter. The daughter acts out by denying herself food ... the one thing she can have control over is whether or not she puts food in her mouth.

Whenever I see Terri's mother administer to her, I do not see a loving mother, but instead, I see a smothering mother, a human being who is intent on imposing her will on another.

That is the saddest part of this ongoing, media frenzied tragedy.

Would Terry Schiavo wish to live in the condition she is in? I don't know, but a variety of judges are convinced by evidence presented in open court that she would not. Is she in a persistent vegetative state? I don't know, but a variety of judges are convinced by evidence presented in open court that she is. The people of the State of Florida, speaking through their legislature and their courts have established a method for determining these questions. Why is everyone so unwilling to trust the courts? I frequently disagree with the rulings of Judges, but I rarely question that they are folks of integrity who do the job the are supposed to do: settle difficult questions.

Terry does appear to me to respond to some stimuli, and yet evidence has convinced several Judges that she, in fact, does not. As to the veracity of the sole witness to her desire to die in this situation, those same Judges have accepted Mr. Schiavvo at his word. I am willing to accept their judgement on these matters.

As to some other assertions made, I have a less reasoned response. First, the Congress is undoubtedly grandstanding at the expense of Ms. Schiavvo. There is no, repeat NO chance that the US Supreme Court will overrule the Florida Court in the end. It is possible (though so unlikely as to be out of the question) that the High Court will order a TRO issued, but in the end, the Court will have no ground on which to overrule the State Court in its enforcement of State law. Congress knows this. They are simply using this as a chance to score political points.

Second, that Mr. Schiavvo will receive a large sum of money won in a malpractice suit. Ms. Schiavvo was awarded $700,000 in her suit. That money is gone. Spent on medical care and legal fees. I don't know if there is life insurance, but I'm sure there will not be any huge windfall from his wife's death.

Obviously this is a tragedy, one repeated daily in this country. I am appalled by the people with views all over the spectrum making statements about the facts, about which they know nothing.

I've never held a strong view on Schiavo. Nor any stance on liberal/ conservative - we each believe what we believe, and what benefit comes of labels?

Supporter of euthanasia, btw. And a lawyer, though not in the med mal/ torts arena. I'm generally disinclined to disagree with the federal courts, and I do not here, on the issue on appeal. As I understand, the fd cts were hearing the issue of guardianship, whether the parents are appropriate guardians for Terry Schiavo, not her husband. I know, Michael Schiavo renounced guardianship years ago - but the power of the state courts to serve as Terry Schiavo's guardian derives from his delegation, his petition to the court. I haven't read all the decisions, but I understand for the ones I have looked at that the main issue that's gone up was whether Schiavo's initial guardianship was voidable, for conflict or a number of different statutory reasons.

On statutory interpretation - i.e. reading FL law - there's really only one potential outcome, which is what we have here. So I agree with the courts, because they've read FL law correctly, but I personally question why state laws presume in favor of spouses.

Caveat: I say this as a young, single woman. Clearly, I know nothing about interspousal communications or bonding.

I just think there's an understanding that parents have of a person, through years of raising them, that a spouse of a few years likely lacks. Not that the spousal understanding is deficient, only different.

I've had a number of friends who lost teenage siblings, from illness, accident and suicide. Regardless of the reason, and these are not terribly religious people, it has crippled their parents. There are some things people cannot move on from, regardless of their religious beliefs.

My mother recently granted me a durable POA on her life support. Not that it's an issue now, but she decided on me over my father, though they've had a happy and long marriage, because she knows how heavily her death, and how it occurs, will impact me. And, regardless of whom I marry, I would vest the same power in her, for the same reason.

A spouse can always divorce the patient if the obligation becomes too much to bear. A parental bond is not so easily severed.

A feeding tube is not an "invasive therapy." I can understand decrying the parents if they had her on rounds and rounds of invasive treatment - but that's simply not the case here. PVS or no, spouse or no, I believe parents are the most logical choice on provision of basic care, not even treatment, in the absence of a credible expression of the patient's will.

This would hold if the parents wanted to deny treatment, in my view, as well. They are simply - in general - more reliable, with a relationship spanning the years. I do not think there is anything immoral about the decision to cease the feeding, but it seems wholly illogical to exclude the parents from the discourse.

Personally, I suspect my parents would keep me alive so long as I exhibited signs of life. And unless in deep pain, I'd be okay with that, if it somehow gives peace to not have your children predecease you.

I have deep respect for parents who decide to terminate treatment, and for spouses who are following their partners' expressed will. But, in instances like these, why does it make sense to paint the spouse as a hero (or a villian) and the parents as right-wing nuts?

What would you do, if you believed your child to still be alive? If she never said she wanted treatment withdrawn? Wouldn't you fight, also?

I personally, as someone whose politics are definitely not religious or hard-line anything, feel horribly sad for Terry Schiavo's parents, who I don't see as smotherers but as people who believe a terrible wrong has been done unto their daughter. And in general, I think it makes sense to vest this type of decision-making in parents - if there is a strong spousal bond, a durable POA granting such agency to one's spouse can always override the statutory presumption.

Then again, what we think is largely specious and speculative. And even blogging about it is, in its own way, a renewal of the privacy invasion that's been dragging out so painfully for this family through the years. So I'll stop now.

To Poster:

I applaud your thoughtful post. As a parent and husband, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. I think that the bond between spouses is strong and the most truly loving. The problem with vesting in parents this control is that the worst thing that can happen to a parent is to lose a child. Parents will be tempted to continue to keep a child alive long after all hope is lost, even in direct contravention of the child's wishes. I truly believe that a spouse is more likely to make the truly loving decision, whatever that might be.

I think one important thing to bare in mind before everyone 'knows' what everyone else supposedly wants. I don't ever recall hearing Christopher Reeves begging anyone to take his breathing tube out. Good thing for him he had a voice instead of someone else speaking for him.

I cant justified the way Terry will die, it is cruel and non humane way, and in this context I think Dr. Kevorkian is Saint because his patients do not suffer dehydrated and seeing a dead more quick and painless.
In this case we do not have Terrys will, she cant ask for assisted suicide, and some body else Will become trough, polarizing opinions and worst of all have political and justice look a like agenda.
The old horses, dogs cats etc. have better ending ,they are not humans and still we have mercy to help them out in painless and not barbarian way.
The government spend much more on social promotional programs of which the end result if not minimal
Is endless and in this case more or less is not significant important /15/years but it will open a new Pandora Box of decisions /to whom we may allow to live and who to kill/, and not only to destroy moral and human treasures and also to deliver political interests.
Fresh examples are removing of the 10 commandments, changing theories in our kid’s schoolbooks.
Our criminals sentenced to dead have better ending, which is simple pity.

I would tend to agree with Michigan Attorney in that I would choose to give that power to my spouse. I have a wonderful relationship with my mother and I love her to pieces, but there are things that you just do not share with yur parents b/c they are your parents (in most cases). How many of us really allow our parents to know who we really are, yes they may know our quirks and our attributes, our personality,our favorite foods, when we're upset but do they know our desires, longings and what is in our heart. Your spouse is someone you CHOOSE to be with you choose to share a life with, you trust to share all of those desires, longings and what is in your heart. I am not married but have been in a committed relationship for over five years. That is the person I would trust to make a decision that I would want. Not trying to keep me here out of the fear of losing another child as I feel it would be for my mother.

Of course, either situation can be reversed we can have parents who suck or we can marry the wrong person. That is why this is a lesson to all of us who are still here and capable to either appoint the person in writing who we would like to make that decision or get with your doctor and write an extremely specific living will.

As for Terri, she shall find rest whether God delivers her through this or from this.

You are all still disregarding the anorexia that put Terri in the state she currently finds herself in.

Why isn't anyone willing to talk about that?

May only prayer now is for Terry to die. Its been too long without food. Imagine being really thirsty and not being able to satify your thirst. If I decided my dog was disabled and I was going to stop feeding it, the humane society would file charges against me for neglect. I forgot we can have the right to euthanasia for our pets, but Terry needs to strave to death. Every American should beware of the courts and judges for they are unfair. We give animals better treatment then our own people.

Michigan Attorney writes: "As to the veracity of the sole witness to her desire to die in this situation, those same Judges have accepted Mr. Schiavvo at his word."

Mr. Schiavo wasn't the sole witness. If I recall correctly reading the court's decision, there were five in total.

Terri Schiavo's mother testified that Terri did not wish this. However, her testimony was not considered credible. Mrs. Schindler insisted that Terri made this statement during the Karen Ann Quinlin case, but thought her daughher was 17-20 at the time. But Terri would have been 12 at the time.

My comment about Terry's anorexia is maybe it was her husband trying to control her.

There is some kind of a flaw in this discussion thread. If Terri Schiavo is to be terminated, it should be done by instantaneous means, since removing a feeding tube is not as easy as switchting off a machine. Starvation is a cruel way to die, bringing forth more of the euthanasia or "assisted suicide" controversy. It might mean killing her as a veterinarian would a terminally ill pet or an overcrowded animal shelter would "put to sleep" its excess clientele, and also the lethal injection used as execution in the case of prisoners held for capital offenses! I can think of other ways for a quick "humane" death but they might sound morbid.

Next-of-kin should be established by "blood" or DNA kinship, which the Schindlers are and Mr. Schiavo is not. Terri's intentions were never established by a Living Will, so the husband's claim is hearsay, inadmissible in a court of law. She is thus more a part of the ones who sincerely love her, and definitely not the man's property.

This case reminds me of the famous "Solomonic" trial in 1 Kings 3:16-28.

If the whole US GOV'T can't save one American, why should the Military fight for this country.
I am so disgusted, that I don't think I will ever vote again for any politician, judge, or whatever. They seem to be a bunch of wimps that do not dare air their true opinions.
So a higher Judge will have to have them in court one day. It's pure Murder as it stands, now.How can you take the word of a man that won't divorce his wife, but will have two children out of wedlock with another woman. If he can sit there and watch her die without doing anything, I have no use for him. I went through this with my terminal wife. But, everything was done for her comfort. Medicare paid for her care.
Tom Brumbaugh

I think that it is easy for us to sit back and judge, to say what we feel is right or wrong but we really don't know and have no right to influence such decisions--neither does our goverment. Government intervenes all too often on mattters that should be private not public and often make things worse not better or it remains the same (War on Drugs, Fight against poverty, Gay/Lesbian issues, abortion). If I were in Ms. Schiavo's state I would not want to be kept alive as a burden to my family. The husband should have the right to decide because when we marry, "we leave our mother and father, cleave to one another and become one". He must be suffering terribly watching the woman he married so young and vibrant, passionate and loving sitting & lying there day after day so unresponsive and out of touch with this world. People often speak about God's will from a Christian standpoint: If it were Gos's will wouldn't she survive without a feeding tube? If it were God's will wouldn't she have been able to sustain life without medical interference or to recover after a short time following intervention?

The real story here goes beyond Terri - which is a wonderful story of spousal devotion, yeh. Where do the 60+% of already braindead Americans (recent survey support for killing an invalid)run for help after they start this ball rolling. After unplugging tubes, there is bound to be some delightful person ( probably a woman) who will decide to cut off the oxygen to Dad's portable tank - you know how he was suffering. And those confined to wheelchairs - no quality of life at all. And the mentally ill - so tragic. And the 50+% of people with IQs less than 100 - all mentally challenged and they eat alot to boot. Remember the idiots who started the abortion ball ( women) and now we import labor from Mexico - surprising how it is almost exactly the number of abortions - really bright girls ( and some of your boy buddies).

Why don't her parents take her home and feed her?

I am truely confused how any American can back such a horrible thing. The fact that Terri's husband didn't choose to act on his wife supposed wishes until he got engaged to his new love seems pretty plain cut to me. We are not talking about a brain dead woman who can't even breathe on her own. We are talking about a disbaled woman who simply can't eat on her own. We are doing to her what we wouldn't do to a common criminal, starving her to death. It would be more kind to give her lethal injection if the courts and husband insist on murdering her. Go to her website and look at her videos. She does respond. She is not a vegtable. A baby can't feed itself either, is it okay to starve it? She hasn't even had a chance at rehabilitation. If we did that to an animal we would be arrested. Give custody of Terri to her parents! Let her husband go on with his life but not take hers!!!!!!!!!

Her parents took her home in the late 90s and were unable to care for her. Mrs. Schiavo is unable to have any cognitive function. The alleged physical responses to stimuli are random reflex from the only intact portions of her brain, the cerebellum (which controls muscles) and the medulla (which control involuntary things like breathing and heartbeat). The medulla cannot be conciously controlled, which is why you can't "think" your heart into stopping.
She is far less than a "disabled woman who simply can't eat". The feeding tube is surgically implanted past her stomach into the upper intestine because she has no ability to swallow. The peristaltic movements of her stomach are also gone. The only way to get nutrition to her is direct absorption into the bloodstream. She can't eat solid food period. Pouring water down her throat would drown her, as the epiglottis will not switch to sending it into the esophagous. A baby or any other individual with cognitive function can feed themselves. If a dish of water is placed before them, they could crawl over and drink without drowning. Mrs. Schiavo cannot drink AT ALL without a tube to go directly into the esophagus. That is no different than being hooked up to a ventilator and is certainly an extraordinary means to extend life. It is certainly not murder or forced starvation, because even if all the nutrition in the world were placed before her, she would not be able to use any of it of her own free will.

RJ wrote:"I don't ever recall hearing Christopher Reeves begging anyone to take his breathing tube out."

This is because Christopher Reeve was a sentient being would could think and express his views. He simply wasn't ambulatory. He was also making great strides in rehabilitating himself before his untimely death. According to most medical opinion, Terri has very little brain function and the prospects for rehabilition are nil.

womanonajourney,

If I were in Ms. Schiavo's state I would not want to be kept alive as a burden to my family. The husband should have the right to decide because when we marry, "we leave our mother and father, cleave to one another and become one". He must be suffering terribly watching the woman he married so young and vibrant, passionate and loving sitting & lying there day after day so unresponsive and out of touch with this world.

Well, this particular dude has been rather conspicuously "cleaving to" someone else for a decade. He hasn't acted as though he regarded himself as married to his legal wife for ages. I don't understand why he hadn't the decency to divorce her the moment he set up his new family.

The bottom line here is you should not be able to starve a person to death. Who gave permission to insert the feeding tube in the first place? Thats when the mistake was made. Two mistakes don't make a right.

I wish Micheal Shiavo would have used all his time, energy, and money to fight for life. Its to late after you insert the feeding tube. Then you need to back off or pitch in and make a sad situation better.

How can he watch her die like this? He must really love her ????? Micheal is a evil control freak.

The bottom line here is you should not be able to starve a person to death. Who gave permission to insert the feeding tube in the first place? Thats when the mistake was made. Two mistakes don't make a right.

I wish Micheal Shiavo would have used all his time, energy, and money to fight for life. Its to late after you insert the feeding tube. Then you need to back off or pitch in and make a sad situation better.

How can he watch her die like this? He must really love her ?????

As I said, before unless you have been a fly on the wall during everything that has occurred in this case, and now I add unless you know everyone involved personally, YOU CANNOT make judgments on the character or motivations of the parties. It isn't fair. You wouldn't want people to make such statements about you if you were in the same situation. And again I say it is too easy to paint the husband as a evil and the parents and good. Nothing is ever that simple.

"PVS or no, spouse or no, I believe parents are the most logical choice on provision of basic care, not even treatment, in the absence of a credible expression of the patient's will. This would hold if the parents wanted to deny treatment, in my view, as well. They are simply - in general - more reliable, with a relationship spanning the years. I do not think there is anything immoral about the decision to cease the feeding, but it seems wholly illogical to exclude the parents from the discourse."

This assumes that your parents are mature, responsible, sane people. I work in the court system and see plenty of parents who should have never reproduced. And how about someone who is 55 and they have been married to their spouse since they were 20? Just because the parents changed their diapers, they automatically know more than than spouse. I would argue the spouse would be a better choice because s/he has known his/her spouse as an adult, which is when one makes those kind of decisions about life and death. The parents should be involved in the discourse if there is no living will. In the absence of one, only the particular circumstances in that case could determine who is better able to make the decision regarding life and death.

"Next-of-kin should be established by "blood" or DNA kinship, which the Schindlers are and Mr. Schiavo is not. Terri's intentions were never established by a Living Will, so the husband's claim is hearsay, inadmissible in a court of law. She is thus more a part of the ones who sincerely love her, and definitely not the man's property."

My husband is my next-of-kin and I will be damned if anyone says otherwise. Just because someone is related by blood does not mean they have your best interests at heart. As I said I work in the court system and I see families going at each other a lot. They might as well be strangers the way they act towards each other.

Obviously you did not read my most recent post because under the federal rules of evidence, which FL does follow save for a few differences, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE IN COURT if it falls under an exception to the rule that hearsay is not allowed. So if hearsay was allowed it was because the law said under the circumstances it was ok. If it was not ok, the lawyers should have filed an appeal to say that the judge was wrong in allowing the hearsay. And that the hearsay hurt their case. If they did not, then that is bad lawyering. If they did and the appellate courts disagreed, then that's it, allowing the hearsay in was ok.

Hearsay was specifically allowed in this case. Most states follow the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hearsay is specifically admissible when: made as an excited utterance, such as when watching a television program about a brain dead individual and stating that one would wish not to ever be in such a condition or,for example when statements are being made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. There are several categories under which Mr. Schiavo's hearsay statements and those of relatives were specifically admissible. There is no miscarriage of justice here, except that the executive branch wishes to run roughshod over the judicial branch for politically and religiously motivated reasons. The executive branch of these United States at both the federal and state level are SECULAR; claiming it is the Christian thing to keep a PVS subject alive does disrespect to every other religion and to those who do not adhere to any organized religions. If Governor Bush takes guardianship of Mrs. Schiavo by force, he will be no better than the leaders of the Taliban who ruled by religion.

I dont care what kind of shape Terry is in, its not humane to watch anyone or anything starve to death. I dont care if her husband has control or her parents. This kind of behavior is sick. As an American and human being I'm ashamed of mankind. She is living person, and can feel pain thats all that should matter.

The sick thing about this whole inhumane ordeal is the fact that if it was Terry's wishs not to live like this as her husband claims, then why did he not remember her wishes until 8 years later after Terry was awarded all the money. He went as far as to take nursing classes because he stated he wanted to take care of her.. BUT after the $$$ he just so happened to remember her saying she would not want to live like that. It all sounds alittle sick to me. The sicker thing is that we give mass murderers more rights than her including the fact that the same idiot politicians that want to kill her would never allow us to STARVE a terrorist or murderer to death. What is next????

Why is Michael not is prison for doing this to her in the first place???????

One moment I lean one way, the next the other way. When situations are this complicated, err on the side of life. Why not? The only person capable of rendering judgement on this situation is the one who created Terry in the first place -God. Since we are not God, let her live until He determines that her heart and breathing stops. We don't withhold food from babies simply because they can't get up and get it themselves. Giving nutrition is nowhere near the same as mechanical breathing. God alone will judge all of us.

Mrs. Schiavo can't feel anything and can't be "starved" because she can't ever feel hungry or thirsty. All those parts of her brain were eaten away by her immune system when the cells of her brain were damaged by a chemical imbalance due to a weight loss drug. There is only one possible therapy, replacement of all those dead neurons with new ones. The only source would be STEM CELLS, words anathama to Christian rightists.

I am amazed at those of you who think that babies can't feed themselves. If you leave food out, they will eat and drink on their own. Mrs. Schiavo cannot even swallow and I again point out would drown if anyone were to pour water down her throat. She has to have an artificial silicon tube surgically implanted past her stomach to receive any nutrients.

Hey Lemon, how do you know what Terry feels? Are you God? I agree 100% with Carol. When it was Christopher Reeves time God took him. Christopher's job was done and he went home naturally. Nobody took him off oxygen.

To dk,