Terri Shiavo

[Guest curvette]

I will add that you made a VERY good point. If nothing else, this experience may raise awareness to Americans to the importance of having a living will.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 19 2005, 07:55 PM

I will add that you made a VERY good point. If nothing else, this experience may raise awareness to Americans to the importance of having a living will.

This should drive it home. Your family has to be aware of your wishes to prevent a nightmare like this.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 19 2005, 03:38 PM

It seems to me that if Terri's parents want to keep her alive, their wishes should be respected at least as much as those of her husband, who by all accounts has moved on with his life, moving in with another woman and having children with her.

I agree with this statement. I can't imagine being either the husband or the parents of Terri.

I can not blame the husband for moving on after so many years. Can he prove that having her die by withdrawing the feeding tube is fulfilling her wishes? Why would he refuse to allow an MRI done of Terri's brain?

As far as the parents are concerned I can feel for them as well. Over the past 8 months I have learned more then I would ever care to know about brain damage. I have seen first hand the miracles and healing that the brain can do. On the other hand, I don't know how I would feel seeing my own child so unresponsive year after year after year. Letting your child starve to death would not be a good option either. As parents we are responsible to provide our children with food, shelter and clothing how can parents starve their children?

This case has a no possible win outcome.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 12:29 PM

IMO, it goes deeper than just letting one woman die. It is setting a precedent for any other person in the country who is a custodian for someone in a similar state. I have read other articles about people who were in comas for years, who woke up and went on to normal, healthy lives. What if the plug had been pulled on them? And we are not even talking about a plug. She is not on life support. There is no proof that she said anything to anyone about wanting to die. I do find it all suspect, but I am more worried what this will do to America. What happened to the millions who spoke out against Dr. Kevorkian, who euthanized a few adults in their right mind who wanted to die instead of remain in the state they were in? Why do people want it both ways? I just don't see this as a good thing.

Jenda,

It's not a precedent. This has been going on all across American for years. Their have been thousands and thousands of cases I myself faced my first case 12 years ago. The wife of an elderly gentleman had been in the same state as Terri Schiavo for 20 years. She had zero quality of life. It had taken every single penny the man had, every single penny and now he had nothing. He and her physician decided what they wanted to do and then asked to have the tube pulled. Undoubtedly it has happened a number of times since this thread was opened.

What's different about this case is that the media, religious interventionists have made it a cause celeb and an Evangelical Governor has decides (unconstitutionally as decided by the court of appeals) to ram his personal morality down the necks of the Schiavos.

And Jenda, she is on life support. Her life is being supported via a feeding tube. Remove that support and stop force feeding her (in as much as her proxy speaks for her legally, we know that she is being forced) and she dies.

You don't have to see it as a good thing. Just allow her (by proxy) to live and die according to the dictates of her own consciousness.

[Snow]

I wonder if there is some relation of the validity of a cause and the loonies it attracts?

"Meanwhile, emotions swelled outside the hospice. Four people, including right wing leader James Gordon "Bo" Gritz, were arrested Saturday on trespassing charges when they attempted to bring Schiavo bread and water...

On Sunday, a small group of supporters congregated outside the hospice, including some who had camped out for days. New protest signs were put up Sunday saying "Save Terri Schiavo From State-Sponsored Murder!" and "Free Terri, jail the rest."

Guabe Garcia Jones, an attorney from Washington, said he's been on a hunger strike since the tube was pulled Friday, only drinking water for the roughly two days he has spent in a tent outside the hospice.

"I'm not going to eat until she can eat - or I break down," said Jones"

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 20 2005, 10:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 20 2005, 10:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 12:29 PM

IMO, it goes deeper than just letting one woman die.  It is setting a precedent for any other person in the country who is a custodian for someone in a similar state.  I have read other articles about people who were in comas for years, who woke up and went on to normal, healthy lives.  What if the plug had been pulled on them?  And we are not even talking about a plug.  She is not on life support.  There is no proof that she said anything to anyone about wanting to die.  I do find it all suspect, but I am more worried what this will do to America.  What happened to the millions who spoke out against Dr. Kevorkian, who euthanized a few adults in their right mind who wanted to die instead of remain in the state they were in?  Why do people want it both ways?  I just don't see this as a good thing.

Jenda,

It's not a precedent. This has been going on all across American for years. Their have been thousands and thousands of cases I myself faced my first case 12 years ago. The wife of an elderly gentleman had been in the same state as Terri Schiavo for 20 years. She had zero quality of life. It had taken every single penny the man had, every single penny and now he had nothing. He and her physician decided what they wanted to do and then asked to have the tube pulled. Undoubtedly it has happened a number of times since this thread was opened.

What's different about this case is that the media, religious interventionists have made it a cause celeb and an Evangelical Governor has decides (unconstitutionally as decided by the court of appeals) to ram his personal morality down the necks of the Schiavos.

And Jenda, she is on life support. Her life is being supported via a feeding tube. Remove that support and stop force feeding her (in as much as her proxy speaks for her legally, we know that she is being forced) and she dies.

You don't have to see it as a good thing. Just allow her (by proxy) to live and die according to the dictates of her own consciousness.

I am a nurse, and know what "life support" is. It is not a feeding tube, any more than eating by mouth is life support for you. I worked with children in PVS, and know what that is, also, and it is not what Terri is described as. There is no response of any kind. They lie there like a rag doll, their eyes do not open, there is not even reflexive movement. There are no voluntary respirations because that is a reflexive action. They must be on a ventilator. So, please don't presume to instruct me in what it is I am talking about.

It is not the stopping of life support that would set the precident, Snow (I have been there and done that, too), it is the government stepping in and making the decision that her life is valueless because she has brain damage. You should re-read PD's post.

[Snow]

Jenda,

Terri is on a machine that supports her life. In the absence of that machine supporting her life, she would die. That's "life support." What you mean to say is that the type of "life support" that is supporting Terri's life does not meet the more narrow terminology that you are used to.

And forgive me Jenda, but as bright as you are, I trust the opinion of her doctor and the court ordered doctors who have actually reviewed her case more than a nurse who reads the papers and so thinks she can make a rule out diagnosis.

This is not an issue of the government deciding that Terri's life is worthless. It is Terri and her proxy who are deciding not to continue force feedings. The government, as least at this particular moment is simply agreeing that they have the right to make their own medical decisions.

You are just jumping all over the place. First you said it was all about the money. When that argument was shown to be false, you said it was about the precedent. Since it is not, now you say it is the goverment who is deciding the her life is worthless (instead of what the govt is really doing and that is to allow the parties to make their own her care decisions.) Pick an argument and stay with it.

[Jenda]

You are right, Snow, as you are 100% of the time. I don't know why I didn't see it before.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Snow -- Yours is a reasonable position, but I think you need to re-think a couple of your arguments.

First, there's the idea that the decision to remove the tube was made by "Terri and her proxy." Terri, obviously, had nothing to do with it. And there seems to me to be a reasonable question as to whether Terri's husband of five years, or her parents, are the more proper proxies for Terri -- especially since her husband, for all intents and purposes, is no longer her husband. (If he were, he'd be a virtual bigamist, being effectively common-law married to another woman.)

I trust the opinion of her doctor and the court ordered doctors

I don't. I don't trust expert witnesses to be objective, and I don't trust judges to be able to admit a mistake. Attorneys don't engage expert witnesses who they expect to give unfavorable testimony:

Dr. Cranford was the principal medical witness brought in by Schiavo and Felos to support their position that Terri was PVS. Judge Greer was obviously impressed by Cranford’s résumé: Cranford travels throughout the country testifying in cases involving PVS and brain impairment. He is widely recognized by courts as an expert in these issues, and in some circles is considered “the” expert on PVS. His clinical judgment has carried the day in many cases, so it is relevant to examine the manner in which he arrived at his judgment in Terri’s case. But before that, one needs to know a little about Cranford’s background and perspective: Dr. Ronald Cranford is one of the most outspoken advocates of the “right to die” movement and of physician-assisted suicide in the U.S. today.

In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life. He has said that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack personhood and should have no constitutional rights. Perusing the case literature and articles surrounding the “right to die” and PVS, one will see Dr. Cranford’s name surface again and again. In almost every case, he is the one claiming PVS, and advocating the cessation of nutrition and hydration.

In the cases of Paul Brophy, Nancy Jobes, Nancy Cruzan, and Christine Busalucci, Cranford was the doctor behind the efforts to end their lives. Each of these people was brain-damaged but not dying; nonetheless, he advocated death for all, by dehydration and starvation. Nancy Cruzan did not even require a feeding tube: She could be spoon-fed. But Cranford advocated denying even that, saying that even spoon-feeding constituted “medical treatment” that could be licitly withdrawn.

In cases where other doctors don’t see it, Dr. Cranford seems to have a knack for finding PVS. Cranford also diagnosed Robert Wendland as PVS. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could pick up specifically colored pegs or blocks and hand them to a therapy assistant on request. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could operate and maneuver an ordinary wheelchair with his left hand and foot, and an electric wheelchair with a joystick, of the kind that many disabled persons (most famously Dr. Stephen Hawking) use. Dr. Cranford dismissed these abilities as meaningless. Fortunately for Wendland, the California supreme court was not persuaded by Cranford’s assessment.

Expert witnesses in court are supposed to be unbiased: disinterested in the outcome of the case. Part of the procedure in qualifying expert witnesses is establishing that they are objective and unbiased. But given Dr. Cranford’s history of advocacy in the “right to die” and euthanasia movements, and given his track record of almost always coming down on the side of PVS and removal of nutrition and hydration, one might question his objectivity.

So it's a tough call, at best. Schiavo needs to cool it with his overheated rhetoric -- calling his opposition "Stalinist", etc.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 20 2005, 03:40 PM

Snow -- Yours is a reasonable position, but I think you need to re-think a couple of your arguments.

First, there's the idea that the decision to remove the tube was made by "Terri and her proxy." Terri, obviously, had nothing to do with it. And there seems to me to be a reasonable question as to whether Terri's husband of five years, or her parents, are the more proper proxies for Terri -- especially since her husband, for all intents and purposes, is no longer her husband. (If he were, he'd be a virtual bigamist, being effectively common-law married to another woman.)

I trust the opinion of her doctor and the court ordered doctors

I don't. I don't trust expert witnesses to be objective, and I don't trust judges to be able to admit a mistake. Attorneys don't engage expert witnesses who they expect to give unfavorable testimony:

So it's a tough call, at best. Schiavo needs to cool it with his overheated rhetoric -- calling his opposition "Stalinist", etc.

No, that is not at all obvious. If the husbad (and 2 others as I understand it) the decision (generically) was Terri's expressed desire. That would make her a big part of the decision. I suppose youcould suppose that the 3 parties are lying but if so I would lkie to know on what baiss you so suppose.

There may be a reasonable question in your mind about who is the proper proxy but Michael is the legal proxy. You can argue that the law is wrong but what an odd pathe that would lead down. Think about your own wife and family, should something happen, would it then be okay for the spouse's parents to supercede your legal rights because they disagree with you?

It is one thing to say that I distrust Johnnie Cochran because he trys to have double murderers released from custody. It is another think to say that because some lawers want killers and rapist to go free, we should not trust any or all lawyers. What specifically about Terri's personal doctors do you distrust?

Sure Schiavo is worked up and has made some statements out of well founded anger but he is hardly any more shrill than the nutjobs who call him murder and who intimate that he is actually did try and murder Terri 15 years ago.

[StrawberryFields]

This is just a sickening mess. How many times will they do this to her?

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=157036

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Snow -- As I understand it, for a person to be denied medical treatment in Florida, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the person expressed a desire to discontinue medical treatment. Looking at the evidence Judge Greer based his decision on, I don't think it comes anywhere close to satisfying that extraordinary standard. The problem is that the law affords very few remedies to review a judge's improper finding of fact. I've encountered several judges who make up their minds who they want to win within thirty seconds of argument, and there's not a dang thing you can do to change their minds, no matter how mistaken they are. (I once argued for half an hour trying to explain to a particularly dim specimen how a person can't have relied in July on false representations that weren't made until the following September.)

"Terri's" doctors are essentially Michael Schiavo's doctors. He controls access to her, and controls her treatment. There are reasonable questions as to why he has limited her treatment; it follows that there are reasonable questions as to whether he is her best and most objective representative.

One other way I have of looking at this: Consider the parties involved in this case -- Terri, her nominal husband, and her parents. Terri doesn't care at this point what happens to her. Her husband has moved on with his life, and for all practical purposes is no longer Terri's spouse (unless he's a bigamist). I doubt he has any overwhelming desire that Terri should die. Terri's parents, on the other hand, will be devastated if she is starved to death. In the interest of minimizing pain, the best option seems to be to let Terri live out whatever limited existence remains to her. If imperfections in the law stand in the way, the law should be changed in every legitimate way to eliminate the imperfection.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 21 2005, 11:58 AM

Snow -- As I understand it, for a person to be denied medical treatment in Florida, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the person expressed a desire to discontinue medical treatment. Looking at the evidence Judge Greer based his decision on, I don't think it comes anywhere close to satisfying that extraordinary standard. The problem is that the law affords very few remedies to review a judge's improper finding of fact. I've encountered several judges who make up their minds who they want to win within thirty seconds of argument, and there's not a dang thing you can do to change their minds, no matter how mistaken they are. (I once argued for half an hour trying to explain to a particularly dim specimen how a person can't have relied in July on false representations that weren't made until the following September.)

"Terri's" doctors are essentially Michael Schiavo's doctors. He controls access to her, and controls her treatment. There are reasonable questions as to why he has limited her treatment; it follows that there are reasonable questions as to whether he is her best and most objective representative.

One other way I have of looking at this: Consider the parties involved in this case -- Terri, her nominal husband, and her parents. Terri doesn't care at this point what happens to her. Her husband has moved on with his life, and for all practical purposes is no longer Terri's spouse (unless he's a bigamist). I doubt he has any overwhelming desire that Terri should die. Terri's parents, on the other hand, will be devastated if she is starved to death. In the interest of minimizing pain, the best option seems to be to let Terri live out whatever limited existence remains to her. If imperfections in the law stand in the way, the law should be changed in every legitimate way to eliminate the imperfection.

Very Good argument PD.

I can't imagine allowing my child starve to death.

You wrote "If imperfections in the law stand in the way, the law should be changed in every legitimate way to eliminate the imperfection." I hate to say this but the law does not currently allows and other means of helping a loved one back home other then with drawing of means of support IE "life support". Starving is not an option for these parents so what are the options? I don't see any for them but to continue to fight for her not to be starved to death.

Stepping back for the logistics side to the spiritual side of this I would have to suffer it over to my Father In Heaven. It would be beyond my ability to allow anything but the Lords intervention.

[MBASS]

I think its very sad that this family has to be put on the front page. This is a very personal and private matter that has been exploited big time. I hate to see the woman starve to death, but at the same time she probably wouldnt even know she was starving. I would rather return to my Heavenly Father and be whole again! If I were her family I would want that too. Alas, I am not her husband or her family. My question is Are her parents keeping her alive for Terry or for themselves?! Is it more comforting to visit a daughter who is alive but brain dead or the cemetary?! I think both sides are being selfish!

[Jason]

Removing a feeding tube is tantamount to "assisted suicide" or even murder. If life is possible, we have no right to end it. Period.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by MBASS@Mar 21 2005, 01:14 PM

I think both sides are being selfish!

Being selfish? Do you have children? It's the very "selfishness" of our love for our children that drives us to take care of them day in and day out. I don't think the parents are being selfish in the normal way. If they were truly selfish, they wouldn't care if she starved to death. They'd welcome the relief and go to Bora Bora.

[Amillia]

I think that if Terri were a man, he would have already had the tube taken away.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 21 2005, 09:58 AM

Snow -- As I understand it, for a person to be denied medical treatment in Florida, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the person expressed a desire to discontinue medical treatment.  Looking at the evidence Judge Greer based his decision on, I don't think it comes anywhere close to satisfying that extraordinary standard.  The problem is that the law affords very few remedies to review a judge's improper finding of fact.  I've encountered several judges who make up their minds who they want to win within thirty seconds of argument, and there's not a dang thing you can do to change their minds, no matter how mistaken they are.  (I once argued for half an hour trying to explain to a particularly dim specimen how a person can't have relied in July on false representations that weren't made until the following September.)

"Terri's" doctors are essentially Michael Schiavo's doctors.  He controls access to her, and controls her treatment.  There are reasonable questions as to why he has limited her treatment; it follows that there are reasonable questions as to whether he is her best and most objective representative. 

One other way I have of looking at this:  Consider the parties involved in this case -- Terri, her nominal husband, and her parents.  Terri doesn't care at this point what happens to her.  Her husband has moved on with his life, and for all practical purposes is no longer Terri's spouse (unless he's a bigamist).  I doubt he has any overwhelming desire that Terri should die.  Terri's parents, on the other hand, will be devastated if she is starved to death.  In the interest of minimizing pain, the best option seems to be to let Terri live out whatever limited existence remains to her.  If imperfections in the law stand in the way, the law should be changed in every legitimate way to eliminate the imperfection.

No offense PD but this is the 3rd time the tube has been pulled (probably just capped). Three times someone closer to the case than either of us has decided that the criteria had been met. Armchair quarterbacking may be entertaining but it's still armchair quarterbacking. It's like those that have seen the short, isolated video clips, really nothing more than a few selected seconds out of the past 15 years, say, lookee, her eyes are tracking and she seems to be smiling, she obviously isn't in a PVS, your personal experience with a particular judge in Orange County notwithstanding.

That Michael Schiavo, who has moved on with his life, is willing to see this through and be dragged through the mud by Terri's family and their supporter when there is no upside for him personally says or suggests something noble about his intentions.

I don't accept your alternate argument about who suffers or cares the most pain should have their way. If Terri truly doesn't care, that means that she she is not a cognitive human being. Just because we have the science to extend meaningless life doesn't mean that is a good thing to do (Remember this would all be a moot point not so many decades ago and Terri would have long since died.), even if it makes 3rd parties happy. Should I ever been in such a condition, and let me go on record right now... Stay out of my affairs, any right-wing, evangelical politicans should mind their own business. My spouse speaks for me. That's why I married her - so we could become one flesh. Mom, I love you but this isn't your call. Now turn off my da** machine.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 21 2005, 01:19 PM

Removing a feeding tube is tantamount to "assisted suicide" or even murder. If life is possible, we have no right to end it. Period.

Jason,

Being flippant won't really help your argument. Words have definitions. Murder means something legally. You can check - in Florida, stopping gastic feeding is not murder. Suicide also means something, it would require on to be an agent unto themselves. Terri is not.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Snow,

The fact that we're having this discussion should go a long way towards disproving that all Mormons, or great minds, think alike.

I don't accept your alternate argument about who suffers or cares the most pain should have their way. If Terri truly doesn't care, that means that she she is not a cognitive human being. Just because we have the science to extend meaningless life doesn't mean that is a good thing to do (Remember this would all be a moot point not so many decades ago and Terri would have long since died.), even if it makes 3rd parties happy. Should I ever been in such a condition, and let me go on record right now... Stay out of my affairs, any right-wing, evangelical politicans should mind their own business. My spouse speaks for me. That's why I married her - so we could become one flesh. Mom, I love you but this isn't your call. Now turn off my damm machine.

First, the fact that Terri is not a "cognitive human being" doesn't instantly resolve the argument. How cognition-limited do you have to be before you get the ax? Comatose? PVS? Robert Scheer? I generally don't like slippery-slope arguments, because they all prove too much -- everything is a slippery slope to anything, if you think it hard enough. And it's true that questions like this tend to bring the extremists out of the woodwork; I don't particularly like being on the same side as Bo Gritz. On the other hand, there is a significant bloc of opinion in this country that has it as an article of faith that the boundaries of human life should be drawn as narrowly as possible. My cynical side suspects this has a lot to do with recognizing the fewest possible binding moral duties (life being one of the few categories to which we still recognize such duties). Some people never saw a plug or a feeding tube they didn't want to yank, and I think they're misguided.

I haven't seen the video clips of Terri, so my opinion of her state isn't formed by those. In fact, I don't have much of an opinion as to her state at all. I have concluded, though, that Florida's procedures for making the factual finding as to Terri's "wishes" are nowhere near as comprehensive as are the procedures for reviewing a death sentence. I was very startled to discover, for example, that no guardian ad litem -- an independent representative who looks out for an incapacitated or incompetent person's legal rights -- had been appointed for Terri in the proceeding.

The fact that the feeding tube has been stopped and started several times means very little. The basic issue is that there has been only one "finding of fact" -- a finding which, if this were a criminal case, would almost certainly be overturned as procedurally deficient.

Just because we have the science to extend meaningless life doesn't mean that is a good thing to do (Remember this would all be a moot point not so many decades ago and Terri would have long since died.)

This also proves way too much. Not so many decades ago, my wife would have died from her difficult first pregnancy. And science can extend the lives of all kinds of people with impaired consciousness who would otherwise die.

Give the poor woman a "new trial," with a disinterested guardian ad litem and a new judge. If, after all that, the finding of fact is still that she expressed a wish not to be kept alive in such a state, and that she is definitely without any meaningful life, then by all means, go ahead and starve her if you can't find a less painful exit. She's not going anywhere, after all. (Or maybe she'll save us all the trouble by dying of an infection or something).

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by MBASS@Mar 21 2005, 02:14 PM

I hate to see the woman starve to death, but at the same time she probably wouldnt even know she was starving.

Really?

I read this before I went off to work and now I have returned I still feel that I should respond to this comment.

I am very bothered by the term "brain dead" maybe because I have a child with a traumatic brain injury.

Now to the comment... Isn't her spirit still with her body? If her spirit is with her body then she would know that she was being starved right?

[DisRuptive1]

Her spirit would know. Her body wouldn't, since it has the veil pulled over the atrophied mind.

My personal opinion is this. I don't think she should be starved to death. I think that this is just mainly a battle over whether she lives or she dies. If they choose to let her die, don't torter her. Do it humanly and pump her full of poison like they do with guys on death row. Or at least electrocute her to death. Something quick.

[Snow]

PD,

I think it is misguided to compare this to a criminal case. There is no crime involved. Heaven forbid that the same standard apply to health care decisions of private parties.

There was a 2 hour hearing today in Federal Court. The judge found nothing that would indicate that Terri's rights have been violated. As to a new hearing... keep shopping till you find the answer you like? I would say (if it were me or my family)... YOU (the govt.) Stay out of my life. It is not up to you. If you want the govt to make your healthcare decisions, then put that in your living will. However, allow me and my family to make our own decisions. That's the issue, not whether those in her condition should have there lives terminated, but rather can families make their own decisions.

The more I learn about this the more I think that the spouse or ex-spouse (whatever he is) is right. The family or those on the side of the family have so distorted the whole thing to suit their own ends. They claim that the spouse has withheld an MRI and refuses rehab. They say that the video shows that she is alert and oriented. According to ABC News tonight rehab therapy and treatement, including and MRI and including experimental therapy was attempted, with no results for 4 years. The MRI showed that the critical part of her brain was mush. Those that have actually seen the whole video that was shot say that the family has only extracted the key parts that give the illusion of cognition but a complete viewing indicate that there is no cognition (like in surverys showing that 3 out or 4 dentists prefer toothpaste x - what they do is get a population of 100s of dentists, divide them up into groups of 4 and survey them, they keep asking until at least one group of 4 has 3 dentists choosing toothpaste x, even though almost all other dentists in the population could choose anything but x). An individual, I didn't catch his role for sure but he appeared to be a disinterested 3rd party (and attorney) sent by the court to review the case. He spent 6 weeks, reviewed 30,000 pages of court and medical and related records and spent hours and hours every day with Terri and he says that she didn't show any cognition... he also talked about the extensive rehab she had received... all to no avail.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 21 2005, 10:10 PM

That's the issue, not whether those in her condition should have there lives terminated, but rather can families make their own decisions.

Rather--can the spouse make the decision over the objections of the rest of the family. The majority of her family wants her to live.

[Snow]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 21 2005, 09:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 21 2005, 09:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 21 2005, 10:10 PM

That's the issue, not whether those in her condition should have there lives terminated, but rather can families make their own decisions.

Rather--can the spouse make the decision over the objections of the rest of the family. The majority of her family wants her to live.

Absolutely.

Besides being just the spouse, he is the legal guardian. Of course he can make decisions without her other family. Think about it. Your mother and father don't pay joint taxes, don't raise your kids, don't share your bed, don't have any standing in your marriage.