Author Topic: Murder... (Read 1643 times)

Stang · « **Reply #60 on:** March 19, 2005, 01:29:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
It's none of your business.

If she had a living will or anything in writing saying she wished to die in such a state I would have no objection at all to her tube being removed, and it wouldn't be any of my buisness. However, this is far from the case.

Nash · « **Reply #61 on:** March 19, 2005, 01:34:56 AM »

Is it safe to assume by that, that you have no living will and are worried about the legal ramifications this case presents, and the possibility of a battle between your wife, your parents, the courts, and the Congress because of it?

NUKE · « **Reply #62 on:** March 19, 2005, 01:41:05 AM »

I'm saying that removing her feeding tube is the same as taking food from a baby.

Nash · « **Reply #63 on:** March 19, 2005, 01:41:39 AM »

For the third time, Nuke.

And I get it.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #64 on:** March 19, 2005, 01:41:48 AM »

Wow, what a storm I started. I have no problem morally or religiously if someone wants to off themselves for whatever reason, or just let themselves die in that situation.

But until it is CLEARLY spelled out in a LEGAL DOCUMENT, removing the feeding tube is MURDER.

Btw, Many doctors believe that Terry Schiavo didn't have to be hooked up to a food tube. They believe that she easily could have learned how to swallow and eat. But Murdering Michael has decided that she WILL NOT learn how.

btw:

Quote

That’s entirely consistent with a vegetative state. Such patients exhibit reflex motor response to certain stimuli, including pain, touch, and sound. They may even vocalize or cry. She has sleep-wake cycles. But she is not aware. At all. That’s what a persistent vegetative state is – wakefulness without awareness.

WRONG!!

Terry Schiavo has an amazing sense of awarefulness for a "Vegetable." She responds to family members. She smiles when happy things happen, she cries when sad things happen. SHE IS AWARE ENOUGH TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

Just a final note for me. I'd seriously laugh for 3 days straight if they did prosecute all those involved in killing Terry (especially those Golly-geen lawyers).

Stang · « **Reply #65 on:** March 19, 2005, 01:51:25 AM »

You would be right in assuming I do not have a living will. You are right I am concerned about what precedent this case sets. A government founded upon the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness has a duty to protect those principles for every one of its citizens. In this case, I fail to see how the courts have ruled in favor of the husband to let her die when one of our founding principles is in direct contrast to this. Again, what evidence is there that she wished to die? To let her die opens up a pandoras box on what is functional and should be allowed to live or die. It just smacks of a brave new world to me.

Nash · « **Reply #66 on:** March 19, 2005, 02:03:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stang
It just smacks of a brave new world to me.

...as if to say, going to incredible lengths to keep someone alive by means of brave new technology hearkens back to a frightened old world that we should remember fondly, but for brave new technology.

It's funny how morality changes with the times, isn't it? Sincerely... it's something.

Stang · « **Reply #67 on:** March 19, 2005, 02:10:07 AM »

I can hardly say that a feeding tube is brave new technology. If she needed more assistance than that to stay alive we would be in agreement Nash.

Nash · « **Reply #68 on:** March 19, 2005, 02:25:38 AM »

Somehow I think her care involved more than just jamming cans of Campbells soup down a tube in her neck.

Nevertheless...

It's best for everyone involved to just let it go. To move on. I think, anyways.

I think her parents are gonna get a real shot at starting to live again, however grudgingly. They were prolly as dead as her.

If I could venture a guess... This chick would not have wanted to see all this pain. My guess is that she is happy with this outcome.

Whatever floats your boat, but my version works for me.

Stang · « **Reply #69 on:** March 19, 2005, 02:31:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash

Whatever floats your boat, but my version works for me.

Hopefully this issue isn't decided by what "our version" is, but what is best for Terry.

Nash · « **Reply #70 on:** March 19, 2005, 02:33:55 AM »

That's already been decided.

It's your turn to decide how you'll let it affect you.

straffo · « **Reply #71 on:** March 19, 2005, 06:57:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
I'm saying that removing her feeding tube is the same as taking food from a baby.

Nope , comparaison don't work.
You don't feed a baby with a feeding bottle past the 1st year and she's intubed since 15 year.

myelo · « **Reply #72 on:** March 19, 2005, 07:20:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Terry Schiavo has an amazing sense of awarefulness for a "Vegetable." She responds to family members. She smiles when happy things happen, she cries when sad things happen. SHE IS AWARE ENOUGH TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

Oh I’m sorry doctor, I didn’t’ realize you were a neurologist who has examined the patient. You should pass on your findings to the dozen or so of your colleagues who have also examined her and yet disagree with your diagnosis. I had mistakenly assumed you got your information from the somewhere like her parent’s web page that GtoRA2 posted.

Which reminds me, I’m need to check out OJ’s web page to find out if he really did it.

Shuckins · « **Reply #73 on:** March 19, 2005, 08:51:30 AM »

In the natural world, a person in that condition would have died 15 years ago.

The sustaining of a person in such a state is therefore unnatural. Death isn't always a curse. Why should it be a crime to let the critically ill die when there is no hope for recovery?

Some of you have voiced horror over the fact that this girl will starve to death. You must live very sheltered lives. Do you not know that most of the elderly who die after a long critical illness have starved to death? Long illnesses often rob them of the ability, and the desire, to eat. So they simply waste away.

Do you truly have her best interests in mind...or are you simply attempting to seize the moral high-ground so you can feel good about yourself?

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #74 on:** March 19, 2005, 02:47:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stang
Hopefully this issue isn't decided by what "our version" is, but what is best for Terry.

And I think the court's finally did that when they allowed the feeding tubes to be removed. Let her die with as much grace and dignity as she can. She's been denied that for too many years, time to let her die and rest in peace.

ack-ack