Terry Schivo (sry spelling!) Yay or Nay?

[count_cool_alot]

The death of terry Schio was a huge thing the Americana of today. Some may say that's what she wanted, but others may say she wanted to live. A reasercer who was studying brain dead indivuguals said that it was almost impossible to commicate by words, but, through hands, smailes, twicthes, blinks, breathing patterns, or spikes in heart beat can be deciphered as a yes or no. Also, the people who are quadraplegic and braindead, who reside in those whelechainrs are likewise able to give signals.

I, myself am still undecided if it was the right thing to do. I see the pros. She would not have to suffer and sit there. She could go to heavn,( if your religous)
Now the cons. She could have been given somrthing to kill her qyuicly, instead of starvning to death. I recently did a study on frogs for a science project,on how starvation affects the organs, and you would be surprised. The organs ate away as the body tried to get the nourishment it neded. I also don't agrre with a few other things. You can't starve a dog, but they starved Terry, and they wouldn't give her a shot, but murders get to gotthe easy way. I say let them starve

I say that had it been the pope ( i know, he died, I'm sad) or the president, they would not have let them starve. So give so insight on yor beleifs. Please, don;t let me influence your moral desicions in life ok?!!!

Count_cool_alot

[Killphill]

She was completly brain dead, miraculouly the only part of her brain to survived was enough to keep her breathing. She died and went to "heaven" 15 years ago if there is one. I have know clue why they starved her, but it realy doesnt matter.

Her husband agreed to let her die 3 years after her brain went dead, they did all sorts operations and it had no effect on her. Her parents interveened and made a law suit out of it. Guess they couldn't just except the facts. I'm not saying they should have imediatly pulled the plug, but after 3 years? Shes virtualy unresponsive for crying out loud!

All those pro-life suporters or whatever weren't looking at the case individualy and just thought it was unreligous to let her die. Things like this happen everyday, people have to make the difficult choice to let their family members go.

[Neo]

I moved this thread becuase IR is for serious topics, and is a place where you should take the time to spell things correctly and learn at least basic grammar structure... or something like that.

Plus people die all the time, why is some lady whos been in a coma for 15 years any different from that child who died from cancer? Why is this woman so damned special?

She suffered from an eating disorder, and she was unresponsive for FIFTEEN YEARS. There is no way that someone would want to live in that state for over a decade. Some people claim they still felt pain while in thier comas -- that means Terry could've potentially have lived everyday of her last 15 years in pain -- who are you, or anyone else to force her to "live" (if that term can even be applied to waht she was doing)

-Neo

[ZeroCross]

I'm sorry, but if you're living in a coma for fifteen fuggin years, completely braindead, that's not living. She should have died years ago, not only to preserve her dignity, but (pardon my seeming morbid or assholish) also the hospitol's bills. Seriously, if someone is just siting there in a coma for god knows how long, completely braindead, do them a favor and send them to one side. Thinking, "Oh! they will snap out of it!" is wishfull thinking at best, and when youre down for years on end, pull the plug, litterally for the love of all that is human.

[Modred]

I'm not saying they should have imediatly pulled the plug, but after 3 years? Shes virtualy unresponsive for crying out loud!
There was no "plug" as you are thinking. She was starved over a 13 day period after they removed her source of nourishment. Everyone is focusing on the fact that she was braindead; yes that is very important and she expressed desire to not exist in such a debilitated manner, etc, etc. However there are more humane ways to end a life, such as drugs. Unfortunately, assisting such a death is illegal in all but one state (Oregon?).

Starving a person, whether or not they can feel, should not be allowed. This wasn't something like with a life support machine where you pull the plug and the person is dead within an hour or two. It took 13 days!

If we assume she could feel, is it logical to end her suffering with a final bout of intensified pain? She should have been euthanized. Yes, that sounds like I'm degrading her to the level of an animal, but starving an old dog is a punishable offense; why isn't starving a dying human?

[siuloongbao]

If what Killphill said about her brain activity is right, then I think you guys are absolutely right. As long as there is hope that she will come out of this coma...then it'd be wise to wait. But waiting for fifteen years for your daughter to come out of a coma is a bit of a stretch. And it seems like a large amount of wishful thinking and hope on her parent's part. From what i've heard about her husband, he stayed by her side for most of the time when she began to decline. Recently I mean. I think i heard that the last month she lived, he pretty much moved into the hospital room with her. The money she got from her lawsuit on mal practice? was nearly used up on her hospital bills, so that would not be a factor in her husband wanting to let her die. He seemed to care for her a lot if he did all that. The parents seem blind to the fact that she is in all respects, gone. Of course thats only true if she was only alive because of the equipment.

[Modred]

There seems to be a common misconception here that she was unconscious. The news clips I have seen showed her making slight movements, particularly with her eyes. Perhaps I am mistaken, but she wasn't in a coma; she just wasn't capable of "normal" thinking skills.

Regardless, I think something more humane than starvation could have been performed.

[EdvardMunch]

There seems to be a common misconception here that she was unconscious. The news clips I have seen showed her making slight movements, particularly with her eyes. Perhaps I am mistaken, but she wasn't in a coma; she just wasn't capable of "normal" thinking skills.

Regardless, I think something more humane than starvation could have been performed.
Comas aren't so much lights on/lights off, you slowly come out of them. You can be in a coma but semi-responsive to the environment. It's for this reason (and probably some others) that comatose people are restrained, because semi-responsive patients may pull the tubes and equipment out of their body without fully realizing what they are doing.

The recovery of a brain damaged individual is indicated by the Rancho Los Amigos Levels of Cognitive Functioning (I think the Rancho Los Amigos comes from the name of the hospital that developed it). You can find out more info about the RLALCF here: http://www.braininjury.com/recovery.html

I also agree that it's disgusting to starve her. I think it's better that she be starved than allowed to live for another 20 years, because now it's over with, but still... starvation, what a way to go. They should have shipped her up here to Oregon, where she could at least die without much more suffering.

[Killphill]

There was no "plug" as you are thinking. She was starved over a 13 day period after they removed her source of nourishment. Everyone is focusing on the fact that she was braindead; yes that is very important and she expressed desire to not exist in such a debilitated manner, etc, etc. However there are more humane ways to end a life, such as drugs. Unfortunately, assisting such a death is illegal in all but one state (Oregon?).
Thats what I meant. But yah, she shouldn't have been starved. Or was that the only way the laws permitted? What do you mean death is illegal?
There seems to be a common misconception here that she was unconscious. The news clips I have seen showed her making slight movements, particularly with her eyes. Perhaps I am mistaken, but she wasn't in a coma; she just wasn't capable of "normal" thinking skills.

Just because she was moving doesn't mean she was thinking. Just means that she was reacting to sensory of some sort.

[Erwinator]

The case was overeacted by people. They dont realize how often this happens, and why do we only pick one? I do feel sympathy for her and her family, but honestly, shit doesnt always work out right. That is the way it is.

[Modred]

Or was that the only way the laws permitted? What do you mean death is illegal?
To give her something to end her life would have been classified as assisted suicide. Such action is illegal (for the person lending assitance) in all but one state in the US.

[Killphill]

To give her something to end her life would have been classified as assisted suicide. Such action is illegal (for the person lending assitance) in all but one state in the US.Oh ok. That's stupid. If it was a court order to kill her you'd think they'd have other options beside starvation...

[SpeedyWorm1]

Here is the reason that Micheal Shiavo is not right.What happens to you if you don't eat or drink for a week?YOU DIE.SHE WASN'T BRAIN DEAD.SHE WASN'T ON A VENTILATOR.SHE WAS DOING EVERYTHING WE ALL DO.WE ALL NEED FOOD.TAKING OUT A FEEDING TUBE IS COMPLETELY WRONG.WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU WERE PARYLYZED AND WOULD NEVER WALK OR TALK OR SEE AGAIN?WOULD YOU WANT THEM TO STOP FEEDING YOU BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THOSE THINGS?

EVEN THOUGH IT IS STILL WRONG THERE WOULD BE LESS ARGUEMENT IF SHE WAS REALLY BRAIN DEAD AND WAS ON A VENTILATOR,HAVING IT BREATHE FOR HER.WE ALL NEED FOOD.IF YOU READ THE STORIES HER NURSES,HER PARENTS,HER VISITORS ALL SAID SHE COMMUNITCATED WITH THEM.THE REASON MICHEAL WANTED HER OFF THE TUBE WAS SO HE COULD GET HER MONEY AND MARRY THE WOMAN HE HAD BEEN LIVING WITH.IF YOU DON'T THINK ITS WRONG,WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF YOU KNEW YOU WERE BEING STARVED AND COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?WHEN THEY WANTED TO GIVE HER COMMUNION BECAUSE SHE WAS CATHOLIC HER MOUTH WAS SO DRY THAT THEY COULD ONLY GIVE HER THE WINE.SHE SUFFERED IT WASN'T A [quiet,painless peaceful death]IT WAS MURDER.


MURDERMURDERMURDERMURDERMURDERMURDERMURDERMURDERMU RDERMURDERMURDERMURDER.






Read the WHOLE STORY to get the facts.

PS:To prove that he didn't give a shit about his wife Micheal Shiviao didn't even let her parents see her die.Also her parents OFFERED to PAY TO KEEP HER ALIVE [the cost of food and room not machines cause there were no machines].AND HE JUST KEPT FIGHTING,TO GET HER DEAD SO HE COULD GET THE MONEY AND MARRY THE WOMAN HE HAD CHEATED WITH WHILE SHE WASN'T BRAIN DEAD.AND SHE WASN'T BRAIN DEAD SHE WAS IN A VEGITIVE STATE.



Micheal Shivio Should be in Alcatraz.


PPS:A Vegitive State is NOT a coma.People have awoken from them before when doctors said it wasn't possible.

[singo]

WOULD YOU WANT THEM TO STOP FEEDING YOU BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THOSE THINGS?

Yes

also, there is no need to shout.

[kongurous]

Here is the reason that Micheal Shiavo is not right.What happens to you if you don't eat or drink for a week?YOU DIE.SHE WASN'T BRAIN DEAD.SHE WASN'T ON A VENTILATOR.SHE WAS DOING EVERYTHING WE ALL DO.WE ALL NEED FOOD.TAKING OUT A FEEDING TUBE IS COMPLETELY WRONG.WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU WERE PARYLYZED AND WOULD NEVER WALK OR TALK OR SEE AGAIN?WOULD YOU WANT THEM TO STOP FEEDING YOU BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THOSE THINGS?

Yes, I would want them to stop feeding me, because the pain of living and knowing such things, and not being able to use them again, would be too great.

EVEN THOUGH IT IS STILL WRONG THERE WOULD BE LESS ARGUEMENT IF SHE WAS REALLY BRAIN DEAD AND WAS ON A VENTILATOR,HAVING IT BREATHE FOR HER.WE ALL NEED FOOD.IF YOU READ THE STORIES HER NURSES,HER PARENTS,HER VISITORS ALL SAID SHE COMMUNITCATED WITH THEM.THE REASON MICHEAL WANTED HER OFF THE TUBE WAS SO HE COULD GET HER MONEY AND MARRY THE WOMAN HE HAD BEEN LIVING WITH.IF YOU DON'T THINK ITS WRONG,WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF YOU KNEW YOU WERE BEING STARVED AND COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?WHEN THEY WANTED TO GIVE HER COMMUNION BECAUSE SHE WAS CATHOLIC HER MOUTH WAS SO DRY THAT THEY COULD ONLY GIVE HER THE WINE.SHE SUFFERED IT WASN'T A [quiet,painless peaceful death]IT WAS MURDER.

Actually, from what studies say, it is a quiet, painless death. When you're in such a state, you can hardly feel anything, including pain, and as for the testimonies, they could have lying, and as for the films, they could have been editted just to show when she reacted. For all we know, they could have asked 30 times before Schiavo ever responded.

AND HE JUST KEPT FIGHTING,TO GET HER DEAD SO HE COULD GET THE MONEY AND MARRY THE WOMAN HE HAD CHEATED WITH WHILE SHE WASN'T BRAIN DEAD.AND SHE WASN'T BRAIN DEAD SHE WAS IN A VEGITIVE STATE.

Two things: 1)you can't prove he wanted her dead and wanted to marry his new girlfriend, and 2)brain dead and vegitated state are practicaly the same thing.


Micheal Shivio Should be in Alcatraz.

Alcatraz is a freakin' museum. Get your facts right, and don't use caps lock.

[SpeedyWorm1]

Yes, I would want them to stop feeding me, because the pain of living and knowing such things, and not being able to use them again, would be too great.



Actually, from what studies say, it is a quiet, painless death. When you're in such a state, you can hardly feel anything, including pain, and as for the testimonies, they could have lying, and as for the films, they could have been editted just to show when she reacted. For all we know, they could have asked 30 times before Schiavo ever responded.



Two things: 1)you can't prove he wanted her dead and wanted to marry his new girlfriend, and 2)brain dead and vegitated state are practicaly the same thing.




Alcatraz is a freakin' museum. Get your facts right, and don't use caps lock.


I mean Alcatraz THE PRISON as in he should go to that prison if it was operational.Also Brain Dead is BRAIN DEAD.Vegitive state is completely different.I was shouting cause the whole damn thing is screwed up.


We ALL need food.As I said what proves he wanted her dead is that he wouldn't let her parents take ALL the costs of keeping her there.THAT is what proves it.

[GrassDragon]

WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU WERE PARYLYZED AND WOULD NEVER WALK OR TALK OR SEE AGAIN?WOULD YOU WANT THEM TO STOP FEEDING YOU BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THOSE THINGS?
Uhh, yeah. I've already told my family that I want them to kill me off if I'm a vegetable. And that's what her husband is saying, he wanted to let her die because that's what she had told him she wanted.

[kongurous]

We ALL need food.As I said what proves he wanted her dead is that he wouldn't let her parents take ALL the costs of keeping her there.THAT is what proves it.

That doesn't prove shit. If I killed you right now, no-one could say I did it because of money or because I wanted to be with someone, and you're probably just taking the side of what you read off of a biased website, or a biased newspaper. I know for a fact anyone I would want to be with, wouldn't want my family to take full expense for keeping me alive, and I have even written down what I want, and saved that disk in a hidden place until the event actually happens.

[SpeedyWorm1]

Thank you for proving my case kongurous.
Did they find a disc? No. The only "proof" that she would want to die was her husband's say so. No Disc. No one else was told such a thing. Just him. Why believe him over her parents, siblings, or friends?

Now on to my arguement.

Point1>We all need food. She needed food. I need food. You need food. She needed food given to her, just as an infant or a toddler would. There was never any therapy given to her to see what could have been. He left her to rot away in that bed and did not allow her parents to take care of things. It looks to me that he just wanted her dead so he could go on with his life with his girlfriend and their children. They were Catholic and divorce is a big no no there. Letting her die was a way out of that. Guess what? If you were unconsius they'd hook you up to a feeding tube too.Say you went into a coma.But you would only be in it for a year.Imagine what that disc of yours would do to you.I will never say I want to be starved to death. No respirator, that is an entirely different discussion. That is ARTIFICIAL life support. Eating is not an autonomic function of the body. It is active work we all must do in order to live. Breathing we do without even thinking about.
The cost of keeping her alive is not a point in Micheal Schiavo's favor. Her parents were willing to shoulder that burden. Do you really want to live in a society where the cost of providing you with food in order to keep on breathing - on your own - outweighs your right to live it?
Imagine dying because of what you put on a disc.You only get one shot at life.Does that mean if you EVER go into a coma you just want them to kill you? When you starve your organs get digested, which pretty much means you're eating yourself from the inside. While your tongue and eyes begin to bleed , as hers did, your skin starts flaking off. After 13 days or so, you DIE. Starving to death is a miserable, painful way to die and is something you could end up in a great deal of trouble for doing to your dog. After you have been in a coma and know from experience that you do not feel pain, you can try to convince me that she did not feel any. You are right, I can't prove that he wanted her dead for his convenience, but you can't prove to me that she wanted to be dead.


Point2> He is the only person she is supposed to have told she would want to die. There was no living will. No written proof. Just the word of a man who was clearly moving on with his life without her. He was by her bedside as she died. Isn't that nice. He did not even allow her family to be present. He kicked them out in the last moments. Yeah, he is a nice guy. I am sure he was very concerned about her well-being.

Just remember, we all only get one shot at life. Depending on your beliefs of what happens after you live out your time here, you might think you get more than one. But you don't. Argue with me as much as you want about this point, but I know that I will win it in the end.


The reason this death is such a big deal is because it will set the standard in the rest of the US with people in comas like hers. People do wake up from comas.

And BTW. i don't think it mattershow many times they asked her what she wanted. The point is SHE RESPONDED.


Prove to me she wanted to die and I will stop this discussion.
Oh wait you can't.

[kongurous]

Thank you for proving my case kongurous.
Did they find a disc? No. The only "proof" that she would want to die was her husband's say so. No Disc. No one else was told such a thing. Just him. Why believe him over her parents, siblings, or friends?

I NEVER said Schiavo put anything on a damned disk, I was saying that about myself. I proved no-one's point, I was enforcing my own.

And BTW. i don't think it mattershow many times they asked her what she wanted. The point is SHE RESPONDED.

Prove to me she wanted to die and I will stop this discussion.
Oh wait you can't.

Who in the hell would want to live in such conditions? She could not speak intelligiently, nor was her speech practicaly intelligble. And yes it does matter how many times they asked, as it took possibly 10 minutes for any response to show. To be a functioning member of society, or anything for that matter, you have to be able to perform basic functions, such as blinking or something of that sort. If you have to be asked 30+ times to do anything, you have no use, and should be put down. It may sound harsh, but I formed my beliefs around communism, and that one who works is a good member of society.

[SpeedyWorm1]

OK then so lets just kill all the people with incuable dieseais.CAnce aids,b ain damage.just kill them.they have no use,the e just taking up space ight?dude just cause u gonna die dosnt mean u have no use.who knows the good she dcould have done if she woke up f om that?Just cause u dont have a use NOW dosnt mean u neve will.

[kongurous]

OK then so lets just kill all the people with incuable dieseais.CAnce aids,b ain damage.just kill them.they have no use,the e just taking up space ight?dude just cause u gonna die dosnt mean u have no use.who knows the good she dcould have done if she woke up f om that?Just cause u dont have a use NOW dosnt mean u neve will.

I never said kill everyone with uncurable diseases, I said kill those who cannot function properly in society. And my argument was never to prove she didn't want to die, I don't really care, I never have, and I never will. She could have wanted to be a dog, and it doesn't matter to me. My argument is, Michael Schiavo's reasoning behind not letting her family take care of her could be other than he wanted money, and to be with another. To blindly assume such, proves you are a fool, and an obviously biased, liberal deuschbag.

[Schwitzer]

Wow... this is an interesting debate between kongurous and SpeedyWorm1 :)

I have a question for SpeedyWorm1: You said "Just cause u dont have a use NOW dosnt mean u neve will." How long do you think we should wait before we abandon hope? Five years? Ten years? Never?

Let's run with never, because that's what you seem to be arguing for... So every single person who has been a human vegitable for over a decade should be kept alive as long as humanly possible? Given that our hospitals are already cluttered, I personally start getting a feeling of "waste of space" here... not to mention wasted time, effort, resources and emotional strain.

I can't help wondering what would have happened if Terry suddenly did wake up after all this time, and sees that everyone has moved on - the world is totally different from how she left it. Her muscles have weakened to the point where she can't move anything... wow, welcome back. Wish you were dead, yet?

[kongurous]

Wow... this is an interesting debate between kongurous and SpeedyWorm1 :)

I have a question for SpeedyWorm1: You said "Just cause u dont have a use NOW dosnt mean u neve will." How long do you think we should wait before we abandon hope? Five years? Ten years? Never?

Let's run with never, because that's what you seem to be arguing for... So every single person who has been a human vegitable for over a decade should be kept alive as long as humanly possible? Given that our hospitals are already cluttered, I personally start getting a feeling of "waste of space" here... not to mention wasted time, effort, resources and emotional strain.

I can't help wondering what would have happened if Terry suddenly did wake up after all this time, and sees that everyone has moved on - the world is totally different from how she left it. Her muscles have weakened to the point where she can't move anything... wow, welcome back. Wish you were dead, yet?

Umm... w00rt for Schwitzer, I suppose.

[SpeedyWorm1]

You say let's get rid of everyone who cannot function properly in society. Where do you draw the line? Are adults with the mental capabilities of a 5 year old due to some form of mental retardation or brain damage that allows for all normal body functions, but takes away most of the intellectual reasoning capabilities they once had truly functioning members? Can they hold down a worthwhile job and contribute that way? Probably not. Someone has to care for and FEED them always or they would not survive.

Perhaps you will say that is a ridiculous notion, but there are plenty of people who would answer, "Yes, they are useless to our society so we should get rid of them." They would draw the line far past this arguement, but they would be "right" in their own eyes as Schiavo, perhaps, believed he was. That is my biggest worry here. One man, her husband, and some judges deemed her life useless and therefore decided that she should die. There was nothing written down to prove this was her wish, but they killed her anyway. Where does that leave the next person in a coma or vegetative state who's spouse or parents may or may not have ulterior motives? A decade is long enough? What about 5 years, or 2, or 6 months? Given the way this case was presented and decided there appears to be no limits that would prevent the starvation of someone who has just fallen into a coma.

Who are we to deem that someone elses' life is not worth living? Who are you to judge whether Terry would have been glad to wake up after such a long time or not? Your thoughts, Schwitzer, about how you might feel in such a situation are not guaranteed to be the same as hers or anyone elses.

All life is more valuable than any money or space or time required to maintain it. And as you are throwing around the insults Kongurous, you may want to stop and think first. I am so far from a liberal that your insult is laughable. And Schwitzer, when you choose a word like "cluttered" to describe the state of our hospitals, it sounds like you consider all of the people there as little more than things that would clutter our homes or offices. Thus, I can understand your reasoning.

Terry Schiavo was treated worse than most of us would treat our dog. Her "loving" husband never allowed for any attempts of rehabilitation to have been tried so we will never know the kind of life she might have been able to live if he was not looking to have her dead. I only hope that if something horrible likes this happens to either one of you, there would be someone around who cares enough to at least try to allow you to recover in some way, before they decide to kill you off.

[siuloongbao]

hm. This is interesting. One question for u tho speedyworm1. damn it i forgot my question. Oh, yea. Are you sure that the husband was really in it for the money? The reason she was in the vegitative state in the first place was because of some surgeon's error I believe. So she won money in a malpractice suit. But after 15 years, from what I know, the money was as good as gone. You know, those hospital fees. If this is true, then her husband must've really wanted to to get her out of the way.

I still hold on to what Kongourous and Schwitzer say about the length of time. Yes, we have our hope, and yes we do not kill all those who are useless in society, but there are limits to everything. Starving is a terrible, inhumane way to terminate her life, and while there were better options, none of these options were used...for legal reasons. But how long do we keep her alive because she can't acquire nutrients on her own? Surely there must be a limit. If there was a better way, then yes, it should be used, but in this case there was only, one. And that was a feeding tube.

If you would be so kind, please restate your position with less emotion.

[SpeedyWorm1]

I have no desire to continue to waste my time in this discussion. Each time there is a response, included with it is some sort of reference to myself as a "fool" or "biased, liberal deuschbag" or the like, and now I am accused of stating my opinion with too much emotion. I guarantee you that although I am thoroughly disgusted by this whole thing, my responses have not been full of emotion. They are MY OPINION and whether you agree with me or even choose to give my thoughts a fair amount of thought of your own, I stand by those opinions and even any emotions I did feel when Terry Shiavo was suffering this miserable and inhumane end to her life.

[Schwitzer]

I never insulted you, SpeedyWorm1, although you did completely ignore the sole question my post asked you.

[SpeedyWorm1]

I know that.

BTW Read my posts I did answer your question.

There is no [time] you can specify when to kill someone.There is none because it should NEVER happen.

[DragonPaladin]

No killing should ever happen? Well, there are people who will refute that. Should we kill someone who is necessary evil to save thousands?

[SpeedyWorm1]

Dude read the entire arguement.I meant you shouldn't kill anyone in Terry Shivio's position.

You guys can argue but there is no excuse for killing someone like that.War Yes.Hospials No.

[Schwitzer]

There is no [time] you can specify when to kill someone.There is none because it should NEVER happen.
But are you really "killing" them? Think of the example scenario I posted before, and tell me whether that is a good definition of "living".

[SpeedyWorm1]

If your breathing by YOURSELF without a ventilator you are alive.Most of the people who need ventilators are just people who had stuff like heart attacks,and need to be kept alive until they recover.If stuff like what happens to Terry keeps up when will it end?When Ventilators arn't even relevant?Ventilators [and feeding tubes] were invented guess why?TO KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE!

[singo]

Ventilators [and feeding tubes] were invented guess why?TO KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE!

So were guns and bombs (admittedly by a slightly more roundabout route).

[kongurous]

If your breathing by YOURSELF without a ventilator you are alive.Most of the people who need ventilators are just people who had stuff like heart attacks,and need to be kept alive until they recover.If stuff like what happens to Terry keeps up when will it end?When Ventilators arn't even relevant?Ventilators [and feeding tubes] were invented guess why?TO KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE!

Alive or not, in Schiavo's position, it isn't enviable. How could she want to live? It had been 15 years since she stepped outside. The world is different now than it is from 1990. Her muscles haven't been used much, if any, since she went into a vegetative state. It would have taken her years of pain to recover, had she lived. But that wasn't my original point of argument. I don't care about Terry Schiavo, and I never have. My original argument was your blind assumptions of Michael Schiavo's reasoning behind her death was for money and for another woman. Unless you can provide some kind of proof(OFFICIAL proof, from lik CNN or something), I'm going to keep arguing that he had other reasons for his actions.

[siuloongbao]

I have no desire to continue to waste my time in this discussion. Each time there is a response, included with it is some sort of reference to myself as a "fool" or "biased, liberal deuschbag" or the like, and now I am accused of stating my opinion with too much emotion. I guarantee you that although I am thoroughly disgusted by this whole thing, my responses have not been full of emotion. They are MY OPINION and whether you agree with me or even choose to give my thoughts a fair amount of thought of your own, I stand by those opinions and even any emotions I did feel when Terry Shiavo was suffering this miserable and inhumane end to her life.

I just wanted to know what you believed speedyworm1...I'm sorry if your paragraphs are a bit confusing. Maybe its just my own stupidity. forgive me? I dunno what to say to that. But the reason you said you were leaving the thread is the reason i don't understand your position. You don't need to do anything in response, thats just what i wanna letya know, if you're still here that is.

[kongurous]

I have no desire to continue to waste my time in this discussion. Each time there is a response, included with it is some sort of reference to myself as a "fool" or "biased, liberal deuschbag" or the like.

Be this thread revival or not, I only called you that once, and I am the only one to directly call you such. You have failed time and time again to address my query of why you think Michael Schiavo wanted his wife dead, simply for money and another woman. As I have said earlier, Terry never mattered to me, and she never will. She's dead, that's all that matters. I want to know what makes you think such. Don't quote the Bible, don't tell me to read it, don't tell me I should have figured it out, and I want your information from a refutable source, such as CNN or NBC. If you cannot provide such, I will assume you are a fool. However, it is not a blind assumption, as your assumption to Michael's motives of refusal to help his wife, it is an educated assumption because you have failed to address my question, and you have not proved to me, that you are trustworthy.