Its my recollection that the reason the court initially ruled in favor of the husband is that 2 of 3 doctors testified that she is brain dead (or something to that affect) while the other doctor contradicted the two.
Although the husband is living with another woman who they have children from, I do not think they are married. He is still married to Terri. When she dies then he will marry the woman.
Last edited by John_C; Wed Feb 23, 200511:05 PM.
John Chaney
"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ."Colossians 2:7
Her husband is her legal guardian and, as such, is entitled to determine all healthcare decisions on her behalf. Her parents have been fighting against him in the courts for over a decade now.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
John_C said: Its my recollection that the reason the court initially ruled in favor of the husband is that 2 of 3 doctors testified that she is brain dead (or something to that affect) while the other doctor contradicted the two.
I'm not sure. I know there is some dispute as to whether her condition can be classified as Persistent Vegetative State. As I mentioned in my reply to Pilgrim, though, Mr. Schiavo and his brother and sister-in-law (or his sister and brother-in-law?) testified that Terri had mentioned that she would want to die if she were ever in such a state. Judge Greer accepted this testimony, but rejected the testimony of her family members that she had said she would not want to die. But she did not leave behind a living will or a medical directive, so it cannot be established beyond a doubt either way.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
No, I am not. But her ability to lead a "normal life" should not be the standard in determining whether she ought to be starved to death. The fact is that as long as she gets food and water, she'll be alive. That's the same for all of us. I would not deny you food and water simply because you aren't capable of leading a "normal life."
I couldn't express it better, Kyle. I agree 100% with you.
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
I understand the legal ramifications and have barely followed this, though at times have read various articles about it. Now you have compounded your problem due to the fact that for at least ten years this person has not been able to "communicate" her own wishes by any objective means. You also did not answer my question, specifically.
averagefellar said: Now you have compounded your problem due to the fact that for at least ten years this person has not been able to "communicate" her own wishes by any objective means.
Excuse me, but "duh"! She's disabled, she has brain damage. I don't think anyone claims she can effectively communicate whatever she wants. She's very limited. That doesn't mean, however, that she's comatose and completely unresponsive. Go to http://www.terrisfight.org/ and watch the videos and tell me what you think.
Quote
You also did not answer my question, specifically.
I thought I did, since I said that her husband is her legal guardian. So, then, he is her "voice," legally speaking. Although it's debateable whether he even should be, given his behavior!
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Excuse me, but "duh"! She's disabled, she has brain damage.
Copping an attitude just serves to remind me that you are definitely thinking with your emotions. Yes, she is damaged. According to some doctors, irreparably. She can't voice her own wishes and hasn't been able to for ten years. She can't feed herself or take care of herself in any other manner. Despite the fact that her husband has not acted in a christian manner sexually, they are still married. View that in light of scripture and he is the only one with the power to make that decision.
Excuse me, but "duh"! She's disabled, she has brain damage.
Copping an attitude just serves to remind me that you are definitely thinking with your emotions.
Oh, the horrors of feeling compassion. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> Frankly, William, I'm quite shocked with the attitude you've presented so far in this thread. Do you normally support "mercy killing"?
Quote
Yes, she is damaged. According to some doctors, irreparably.
Whether she might improve with therapy is disputed (she hasn't been provided therapy since 1991, on the orders of her husband!), but there's no doubt she'll remain brain damaged for the rest of her life. And? This somehow means that it's okay to kill her? Remember, it's not simply "letting her die," but withholding sustenance and actively starving and dehydrating her to death.
Quote
She can't voice her own wishes and hasn't been able to for ten years. She can't feed herself or take care of herself in any other manner.
There are a lot of disabled people in similar situations. Would it be okay to kill them all, too?
Quote
Despite the fact that her husband has not acted in a christian manner sexually, they are still married. View that in light of scripture and he is the only one with the power to make that decision.
In what way is he truly married to her? Except for his attempts to ensure that Terri dies, he's really abandoned her and is currently living with another woman by whom he has children, and whom he plans to marry as soon as Terri does die. He's not fit to be her guardian.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Remember, it's not simply "letting her die," but withholding sustenance and actively starving and dehydrating her to death.
Give her food, does she eat it herself?
Quote
In what way is he truly married to her?
Has she asked for a divorce? If not, then they are married. I know you would rather speak for her in this matter, but why don't we let her speak for herself?
Perhaps WIlliam's biggest concern is that his tax money might be used to prolong Terri Schiavo's life? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Just to clarify, you're perfectly content in your position of letting someone starve to death? Because that's what will happen here. Her feeding tube will be removed and she will die a slow excruciating death.
I found this on Merk's web site:
"... the body will mobilize its own tissues as a source of energy, which results in the destruction of visceral organs and muscle and in extreme shrinkage of adipose tissue. Total starvation is fatal in 8 to 12 wk."
I exhort you to prayerfully rethink the hardened position you've taken on this.
Open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed to die. - Pro 31:8
