Some Facts in This Matter Of Starving Terri Schiavo to Death

by John Kelly

The TV talking heads have the nerve to wail about "a family tragedy." It sure is a tragedy, it's a tragedy for Terri's parents and brother and sister. Why wouldn't it be? They love their daughter, their older sister. They see her inside what outsiders call "an empty shell." She adds meaning to their life. Her death will cause them serious, grievous harm. "Irreparable harm," in other words. Isn't that supposed to be a good reason for an intervention by the Supreme Court? Maybe Terri has to run for president to get some consideration.

As Harriet McBride Johnson emphasized on CNN on Wednesday night, and spelled out in Slate (in the Washington Post as well), Terri is being killed specifically as a disabled person, because of an accommodation she requires to live her life. As Johnson stressed again and again, people with disabilities are accustomed to all sorts of adaptive devices that make our lives run smoother. One of these is a feeding tube, which is a simple rubber tube that gets food and liquid into the stomach. Sort of like a fork or a spoon. Or chopsticks. Or hands.

~snip

Disabled people are used to dealing with all these issues, they really are not that big of a deal to us. Hey America, maybe it is time for someone besides disabled people to learn how to "adjust," because the nondisabled majority sure seems to have a serious psychological problem with feeding tubes, catheters, and any whisper of incontinence. What's with throwing in the towel, getting out that gun, and trying to reach the promised land, "death with dignity?" What happened to that good old American optimism?

Americans really think that they are the best people in the world. They don't have a clue that much of the rest of the world is just appalled by us, by the murderous callousness that we call "respecting individual rights."

What a shameful, shameful chapter in American history!

Posted March 25, 2005

John B. Kelly is a Boston-based disability activist working on a Ph.D. in Sociology at Brandeis University. His other stories for Ragged Edge have included Incontinence. Visit his blog at http://www.neighborhoodaccess.org.

I think she's something else. I think this is a red herring issue for people with disabilities, and I think you're setting yourselves up (or PWD are setting themselves up) for being exploited by the right-to-life lobby, which has no interest in this as a civil rights issue.

She doesn't have a fucking brain, get it? :eyes:

The rest of the world is appalled at the lunatic fringe who won't let this be a private matter for her husband and family to sort out.

There's a reason why over TWENTY FUCKING COURTS ALL REACHED THE SAME DECISION.

Her cerebral cortex is nothing but spinal fluid. She can no longer rationalize or make decisions. That is why the courts took testimony and heard from witnesses regarding her wishes to have her life extended with feeding tubes, etc. It is HER individual rights that have been taken into consideration here.

I personally would not want to have my body live on when my mind is gone, but again, that's my personal choice, just as it was for Terry and for all others in the Hospice who have made end of life decisions and are having their rights tramped on by the religious right and those who want to turn this into a national issue for the disabled. Its totally ridiculous and pure histrionics to turn this personal choice into a death sentence giving way to euthanasia of the disabled becoming common place.

Whoever she was before her collapse is now GONE!

DISABLED PEOPLE STILL HAVE A CEREBRAL CORTEX!

Do disabled people still have a personality? Do they still have some form of human intelligence. TS has none of this. Please educate yourself about the facts of the case from a MEDICAL SOURCE.

Can you point me to the doc that says she has no more cerebral cortex? What I am interested in knowing is which type of brain scan she had. Most brain scans only show how much of the brain is functioning at any given time. It does NOT show the structural live/dead tissue. You have to have a special MRI for that, not a catscan.

There is a big difference between what percentage of your brain is functioning and what percentage is dead.

I keep feeling the RWingers are using us. Is TS simply a diversion? Or are they setting liberals up for something in the future? I keep thinking of how the Nazis treated the disabled and its making me very nervous. Do the RWingers want the liberals to act this way so they can bite them in the but with it later?


I also have trouble with the whole idea that, in cases where the wife becomes mentally incapacitated, only the husband has the final say on her demise/treatment. It feels a lot like middle eastern countries where the daughter becomes property/responsibility of her husbands family when she gets married. Abusive husbands have an advantage in that situation.

"I also have trouble with the whole idea that, in cases where the wife becomes mentally incapacitated, only the husband has the final say on her demise/treatment. It feels a lot like middle eastern countries where the daughter becomes property/responsibility of her husbands family when she gets married. Abusive husbands have an advantage in that situation."

in the reverse situation?

In my extended family situation it would have been the reverse. The wife was abusive and the husband was an enabler that kept hoping she'd change. It took years to get out of the situation. If he had been suddenly rendered incapacitated during that looong transition time it would have been scary. Especially since a child was involved, too.

So I would have to say yes, without a doubt. But then I don't think much of the sanctity of marriage cuz I know the cutest gay couple and think they should have the same rights as me. *smile*

someone in a PVS's fate than his or her parents? Should the state assume that a person's parents, whom they don't choose, are more likely to have their interests at heart than their spouses, whom they do choose?

There are a lot of layers to this and I don't pretend to have the answers. For example, one of my nieces is severely mentally handicapped. Should she be allowed to marry? If she does, must she have parental consent and do the parents lose the right to decide her fate from there on? What if her husband is also mentally challenged?

I know when my nephew came into an inheritance from his estranged mother his estranged maternal grandparents could block both his dad being the guardian of his money and his paternal uncle being the guardian. So when money is involved with a minor it seems that extended family can put in their two bits. Why not when somebody's life is involved?

people who are conscious but developmentally or cognitively disabled. I think states do have a right to set standards of competence in such cases, but of course, the lines would be very fine and subject to change with more information about these conditions.

But we're talking about people who undergo catastrophes that render them unconscious. Whom should the state defer to by default: the spouse or the parent?

of the legality of the sanctity of marriage. This is a fundamental tenat of their faith. Society has been constructed upon the legal premise that says "one leaves one's parents and cleaves only unto their spouse, as one flesh; and what God has joined, let no man put asunder".

If you can divorce Christianity from this, then the laws will change.

btw, "No man" can also mean one's parents, one's congressman or one's president.

unless the child requires a guardian.

The marriage bond is considered stronger than a blood bond in the United States, at least. And why shouldn't it? I am a person of free will and I willfully can marry someone, but I had no say in who my relatives are.

Why does the spouse get so much say-so in life and death matters like this? That is an issue you can take up with your legislator. As the laws stand now, the spouse does. Don't like it? Change the law so in matters of life and death only the blood family gets to decide.

they are grasping at straws.

of who should make medical decisions for me in the event of my incapacitation.

Thank you.

so that one can understand the magnitude of her injury... what she needs to be her is gone forever.

Some disabled people have little to no cerebral cortex.

What you're saying is like saying "DISABLED PEOPLE CAN STILL MOVE THEIR ARMS!" if your image of disabled people were paraplegics.

Disability encompasses everything from severe brain damage -- yeah, including just having a brain stem or very little cerebral cortex -- to things like paraplegia and a whole host of other things. Disability is not just the fashionable pretty ones, it's also the people who are pronounced 'vegetative' early in life and who need (and get) round-the-clock assistance.

Yeah, whoever she was is gone. But she's someone else now, and I wish people wouldn't let the alienness of her existence (and she does have one, it's just so different that it's hard for you or I to fathom) get in the way of viewing her as a human being.

people trying to live their lives there.

the Terri Schiavo situation. The rest of the world is appalled by us because we treat one another, and the rest of the world, with disrespect and perpetuate a hypocrisy while pretending to value individual rights.

people to death under more suspect circumstances, don't provide medical care for so many and justify pre-emptive wars. Their position is morally consistent.

I live in "the rest of the world" and meet people every week who are only too happy to take me to task for being an American. (Hey, our president toots the "Democracy" horn 24/7, so as a citizen of the Bush democracy, I must be responsible, too, right?)

thought provoking... on another thread I read of a great fear of dnr's... and that made me curious. My father had one, and we would have respected it had it come to that (but he died peacefully, at home, under hospice care but before such an either or situation arose.) I would prefer one for myself. Would you support me to do this? I ask to try to understand where the lines are drawn.

You have every right to have a DNR in place for yourself.

The point of this article and many others written by people with disabilites is the danger of imposed DNRs because other people "wouldn't want to live like that".

It's a real fear, and it's been an issue for people with severe disabilities a lot longer than the Terri Shiavo fiasco.

(and is not assoc with the RW fundies in any way)

I can understand the fear - we do have a long history of treating those less able to take care of themselves very dismissively.

I do think that some who have grave concerns per the Schaivo situation - are very sincere in those concerns. I also think that fear runs the other direction as well... folks afraid that they could be kept in this condition - regardless of their wishes. That is what makes this so emotional for so many.

Then there is the whole political grandstanding - over what I view as a very tragic dilemna.

Thanks for your response.

give Mr. Schiavo the benefit of the doubt as well for a minute. (everyone give it to her parents) From his perspective, his wife told him that she would not want to live like this. Obviously it would have been better had she written it down. but she didn't, I would wager few if any 26 year olds in 1990 had advanced directive, or even now. I certainly didn't four years ago (at the age of 26) but I had made my wishes clear to my family (I now have it written) and I would expect them to honor those wishes.

So Mrs. Schiavo told her husband that she would not want this. If that is the case, and every doctor in the world has said she's not getting better. You now have to decide whether or not to honor her stated wishes, or refuse to honor them. Sure, her parents want to care for her, of that I have no doubt, but if she told him not to let her live this way, does he not actually have an obligation, once all hope is gone, to honor her wishes? Sure, he could divorce her, and walk away, but that would not be honoring his word to her, right?

All people have the right to medical care, and all people have the right to refuse said medical care, including in advance.

this case. If anything, they should be shouting from the rooftops that the American Medical Association in their 5th edition of permanent impairment only classifies a "persistent vegetative state " as a 90% impairment thereby screwing disabled people out of money from injuries in every state that uses AMA guidelines.

Furthermore, disability advocates should recognize there is NO consensus in THEIR community as to how disabled people want to live.

Many disabled people came from abusive homes and would shudder at the fact of being returned to their parents from a spouse that advocated legally for their intentions.

Finally, I concur that there SHOULD be federal review in that state laws are inconsistent on the matter.

This case now has GOTTEN federal review.

they pay attenbtion to their own bodies and stop trying to tell others what they CAN or CAN'T do with their own?

I favor the right to chose and to make DOUBLE DOG CERTAIN that is the choice.

Look at the court record, and onethat was upheld 19 times.

HOw much permission do I need before I can have life support removed?

Why isn't the word of MY CHOSEN guardian as good as yours?

Do I need mommy and daddy to approve?

Do I need the disability coalition to approve?

Who thefuck is anyone to challenge the word of the person I chose to make medical decisions for me?

Geronimo Pratt's conviction was upheld nearly as many times.

Based on ALL the available evidence including the behavior of her family and their responses on the record, I am MORE CERTAIN than not that this is her wishes.

I personally believe in law and the separation of powers.

I further believe the courtroom - not the "streets" is the proper forum for a legal dispute between 2 parties.

I believe also that 19 appeals upheld CONSISTENTLY is a pretty good indicator that that decision is legally valid.

Which is why I would not argue against a federal review and another set of eyes.

Almost all of the death sentences commuted by governor Ryan had been through some phase of the appeals process with convictions upheld.

I never said take it out of the courts.

ARE YOU 100% CERTAIN THAT IS HER WISHES?

That's the point of the court case.

one who is 100% certain of anything. That calls for an absolutist position and even the law does not call for an absolutist position.

Based on all the available evidence, I am more certain than NOT that this is her wishes.

Now...back to Rachel Corrie since again, while you challenge me, your moral position on who gets to live and who gets to die is based in absolutism more than moral certainty.

though I don't agree with it. You wouldn't believe how many people have told me I shouldn't have children so I don't chance passing my disability to them. Now that I have 2 you should hear how people tell me my children should be sterilized so they also don't pass on the genes to more "burdens of society". I can see, walk, talk, eat on my own, breathe on my own, educate myself....the only problem I have is one that no one can see, which sometimes creates more problems than if they could see it, is that I have trouble hearing. Yes I need a little more help in the work place (though luckily I have found a job that has minimal need for communication...I like it, but not because of my hearing loss) and yes those little tiny fees you pay on you phone bill help me to communicate with the world more.

So yes I can see how those who are even more disabled than I am, who may even have a feeding tube themselves, are maybe reading more into this than the rest of us. I don't blame them, it's an even scarier world that they live in. Maybe they see allowing someone to die because they don't have the quality of life others do as something that may one day be chosen FOR them instead of BY them. I myself do not want this choice taken away from me and my family though.

I see the other side when talking about that Lacy Peterson bill. I'm pro-choice....meaning NO one should choose what I want...and if someone hits me hard enough to kill the baby I CHOSE to carry to term, my choice has been taken away from me. The baby was REAL to me. However people on this board say it's a slippery slope that may lead to outlawing abortion. I can see their point also...

I'm all for choice in all matters of life and death....but to get pissed at someone experiencing something (handicap) you could never imagine isn't very understanding.

That's the problem with this Schindler family. They are treating this woman as an appendage to them. I've avoided being crass in all this, but that author's statement made me flash on an image of the Schindlers dragging her lifeless body around with them after she's gone because they cannot, CANNOT, let her escape them ever. They need to own her.

Let's not think about what she would've wanted. Her feelings before her collapse mean nothing. She must be kept alive to please her family./sarcasm

Can you imagine being in Terri's state and being forced to live like that for maybe 30 or 40 years all because your parents and siblings wanted you around??

HELL ON EARTH.

:scared:

The bottom line and the only thing that matters is that her wishes are not to exist in the the state she's in.
The same way that most Americans answer in polls when asked the same question.

Why aren't people bitching about Jehovah's Witness kids who die because their parents don't believe in a simple blood transfusion?
The answer is because it's their constitutional right to choose the type of medical care they receive.

Terri Schiavo's right to die isn't a disability issue, and it shouldn't be an issue in the disability community. If anything, the disabled community should be up in arms at the fact that the abled community is attempting to subvert Terri Schiavo's will because she's incapable of speaking for herself anymore.

I have to call them like I see them.

.

I have no idea why some people in the disability community have decided to wet their pants over Terri Schiavo's right to die as though it will be used as some sort of excuse to round people up. It's been thirty years since the Quinlan decision and almost twenty since the Cruzan case and not a single disabled person has been placed in a single cattle car. I don't know why some in the disabled community are so hysterical about this issue, but the whole thing reminds me of the deaf community's outcry over cochlear implants- an urge to control people masquerading itself as a wish to protect the rights of disabled people.

You say not a single disabled person has been placed in a single cattle car. Maybe not literally, but...

Would that explain the institutions that have done radiation experiments and worse on disabled children without consent?

Would that explain the people I know who are wards of the state, where bureaucrats can literally decide if they're worth keeping around or not? I have a friend going in for an operation soon. There's no guaranteeing he'll get out because his conservators have the right to sign a DNR on his behalf and he is unable to speak. He's already almost died several times because his conservators didn't think someone like him was worth saving.

Would it explain why when people murder people with any of a number of the labels I have, they don't often even get charged with murder? The fact that deaths in institutions often get recorded as 'natural' and 'unexplained' even when there's stab wounds?

You're living in a lot safer world than I am if you haven't noticed or been affected by the rising anti-lives-of-disabled-people sentiments. I'd hazard a guess you're not living, as I am, under the authority of the developmental service system. There's a reason we're made invisible.

Would that explain the institutions that have done radiation experiments and worse on disabled children without consent?

Not a right-to-die issue, not as a consequence of Quinlan or Cruzan or Schiavo anymore than the Tuskegee Experiments.

He's already almost died several times because his conservators didn't think someone like him was worth saving.

He needs to get different conservators. But again, this tragic situation is not a consequence of Quinlan or Cruzan or Schiavo.

The fact that deaths in institutions often get recorded as 'natural' and 'unexplained' even when there's stab wounds?

Once again, this is not a consequence of Quinlan or Cruzan or Schiavo. Corruption and incompetence among some medical professionals has always been a problem.

Now tell me this: How on earth will any of these situations be helped by denying people control over their bodies and heir lives?

In doing so, she gave him the legal, moral, and ethical right to be her guardian, to take care of her when others could or would not.

He has never relinquished his guardianship, and her parents, whose care and guardianship she left, voluntarily and of her own free will, have no legal right to make decisions on her behalf.

Michael and Michael alone has that right.

The courts have said that Michael's statements regarding Terri's wish not to be left in a persistent vegetative state are accurate. The courts have given Terri's parents numerous opportunities to provide evidence overruling Michael's claims. The courts have not yet found that Terri's parents have provided a compelling case against Michael.


Even in the absence of a living will, spouses have the right to determine the kind of end-of-life their partners will have. One of the issues at the core of the GLBT rights movement is the desire of GLBT partners to have the legal right to make end-of-life decisions for those they love.

Bob and Mary Schindler lost their "rights" to Terri when she legally wed Michael.

Parents need to let their children grow and be free, whether they are alive or dead. Bob and Mary didn't learn, IMHO, one of the basic rules of parenting.

Damnit! I am so sick of some members of the disabiltiy community trying to make it their issue.

Terri Schiavo, for all intents and purposes, died fifteen years ago. From the moment her brain was severely damaged by lack of oxygen, every sentient part of Terri was gone. Her brain can not be repaired. Her shell of a body is only kept alive by artificial means.

As I have wathced this circus go on and on, I've become incensed that Medicaid is paying for her heathcare treatment, while millions of citizens of the U.S. have been pushed off and out of the Medicaid system.

Surely you know the costs of medical supplies many of us that are disabled must purchase. Many, like myself who has been disabled for 18 years, must pay out of pocket for wheelchairs, catheters, etc.

Yet a woman w/no chance of rehabilitation does not have to pay for her round the clock care. That leaves many of us fucked.

Deek, I know this is an extremely personal issue for you and your daughter, but is anyone trying to persuade you to stop caring for your daughter? Stop buying into the fear, please.

and I've had numerous personal experiences with the medical community re what they think would be "best", starting from day one.

Why are you paying for your own supplies? What state do you live in?

I do not qualify for Medicaid. I am part of the "slip through the cracks" gang. We are poor, but our SSDI checks are too high.

In February 2003, when the states budgets were slashed, a mental health clinic was shut down, co-pays for meds were gone. W/i a month seven people, just in my county committed suicide, one in front of their caseworker.

In addition, we've lost many doctors who could not sustain a practice here. Of those remaining, none will take new Medicare patients.

You may have had experiences w/the med community, but has anyone forced you to do anything you are against?

Cutting off someone's psychoactive meds without any support whatsoever is a recipe for tragedy. Damn.

One hour of IHSS qualifies you for no share of cost MediCal. You can receive IHSS even if your income is too high for SSI. We'll see what remains after bush and arnie are through with us, however.

Mental health services are always the first to go, disgustingly enough. People with mental illness are the "unclean" in this society.

I understand re the "no new Medicaid" doctors problem. Same here too.

You're correct. I haven't been forced to do anything I was against, but I've been not allowed to do things that were neccesary (tests, hospitalizations, treatments) that were critical for my daughter's health.

and to compare adaptive technologies or civil rights whereby they can enjoy the fruits of life with a brain dead person on a feeding tube insults my intelligence.

how so?

its an end of life issue.

which defines positions, I suppose.

Terri wasn't dying until they stopped feeding her.

She's not terminally ill.

If you really don't understand this from a disability perspective, none of this will make sense to you.

Hate to break it to you.

"disability rights advocates", not disabled community

ok? Will you stop badgering me now?

I will try to remember to use the different phrase.

I know families who are part of the disabled community but who are not disability rights advocates. There are plenty. They believe "what can you do but love'em?". No life except for lying in bed or propped up in front of a TV. No range of motion, no conversation--addressing them as if they're puppies, no involvement in the daily activities of living, no social life, no arts/crafts, no going shopping, movies, or walks in the park.

I was not talking about people with those types of attitudes, you're right.

And I wish the majority of them would just STFU. They shine a poor and detrimental light on many, many PWDs.

Disability activists are equally diverse and many of them believe that all people, especially disabled people, should have a right to control their lives and their bodies.

Keeping a body alive is not enabling Terri to do anything. This does nothing except have the body retain organ function by artificial means.

from the National Association for the Terminally Ill:
two years or less to live.

from thefreedictionary.com:
Terminal illness is a medical term popularized in the 20th century for an active and progressive disease which cannot be cured easily by popular medicinal practice. Curative treatment is not viewed as appropriate.

from http://www.canadasettlements.com/glossary.htm:
Terminally Ill is having an illness or sickness that can reasonably be expected to result in death in twenty-four (24) months or less.

Chronically Ill means (1) being unable to perform at least two activities of daily living (i.e., eating, toileting, transferring, bathing, dressing or continence), or (2) requiring substantial supervision to protect the individual from threats to health and safety due to severe cognitive impairment, or (3) having a level of disability similar to that described in (1) as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

What disease does Terri have again?

Is she terminally ill or CHRONICALLY ILL?

Big difference. (note the word "disability" in Chronically Ill definition.

just an irreparable damaged brain with no hope of recovery or just no hope of basic human consciousness. Terri the person has left. A brain stem, partial brain and body are all that remain.

I think some people want to keep Terri Schiavo around as an animated meatsack in order to make some point about life or the disabled. It's fucking disgusting.

x(

And the people who love them.

....so does that mean no one who's commented so far has read the article?

here's the link:
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/

check it out. Very important publication.

when it suits their agenda. The rest of the time they have no use for them.

I posted this on the myths surrounding the whole Schiavo case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3341688&mesg_id=3341688

This has been an issue of concern for many disability advocates for years.

There's quite an anti-choice element in the disabled community.

But remember that the disabled community is extremely diverse, and no one voice speaks for all.

btw, read the article, please.

You've been opposed to Terri's choice from the beginning.

I've read the article. Once again, lots of heat, little light, not impressed.

The Republicans. What a disingenuous thing to say.

I know plenty of disability advocates who do not favor forcing Terri Schiavo into an oblivious life.

The Village Voice has been carrying articles about it for at least 3 years that Leftists have eagerly read and considered- right down to the allegations of physical spousal abuse.

And the media too has been talking about it for years.


"Should Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube Be Removed?" Transcript of CNN's Burden of Proof (5/3/2001)

R. SCHINDLER: Well, we don't know. The thing with Terri, eight years ago there was a doctor who had prescribed rehabilitation for her, and he felt very confident that Terri would improve. Unfortunately, we did not have the funds at that time, dependent upon the receipt of the malpractice trial money.

When that came in, the money was not used for Terri's rehabilitation, she was put in a nursing home and hasn't had any type of rehabilitation since that point.

(snip)

COSSACK: Joseph Magri, the attorney for the family, let's talk a little bit about the legal proceedings here. There's an allegation that was made that you believe or the family believes that the only reason that Michael Schiavo, her husband, wants the feeding tube turned off is, to get the $700,000 she has in a trust fund. First of all, how did that $700,000 get there, and why do you believe that?

JOSEPH MAGRI, ATTORNEY FOR THE SCHINDLERS: I think the two are interrelated. The $700,000 got there because of a medical malpractice trial that went on in 1992. During that trial, the lawyers for Michael Schiavo requested damages from that jury based on Terri's life expectancy, both opening statement and closing arguments, they wanted care for her for life.

Michael got on the witness stand in that case, cried in front of that jury, told that jury he was going to nursing school so that he could take care of his wife for the rest of her life. The plaintiff's attorney asked him, why? You are a young man, Michael.

And he said, well, my wedding vows mean a lot to me. Then he referred to that those vows said, and said that he wanted to take care of Terri for the rest of her life. At no time did those lawyers or did Michael ever mention that Terri had a desire to die in these circumstances.

The first time that anyone heard about that came a few months after the money came in from that trial, which netted Terri somewhere over three quarters of a million, I believe, to care for her. Some months thereafter, Michael Schiavo asked a nursing home not to treat an infection and admitted in a deposition that he understood that the failure to treat the infection with antibiotics could lead to sepsis and her death.

At that point in time, he then came up with the statement that he felt she had previously wanted to die in this circumstance.

(snip)

MAGRI: Yes; it's a girlfriend of Michael Schiavo's that had conversations with him at -- after Terri had had her accident. And she said some things which we believe contradicts the testimony that he gave during trial. For example...

COSSACK: I was going to say, what do you expect her to say in her deposition and subsequent testimony?

MAGRI: Well, the -- an affidavit's been filed by an investigator who talked to her. And among the notes, which are quite extensive, there -- listed there that the girlfriend, whose name is Cindi Brasher, indicated that she had concerns about the future. This is when she's talking to Michael at -- back at that time. And Schiavo was -- and what Schiavo was going to do about Terri's situation -- about Terri's situation. And Brasher said that Schiavo became angry and said: "How the hell should I know? We never spoke about this. My God, I'm only 25 years old."

(snip)

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/03/bp.00.html

The group of people who opposed the ADA and other help for the disabled, but now that it suits their agenda, they find Jesus (no pun intended).

David Allen
www.blackboxvoting.com
www.thoughtcrimes.org

one person I chose - my spouse - to make my medical decisions in the event of my inapacitation?

Thank you.

Glad you trust your spouse. I wouldn't trust my now ex, now that I know him better.

If you have it in writing, great.

second guess my choice?

choices with their minor children too. Does that mean in every single case where a child is mortally disabled that there was no abuse? Of course not.

course the guardian has no say.

But in this case there is no finding of abuse. So who is anyone here to second guess or override Terri's chosen guardian in the event of gher incapacitation?

known. It does NOT MEAN that there is NOT an issue wherein OTHERS can be harmed which is why congress were IDIOTS to make this a unique law for one person.

The idea that Terri is being discriminated against because of a disability doesn't withstand scrutiny. She's not being denied nutrition/hydration because of her condition; she's being denied nutrition/hydration because its been determined by a court that she would not want to be kept alive by such means in her current condition.

Even if you want to view her as having a disability -- the inability to communicate -- what would be discriminatory would be to force her to receive treatment (and, by law, nutrition/hydration are medical treatment) when a speech-enabled person would be able to decline the same.

onenote

Her cerebral cortex is gone so she doesn't exist any longer. Yes, her body is still living but there isn't a person in that body.

The tragedy is keeping her body functioning for 15 years without Terri in that body and against her known wishes at that.

disabled people who want to live should be able to live and have their disability accomodated...

seriously ill people who want to live should be able to be accomodated...

people who are in a vegetative state and have indicated that they dont want to continue living should have their rights respected.

This is all about respecting the individual's desire to continue life or not as they have indicated.

Where were all you people when my family was going through this crisis?

Thank GOD you where no where NEAR my family in their grief!

Terri's husband is absolutely right. THIS GOES ON EVERY DAY!

America needs to butt their noses right back the hell out of this!

I have WITNESSED a person die this way. She died in comfort and peace in her own bed surrounded by people who truly loved her and made every effort to let her know that! She had no freaking living will, just family and Friends with REAL FAITH that god had called her home!

God wants Terri by his side. Let her go so her soul can rest in peace and pray that her siblings and parents find a way to forgive themselves for what they have chosen to do to Terri all these years.

Leave them alone!