response 25 of 107:

Oct 28 00:44 UTC 2003

Recently heard that the husband also refuseto allow the Catholic church to
administera final communion for fear she might be able to swallow showing she
could be trained to eat without the tube.

response 27 of 107:

Oct 28 01:22 UTC 2003

There is no more Terri Schiavo. She's dead. There is only an animated corpse.
She is effectively undead.

response 29 of 107:

Oct 28 02:18 UTC 2003

I think mostly what bothers me about all this is I always feel a little
uncomfortable about laws being passed that are targeted at one specific
person.  I don't think it makes for good legislation.

response 31 of 107:

Oct 28 06:39 UTC 2003

Sob story.  Frankly, I see no reason why what he and his lawyer say to 
Larry King should have any influence in the matter.  This is a case for 
the Doctors and the courts.

By the way, klg, your comment in #28 is reflective of your massive 
failure to understand the concept of "Balance of Power" between the three 
branches of government.  The courts exist to function as a check on the 
exercise of power by the legislative and executive branches.  The courts 
are the final arbiter of constitutionality.  In these roles their precise 
function is to "trump the other two" branches, as you so elegantly put 
it.  Maybe you should go back and take that high school civics class 
again.

response 33 of 107:

Oct 28 07:27 UTC 2003

  Bad cases make bad laws..

response 35 of 107:

Oct 28 14:12 UTC 2003

This is a trend lately.  First we have Congress deciding, with no input from
the medical profession, that certain types of abortion are "never medically
necessary." Now we have Jeb Bush deciding that the medical establishment is
wrong about a woman's chances for recovery.  <sarcasm>Why do we need doctors
when our politicians are so clearly more knowledgable?</sarcasm>

response 37 of 107:

Oct 28 15:16 UTC 2003

What I find interesting is that it took the husband 10 years to 
finally "honor his wife's wishes". Looks to me, he just wants to get 
out of the marriage at this point, and get on with his life. Nothing 
wrong with that. But it is a bit suspicious that he'd wait this long 
and suddenly start harping about what his wife wanted done in such a 
situation.

I feel sorry for Terri, if she can comprehend what's going on. To know 
that people are making a decision about your life that you may not 
agree with and cannot communicate your feelings must be scary. Of 
course, I don't know whether she is in a vegetative state or not. 
Seems that the doctors can't seem to agree.

It's sad that this whole episode had to be raked through the mud. 
Terri deserves some sort of dignity, either while she lives or in her 
death.

response 39 of 107:

Oct 28 17:29 UTC 2003

re 31:  By the way, Mr. other, your comment reflects the results of 
massive brain-washing you have received in third grade to the effect 
that the judicial branch of government occupies a position that is 
superior to the other two "equal" branches.  You (presumably) are a big 
boy now.  It would behoove you to think independently and consider 
whether it makes any sense that such an arrangement was, indeed, the 
intentions of the founders.


Mr. richard,
Perhaps you might point out to us where the law provides it to be a 
doctor's prerogative to determine who shall live and who shall die.
Thank you.
klg

response 41 of 107:

Oct 28 17:55 UTC 2003

Certainly not, miss.
In our society neither has that authority.  It is the decision of the 
individual.

response 43 of 107:

Oct 28 18:30 UTC 2003

Yep.

response 45 of 107:

Oct 28 18:54 UTC 2003

klg, the courts ruled that the individual did in fact make the decision.  The
husband and two other friends of this woman testified under oath that she had
made it clear to them back when she was healthy that were she ever in suh a
situation, she would want to die.  The court tried to honor her wishes.  The
parents admit she never talked to the about her views on this, but the parents
view is that the husband and her two friends are lying.  There is no way to
be 100% sure what the choice of the individual is of course, but in this case
there were three people close to her that swore that this was her view.

I do not think keeping her body alive is the dignified thing to do.  The
husband's lawyer showed the CAT scans of her head on tv.  There isn't much
of her brain left.  She's a body now.  How would you like it if your body was
still alive after you, everything you are, had died, and people paraded your
body on tv and dressed you up and wanted to act like you are still there. 
The husband makes clear that he will get no insurance, no money whatsoever
from her death, and he has gotten death threats and turned down large money
offers to walk away.  But he wants to honor his wife's wishes and see her die
with dignity.

Also starving to death for such an ill body is nowhere near the same as
starving a healthy body.  The organs are already greaty diminished.  The bones
are brittle.  The body does't want to eat in that situation, it rejects food.
That is why they have to FORCE feed.  She'd die within a couple of days at
most if the tube was taken out.  It is the humane thing to do.  

response 49 of 107:

Oct 28 20:26 UTC 2003

Somewhat correct, Mr. rcurl.  Is it not the case that in addition to 
legal interpretation that the courts also (1) create new laws (i.e., 
leglislate) and (2) order the enforcement of its decisions (i.e., 
execute).  So, they regularly step above and beyond what one would 
presume to be their constitutionally defined mandate.

Mr. richard,
It appears that the duly elected legislators of the state of Florida do 
not give the same creedence to the testimony of the husband that you 
do.  Additionally, as duly elected officials, they have somewhat more 
standing in this case than you.  Finally, why do you equate tube 
feeding with "FORCE" feeding, which it is not?