http://www.msnbc.com/news/980564.asp?0cv=CB10

With this heart wrenching story of this severely brain-damaged woman who's been alive for 13 in this horrible condition, I was wondering what peoples opinion on this were.

1. If the person in question is married, do the parents have a say so in whether or not to allow them to die?

2. If they do disconnect life support, is starvation and dehydration an appropriate way to "ease someone's suffering"? Or should they introduce a lethal drug like with a death row inmate?

3. Is this morally right or wrong? Should they be allowed the option to end their suffering or be kept around in hopes of some unforseen cure in the future?

A tragic, tragic case, and a strong reminder that we should all make our wishes known about such matters far in advance.

When the wishes of the individual are not known, who should make the decision to end life support? Clearly the best situation is when there is a consensus among physicians and family members. When there is no consensus, unfortunately, it's going to wind up in the courts. I don't know what factors the court used in this case to make its decision. If it comes down to one family member versus another, I would suggest that the spouse of an adult would have more of a say in the matter than the parents. (What about the children of an adult in this situation? Tough to say.) In any case, the medical opinion of the physicians should be a very important factor.

If the decision to remove life support is made, I see no moral problem with hastening the end of life with medications.

I think that ending a patient's life in a situation like this is often the more correct thing to do, if the chances of recovery are extremely small. My reading of this article seems to indicate that the physicians believe this patient is in a vegetative state which will not improve. In such a state, euthanasia seems appropriate.

As tragic as it is I think that her wishes should be the deciding factor. If she has no living will it is the spouse that has the burden. I can't endorse actually killing someone in that condition, but I can understand how hard it must be. I know if it where me in that condition I'd want someone to make the hard call and let me go. That's my two cents worth.

I understand wanting to die if I was in that condidtion, but I'd want it to be quick and over with. She has been unhooked from her feeding tube and will starve to death and dehydrate over about a weeks time. Isn't that a little crule?

How incredibly difficult for all involved.

My thoughts would be that if her request to "not live like this" was NOT written down and made legal, or even just written somewhere then her husband saying it is so is just that...her husband saying it is so. Does he have the right, as her husband, to speak for her in a time like this? legally yes, maybe. I'm not sure.

Her parents have told them that they would release him of any financial liabilities, any burden at all if he would let them take her and care for her. As harsh as this may sound, a child is a parent's child forever, a spouse is a spouse until divorce.

Maybe she actually said what he claims. Maybe he just wants to be rid of her finally. Maybe he is acting with best intentions for her parents.

whatever the case all I know is that now that the feeding tube is removed, her parents, Drs, family and friends will now wait for this seemingly slightly responsive human being starve to death.

cruel and unusual?

That's quite a case.
I worked about 10 years off and on in facilities and had occasion to care for those who are considered brain dead.

In my experience it is entirely possible for the "brain dead" to experience movement and also make sounds. This does not indicate that they will recover however, there must be other testing and abservation done to determine that.

I am in favor of removing life support systems if it is the patients wish prior to this condition.

As far as a parent or spouse making the determination. I feel if it was not expressed either way by the patient and there is evidence that the patient will never acheive consciousness again it is up to the parent or spouse to make that decision.

I would consider a life supporting device such as used to assist breathing as something that could be removed.

I do not approve however of stopping giving nourishment to the patient. If the body lives on it's own, then I feel we are obligated to sustain it as that is IMO humane.

What about terminating life with an injection, like with a death row inmate for her? That way she doesn't have to starve to death?

is injecting someone to induce death legal?

1. If the person in question is married, do the parents have a say so in whether or not to allow them to die?
No. Once you get married, your next of kin is your spouse, until such time as one of you dies or is divorced, in which case it passes on to the closest living relative over the age of majority. So the parents wishes are interesting but, strictly speaking, irrelevant.

2. If they do disconnect life support, is starvation and dehydration an appropriate way to "ease someone's suffering"? Or should they introduce a lethal drug like with a death row inmate?
Well, assuming that the patient is comatose, dehydration will kill them within a few days, well before starvation becomes an option. It'll be almost instantaneous if they are on a ventilator as well.

3. Is this morally right or wrong? Should they be allowed the option to end their suffering or be kept around in hopes of some unforseen cure in the future?
Well, in private medicine, even if they want to keep their loved one alive indefinitely in the hope of a cure, sooner or later they'll run out of money. And the medical staff will have to withdraw their support. In socialised medicine, as in the UK, the wishes of relatives have to be balanced against the prioritisation of resources. It isn't unheard of for coma patient to revive, but the majority never do, particularly if their condition is caused by something for which there is currently no cure or treatment.
Wherever possible, patients should be asked what they would like to happen in the event of such tragic circumstances, but in situation where this isn't an option, the next of kin have to make that decision. Oftentimes, continued life support is not a decision in itself, but a way to postpone making it.

It's a horrible position to be put in and I hope that I never have to be put in it in relation to any of my loved ones.

I'm going to respond to Billy Jean's question about whether starvation is cruel or painful.

When I worked as a hospice nurse, my supervisor was an expert in thanatology.
Often when a hospice patient stopped eating, a family member would ask if a feeding tube could be put in so that the patient could still receive nourishment.
I learned that it would actually be less humane to do that because: whereas a patient's gastrointestinal system starts to shut down as nothing is going through the tract and the patient experiences little discomfort, an inactive patient who continues to receive sustenance after the dying process begins will experience bowel obstruction (or paralytic ileus), which produces severe pain.

Would you support a "lethal injection" as an alternative for someone like in this case?

In Oregon where such a law was passed. The person has to be terminally ill, be of legal status to make the consent for assisted suicide, like being a grown adult. Then has to go through some various mental health tests to see for clarity in the persons decision making, or that the person is not a rampant delusional, etc…

At that point a mix of chemicals is giving to the person that causes the person to fall asleep, soon after that death occurs. Supposedly no pain is involved in the process.

I overall agree with it, though i can see some problems in it, such as debt being left behind to various bodies, but its not like a terminally ill patient could do anything about that anyway. I am not sure but i think the person must also only have like 6 months to live on medical opinion.

No, I do not support lethal injections in any case.

With a person who has stopped eating or wasn't eating in the first place, withdrawal of a feeding tube enables pain medications such as morphine to be given without the worry of causing paralytic ileus (failure of the intestines to move things through), and the patient can be kept more comfortable.

I'm all for maintaining the patient in as much comfort as possible during the process. And while I think it is a valid decision to withdraw life support, I think it is different from actively ending the person's life, as by lethal injection in this case.
We don't need to kill a person if the process is underway and we can keep them comfortable through that time.

Sometimes it is very important to let the process take its natural course, especially when grieving family members need some time to adjust to the impending loss. But I do not believe in keeping them alive through artificial means when all hope of recovery is reasonably exhausted.

If someone is on life support they are being kept alive with just that. There would be no reason for a lethal injection as I understand. Should one be taken off life support I think in some cases yes.

I suspect that if her husband has allowed her to remain on life support for thirteen years, that he has already listened to her parents far too long. It sounds like this decision was 12 - 13 years overdue. Were she to spontaneously recover at this point, does anyone think she would still recognize them, or have any faint remnants of emotions left?

If tests are showing that she is brain dead, or has no brain activity; would she even be conscious of pain or the passage of time? If she has been kept alive artificially for 13 years, IMO someone has already been playing God for far too long. Allow the natural process to take its course.

She has already spent one third of her life in a coma. Somehow, bang, a miracle cure is found. One shot, and she is conscious. She was 26, and is now approaching 40. Everyone she knows has aged. At 26, she might have had a child ready to start elementary school, or even in first grade. Such a child would now be starting college, or halfway through. The patient, having had no way to exercise for thirteen years would likely continue to be bedridden...

Like Governor Jeb Bush, I am neither a doctor nor a lawyer; furthermore, I am not a minister, a philosopher, a judge, or a God. A decision, a wise one in my opinion, has been made that this woman can be taken off life support and allowed to die. I'm certain someone told Jest Bush that this position will bring him the most exposure and the most votes. If he succeeds, will she be placed back on hold for another thirteen years until her parents are dead and her husband is bankrupt? What then? Will the State of Florida pick up the tab to keep her "alive" into the next century, in hopes of a futile "cure?"

1. Hard to say. That's why living wills are so important (as mentioned). We opted for the 3-week delay. Perhaps living wills should be mandatory?

2. Depends on the situation. I'm all for drugs to comfort the dying and not against euthanasia, but at this time it's illegal in this state. So the living will can't tell the medical community and society as a whole to butt out of this decision. It's between me and my God, but apparently the current consensus is that other people have a say. This is, IMO, not a morally right situation.

3. The morality of this is so complex that nobody should be forced to make the decisions for me. I say pull the plug, give me drugs, and accelerate the process if my body gets stubborn. That, too, is between me and my God.

Generally speaking, if I'm not able to contribute to society, then I'd just as soon check out of this hotel. I also don't want to slough this moral responsibility off onto anyone else.

The case in question does bring up some gray areas, like what if you're sentient but can't do anything? What if there is doubt about brain deadness? I'd like to remove all burdens in both cases and ask for euthanasia ahead of time. People who know me understand how miserable I'd be in either case.

Now, would this poor lady feel the same way? I don't think anyone can really say, not parents, not spouse, not a judge or jury. Maybe someone should toss a coin.

What that article does not state is that the husband has had a child with his girlfriend while his wife lays comatose. I think this fact should end any rights he has to act in his wife's best interests. The parents should be the ones making decisions for their daughter, not some adulterer who has forsaken his wedding vows. particularly when you consider his wife is Roman Catholic.

Good point, Hugo. I was not aware of that. You're right, the husband has invalidated his argument that he is acting in the best interests of the patient. The guardianship should return to the woman's parents.

In most cases, I would agree that the spouse should have the ultimate decision, but consider the facts surrounding this case:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comm...smith090503.asp

WOW!

that bum! Thanks for posting that link Mrs. P.

I had heard that there may have been foul play because determining whatever it was that happened to this women was never fully disclosed or diagnosed. She mayhave had a heart attack, maybe something else.

And how can this woman be left to starve to death when there's a specialist who claim to know of treatment to help her along? Shouldn't every possibility be exhausted first before writing her off?

This is certainly a case where life support should NOT be turned off.

In general, this is not something I think the medical community should be given authority over. I know that I would certainly not want any doctors making such a decision for me. The fiscal ramifications alone chafe me--why should a hospital have the right to force me to pay for medical treatment I have specifically told them I do not want?

However, as this case shows, there is certainly reason to believe that the spouse can have ulterior motives which aren't necessarily in the interest of the patient. I would think that some sort of agreement would have to be reached with the immediate family, or at the very least there should be civil/criminal penalties if it can be shown that actions were taken for selfish motives. I think this would lead to living wills becoming more common (and more binding), in which one could clearly state what their desires were in such a situation. This would eliminate any 'judgement calls' being made by those who could conceivably benefit.

The wife is Catholic. Interesting point.

At what point did her priest administer last rites?

What sort of debate would we be having if he had kept his wedding vows, and she was pregnant after 13 years in a coma? Isn't it likely we would be accusing him of rape!

Mrs. Pigpen's post is interesting, but how long ago was the trial, the award, etc?

He has probably spent the past thirteen years married to an unresponsive woman, with no chance of recovery. There was likely no means to obtain a divorce because she was not capable of representing herself, and being Catholic, would never have agreed to one.

He met another woman and fell in love. I can see where she would become impatient with the situation.

This one is a hard call for me. Honestly, if I was the comatosed patient, I would want my husband to remarry and continue with his life. I would want to leave this place.

Unfortunately, this woman was only 26 when she had the heart attack. :blink:That's extremely young, and I can't imagine anyone having the 'living will' Hobbes mentioned at that age. I am an advocate of euthanasia in most terminal cases. In this particular case, I'm undecided because of the conflict of interest. At the very least, it's a horribly sad situation for everyone.

I too can see why he would be impatient with the situation. I can see why it is in HIS BEST INTERESTS to terminate his wife's existance. He met another woman and fell in love, his wife is now a obstacle in his life. He should not be the one deciding her fate.

Bye the way, living up to your wedding vows means forsaking all others in the bedroom. It does not mean you have a conjugial duty to engage in sex with your comatose spouse.

Wow is didn't know all that much about this case till I read Mrs. P's thread. No this woman should be put to death.
I remember a case earlier this yr. where a man was in a coma since I believe in the 70's. I think in was down south. His mother went everyday to his bedside and he came out of the coma.
There are Dr's who says she can communicate with eye blinks etc. She is not unresponsive to where she may never come out of it.
I think the husband should not be allowed to make anymore decisions on his wife.
Let her parents make the decisions and the money remaining should be given to her famliy for further treatment.

Jeb Bush has been given the right to reverse this "cut off support" decree. will he?

I also watched the interview on Larry King Live. It changed my perception that Mr. Schiavo was in it for the money.

Mr. Schiavo brought up the point that the film footage we saw of Mrs. Schiavo was of random, non-purposeful responses that could not be elicited on command.

In addition, the EEG showed no cerebral brain activity which means that this woman, although she appears awake and alert, is truly in a vegetative state. That means that no amount of rehabilitation is going to make a difference in her case.

Mr. Schiavo says that his wife's father's interest in her was sparked as a result of the encouragement of the pro-lifers,* that he and her mother had not been visiting their daughter prior to the decision to withdraw the feeding tube.

Schiavo himself has, since the accident, graduated from nursing school and is working as an emergency room nurse. When his wife's parents alleged that he had been neglecting her, it was found that Mrs. Schiavo had been receiving excellent care; she has never had a bedsore. The administrator of the facility affirmed that Mr. Schiavo was the type of family member who was very exacting, demanding that she receive good care.

Based on what I saw and heard on the interview, I think that Mr. Schiavo is genuinely convinced that his wife would not want to continue to live this way. He stands to gain nothing monetarily from her death (unless there's a book in the offing--who knows these days?).

Withdrawing the feeding tube would be a relatively painless death. The feeling of hunger, if Mrs. Schiavo is even aware of it with the brain function that she has left, would subside quickly. As it is, there is no pleasure to be had from receiving sustenance from a stomach tube.

With no higher brain function, there is no hope of her recovery. Perhaps withdrawing the feeding tube is the better choice.

*a group with whom I identify, within reason

(Edited to include: I do not think it's the greatest thing that Mr. Schiavo has a girlfriend with whom he has one child and another one on the way. But I know that he's "only human," and that in itself is seen as reason enough to follow one's inclinations these days.)

Why is Michael Schivao the bad guy here? Because he had sex with another woman and conceived a child while his wife laid comatose for 13 years? Was he supposed to put his emotions in a vault for the next decade or so until she passed away or he did?

It's easy to dump on him because he isn't a saint and offends your personal moral code, but how many of us under the same circumstances might not look elsewhere for affection? We're not talking about Scott Peterson here folks! There's a natural urge to cast this as a case of good guys and bad guys, but all I see here is victims with Terri Schivao being the worst off of the lot.

I'm also puzzled by your response Hugo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a libertarian and if so, isn't what Governor Bush and the Florida Legislature did by interceding in this case a gross intrusion by government into the private lives of citizens?

No, he's not a bad guy, nighttimer. I'm just saying that his morals reflect those that are common in our society today. There was a time when people did these things a little more on the Q.T., or not at all, unless they were incredibly influential and powerful men. Whether that was better or not depends on how you look at things, like marriage vows, whether or not you get the conjugal benefits of same, and whether or not you care about your reputation.

Schiavo's not a terrible sinner, but he's not a saint, either, for having kids out of wedlock while still legally married. There used to be a stigma attached to children who came from those unions; now there is mostly confusion.

We all tend to form judgements, whether we articulate them or not.



If you will notice, I actually changed my position as more information became available on the circumstances. But while I acknowledge that indeed Schiavo might be showing how he cares about his wife, there is still some amount of disrespect involved (for Terri's relations even if she is unaware of it) when he pursues another relationship while not severing the tie to his first relationship, which he could certainly have done legally for the sake of his new, de facto family.

Actually I believe both the court decision and the means to get around the decision were wrong. Sadly, the individual cannot make the decision for herself. Since that same individual has been effectively replaced as a spouse it seems the right thing to do would be to allow the parents to take over guardianship and let them make the decision for someone who remains their daughter. I do not judge the man for moving on, I just think that he should move on completely and remove himself from the scene.

For those who have heard Kinf's interview and want the other point of view go to www.terrisfight.com. An excerpt from a link from that site.

Like many disabled people, Terri Schiavo is unable to tell us what future she prefers. She left nothing saying she preferred starvation to living with a disability. She never signed a legal document designating her husband as her surrogate in the event she became unable to communicate.

Despite this, media commentary is dominated by bioethicists and "end of life" experts telling us she should be left to die and explaining how "peaceful" starvation is as a way to die. To hear them tell it, Schiavo has no meaningful life. She can't talk, they say, she can't eat on her own, can't walk and has no control over her bowels or bladder.

Thousands of people with disabilities across the United States are watching the case anxiously. In fact, 12 national disability groups have filed "friend of the court" briefs in opposition to the efforts to starve Schiavo. Obviously, we want to know how all those commenting in this case feel about the lives of people with Down's syndrome, autism, Alzheimer's and other disabilities. Are they next for death through starvation? It's not so farfetched. (end of quote)

The woman ain't brain dead. She is breathing on her own. It seems to be under debate what her current capabilities are, and what the future prognosis is. I think Mom and Dad have their daughter's best interests at heart. I am unsure about her....er...spouse. If I had a choice between my mother making a life or death decision for me or a spouse who had been cheating on me for years I think I would go with mom. Pulling a feeding tube from someone is quite different than unplugging a brain dead individual from a respirator.

It is the brainstem that controls breathing, temperature regulation and the like.

All higher functions like consciousness and memory are nonexistent and have been for some time. Terri Schiavo totally lacks self awareness and awareness of others. That is the persistent vegetative state. She cannot be rehabilitated, and there exists no surgery at this time to restore what Terri Schiavo has lost.

That is the point, and that is why many people who would otherwise be against removing the feeding tube are saying that it's time to let Terri go.

Terri has all the life of the rosebush outside my window. Involuntary functions persisting, but no grasp of life. I was under the impression that she was aware. That may have been even worse; staring out from a shell she can't even control for years and years. What's the pleasure of life if you can't interact with the world?

As far as I can see it, this may sound cruel, but if she's unaware, whether she lives or dies has no real importance to her or to other people.


Edited to include quote. Check this out, Paladin. From www.terrisfight.org

Alas, the electroencephalogram report says it all. In the absence of higher brain function, Terri would be be unable to recognize other people, have memory, or possess self-awareness, so she certainly would be unable to respond other than randomly to verbal stimulus. And that was the point that her husband brought up during the televised interview. The video footage showed random responses recorded over an indeterminate (that is, undisclosed) length of time.

A bit from this site

"Not one day, not one hour, not one minute of rehabilitation time has Terri been given so she could get better. It’s unconscionable.

"This despite that there are doctors testifying under penalty of perjury, not only is Terri not unconscious, but that they believe she could be better. There’s a speech pathologist who has testified most recently under penalty of perjury that he believes that Terri can be weaned from the feeding tube."

Smith said, however, that "as soon as the money was in the bank, Michael put a 'do not resuscitate' order on the chart, realizing back in the early 1990s he would inherit $750,000 if Terri died, and began to refuse medical treatment such as antibiotics for infections and so forth. In 1998, when Terri didn't die he filed a request with Judge Greer to be allowed to remove her feeding tube, and that’s how this whole business started."

In a stunning sworn affidavit, Carla Sauer Iyer, a registered nurse who was employed at Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center in Largo, Fla., from April 1995 to July 1996, while Terri Schiavo was a patient there, testified: "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and "when is that bitch gonna die?"
Others at Palm Garden also testified similarly in sworn affidavits. All swore that Terri had spoken to them frequently and backed Iyer's recollections.(end of quote)

There is conflicting testimaony as to Terri's prognosis. There is certain evidence that her....spouse....has conflicting motivations. What is clear is, IMO, that her parents should be making the decisions for Terri.

A bit of that evidence a pathologist, Sare Mele, MC,CCC-MLP, had this to say.

Over the years since her injury, Terri has infrequently spoken audible words. The records of MediPlex reflect the fact that she has said "stop" in apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her. The family reports that they have heard Terri say "ugh-hugh," ugh-ugh," and "No" on a few occasions.

8. Since the time of the medical evidentiary hearing in October of 2002, family members have made a concerted effort to encourage Terri to vocalize, and have attempted, as laypersons, to coach her in basic speech.

Most prominently, they have coached Terri in trying to say "yea", as a way in which she may answer "yes" to questions. The family has an audiotape recorded in November of 2002 in which Terri vocalizes in apparent response to her father. Her vocalizations include repeated sounds which approximate the word "yeah," in the same manner in which she was coached. Prior to that time, no member of her family recalls Terri being able to approximate the "yeah" sound. I cannot conclude that Terri can accurately answer a yes/no question without the therapy suggested below.

9. The apparent addition of an approximation of the word "yeah" to Terri's repertoire of responses is clearly a learned behavior. Her use of this sound on the audiotape is apparently in response to her father. It is reasonable to conclude that Terri is trying, despite her motor deficits, to speak as best she can. Terri is clearly a suitable candidate for speech-language therapy.

10. It is not my opinion that Mrs. Schiavo is in a coma or in a persistent vegetative state. In my opinion, she exhibits purposeful though inconsistent reactions to her environment, particularly her family. Her eye movements, easily observed on the videotape, are particularly suggestive that she recognized family members and responded. She also appeared to have sufficient sustained attention to track a balloon. It is not my opinion that these behaviors are merely reflexive. The entire range of behaviors listed above, and each and every one of them, are inconsistent with a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. (end of quote)

I really think that the person making the decision for Terri should be the person with her interests in mind.

If Michael Schiavo indeed refers to his wife as "the bitch" and can't wait for her to die, then it is apparent that he has no business being her guardian and should surrender guardianship of Terri to Terri's parents.

Michael Schiavo has an extra-marital relationship that is going to require his increased involvement, considering that his girlfriend has their second child on the way. There are obvious grounds for a divorce here.

Either way I agree with you, Hugo. The person who is Terri's guardian should actually have Terri's interests in mind.

If she is going to continue to exist in this state, then give her the best care possible. If the EEG report is right and there IS NO HOPE of her regaining her lost brain function, removal of the feeding tube is a relatively painless way to die.

Those who believe in God believe that there is a better place for Terri than a hospice bed.

It has been thirteen years, but in effect what is one to do when there weren't any written wishes left. It is the spouses decision, primarily when one marries the spouse becomes the next of kin. Sure it is tough on the parents after it all it is still thier daughter. But I do not think that removing the feeding tube and having her die by means of dehydration and starvation is humane at all. That is just seems like a harsh and cruel means of letting someone die.

WAKE UP PPL!!!!! There are other cases where other people have been in the same state as Terri with even less physical response as Terri that are now writing books on their ordeal....the one lady that has written a book stated that when they turned off her feeding tubes the pain was so intense that the morphine could not deaden the pain. Because the nurses pushed the issue that there was response her husband changed his mind and turned and fought for the feeding tubes to be reinstated. He had to fight the physicians and courts too!....The lady is beautiful, intelligent, and fighting for Terri who she says is far more responsive than she was.

I would hate for the world to see me when I was in the hospital giving birth but that does not mean that I don't want to live or that there may be a chance of some normal life restored to me.
1. Her husband is suspect to having possibly caused the condition she is in.
2. He is in love and living with another female that has born two kids for him.
3. All the money that was suppose to be spent on her medical has gone to make sure that no one attempts any recovery for her ...only to maintain her "vegetative state".
4. He has done everything to make sure that she will never recover to tell what happened right before this "sudden collapse".
5. Anyone that has seen the videos know that there is life in this woman.
6. If any law should be implemented it should be to take the control out of that man's hands. He obviously does not love her and wants to get on with his life. Why he doesn't just let her parents decide there has to be some underlying reason.
7. I had an aunt that had breast cancer in the late 60's ....She had been unable to be a "wife" to her husband for 3 years. Her husband became "involved" with another woman. That woman called my aunt and said ..."why don't you go ahead and die...you look awful with no hair, all the weight you have lost, putting a burden on your children cleaning up after you throw up all the time....just die so that we all can get on with our lives....you will leave a lot of money ...but I can help you leave your family more and help you appear to have an accident so the insurance will be double indemnity. If you continue to hold on all the money will be eat up with all these hospital bills. If you really love your family you will do what is right rather than put them thru so much."
8. After chemo she grew her hair back , gained weight, divorced that husband, increased her life insurance and left everything to her kids who always were there for her. She did live a few more years ...long enough to put her life in order.

9. THIS IS AMERICA AND ANY LAW THAT WOULD UPHOLD SOMEONE BEING PUT TO DEATH BECAUSE THEY DON'T LOOK GOOD OR ARE NOT HEALTHY ENOUGH MUST BE STOPPED.

10. To the person that likened this to Abortion Rights...Just ask my 25 year old son. Women swoon over him. He is borderline genius...Tall, dark, and handsome.
I checked into a hospital for depression after walking in an finding my husband in bed with his secretary. While in that hospital ward for only two weeks a hospital orderly drugged me up and raped me. The doctors advised an abortion because the drugs given were known to cause deformities. They said the child would be a vegetable if I carried him to term. Ambiotic tests proved their was a deformity.. I still carried him 7 months..leaking membranes...again they said that he would be brain dead....He was born early. ...He is 'deformed'....He has a 3rd nipple that is the size of a mole and anyone seeing it believes that is what it is. I had my first child die of SIDS....I had to fight everyone to have this child because they thought I was out of my mind.

LASTLY, DOCTORS SHOULD NOT HAVE THE FINAL SAY ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS EVEN ONE THAT IS NOT IN AGREEMENT....AND IN TERRI'S CASE ALL MEDICAL PEOPLE DO NOT AGREE. IT IS A DEBATEABLE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE IS REALLY IN A VEGETATIVE STATE.

Yes, they're family so they should have a say.



They should use a drug



I say end the suffering.