save terri or keep the feeding tube out?
discuss

Depends. Did she have a living will? Or express at any point while she was conscious that, in this sort of situation, she'd want her plug pulled? Or is it all based on what her husband THINKS she'd want?

i was under the impression that she had told her husband to let her die if something like this happened. i could be wrong or her husband could be lying.

she had made no arrangements, otherwise they would have been followed and the controversy would not have happened

her parents say she wanted to live, and so do her friends. but her husband (who is living with another woman, and has a few kids by her) says that she only told him what she wanted. There has been some suspicion that he tried to kill her, and wants her dead in case she wakes up and points the finger at him.

But I don't really care.

He also didn't say that until 7 fucking years after she had been in a coma. And beside that, he denied her all sorts of treatments(according to the family).

i dont claim to know all the details, but from what i hear, last time the removed the tube, she lived for a while, and so they reinserted it; and i THINK she may have woken up once before, briefly, but i could be completely off base on that.

eh, her husband is her legal guardian, and he has said to pull out the tube for the last 7 years. Her parents, which don't have any legal say, got the government involved. As far as the law goes, the tube should be taken out, and it should stay out. This whole thing with the federal government getting involved goes against what the law states, and so far, the courts have upheld that. On a side note, the doctors say there is no chance for her to recover. So in my mind, keeping her alive is pointless and only serves her parents.

All those against keeping her alive, Why?

1) there is no way one can be absolutely sure that she will never recover.
2) even if she wont, what right is it of ours to decide when one doesnt deserve to live?
3) since when has the right to kill someone been in the hands of a "legal guardian"? what ever happen to the right to "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness"?

(1) Most doctors that have examined her have said that there is no hope for recovery.
(2) The way the law was set up, her legal guardian (her husband) is the only one is the state of Florida that can decide whether or not to keep her alive.
(3) The Florida state government (legislative and executive) and Federal government (legislative and executive) have passed laws that only apply to one person, which personally, I have a problem with, regardless of the circumstances.
(4) She has been brain damaged for 15 years, 7 of which she has been in a constant vegitative state, it is time for the parents to move on.

In short, and in my opinion, the parents are selfish and only want to keep her alive for their own sake, not for hers, and the federal government getting involved is a violation of the 10th Amendment.

i still cant see a justification for taking the life of another person without a DAMN good reason (theyre trying to kill you, etc.....). even though she is brain-damaged, we cant guarentee no recovery (nothing is impossible, and doctors have been wrong before), and even if there was no chance, i dont believe that we have the right to decide that she ought to die

If we dont' have the right to say she should die then what right do we have to say we should stick a tube down her throat? I say pull the tube outa her throat and if she wants to live she will if she dont' then she won't.

1) Would you say that doctors are all knowing.
2) So if someone breaks their arm, goes to the hospital, their legal gaurdian has the right to deny them food and water?
3) I also have a problem with it...
4) Aren't you pretty full of yourself, to determine how much hope others should have in their loved ones. What if she is conscious and doesn't want to die? Oh well, you say it is time she died so I guess that is enough for me.
5) If her parents are willing to foot the bill, why not let them?
6) So what if she has brain damage? Does that mean that now we are going to start killing retarded kids?

phuck-you:
ok, so i have the right to deny food to you? thats essentially what you are saying. if you cant feed yourself, then i can just not give you food? by that logic, none of us would have survived childhood, as our parents had to feed us.[/quote]