What an investigation THIS will be.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:46 pm

I dounbt she is recoverable at this point. This long without water usually does irreversible damage to organs. But I have been wrong before.

Post by **Ddrak** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 1:21 pm

Interesting post on FindLaw suggesting the parents' legal team screwed up.

Dd

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:06 pm

Dd...

The concept of "death with dignity" implies that at sometime, somehwere, the person who is dying makes a conscoius choice to leave the earth in a manner that, to them, constitutes a dignified end to life.

There is no evidence that Terri knew she was going to die, and therefore made no choice as to how to die with dignity.

I'm not arguing a point of law.

Eanamin Elessedil · Post by **Eanamin Elessedil** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:58 pm

Embar:

She's going to die, and soon. It's the inevitable conclusion to being FUCKING STARVED TO DEATH, for chrissakes.

It would be far more humane [and dignified] for her death to come via euthanasia, but that's just not an option in her case, unfortunately. I really wish that it were, because then the people who actually know and love her could at least gain the peace of knowing that the end came swiftly, easily, and [without any doubt in the matter] painlessly for her body, rather than knowing that she died such a miserable, pointlessly drawn-out death... the kind of death I truly wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

It's just a really sad case all around, and I hope she dies soon so that her loved ones can move on with their lives and begin the process of grieving for her (if they haven't already).

Aabe:

As for that church comment: Ehh, not the classiest statement I've ever made, but cases like this really bring out the resentment in me toward self-righteous religious zealots such as Randall Terry and his ilk. Obviously, it was intended as sarcasm and not a statement of intended action.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 3:14 pm

If it's any comfort, Eanamin, Terri doesn't care.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 3:30 pm

I worked in a care facility, one where they send people to die. It is amazing how hard the body stuggles to live no matter how bad their condition physically. We were built to survive at all costs.

Easy to say let them die. But it is a bit different perspective if you actually watch one go through the process and see how hard the body struggles to survive over several weeks. Gives you a new appreciation for the old body you currenly have and are probably abusing in one manner or another.

If you ever get a chance to volunteer for hospice, you will most likely gain an experience or two about leaving this world. If they are good hospice workers it can be an amazing experience.

Two of the biggest events in ones life are the journey into this life and the journey out.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 3:37 pm

After 10 days without food or water and the fact that Terry Shiavo is still alive sure seems to disprove the theory that she wanted to die. Were that the case she would have done so already.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:20 pm

Eanamin...

Whoses standards are you using when you say it would be more dignified to euthanize her?

Post by **Ddrak** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:23 pm

Embar,

There is sufficient evidence that Terri did not want to live in the manner she was being maintained - her husband said so. That is all that is required.

This entire case is entirely a matter of law. Anything else is irrelavent. If you're not arguing a point of law, then what exactly are you arguing when you talk about "evidence"?

Rsak,

That's about the most stupid thing anyone has said yet. Please stop sabotaging the "pro-life" argument.

Dd

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:38 pm

Ddrak,

Yet you must also acknowledge that Terry's husband has a conflict of interest in this case. For a court to ignore that is negligence.

And excuse me for pointing out the fact that Terry Shiavo is struggling to live. I happen to think that means something.

Post by **Ddrak** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:04 pm

Rsak,

I flatly deny any conflict of interest. If you have evidence then again, I suggest you also tell those people in Florida who seem to have lost over two dozen legal cases trying to prove one.

Terri isn't "struggling to live" at all - stop assigning conscious will to an autonomic reaction. All that is happening is expected and exactly what was medically predicted.

Dd

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:11 pm

I think he was speaking to your implecation that somehow if she wanted to she could just will herself to die.....if she was even capable of such a cognitive process.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:26 pm

Ddrak wrote:Embar,

There is sufficient evidence that Terri did not want to live in the manner she was being maintained - her husband said so. That is all that is required.

This entire case is entirely a matter of law. Anything else is irrelavent. If you're not arguing a point of law, then what exactly are you arguing when you talk about "evidence"?

Rsak,

That's about the most stupid thing anyone has said yet. Please stop sabotaging the "pro-life" argument.

Dd

Evidence isn't a word that is limited to a legal connotation.

And testimony after the fact (from the husband) doesn't address "death with dignity". Terri had no opportunity to make an infomred, consenual decision on what is or isn't a dignified way to die.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:05 pm

Before she died fifteen years ago.

Post by **Ddrak** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:05 pm

Terri had no opportunity to make an infomred, consenual decision on what is or isn't a dignified way to die.

This isn't about "dignified ways to die" though, and never has been. The fact remains that her husband made an informed decision with consent being implied through marriage and the absence of any other instructions. Anything else is a side issue and simply irrelavent.

Dd

Saevrok · Post by **Saevrok** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:46 pm

Someone should just blow her head off. Be a lot simpler.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:42 pm

Ddrak wrote:
Terri had no opportunity to make an infomred, consenual decision on what is or isn't a dignified way to die.
This isn't about "dignified ways to die" though, and never has been. The fact remains that her husband made an informed decision with consent being implied through marriage and the absence of any other instructions. Anything else is a side issue and simply irrelavent.

Dd

When I addressed the topic about death with dignity, I responding to Eanamin's post on the same subject. He made some statements about Terri wanting to die with dignity. My posts were addressing that specific context. Which is why I said I wasn't arguing a legal position.

Post by **Ddrak** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:37 am

Gotcha. Sorry.

Dd

Post by **Ddrak** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:38 am

Err - by which I mean "I understand - apologies". Just realized Aussie slang can be taken two ways there.

Dd

Eanamin Elessedil · Post by **Eanamin Elessedil** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

Embar:

You're misunderstanding me, apparently. I never stated that Terri wished to die with dignity. All her husband has ever said about her wishes, to my knowledge, is that she didn't want to be kept alive in this state. And her EEG's been flatlined for what, 14 years now? I'm all too painfully aware of what a flat EEG with no hope of recovery means, trust me, and it certainly doesn't constitute the ability to consciously wish for euthanasia or anything else.

I'm stating that, although we're a supposedly intelligent, humane and enlightened society, for some reason that's beyond me (*cough* religion *cough*) we end up giving more comfort to "common" animals (tasteless flamebait alert: and wounded Iraqi civilians, heh) in her position than we do to humans. That's just sick and wrong, and that is the crux of my argument.

Terri herself has been dead for years. What's left is just a shell, an empty machine on autopilot still going through the motions of trying to sustain itself. And yes, that machine's going to keep trying to function until it literally breaks down---that's what machines do, and it's why you can't just casually wish yourself to death (nicely scored BTW, Rsak). I'm just saying that it's cruel and inhumane to needlessly push it to the breaking point, regardless of whether of not it makes any difference to her mentally---and it doesn't; she's got less going on mentally than a sack of potatoes.