The Democrats want her to starve to death.

Take a deep breath, Paul.

Hmmm.

I'm a fiscal conservative, not a social one. In most cases I'm pretty neutral on social issues. But this is a seriously strange case. I might be wrong, probably am wrong, but my understanding is that only one judge has been ruling on this case all along. That appeals have been made but rejected and so this entire case hasn't been given any sort of real review and that judicial procedures have been used to kick the case back to the same judge each time.

This is absolutely wrong.

Whether you agree or disagree the simple fact remains that Terri Schaivo has a better chance of living if she were a convicted murderer. How can the Left be such advocates of the rights of convicted murderers and yet treat this as if staving this woman was the right thing to do? And these are the same people who were screaming about "torture"??

How on earth could the NYT run an article claiming that a death by starvation or thirst is actually "gentle"??? WTF? Starving to death or dying from thirst is NOT gentle.

This is just some strange episode of the Twilight Zone and I'll wake up. Because right now all I can think of is the amount of evil the Left is willing to do to play politics.

I too wish this case had magically disappeared by now. I disagree with your argument on one key point, regardless of what should be done in respect to the feeding tube. I don't think the Democrats are the only people playing politics. Both sides are playing partisan politics and are managing to worsen an already tragic issue.

If Republicans had made this about the absence of a living will I wouldn't take issue with it. But, instead they have involved themselves in a case that has been decided in court numerous times and been twice turned down for consideration in federal court. Now new expert opinion is being used to refute older expert opinion. This is not a clear cut medical issue but I'm sure that the numerous courts have a clearer understanding than a emotional news story that has now become a pawn in partisan politics.

Dangerous legal precedent is occuring. Sounds heartless, I know. Frankly, these days I trust courts that have heard expert opinion for years on this case over politicians looking for leverage. Neither party is standing on the moral highground despite their claims.

State authority and medical authority are being both being completely disregarded. I think I'm getting repetitive. In simple terms I believe authority is being overextended and all sides are now doctor shopping, playing on emotions as they do so.

I would recommend that interested parties watch the live debate on C-SPAN now.

Schiavo has already started another family with his current live-in lover.

To me, this should be sufficient to remove his right to make any decision about Terri Schiavo. He had ample opportunity to divorce his wife and allow her family to handle to responsibilities of her care. Instead, he chose to shack up with another woman and produce off spring while his wife lay in a hospitial bed.

... No matter which side of the debate you are on, she will live for years if they only feed her. This is not about "letting her die" this is about actively withholding food from a human being.

Not to me. Seems to me (INSENSITIVITY ALERT) more like withholding water from a growing vegetable. I can't get too worked up over this because the real Terry Schiavo passed away years ago. This debate is about wheather or not to keep the empty husk alive.

Schiavo has already started another family with his current live-in lover.

To me, this should be sufficient to remove his right to make any decision about Terri Schiavo. He had ample opportunity to divorce his wife and allow her family to handle to responsibilities of her care. Instead, he chose to shack up with another woman and produce off spring while his wife lay in a hospitial bed.

Life always goes on. You're attributing some nefarious motives to the man. I think it's a bit too much to expect him to sit by her bed, living like a penitent monk. If he had evil motives, he'd just let the parents take care of her as they've offered to.

Dangerous legal precedent is occuring.

Damn right. We go from bemoaning "judicial tyranny" to crafting a bill designed to drag the courts into this case.

There are valid arguments to both sides of this question. In general I’m a strong advocate of the right to die IF one is able to state one’s wishes clearly or left such wishes in writing. When neither of those is the case it becomes a case-by-case decision - there just is no one-size-fits-all.

I’ve read the text of both the Senate and House bills. Neither one saves Terri’s life. All they do is give her the same legal rights that convicted death row inmates have to a review of their case in federal court and to representation. Terri does not have representation - the attorneys in the case represent the husband and the parents - and no other court has reviewed the FACTS of the case - only procedural issues.

A review in federal court would include a review of the FACTS, meaning that this life or death decision would not be based on the opinion of only one judge. Any one person can make a mistake. When it’s a matter of life and death everyone deserves to have a second opinion.

"Not to me. Seems to me (INSENSITIVITY ALERT) more like withholding water from a growing vegetable. I can't get too worked up over this because the real Terry Schiavo passed away years ago. This debate is about wheather or not to keep the empty husk alive."

Just goes to show you what the debate is really about, it is about removing the personhood of people, so that they no longer have those rights we appreciate so well, ya kow the right to LIFE, Libertya nd the pursuit of happiness for starters.

We already think it is find to kill disabled babies in the womb, so why not start killing the disabled who are outside the womb. That is what is chilling about this whole debate, we are looking for ways to remove somebodies personhood, so we can essentially murder them. We give convicted criminals more due proccess rights than Terri Schiavo has had. Terri's GAL for the tube removal hearing recomended against removal of the tube. During the fact finding portion of the trial, this was the only person that represented Terri's interests, and she hasn't had continuous representation since, the last GAL she had was appointed in 2003, because of the bill later struck down in Florida.

Michael Schiavo has another woman, and children with her, he should not be the one making these decisions.

What harm exactly would there be in Michael walking away, marrying his live in girlfriend and the mother of his children, and letting the Schindlers take home their daughter?

YOU STILL HAVE NO REAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS SITUATION AND I'M GETTING TIRED OF THE IGNORANCE. MAYBE IF YOU LEARNED THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER, YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING AND MAKE A BETTER SITUATION REGARDING THIS SITUATION. NEVER REALIZED HOW MUCH IGNORANCE WENT ON HERE ON THE NET AND IN EVERYDAY PUBLIC. IT'S TIME TO SMARTEN UP PEOPLE; YOU ARE DOING THIS GIRL AND HER FAMILY AN INJUSTICE. GROW UP PEOPLE!!

Cindy

shark

Did you know per a 1996 British Med Journal study that there is a 43% error in diagnosis concerning PVS? It is a notoriously hard condition to accurately diagnosis.

For a PVS diagnosis to be considered valid: the patient must exhibit no “evidence of awareness of self or environment” or “ability to interact with others.” As one neurologist put it, if a patient shows “any response to the outside world, the patient isn’t in a PVS.”

Terri does react with her environment. She responds to pain, she reacts to people talking in the room and she attempts speech.

And this woman was diagnosised PVS based on a CT scan (useless in oxygen deprivation cases) and two interviews, one 30 minutes and the one from Greer's grand poobah Cranford that lasted 45 minutes.

This is unacceptable.

hey, Cin?

Instead of shouting insults, want to elighten us with facts?

And let me bottom line it for you. Why should Terri be put to death when there are people willing and able to take care of her?

Just goes to show you what the debate is really about, it is about removing the personhood of people, so that they no longer have those rights we appreciate so well, ya kow the right to LIFE, Libertya nd the pursuit of happiness for starters.

Silly me, I thought the REAL issue here legally was just who had the legal power and responsibility to make decisions regarding the medical care (or lack of) for Mrs. Schiavo.

As for this:
Did you know per a 1996 British Med Journal study that there is a 43% error in diagnosis concerning PVS? It is a notoriously hard condition to accurately diagnosis.

For a PVS diagnosis to be considered valid: the patient must exhibit no “evidence of awareness of self or environment” or “ability to interact with others.” As one neurologist put it, if a patient shows “any response to the outside world, the patient isn’t in a PVS.”

Terri does react with her environment. She responds to pain, she reacts to people talking in the room and she attempts speech.

And this woman was diagnosised PVS based on a CT scan (useless in oxygen deprivation cases) and two interviews, one 30 minutes and the one from Greer's grand poobah Cranford that lasted 45 minutes.

Interesting. I've heard "opinions" and "experts" assert both sides. From what I can dope out, she seems to be PVS. If so, I stand by my opinion regarding taking the tube out. If she's not, it's a whole other story. All I can say is thank goodness I'm not in any way connected with this case, and my heart goes out to all involved.

sheez, Cindy. Whatever guilt you feel over whatever decisions you made with your husband after his accident, TERRI'S FAMILY (not her "husband") WANTS TO ***FEED*** HER UNTIL SHE DIES A NATURAL DEATH.

They feel there is something there to protect. Why do so many feel entitled to intentionally torture her to death?????

I've got a couple of hypotheticals I've been thinking about...of course they mean nothing, but every way I look at this, I come up with the same conclusion and I don't understand the lack of compassion.

1. What is the common law marriage statute in FL? If Michael is living with his new "wife" isn't he a bigamist and, therefore, should be prosecuted? If in jail, who becomes her guardian?

2. Is bulemia considered a mental illness? Supposing that Michael's hearsay testimony concerning her wishes is true (even though he didn't remember it for three years post accident and only after receiving a big settlement as well as knocking up his new wife), how could those wishes be valid? Was she of "sound mind and body" when she expressed them?

The intereference in this case is from the torturers who are trying to kill Terri. NOT FROM THOSE WHO ARE JUST TRYING TO CONTINUE TO FEED AND REHABILITATE HER.

(yelling for Cindy's case...apologies to the rest of you)

Starving for compassion,
ginabina

I am pretty certain that Florida is not a common law marriage state, although I absolutely believe that he gave up any rights he had to make decisions regarding TErri the day he took up with another woman and started living with her, and later having children with her.

Michael Schiavo doesn't get harmed on bit, if Terri is kept alive, and if Terri is the vegitable everyone wants to kill, what exactly is the harm in her parents caring for her?

The Democrats want her to starve to death.

No, actually they want her die from dehydration. It's faster than starvation and unfortunately much more painful. You can phrase it how ever you want but if they want her to have no water or food until she dies, they want to kill her.

Firstly PVS is not a medical condition. It is an hypothesis first expounded in 1972 by two researchers, Jennett And Plumb.

Secondly, statements that Terri Schiavo's cerebellum is non existent and has been replaced by spinal fluid are not true. The cerebellum can only be effectively imaged by an MRI or PET Scan, neither of which have been performed on her.

Thirdly, the appeals court judges and the probate judge displayed very flawed reasoning. They found that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state because she does not "respond consistently." Obviously this means she responds inconsistently. Is that strange considering she suffered brain damage? The fact is that she does respond at times and the judges' comments confirm this. Thus, it can be logically deduced from the judges own observations that she is not in a PVS.

In addition, the bone scan in 1991 which revealed Terri had a history of trauma, was only done after it was observed that she was in pain. Again, proof she is not in a PVS.

And, in conclusion, even though Michael Schiavo is totally disinterested in how Terri received a number of broken bones, ribs, and a closed head injury her family is interested and so am I. I would like to know. Wouldn't you?

I am dismayed that the fight to save Terri's life is being portrayed as a cause for conservatives, fundementalists and anti-choice activists. I am a Democrat, and I am outraged at how this woman is being made to suffer at the hands of her husband. I know there must be other feminists out there who are as outraged at her victimization as I am.
This case is not about one's "right to die", something I support in principle, it is about her right to live. Every fellow Democrat should keep mind that there are so many irregularities that cast suspicion on Michael's motives for wanting her starved to death. She was not in pain until the court ordered her starved to death, there are many doctors who diagnosed her as not being PVS, there is cause to believe that her condition is a result of a physical abuse that went uninvestigated, her husband refused her therapy that might have proven beneficial, she left nothing indicating she would want to die, and her husband only remembered that she said something to that effect AFTER he recieved over a million dollars for her continued care. Oh yeah, then there are the witnesses who testified that they heard Michael on more than one occasion say things like "When will that B***H die?".
Then to top it all off there is what appears to be some bizarre judicial vendetta by Judge Greer against Terri's life in a long series of astonishingly biased and incomprehensible rulings. For instance, the last time Michael almost succeeded in killing her, Greer ruled that Terri was to be denied her LAST RITES as a Catholic.
Everyone, regardless of political slant, should recognize that at a very minimum Terri deserves the same benefit of resonable doubt we grant accused criminals.

Hmmmm.

"I know there must be other feminists out there who are as outraged at her victimization as I am. "

Sorry to interject this but I haven't seend hide nor hair of NOW, or any other femminist organization, involved in this in any way, shape or form.

If NOW is agitating on Terri's behalf, I'd like a link please. Otherwise I'd posit that the major feminist organizations have decided to stick with their political allies and flush Terri down the drain.

I know there must be other feminists out there who are as outraged at her victimization as I am.

If so, I'd hope these feminists focus more on society's lack of attention to the tragedy of eating disorders, which afflict far too many women and young girls.

Shark

If he wanted another family, then he had a simple and easy choce, divorce. I do not believe he has the right to create and live with another family and yet possess the right to determine that Terri should die. Divorce would remove him from the equation and allow her parents to assume the responsibilites.

"The Democrats want to starve her."

Oh, yeah, you need serious help -- Big Time help. Why do you hate America so much -- America and Americans? Why do you act like a frothing freak -- an angry, bitter, ignorant freak? You diminish your cause when you lie through your teeth dontchknow.