| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/22/2005 01:33:12 PM · #76 |
| Her husband should be made to hold his hand over her mouth and nose until she stops breathing. After all, he says she is already dead. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 01:46:38 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Her husband should be made to hold his hand over her mouth and nose until she stops breathing. After all, he says she is already dead. |
To even suggest this is sadistic, twisted, unnecessary, extremist and plainly wrong. This is shameful.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 13:47:02.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 01:49:07 PM · #78 |
well whats the diff? he's starving her to death
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 01:58:02 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Her husband should be made to hold his hand over her mouth and nose until she stops breathing. After all, he says she is already dead. |
Isn̢۪t that a little extreme?
Democracy Now's show today was about Terri, you can stream it here, pretty interesting and informative. Main page here. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 01:59:51 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by queanbeez:
well whats the diff? he's starving her to death |
If you guys can't really see the difference there's no point in arguing with you -- clearly attempting to reason with anyone that holds such an extreme point of view would be futile. The vast majority of Americans believe that this is a private/personal matter in which the federal government should've never intervened. The camp that has raised this one case to the national stage (even while hundreds, if not thousands, of other similar cases are ignored) are doing so solely for political reasons, and have made an already tragic situation doubly tragic. Finally, there's been a 15-year long and extremely painful process that's been followed here, to suggest that the husband is merely murdering his wife is, at the very least, distasteful -- if not libelous.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:01:49 PM · #81 |
so is starving her not murder and cruel? oh thats right its for her own good.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:02:00 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by queanbeez:
well whats the diff? he's starving her to death |
Though I personally think she should be euthanized instead of dehydrated, she cannot feel any suffering from removing her feeding tube.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 14:02:57. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:03:52 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by queanbeez:
so is starving her not murder and cruel? oh thats right its for her own good. |
Looks like I need to refer to the first sentence of my last post.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:05:42 PM · #84 |
I don't know all the little details of this story and really, I don't think I should have the right to... but if this was me I WOULD NOT want to "live" this way for 15 years nor would I expect my husband to sit and pine away half of his life over me while I have nothing to offer back to him and I would definetly not want my childrens main memories of me to be that of wasting away in a hospital. I'd want them to remember their happy, loving, goofy, fun, somtimes sad and crazy mom and the real "life" times we spent together. It's sad how her situation came about, seems she may have had some issues of her own to deal with ... but regardless, if it were me, I'd be saying to my husband, and parents and everyone who loved me to please let me go.
As far as the husband wanting to starve her to death... I don't think he chose that but it was chosen for him by our government. I'm pretty sure you can't lethally inject someone (death row inmates excluded). So I would think that it's our government and it's "laws" that are choosing to starve her. I could be wrong about this though... is lethally injecting someone in this condition legal?
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:06:04 PM · #85 |
personnally i think the whole thing is sickening. I wouldnt want my husband to suffer but i couldnt let him die like that either. I think it should be left up to her family and not the husband since he has already moved on and started another family.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:06:23 PM · #86 |
I agree totally doctornick.
And I think the hospital left gov't no choice but to intervene when they agreed to STARVE a patient to death. *rolls eyes* Give me a break. If that were my child in hospital, no matter the age, I'd have busted down the walls by now.
*Edited cause I was rambling.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 14:10:13. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:08:50 PM · #87 |
i totally agree, thats what i was trying to say!
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by doctornick:
Can you imagine the outroar there would be from all the animal rights group if we decided that all abandoned and sick animals would be let to die by thirst and hunger?? Then why do we treat a human being like that? |
I agree totally doctornick.
As for the statements aboveI, I'm stupified as to why her husband hasnt' divorced her. Does he think he'll look bad for divorcing his sick wife? He can't look any worse than he already does for having kids with his mistress while simultaneously starving his sick wife in hospital. Sounds absurd when you lay it out like that.
And I think the hospital left gov't no choice but to intervene when they agreed to STARVE a patient to death. *rolls eyes* Give me a break. If that were my child in hospital, no matter the age, I'd have busted down the walls by now. |
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:11:23 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by queanbeez:
so is starving her not murder and cruel? oh thats right its for her own good. |
Would you be willing to support a law for doctor assisted death in such cases? Such as an overdose of morphine? The only current legal way for her to die is via dehydration/starvation. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:15:14 PM · #89 |
no i wouldnt support it. unless the patient stated in a will to let them die. she has no will, therefore i dont think they should make the decision for her
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:19:26 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by queanbeez:
so is starving her not murder and cruel? oh thats right its for her own good. |
Would you be willing to support a law for doctor assisted death in such cases? Such as an overdose of morphine? The only current legal way for her to die is via dehydration/starvation. |
The way they are doing it now IS doctor assisted death, the doctor is removing a vital feeding tube. It is hypocrisy to see a distinction between this and an injection of an overdose of morphine. Like I said earlier we treat our pets better than human beings. We have decided to make her die we should do it fast and humanely as we do it for our pets.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:37:32 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by queanbeez:
so is starving her not murder and cruel? oh thats right its for her own good. |
Would you be willing to support a law for doctor assisted death in such cases? Such as an overdose of morphine? The only current legal way for her to die is via dehydration/starvation. |
The way they are doing it now IS doctor assisted death, the doctor is removing a vital feeding tube. It is hypocrisy to see a distinction between this and an injection of an overdose of morphine. Like I said earlier we treat our pets better than human beings. We have decided to make her die we should do it fast and humanely as we do it for our pets. |
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Her feeding tube is doctor assisted living. She doesn't need a doctor to starve to death. She'll do that slowly and naturally. Not that she actually cares, mind you.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 14:38:21. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:46:14 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Her feeding tube is doctor assisted living. She doesn't need a doctor to starve to death. She'll do that slowly and naturally. Not that she actually cares, mind you. |
What I'm getting at is that we are going to let her die by thirst and starvation...pretty cruel if you ask me...
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:49:03 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by milo655321:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Her feeding tube is doctor assisted living. She doesn't need a doctor to starve to death. She'll do that slowly and naturally. Not that she actually cares, mind you. |
What I'm getting at is that we are going to let her die by thirst and starvation...pretty cruel if you ask me... |
Great. I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to queenbeez.
Would you be willing to support a law for doctor assisted death via injection in such cases? Such as an overdose of morphine? As the only current legal way for her to die is via dehydration/starvation.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 14:49:43. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:50:47 PM · #94 |
The following is an observation that's completely aside from the main point of this tragic story, which is euthanasia.
I find it curious how a certain segment on one side of this tragedy have found it necessary to vilify, and to go after the husband. It is curious to me how many on one side of this tragedy aim to deny all goodwill towards a man/husband/person that's endured such a tragic event. Earlier I asked where it was that those attacking the husband were acquiring their information, but no one has responded (note that am interested in mainstream sources of such attacks, not the fringe sites that some have offered -- as I don't think that most people are hearing/obtaining such lines of attacks on the husband from obscure websites). I asked this because, I think, that our take on this tragic story is being actively shaped by the information channels we're exposed to, and how the people and issues involved are discussed in those information venues. If, for example, a host of a program is actively vilifying -- in this case -- the husband, then the consumers of that information may think that this is an appropriate view point and that others in the world at-large also share a similar view point. Well, as polls suggests, most American's don't think that Congress/White House should've intervened; and, moreover, most Americans side with the husband. So, perhaps, any media outlet that's attacking the husband and not presenting this case in its larger and full context is, in fact, doing a disservice to its audience.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:51:47 PM · #95 |
I only hope her family was as concerned about her health and well being while she was fighting the eating disorder which most likely contributed to her situation as it stands today. It is a sad story all the way around and hopefully she and all around her will be at peace soon. My thoughts are with them all ... husband, parents and siblings.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 02:56:45 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Great. I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to queenbeez.
Would you be willing to support a law for doctor assisted death via injection in such cases? Such as an overdose of morphine? As the only current legal way for her to die is via dehydration/starvation. |
Absolutely.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 03:00:30 PM · #97 |
I think people are very emotional about this issue because they're identifying with the parents, and I identify with them too, to a certain extent. But isn't the point here what Terri would have wanted for herself? If she did in fact declare/discuss with her husband her wishes -- and according to what I've been reading she also discussed this issue with several other people, so I see no reason to doubt her husband's word -- then shouldn't those wishes be honored? I've tried to imagine why in the world her husband would endure being villified and demonized when it would be so easy for him to divorce her and turn her care over to her parents, and the only reason I can find is that he does truly care about honoring what he believes is her wish to not exist in her present condition with no hope of recovery. I also believe if there were any reason to have stripped her husband of his guardian status, it would have been discovered by now and acted upon. Isn't it the case that this man's motives have been scrutinized from every possible angle and no court has yet found sufficient grounds upon which to terminate his rights as guardian? We don't know any of these people and can hardly make a fair judgment, and I think it does a great disservice to everyone involved to have their personal lives and grief played out in such a public fashion.
Edit: to add that I was trying to get at the point bdobe made above, but he beat me to it. I can't fathom why some folks seem so anxious to find fault with the husband in this case. My heart goes out to him most of all.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 15:05:58. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 03:01:41 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by jenesis:
As far as the husband wanting to starve her to death... I don't think he chose that but it was chosen for him by our government. I'm pretty sure you can't lethally inject someone (death row inmates excluded). So I would think that it's our government and it's "laws" that are choosing to starve her. I could be wrong about this though... is lethally injecting someone in this condition legal? |
Not in the US -- and the Federal Government is currently trying to overturn laws which at least allow a patient to do this for themselves.
How many people in favor of "saving" Ms. Shiavo also favor capital punishment? Shouldn't we always, as the President put it, "err on the side of life"? We know for a fact that there are innocent people convicted and sentenced to death. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 03:07:14 PM · #99 |
Bdobe,
In the abstract (not referring to this specific case) this is a very strange statement:
"Well, as polls suggests, most American's don't think that Congress/White House should've intervened; and, moreover, most Americans side with the husband. So, perhaps, any media outlet that's attacking the husband and not presenting this case in its larger and full context is, in fact, doing a disservice to its audience."
The implication here is that if "most Americans" feel one way, then they must be seeing the case in its "larger and full context", and I don't see how that follows logically. In fact, the opposite is very often, if not usually, true: media tend to clump together and present an event in a limited context (the "accepted" version) and "most people" never see any larger, more contextualized view. This was glaringly obvious in the early days of the current Iraq conflict, for example, where the media were steamrollered into supporting something based on information that turned out to be highly selective, if not false.
I believe (referring to this case now) that "most people" would tend to support legaslized euthanasia in the case of hopelessly vegetative indviduals. So, naturally, the media collectively tend to support this point of view. However, there's no evidence that Terri ever made her desires known on this issue (the husband's history in his statements shows considerable waffling on this), and it's clear that her own family adamantly do NOT want her feeding tube removed. Since the husband has gone on with his life in the interim (and not discussing the appropriateness of this), effectively abandoning his wife in the moral sense, and since her own family wish to be her caregivers and make these decisions for her, it's difficult to understand why he is making such an issue of it.
I believe this is the root of the "vilification" of the husband; surely the cleanest way out of this situation would have been a divorce and the delivery of Terri back to the care of her own family, rather than cutting them out of the loop as he has done?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 03:09:27 PM · #100 |
bdobe, just out of curiousity, did you go to the very first link in this thread that laurelblack posted?
Also, someone, don't remember who and computer is too slow to go find it, mentioned that terry is not feeling anything -- don't count on it. Everything I've read and seen (from mainstream to fringe) admits that she is partially responsive to stimuli. And, from my own personal experience with this type of situation, it is very possible that she is more aware of what is going on around her, but the channels that would let her respond aren't there anymore.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 06:18:54 PM EDT.
