Terry Shiavo Poll

[Wakie]

This is really a tough call.  I hope we can all agree that if she were conscious that we would follow whatever decision she wanted (whether it was to live or die).

But since she isn't and probably will never be, then who is guardian of a disabled adult?  Who gets the say?  While I believe we should do whatever possible to save a person's life I also believe that a spouse's authority on such matters supercedes the authority of a parent.

Unfortunately we're never going to know what Ms Schiavo wanted.  If her parents have some new evidence then I'm in favor of keeping her alive until such time as said evidence can be reviewed before a court to determine its validity.  But if not then I believe we should let Ms Schiavo go unto the kingdom of God.

[Wakie]

I find it horribly ironic that Republicans, who love to scream and yell about the government interfering with people's lives, are more than willing to interfere here.

Who should be the one making decisions for you when you cannot make them for yourself?  Your spouse or your closest biological relative?

[Wakie]

She has responded to commands, not just stimulus.

A visitor told her that if she turned to face the opposite direction from the one she was turned she could see squirrels out the window.  She turned.  A lawyer told her that if she could only say "I want to live" it would all be over, she moaned "I waaaaa".

"I waa" is not "I want to live".  It could also be "I want to die".  We simply do not know what her wishes are/were.  But here's a wild f'ing idea.  If, as you claim, she is capable of responding to commands and "turning her face" then why haven't we (courts, doctors, etc.) done the simple thing of saying "if you want to live turn your face to the right, if you want to die turn your face to the left"?  Seems a pretty simple solution to me.  I find it extremely hard to believe that no one has thought of this.  Which leads me to believe that she doesn't respond to commands.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Calling someone "anti-life" is an ignorant cheapshot.  One could very easily argue that your side is so controlling that you are willing to make someone suffer just to win political points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) What kind of medical training do you have that you can judge the competence of a licensed physician?

2) Congress doesn't have to authority to issue "directives" to the judiciary.  The Congressional ruling only allowed a higher court to hear the case.

3) Have you ever watched a loved one suffering?  Not just for a short while but for years?  Imagine it was your wife.  And the decision making process is removed from your hands and placed into her parents and the govt's hands.  Are you comfortable with THAT!?!

[Wakie]

Ford, you completely ignore the issue on "I waaa".  Either (A) she lacks awareness and it was a random noise or (B) she is aware but we do not know her wishes.  In either case, we do not know what her wishes are.  All we have is her husband saying she told him she didn't want to live that way and her parents saying otherwise.  The question quite simply becomes "who has authority to speak for you when you can't speak for yourself?"  You clearly feel that the govt or biological relatives have greater rights to speak for an individual than a spouse.

I do not believe that starvation is an act of mercy.  But US laws do not allow physicians to help an individual to die with dignity.  So ... in a perfect world a quick, painless method would be used to help a person die with dignity.  Starvation is cruel, but it is less cruel than prolonging a life which wishes to be ended.

You passed judgement on the physicians involved in this case.  That is why I criticize you.  I don't think you can watch a video on the internet and use that to make a diagnosis ... especially when you have no medical training.

Setting jurisdiction and issuing "directives" are 2 seperate things.  Check it out, m-w.com.

You attack Schiavo for entering into a new relationship.  He's been fighting this battle for years.  If Terry had died outright would you criticize Michael for entering into a new relationship?  If so then you certainly have A LOT of growing up to do.

[Wakie]

Wakie, she's aware and has repeatedly responded to multiple various stimuli.

So says you.  But there are several physicians who say otherwise!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is exactly what I said.  Go back and read my post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The man said Terry wouldn't want to be kept alive this way.  He's been fighting for years to let her die.  He's been told that she isn't going to recover.  That she isn't coming back.  But you criticize him for finding a new life but still fighting to honor her wish to die with dignity.  His situation is not ideal.  But imagine your wife had told you she wouldn't want to be kept alive.  Now you're fighting with her parents and the federal govt over the issue.  And you're being criticized for having found a new life!

[Wakie]

I think this whole debate is horrendous. It should be up to her mother and father, who conceived her, not her husband and certainly not the United States Government on what should be done pertaining to the situation she's in rights now. I can't believe the government is deciding who should live and die now. What's next?

I agree with you that the government should not be making the decision.  But I disagree that the parents' authority supercedes the spouse's.  Just because you conceived a child doesn't mean you own it.