nzlegend 1 Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 This is the case of the comatose, in a vegetative state woman whose husband after 13 years has decided to pull her feeding tube, much to the horror of her parents who have tried to get Jeb Bush to help. Should she be let go? ( as she wished would be the case before her accident) Link to post Share on other sites
JonnyPanic 0 Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Should be allowed to go in peace. Link to post Share on other sites
rach 1 Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 With you on that. Link to post Share on other sites
ug 0 Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 She should be let go, yes. Link to post Share on other sites
frannyo 2 Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Toughy, but I lean towards yes. Link to post Share on other sites
veronica 2 Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 What are the main arguments for "No"? Link to post Share on other sites
nzlegend 1 Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 Main arguments are that the hubby wants to collect life insurance or all the legal rewards they got from civil action. He has a girlfriend and shes up the duff with his second kid and he wants to remarry, probably. Terri is a vegetable and had always said she would never have wanted such an existence. The parents want him to divorce and then they to look after her. Tough case regardless of the money involved to live your existence as a vegetable hooked up to a tube to sustain. When I right a will, which reminds me I need to get cracking. I want a mention, that if I become an irrepairably stuffed unit like that, they pull the plug when it becomes undeniably clear that I am beyond all hope. Link to post Share on other sites
fukdane 2 Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Fairly unanimous vote there. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Apparently her 'right to die' has been overruled by a miracle of God, in the form of new legislation. Amazing how a country can be so keen to execute people and not let those who want to die go peacefully without interference. Such freedom, it makes me want to hate the place... Link to post Share on other sites
Pedro 0 Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I haven't read the book on Terri so I can't really say. I'm not being argumentative but how is it that some of you KNOW she didn't want to continue living in this way. Did she have a living will or was she really outspoken on the subject? Is she in pain? Is she suffering? If she is I favor cutting the food and water. If she simply lacks cognition I think she deserves medical aid, food and water. Why not let her parents take her? It brings them a great deal of joy and perhaps hope to see her and spend time with her. Her high profile status might lead to more funding (public and private) to help research cures for victims like her. Other than her husbands financial gains and need to get on with his life (which I certainly find justifiable), why would you vote to kill her (stop letting her have food and water on the insurance companies dime)? Fact is she's alive. She DIDN'T die in her accident. She's not in a position to let anyone know how she's feeling about this. From what I've seen on the news she can follow movements with her eyes..so she's in there and unless she has memories of her old life haunting her the quality of life she has now is probably neither good nor bad but she is still a living person with a loving family. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I think you can reasonably 'know' based on the fact that current law, which is pretty well developed in this area, has favoured letting her die. As for her responsiveness, the doctors are reported to have stated that she has some reflexes working and some random expressions. What the family may have claimed seems suspect in the light of the fact that they are believers in miracles (and fairly tawdry miracles at that, to whit, high-handed intervention by a Bush). Concerning what her parents think of the matter, she didn't choose her parents, but she did choose her husband. That is the basis for giving his say precedence over their say. Neither he nor they can really be called disinterested, but I would prefer my wife to make decisions about me rather than my family (admittedly by a narrow margin). The love my family showed wasn't always in my best interests, and I often had cause to resent it. The 'right' to die is probably the only certain 'right' we have, and there really shouldn't be so much sick, religious hand-wringing about unplugging machines without which the patient wouldn't be alive anyway. And as a suspected anti-American, it seems especially bizarre in a country where people are deliberately killed in quasi-medical procedures, notably by members of the same Bush tribe. Finally, Pedro, you are being argumentative, but that's actually allowed here. It's a forum. Keep it up. Link to post Share on other sites
@tokyo 14 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 voted, toughy Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts