I have no political purposes, nor am I a religious "freak" but I do think it is wrong for them to starve her to death.
Some doctors say she is not in a PVS state, some say that she is in PVS. Who are you going to believe? Do you have complete faith and trust in only doctors to which you agree with? Is one side presenting a better argument than the other, or are some people imposing their beliefs to justify what happens to a person who cannot speak and did not speak their will?
I'm just as tired of listening to the people on here who say..." I wouldn't want to live like that....and I want my life ended if I was in her condition..." etc trying to present an argument that they have no say in. Just like they are tired of me and a few others saying that perhaps she should not be starved, and that since there is no real tangible proof other than a hearsay conversation over 15 years ago, they have the right to make a decision for her when there is clearly family and supporters willing to care for her and provide maintenance for her life.
How can you knock people who have a different view than yours.
Yes, right to lifers and other religious people can get pretty pious and use whatever causes to bring their fight to light, but I don't think that is the cause of the Shindler family.
I know Michael Shiavo received approximately $30O, 000 for his own compensation for the malpractice suit filed on Terri's behalf, and lawyers ate up most of the funds.
I guess that makes some of you a freak and a pervert because you want a woman do die to satisfy your own selfish needs as well.
lickety_split said this in post #17 : I have no political purposes, nor am I a religious "freak" but I do think it is wrong for them to starve her to death.
Some doctors say she is not in a PVS state, some say that she is in PVS. Who are you going to believe? Do you have complete faith and trust in only doctors to which you agree with? Is one side presenting a better argument than the other, or are some people imposing their beliefs to justify what happens to a person who cannot speak and did not speak their will?
I'm just as tired of listening to the people on here who say..." I wouldn't want to live like that....and I want my life ended if I was in her condition..." etc trying to present an argument that they have no say in. Just like they are tired of me and a few others saying that perhaps she should not be starved, and that since there is no real tangible proof other than a hearsay conversation over 15 years ago, they have the right to make a decision for her when there is clearly family and supporters willing to care for her and provide maintenance for her life.
How can you knock people who have a different view than yours.
Yes, right to lifers and other religious people can get pretty pious and use whatever causes to bring their fight to light, but I don't think that is the cause of the Shindler family.
I know Michael Shiavo received approximately $30O, 000 for his own compensation for the malpractice suit filed on Terri's behalf, and lawyers ate up most of the funds.
I guess that makes some of you a freak and a pervert because you want a woman do die to satisfy your own selfish needs as well.
Think about it.
I think about it everytime you come on and give this lecture.
Im not saying you shouldnt state your opinion...because you know that I enjoy reading your posts and I respect your opinion in this matter.
But you ask this question:
Some doctors say she is not in a PVS state, some say that she is in PVS. Who are you going to believe?
I am going to believe the ones with the least bias...that would be the court doctors.
Do you have complete faith and trust in only doctors to which you agree with?
No..like I said..I go with the ones least likely to be bias, and the ones that arent paid for their opinion, such as Schiavo's doctors and the Schindler's doctors, who are known to be members of religious organizations and right to life organizations...
Is one side presenting a better argument than the other, or are some people imposing their beliefs to justify what happens to a person who cannot speak and did not speak their will?
Personally, I go by her family members and her best friend that stated this was her wish and again, I go by the court doctors that examined her...for they are the least likely to have bias.
As for the money...I think its a moot point. If all the man wanted was money, he could have gotten that from the the one company that offered him 10 million to give up guardianship. He spent the $300,000 on attorney fees..plus some. People keep bringing this up, but it seems pretty obvious that money is not what he was searching for.
Her best friend, and her other family members have nothing to gain by stating what her wishes were.
Now...let me ask you...
IF you knew that she had told her parents her wishes and they still fought it anyways...would you agree with them doing that?
Because you do know that they stated that even if this were her wish, they would never have let that happen.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
IF you knew that she had told her parents her wishes and they still fought it anyways...would you agree with them doing that?
No, if I KNEW she had told her parents and/or left a living will. I would not agree with her parents.
Well, if her parents said that they would go against her wishes in any matter of her death, then they would be wrong, and the courts could use their jurisdiction to enforce Terri's wishes - if that be the case.
03-31-2005 01:47 AM
