Clarification/Follow-up by powderpuff on 03/23/05 8:49 am:

Yes Elliot, I CAN blame the President, that is unless he has no faith in our country's judicial institution. This case in particular has been heard over and over again in lower courts and higher courts of appeal, and presented to the State Supreme Court as well, previous to Congress and the President taking action. The FACTS have been presented in courts of law REPEATEDLY over the last 7 to 10 YEARS!, the FACTS have been determined in courts of law and ruled on in courts of law.

Why should anyone respect a decision and order of the court if Congress and the President don't?

As emotionally difficult as it is to accept the medical facts in this case, there are none-the-less medical FACTS. Ignoring the law based on EMOTION is WRONG. But hey, if its ok for the Pres, I guess its okay for all of us to ignore the law based on emotions?

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/23/05 9:25 am:
PP,

You may indeed be 100% correct that Bush stepped out of line (I disagree, but I will grant you that you may be correct). But I think you also know WHY he did so, and that you don't blame him too much for wanting to save a life.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by powderpuff on 03/23/05 10:31 am:

Hi again Elliot,

Being that he is President, I would hope that he would or should be held to a little higher standard than us common folks. If he is willing to attempt to overthrough the judicial system of the United States, he should first learn the facts, at least in my opinion. Sad as they are, the facts are clear. Any strong argument for keeping Terri hooked up to an artificial nutritional support system is rooted in emotion or religion, not in medical science.

I have spent many, many hours reading all the volumes of medical records that have been published and reviewed by countless doctors, as well all court transcripts of the many, many, many legal proceedings, and also the recommendations and pleadings from all sides, including Terri's court appointed GAL. It is not an easy task to strip the facts from the emotional aspects of this situation, however I do believe the Pres should have attempted to do just that before he rushed to undermine our judicial system.

Congress and Bush are wrong.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/23/05 10:55 am:
"Disability groups don't think guardians should have carte blanche to starve and dehydrate people with conditions like brain injury, developmental disabilities ...People should have the right not to be deprived of life by a guardian who feels that their ward is as good as dead, better off dead or that the guardian himself or herself would be better off without the ward." Diane Coleman, head of Not Dead Yet, the national disability rights group

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/23/05 12:57 pm:
Powderpuff,

The question at hand is "right to die". The only part of this case that has not been satisfactoraly been determined is whether Terri Schiavo would have wanted to execute that right.

Every single thing you say about her medical condition may be true, (though there are a number of very prominant doctors who disagree with you). You may be 100% right about her condition and her prospects for recovery. But that is NOT THE POINT.

The only point that really matters is that the 'fact' that Terri Schiavo would have rather died than live in a vegatative state has not been satisfactorily been proven.

And looking at it from my own perspective, I would rather live than die, even in a vegatative state. I would not put a DNR in my living will. I would not willingly choose to die. And while I realize that others would make a different decision, I do not have clear proof that Terri Schiavo is one of them.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/23/05 4:22 pm:
Chou,

I disagree. We must LOWER taxes to increase governmental revenue, not raise them. Furthermore we need to decrease medical costs in order to make up the Medicare/Medicaid shortfall, not increase governmental spending.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 03/23/05 4:24 pm:
Yes, but how do we do that?? I have asked two questions in the last month about this pending crisis.

The State of Illinois often teeters on bankrupcy because of the burden of Medicaid nursing home cases and other medical stuff.

We can't allow state governments(US Govt too) to go under, then scramble and patch patch patch.

Clarification/Follow-up by purplewings on 03/23/05 5:18 pm:
Elliot,

I may have incorrectly identified life support versus feeding tube, but I don't believe a person who is in a vegetative state is actually 'alive'. If a beating heart is all it takes, then yes, but if feelings are part of living, I don't think she is. Of all that I've read, her brain is and always will be non- functional. I can't imagine anyone wanting to live that way, if in fact they even knew they were living.

According to some of the doctors, the parents have grossly exaggerated her responses,much the same as new parents do with their newborn, insisting he is smiling when he actually is only having gas - because that's what we want to believe.

As far as anyone knowing if the woman would choose to live or not - her husband is her legal guardian. Don't you think he would be the one to know the feelings of his wife on this subject?

I doubt this has anything to do with money. I've already read that he was offered $1 million to turn guardianship over to her parents. Later I read that he had previously been offered $10 million. I think he is just sick and tired of watching the woman he love(d)(s) trapped in this horrible way.

Parents are selfishly attached to their children and never really let go - even to the point of believing they are smiling and responding when there is actually nothing happening except mindless movement.

You are right that it's a horrible decision to have to make but it certainly isn't a Presidential matter in my opinion. It's a court decision.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/24/05 3:09 am:
yesterday a neurologist from Mayo looked at all the data ,and said she had diminished brain activity not PVS .there is doubt that needs to be resolved before her death sentence is complete.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/24/05 10:56 am:
>>>but I don't believe a person who is in a vegetative state is actually 'alive'... I can't imagine anyone wanting to live that way, if in fact they even knew they were living.<<<

So now it's okay to kill based on personal opinion? Just because YOU wouldn't want to live that way doesn't mean that SHE would make the same choice. And whether you agree with it or not, she is alive in the medical and legal sense.

Tell me, is someone is in a TEMPORARY vegetative state, are they alive? Can we kill them? The only difference between a temporary vegetative state or a permanent one is a difference in duration of the vegetative state. If it is wrong to consider a temporary vegetative state as death, it should be equally wrong to consider a PVS as death, because they are medically the same.

>>>According to some of the doctors, the parents have grossly exaggerated her responses,<<<

And I guess they say the same thing of the news reporters who have reported on her condition... almost all of whom have agreed that she shows a great degree of responsiveness. She has been heard saying "Mommy" and "Help Me". I don't think that her responsiveness has been over-exagerated at all.

>>>Don't you think he would be the one to know the feelings of his wife on this subject?<<<

No, I don't. See below.

>>>I doubt this has anything to do with money. I've already read that he was offered $1 million to turn guardianship over to her parents. Later I read that he had previously been offered $10 million. I think he is just sick and tired of watching the woman he love(d)(s) trapped in this horrible way.<<<

I disagree. When he was suing the hospital for millions for malpractice, he claimed that he wanted to rehabilitate Terri. As soon as he got his settlement check, he "suddenly realized" she was never going to recover, and decided that "she would be better off dead". Baloney... he got his money, and now that she's a burden on him and his new family, he wants to get rid of her. His opinion is the last one I care about at the moment.

>>>Parents are selfishly attached to their children and never really let go - even to the point of believing they are smiling and responding when there is actually nothing happening except mindless movement.<<<

I've seen video of that "mindless movement". If you had seen it, you wouldn't call it that.

Elliot