a very difficult case, clearly. yet, I intuitively tend to support the pro-life position.

"Как Ленского не убивай, он все равно выйдет на поклоны..."

---

Sic semper tyrannis
~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor: KGBMan, here's a hypothetical (and I think a realistic in the near future) situation. After clinical death, most patients can be kept alive by machines for decades relatively cheaply and comfortably. Unplugging them is death by starvation. Where would you stand on this?

---

One shot of cyanide and no suffering, but only if they had a writen will about it. If there is no will parents have a first say, then children and a husband/wife has a last say. What I don't understand is why everyone believes the husband and not the parents ?

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alla: i agree. let the woman go.

---

Go where? She is in coma!! On more serious note – judges prevailed again. Now she is going to starve to death...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: One shot of cyanide and no suffering, but only if they had a writen will about it. If there is no will parents have a first say, then children and a husband/wife has a last say. What I don't understand is why everyone believes the husband and not the parents ?

---

I would not oppose cyanide, only then it is closer to murder than removing a feeding tube. Since the end result is the same, it doesn;t matter. It cannot be the parents because any normal parent will go insane in a situation like this and want to keep feeding their son/daughter infinitely. A spouse is more reasonable because they are more likely to understand that life goes on. Parents become mentally disturbed - like Terri's parents are now, they do not even realize how they are torturing poor Terri every day with the stupid questions repeated 100 times and the damn balloons. There was a CNN/Gallup poll yesterday - "who would you wnt to make the decision if you were incapacitated like Terri?" Possible answers werer parents, souse, sibling, i think that's it. Spouse won in a huge landslide. Parents were like 10% (if i remember correctly). And I think those are the people that arent married.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

shas kuda ni plunesh, vsudu vidish ee litso, etoi bednoi jenshini. s polu-otkritim rtom. kak budto izdevautsa nad nei. this is the one place where i disagree w/the Republican party. no one should "live" like this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alla: shas kuda ni plunesh, vsudu vidish ee litso, etoi bednoi jenshini. s polu-otkritim rtom. kak budto izdevautsa nad nei. this is the one place where i disagree w/the Republican party. no one should "live" like this.

---

Alla, but it should not be for judge or an ex-husband to decide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: On more serious note – judges prevailed again. Now she is going to starve to death...

---

Tarzan, I understand and respect your convictions, but, if Terri can still reason, my belief is that she is thanking god for the opportunity to die. This is merely my personal view, I was always willing to let lots of different judges look at it, and I would have voted with you on the vote that began this discussion. But from the beginning, I believed this case was about defending the right to die, not defending the right to live.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

CNN poll: Who would you want to make the decision about pulling the plug if you were in a vegetative state? Spouse 78% 117450 votes Parent 14% 21439 votes Somebody else 7% 11112 votes Total: 150001 votes

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Tarzan, 2 questions for you: 1. Why do you keep saying she's in a coma, when she is not ? Parts of her brain were lost and replaced by spinal fluid, it is irreversible damage, she has no chances of ever recovering, it is not coma. So why ? 2. If you say that it is not for ex-husband or judge to decide how it ends - then obviously you mean it is for God to decide. Then why don't you see the simple truth that God has already decided, when made her body loose ability sustain life on her own ? would love to get your answers to these two...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor: Tarzan, I understand and respect your convictions, but, if Terri can still reason, my belief is that she is thanking god for the opportunity to die.

---

Egor, that is your belief but since she did not have Living Will we should not presume anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: Egor, that is your belief but since she did not have Living Will we should not presume anything.

---

Thats right. But you are presuming too. We are all presuming. You can't let parents, deranged by grief, torture these people for decades like this. It should be criminal in my view what they are doing to her. Unless she specifically asked for this, which she didn't.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: Egor, that is your belief but since she did not have Living Will we should not presume anything.

---

Thats right. But you are presuming too. We are all presuming. You can't let parents, deranged by grief, torture these people for decades like this. It should be criminal in my view what they are doing to her. Unless she specifically asked for this, which she didn't.

---

So you are saying that it is OK to kill everyone who can't voice their willingness to live? People have right to live (no mater how poor the quality of life is) and we can’t assume what is right for them. Otherwise we will soon start killing every mentally ill person. BTW, Terri’s husband is a separate story.

---

...looks like someone can't answer my 2 questions, hi-hi-hi

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: Egor, that is your belief but since she did not have Living Will we should not presume anything.

---

Thats right. But you are presuming too. We are all presuming. You can't let parents, deranged by grief, torture these people for decades like this. It should be criminal in my view what they are doing to her. Unless she specifically asked for this, which she didn't.

---

So you are saying that it is OK to kill everyone who can't voice their willingness to live? People have right to live (no mater how poor the quality of life is) and we can’t assume what is right for them. Otherwise we will soon start killing every mentally ill person. BTW, Terri’s husband is a separate story.

---

yeah, the husband is one sketchy mo fo.. which makes this all the more difficult. About killing everyone who can't voice willingless to live..I think additional laws must be written. They should involve a period of time. Prognosis for improvement. obviously a living will if there is one. If there isn't one, the law of the spouse should be enforced. A person who does not write a will implicitly gives up the power of decision to his/her spouse. This is already a fact but is being questioned. If the husband in this case never loved her and/or was violent with her, then why did she give him the power of decision by shosing not to write a will?

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor: yeah, the husband is one sketchy mo fo.. which makes this all the more difficult. About killing everyone who can't voice willingless to live..I think additional laws must be written. They should involve a period of time. Prognosis for improvement. obviously a living will if there is one. If there isn't one, the law of the spouse should be enforced. A person who does not write a will implicitly gives up the power of decision to his/her spouse. This is already a fact but is being questioned. If the husband in this case never loved her and/or was violent with her, then why did she give him the power of decision by shosing not to write a will?

---

Why would you want to make it so complex? Right now we have Full-Code versus DNR, DNI, and other good stuff. The only problem as I see it – we should be very clear on what is the default approach when no Living Will present. I don’t think it is up to relatives and ex-spouses to decide.

---