Congress Intervenes to Keep Florida Woman Alive

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...7&pageNumber=0

I guess everybody has heard about Terry Schiavo by now. I'm still not sure what I should think about this. As I understood it, this severly braindamaged woman still reacts to the people who surrounds her and still reacts to pain. Are other people allowed to make a decision about her life then?

On the other hand, THIS article is saying the following: Jay Wolfson, guardian ad litem, concludes in his report that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement. Is euthanasia the most human thing to do when you have no prospects in life whatsoever?

Either way, death caused by removal of a feeding tube strikes me as inhumane. Is this the only way, legally and/or medically?

What do you guys think about this case?

Personally i am torn on this, because as you say who has the right to decide if a person should live or die. But since she has been like that for 15 years and has made no improvement i think she should be allowed to die, but i don't think it should be done by removing the feeding tube and letting her starve to death-thats inhumane, it should be done with drugs so that it's quick and painless.
I think that if she is in constant pain and has no quality of life and isn't really concious (sorry i'm not sure of the right word) of her surroundings tehn it is unfai keeping her alive.

This story is such a terrible dilemma ....
I think though the congress shouldn't have a thing to say but as you said Alex isn't there a more human way to let this woman die with dignity than removing feeding tube ..

I am so sorry for her ... so sorry ......

I am also torn. I don't like the government getting involved, as I don't think it is their place. At the same time, it seems that they put animals to their death in a more humane way. Heck, even criminals on death row die by lethal injection which is better than starving to death.

A difficult case. Like Mousebounce said, the government should not be getting involved. However, from what I hear, Terry's parents WANT to take care of her, take her "off her husband's hands" so to speak. If they want to, I think they should be able to, since he just wants to let her starve.

Adrian

Well, that's the whole point: she's reacting to her surroundings, so I'm sure she must be aware of it on some level.

Yes, but, at the same time you could argue that it is causing here more psychological pain to be aware of her surroundings but not be involved in them.

I don't think she's on that level. But if so: we can't make that decision for her. We can't tell for sure she's in psychological pain.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush early on Monday signed emergency legislation aimed at prolonging the life of a brain-damaged Florida woman, Terri Schiavo.
"Today, I signed into law a bill that will allow federal courts to hear a claim by or on behalf of Terri Schiavo for violation of her rights relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life," Bush said in a written statement.

"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo who live at the mercy of others," he said.

(Washington newsroom 202-898-8300)

i personnal think that they should let her go ,but pump her up with pain killers . It is no quality of life what so ever and i know if it were me laying there for 15 years i would be glad to die . Having been faced with the prospect of being paralized from the neck down and lossing my legs and possibly my right arm i knew then that if that were to happen i would rather have died . So i truely think its far more humane to let her die and put her out of her ongoing misery. Although i feel great remorse for her parents who must wish everyday for a miricale.