i know that her fam had a stay until this evening and had filed some more charges to request an extension to it, but i think that they were just on cnn and i missed it.

oops, guess not:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/25/schia ... index.html

The husband should just give his wife to her family and move on. Let the side who believes she's not a vegetable deal with her.

Honestly, I have no idea what's happening in this case anymore so maybe I should just go back to my game of Solitaire.

To me it's pretty ridiculous that this thing has gotten this far. There's a lot of legal and medical precident that stopping or removing therapy is no different than not starting it. So, if the husband, who is the legal guardian and closest relative, says that she said she didn't want to be kept alive artificially and she doesn't have a living will saying otherwise, yank the fuckin' tube and let her die. The parents are being ridiculous and selfish. They've said in interviews that they thought that she could improve with therapy, but she's been in this vegetative state for something like 9 years.

Anyway, there are two morals to this story:
1. If you don't want to be kept alive on a ventilator, feeding tube, etc if you're determined to be brain dead; write it down somewhere, tell your doctor and make sure s/he documents it, or sign a living will.

2. Jeb Bush is an asshole and if he is the next president, I am officially moving to Canadia.

Same thing friends AND A FEW OBNER MEMBERS said before the Nov. election.

They are still here and seem to be making no effort to leave. No surprise.

Steve

hey guess what this poor bastard doesn't have the right to die quite yet.

The parents aren't winning over the general public by having Randall Terry appear with them.

It's these fucking activist judges that are going to get the feeding tube re-inserted.

I say, pull the tube and let god support her if it's his will to let her live.

The parents should have let her die a long time ago.

This is the best source of information I have found:
Schiavo Page

The thing that pisses me off about this whole thing is the fact that people are complaining that it is cruel and unusual punishment to pull her feeding tube and let her die that way but nobody stops to conisder how cruel and unusual of punishment it must be to be stuck in a vegatative state for 15 years by your selfish parents who can't accept the fact that you are basically dead to the world. The parents don't want her there for her own good, they want her there so they don't have to accept her death.....her husband obviously HAS accepted and dealt with that and has been through his greiving.....

If the bulls dont make the playoffs I am moving to canada.

to see the Raptors not make the playoffs? You should move to Alaska...

If she doesn't snuff it, then he's got to file for divorce, no? That means, extra money, and the national black eye/stigma of being "that dude that divorced his vegetable wife".

I'm sure glad Congress wasted their time with this, though.

Said it. Then remembered.

1. I am poor.
2. Canada is fucking cold.
3. Difficult to go to UGA football games from Canada

you're all missing the point


BULLS

What's that, the minor league hockey team or something?

At least the private SS accounts idea is hitting the wall. If it had any momentum at all right now, they'd jam it through the door during the extended session caused by this calamity.

For being a party of free will, the GOP sure is doing a great job of legislating their way into lots of parts of people's lives. Because God wants them to.

The GOP used to be the party of Barry Goldwater until Reagan married the Christian Right in the 80s. However, it was a smart move politically because they successfully milked the fact that America is an extremely religiously fundamentalist country unlike most advanced industrial nations today. That's why someone like Bush can actually get elected here but not in Canada, France, Germany, etc.

Did your parents feed you a lot of sugared foods and soda as a toddler?

My grandma gave me a jellybean when I was a baby and it turned me into a communist.

Warning... long rant ahead... please evacuate this post if you don't want to read a lot...

If this woman had been in a car accident, and been put on life support immediately following, this would not have been an issue. It is the NEXT OF KIN'S decision to continue life-sustaining measures in these cases, and a husband is legally considered 'next-of-kin'. If she had been in an accident, he could have pulled the plug and it would have been done. The issue is that it's a feeding tube, and not an artificial life-supporting machine. But, she has not shown any improvement in her state in 15 years, and doctors have said that there is no reason to believe that any amount of therapy will bring Terri back to the cognisant world. Also, it has been documented that death by lack of nutrients in this situation is actually very peaceful (Read 3/20 NY Times). People keep saying that her husband is 'being selfish'; that he wants her to die "so that he can be with another woman". I don't really see what the problem with that is. She was incapacitated at the age of 26, so they had only been married a short time. I don't believe it is selfish for someone to want to be able to move on in their life, without the person they originally thought they were going to spend it with. Her husband should not have to worry about taking care of her well into his own old age. Maybe he wants to have a family, or just wants to have someone to actually talk to and be with in his own golden years; after all, he could only take care of her for so long before it is too much for him... Letting Terri die doesn't mean that he loves her any less, it's just that he needs to get on with his own life rather than sustaining the life of someone who doesn't even know that they are alive. If I were in Terri's position, in that sort of vegetative state, I would not want to be kept alive for the sake of being alive; because what point is there to being alive if you can't actually live your life?? This has been a big debate where I work lately, but I am speaking from my own experience. A feeding tube kept my grandfather alive for almost 3 months after he could no longer eat due to advanced brain cancer. Though I am glad that the feeding tube kept him alive long enough for me to see him one last time (he lived in OH whereas I live in GA), I also feel like he had lived a full life, and keeping him alive past that point only made the time he had left harder, because he became a burden (or so he felt so) on those around him. He had to be fed every 2 hours, and couldn't be left alone since he was so weak he may fall down and hurt himself. From talking to him over the Christmas holiday, I know he felt this way, and at that point he just wanted to go. This was hard on my grandmother, because she couldn't leave the house for more than 10 minutes at a time for 5 months, even to just go to the grocery store. I feel like he may have suffered more because of the fact that some of his children (I have 5 aunts and uncles) just couldn't bear the thought of letting him go peacefully. Even right before he died (at the age of 76), there was an appointment for him to undergo even more radiation therapy for his three brain tumors. I feel that after a reasonable amount of time, there comes a point where a decision has to be made that will benefit all involved, whether or not it is a favorable decision for those that are still fully in this world and mentally able to make such decisions. These things are hard, but these decisions are what makes us human (aka compassionate) enough to recognize when the suffering of one person is not worth the gratification of others.

Uh oh.

there was never any doubt of that. for a dude that kills people in wide swaths he's always been very careful to defend the right of the persistently vegetative to be head of the world bank or live.

"Presumption of life"? Unless you're poor, rural, and on the battlefield in Iraq -- then, you can die, and not even have anyone know it (no casket photography; no appearance by the Pres. at your remains's arrival in Dover).

An Iraq War GI <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Terri Schiavo

So now what happens if the federal court gets to rule on this state issue, and they find either that it is a state issue and not their problem, or they find as the previous courts have and say the husband is following his wife's wishes?

Do we rush to get legislation saying that he still can't take it out?