Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Because that's what several courts have found that she would have wanted, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that our wishes regarding self-determination are followed.
Several people, including and especially her husband, have testified that she had expressed clear wishes that she did not want to be kept alive artificially, and though it would have been impossible for her to have foreseen this particular circumstance, the courts found that she would have wanted to be removed from life support.
We don't give blood to Jehovah's Witnesses in this country, even though there have been several cases where they've died for lack of transfusion. We don't force care on Christian Scientists to get care.
|
I respect that the courts have examined the Schiavo issue but this situation is unusual. First, we may have some flawed legislation on the guardianship issue. Maybe. But we definitely have major issues here: the hubby is essentially remarried and is in essence, the only true testifier of what the wife's wishes would be, Teri Schiavo is only on a feeding tube and most people who say "I don't want to be kept alive by machines/artificially" are thinking breathing/heart machines and Karen Quinlan; most people in the "unplug the machine" situation are comatose whereas this lady is awake, smiling at her parents and her eyes light up when she sees them. In my mind, definitely worth more attention especially since Teri does not appear to be suffering pain (except when she is denied water in the middle of the latest pissing matches between Repubs and Dems).
On another note, I read somewhere that a "tycoon" (I'd love for someone to define that for me. Barring that, I'd like to be one) offered a boatload of money to the husband to hand over guardianship to the wife's parents. If that is true, the financial motive for wanting the tube out seems flimsy.
