Update: Terri Shaivo is DEAD! (*I'm not dead yet)

Let her:

  • live

    Votes: 2 9.5%

  • die

    Votes: 19 90.5%
  • Total voters
    21
Drool-Boy said:
What the hell happened to her to make her this way, anyhow?
Click to expand...
She was bulemic, which caused a potassium shortage in her body, giving her a heart attack, blocking blood to her brain, giving her dain bramage.
 
Drool-Boy said:
They dont know
Hippies just like walking around holding up signs and blocking traffic
Click to expand...

Sort of a natural reaction, an instinctual thing like lemmings?
 
fly said:
She was bulemic, which caused a potassium shortage in her body, giving her a heart attack, blocking blood to her brain, giving her dain bramage.
Click to expand...

Terri Schiavo, 41, collapsed in her home in 1990, suffering from heart failure that led to severe brain damage. Michael Schiavo said his wife suffered from bulimia that resulted in a potassium deficiency, triggering the heart failure.
Click to expand...

I cut and pasted that before I read your post. She was 26 when it happened.
 
According to a news report I heard this morning, the American Academy of Neurology reports that she has a 0% chance of any improvement or recovery from her condition. She is in an irreversable veggetative state.

My question is, why are such extreme measures considered moral while a natural death is considered immoral? This woman's body would have been dead many years ago had it not been kept alive by life support. Her brain has been dead for years, the ability to sustain basic life support functions in her body Has relied 100% on ventilators, feeding tubes and the like. With a 0% change of recovery, why is it considered immoral to allow this body to follow the brain in death?
 
zengirl said:
According to a news report I heard this morning, the American Academy of Neurology reports that she has a 0% chance of any improvement or recovery from her condition. She is in an irreversable veggetative state.

My question is, why are such extreme measures considered moral while a natural death is considered immoral? This woman's body would have been dead many years ago had it not been kept alive by life support. Her brain has been dead for years, the ability to sustain basic life support functions in her body Has relied 100% on ventilators, feeding tubes and the like. With a 0% change of recovery, why is it considered immoral to allow this body to follow the brain in death?
Click to expand...

Just a feeding tube actually. She can do everything else I believe, and thats the distinction between this and other cases. I guess the right wing nutjobs don't see it as god's will to let her die. god intended her to be kept in this state for another 30 years.
 
smileynev said:
Just a feeding tube actually. She can do everything else I believe, and thats the distinction between this and other cases. I guess the right wing nutjobs don't see it as god's will to let her die. god intended her to be kept in this state for another 30 years.
Click to expand...

Because people are pussies when it comes to death.
 
Desslock said:
Because people are pussies when it comes to death.
Click to expand...

They really should use her life and story as an example to other bulimic and anorexic morons of what can happen when you fuck with your body too much.
 
smileynev said:
They really should use her life and story as an example to other bulimic and anorexic morons of what can happen when you fuck with your body too much.
Click to expand...

Its funny, that part of the story is not getting much air time.
 
smileynev said:
Just a feeding tube actually. She can do everything else I believe, and thats the distinction between this and other cases. I guess the right wing nutjobs don't see it as god's will to let her die. god intended her to be kept in this state for another 30 years.
Click to expand...
God shouldn't factor into it at all though.
 
On another forum someone said something along the lines of how its ironic how she starved herself into a coma and now they are starving her to kill her.
 
zengirl said:
God shouldn't factor into it at all though.
Click to expand...

It should if thats what the family and her believed in. In fact, this is an area that the government should stay out of primarily because it involves religious belief.
 
zengirl said:
According to a news report I heard this morning, the American Academy of Neurology reports that she has a 0% chance of any improvement or recovery from her condition. She is in an irreversable veggetative state.

My question is, why are such extreme measures considered moral while a natural death is considered immoral? This woman's body would have been dead many years ago had it not been kept alive by life support. Her brain has been dead for years, the ability to sustain basic life support functions in her body Has relied 100% on ventilators, feeding tubes and the like. With a 0% change of recovery, why is it considered immoral to allow this body to follow the brain in death?
Click to expand...
People need a cause...
 
April23 said:
On another forum someone said something along the lines of how its ironic how she starved herself into a coma and now they are starving her to kill her.
Click to expand...

I thought about that, but figured it was in bad taste.
 
smileynev said:
It should if thats what the family and her believed in. In fact, this is an area that the government should stay out of primarily because it involves religious belief.
Click to expand...
If that's the case then the husband was the appropriate person to make the decision despite what the parents thought. By rite of marriage the daughter no longer belonged to the family but to the husband.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back