I just have 2 things to say on this matter:

1. Isn't it interesting how the religious right-wing accuse us of "playing god", and claim that "god wants her to live". I would think that if anything is "playing god", it's using an artificial life support system to keep someone alive. (Yet another example that religious extemism has no place in society!) And anyone suggesting that she'll somehow just get better is sadly deluded.

2. Would YOU want to live (if that's the right term), in that state? Not on any planet can you call that "quality of life". I think those desparate to keep her alive are more concerned about their "cause", than what the woman would actually want for herself. Do they really think someone would choose to exist in that state? I suggest it's cruel to keep someone alive in that state.

I experienced a TIA in 2000 - a mild stroke which rendered me with slurred speech, no control of my right side whatsoever, short term distortions to my sight and hearing. I have had other serious medical experiences but nothing compares to the loss of control of our bodies or reduction to a state of "conscious helplessness".
Mine was a very mild TIA, I was in emergency within 30 minutes, being pumped full of heprin, from which I made full recovery.

You can all speculate or pontificate about "life" with "brain death" all you like and this poor womans state of existence for the past 15 years.

My personal experience of something which might have left me in or close to such a state as hers is - when I die I want it to be fast, final and absolute, no entrapment within a husk where I am held a prisoner, conscious yet helpless. Nothing you can “imagine” compares to having actually been there.

The correct thing for her parents to have done would have been to recognise their daughters life was over. Their demand is the self-indulgent rubbish which comes from those who are entirely self-centred and unprepared to respond maturely to the cards life dealt their daughter.

Part 1

As for how Terri’s quality of life is, that is the problem, that we do not know!
No person in his right mind would want to end up in the conditions Terri did but not on her own free will. She is not on life support, just on a feeding tube, as many people are after operations or who are in a coma, etc.
If we can argue that the removal of feeding tube is justified as it is a life support item, then we are justifying to kill all of people on feeding tube due to some ill health, babies born premature, etc.

If Terri entered hospital and her CT scans showed her brain was functioning normal, then perhaps some visitor might have just given some “helping hand” to try to kill her but perhaps was disturbed to complete the job then and now has it done by law.
After all, it is not uncommon for children to be smothered to death while in hospital, even by their own mothers, as shown on video tape recordings in hospital!
Who ever checked this out?

What is clear is that Terri was neglected and denied appropriate treatment from start, and how she ended up in current circumstances therefore ought no t determine her right to life or not. To do so would enhance for others to neglect the ill and the disabled, etc!

We as a society can perhaps use any excuse to exterminate the ill, the frail, the disabled, etc but to do so we no longer are an society but a bunch of hypocrites that only care about our own benefits.

We may look upon Terri as if she has no life to live, but for Terri it might be totally different. To her, having her family around might be more meaning full then the past separation with her family!

We have no right to judge the quality of life of Terri, where she is a person who can breath the air on her own, and as such remains to function as a human being.

Gerrit,
Babies born prematurely have something to look forward to. To suggest it should be treated the same way is to show you have little understanding of the terms "vegetative" or "brain dead". Take the emotion out of the argument and look at the facts. Any free thinking person can see that this woman is merely existing, not living. Once again, keeping her alive in this state is serving the religious right-wing cause only.

So now we've established that Terry Shiavo has absolutely no rights as a human being, the question boils down to who should have the right to say whether she lives or dies. Whether you think she should die or not is irrelevant. In every case such as this someone has to make the decision. So should it be left with the husband, who has clearly moved on with his life, or with her parents, who have known and loved her her whole life?

The question is the same if the roles were reversed. Who should make the decision if Terry's husband, having gotten on with his life, still wants her to live, and her family who wants to spare her anymore suffering?

What is best for Terry obviously means nothing. If she's brain dead, then starving to death would cause her no pain, similarly her going on living means nothing as she would have no clue to her state. But her being alive obviously is inconvenient to some, and her starving to death makes others uncomfortable. The only question is who has the right to make the decision. (And who pays for it).

Cranky "The only question is who has the right to make the decision?”

I attempted to answer this in an earlier post, since I agree, when someone is incompetent a guardian is needed to act on their behalf.

I believe to answer the question you raise, the context must be separated from the emotional hyperbole which now taints this particular situation but to re-phrase what I wrote previously -

“Parental right of decision” should not prevail over the sanctity of marriage and the authority of a chosen spouse. Otherwise, we are ignoring the ascendancy to maturity of the offspring and the very nature of the relationship found in marriage.

Take a simpler example, a married couple wish to move from one state to another, should a parent / grandparent have legal right to deny them to relocate because it means they will see less of their child / grand-children ?

If you say "yes", "parents should be allowed to intervene to stop their adult children from relocating themselves and the grandchildren" – please explain your reasoning