Part 2
We cannot now refuse any kind of emergency care to a person who may have a heart attack or otherwise may need to be placed on a life support system upon the basis that they are less human because at that moment they cannot breath the air by themselves and as such lost their right to live!

What we have is Hitler’s curse, as he wanted to dispose of the disabled, the elderly, etc and we seem to be introducing the very legal steps that another wannabe Hitler can use.
Just consider then that one of your own children may fall ill and rather then being given an opportunity to recover, it be standard practice that some people are less human and are simply terminated being it by starving to death or otherwise, while people in so called “high positions” remain to have or are considered to be of value and they are given all medical care.
What standards in today’s society are we really aiming for?

If Terri, so to say, was brain death, then turning of her life support machine would simply end her life. However, there is no life support machine keeping her alive and so this is not some (so called) “humane” way to resolve it.
Terri, as like you and me requires to eat and to drink, and that is the real issue. If she can be starved to death for whatever excuse, then the same can be done to any other person under whatever excuse, regardless if they are sick or not!

We are dealing with the act of deliberately starving a person to death, as was the gruesome experiments Hitler’s cronies were doing.
We are no better then them if we use any excuse to starve a person to death!
A convicted killer sentenced to death must be provided with a quick “HUMANE” death by lethal injection or otherwise, while an innocent woman is ordered to slowly STARVE TO DEATH!
Why do the supporters of such gruesome killing say “HAIL HITLER” to show their true colours?

An email received by me had some of the following;

QUOTE
Hennessy pointed to several Florida statutes that have
been disregarded by Greer, including one which states that
an incapacitated person cannot be deprived of food and
water.

Several other statutes regarding the care of people not
able to speak for themselves point to requirements for
neurological testing, requirements for a permanent
diagnosis before the withdrawal of life-prolonging means
and a state law that forbids mercy killing and assisted
suicide.

The foundation stated in a press release that unless the
"true neurological condition of Terri Schiavo" is assessed
prior to the removal of her feeding tube, Greer's order is
"a directive for her guardian to commit either a mercy
killing or assisted suicide."

END QUOTE

We had some doctor declaring that people in Terri’s condition do not suffer pain. Well, why then do they use morphine to reduce her feelings of suffering?

As for grandparents and even a separated parent, contact with a grandchild/child that is another issue, albeit, I would argue, in principle, for the rights of grandparents to see their grandchildren and visa versa.

As for Terri being an adult (mature), where she no longer is medically competent to run her own affairs, then who should be her competent guardian is the issue!

The husband, having commenced another relationship and fathered 2 children in that hardly could be deemed to be a proper guardian as he has gone against Terri’s right of having a husband, not sharing him!
Also, where it appears she had bone fractures, that are unexplained, which was apparently not known when he was made guardian, then this also makes him undesirable, as he could be the perpetrator of domestic violence, indeed could have caused Terri to end up in hospital!

In view that Governor Jeb Bush in 2003 did override Terri’s husbands desire to have his wife starved to death, then that was a clear statement that the guardianship was wrongly used, and as such the State of Florida must be seen to have relinquished the guardianship of Terri to her husband

Col Rouge – generally speaking, the spouse has the final right to make decisions regarding their wife/husband. I don’t think you’d find too many arguing any different. However, this is not the case in this example. Terry’s husband has certainly moved on with his life. A new girlfriend and two children certainly show that he can no longer be considered her husband in anyway other than name only. Terry has been in this state for along time, so you can’t blame him for getting on with his life. But it is also for this reason that he probably is not the best person to be given the decision as to whether she lives or dies.

Unfortunately it’s impossible to keep the emotional out of the argument. Pro-life people will always adopt the pro-life stance, and vice versa. In other words people will always barrack for whoever shares their views. This debate needs to take place when there are no unfortunate Terry Shiavos’ to cloud the issue of guardianship.

I would just like to point out again that the husband did not make the decision. He asked the court to decide Terri's wishes, it did and now he cannot change that.

Cranky – laws are designed to accommodate the likely circumstance. They should not be designed to accommodate a particular or specific circumstance. I see no merit in pretending that extreme circumstances prevail to deny Mr Schiavo the presumptions which would extend to any other individual simply because his in-laws object. That someone has “moved on with their life” does not mean a de-facto diminution their rights or obligations in marriage, only the legal separation or cessation of the marriage can do that. Unless, of course, you wish to direct the law into an area of obscurity where visibility is reduced to zero by a fog of emotionally founded extenuations.

I would tend to agree with the general sentiment expressed by individuals who argue against maintaining life support when the patient is in a miserable vegetative state. It is an exceptionally difficult call to make, and please God I don't ever have to make it myself, but living a life of absolute misery(through paralysis or immobility for example) and being catatonic is unfair and cruel. It is unfair to the victim of tragedy and to the family members and loved ones who witness the slow and inevitable decline in the physical and/or mental condition of the patient. Perhaps lawmakers should not be called upon to enforce action, but guidelines need to be drawn up, however vague they might be.