Comments: The quality of mercy

Yes, that's what the law says, but if we were paying attention to the actual laws in this case, her husband would be in jail for adultery. It's still in the law, and her husband is living with another woman, has two children with her, and calls her his fiancee. Money is also an issue here, as when Teresa Schiavo dies, he gets the remainder of a $20 million dollar legal settlement. You should look up the sworn statement of the nurse that used to help take care of her. He wants her to die, so that he can get the money, and marry his fiancee. Her parents offered him a divorce, so that he could marry this woman, and they could take over her care, but he wouldn't do it. He wants the money. She was not on life support, and she would "talk" to her nurses and family, even though her speech is garbled. Just because she can't feed herself, she should starve to death? By that reasoning all newborns, end-stage alzheimers patients, and any other person disabled so as not to be able to feed themselves should die. It's not right, and it shouldn't be happening. Should the federal gov't have stepped in, no, but somebody needs to. This is WRONG, INDECENT, and INHUMANE. Starving to death, or dying of dehydration are not "pleasant" or "peaceful" ways to die. This is WRONG. Her parents are willing to pay for her care, and to grant her husband a divorce. Shouldn't they be allowed to take over?

Posted by Chad at March 23, 2005 09:34 AM

I have enough doubts in both directions I wouldn't want to make the decision. I wouldn't want to live like that but that's just me, now.

That being said, what bugs me is the word games they're playing - "allowing her to die". What a crock. They're killing her and they should admit that. Then they could give her the same decent execution any convicted murderer gets instead of torturing her to death.

I wouldn't want to live like her, no - but I'd want even less to be starved to death.

Posted by Jay at March 23, 2005 01:24 PM

Good post Debbye.

I believe it was Saint Thomas of Aquinas who said that a bad law is no law.

Positive law (enacted by legislatures) draws its ultimate authority from the fact that it is consistent with natural law and Divine law.

When it fails this test, as it does most egregiously with Terri Schiavo, it compels neither respect, nor obedience, from citizens.


Posted by John the Mad at March 23, 2005 11:19 PM

I have a living will. Even with that, my family would not find much guidance for Terri's circumstances. I vote for her continued life because her ex-husband's word is too suspect, convenient, and 'timely'. And I don't think she should be neglected to death if we don't know what she wants. Her parents want her to receive aggressive therapy toward improvement. Her ex has demanded and succeeded in preventing this. I just don't think he is speaking in her interests and I certainly don't trust him.
It is not enough for us to say what we would want, even if we knew her real prognosis. It is what she would want and we just don't know.

Posted by mikem at March 23, 2005 11:51 PM

How cute! The righties grab the new talking points that FOX was hammering home today about the husband being abusive and motivated by greed (despite the fact that both claims are total bullshit). You'll just parrot anything back as long as your told. You people are no better than Party members in the USSR. Are the networks and blogsphere your version of Pravda?

Stalin would love people like you.*

I'l look out with that living will mikem!! Your posts prove that you're already brain dead!
(OH SNAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!)**

* FIRST WITH THE STALIN REFERENCE! I PRE-EMPT ALL OF YOU!

** No "CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADIANS" Mikem? You must be losing your (retarded) touch. Looks like i broke you.

Posted by Blackglasses at March 24, 2005 08:18 PM