Quote:
Originally posted by Snakeeye+Mar 30 2005, 03:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Mar 30 2005, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cube Inmate@Mar 22 2005, 10:47 PM
-If by some highly unlikely chance she's not a vegetable, but is actually aware and "trapped" in a body not functioning, then it would be a shame to kill her against her wishes. Yeh...fat chance of that. Shoulda thought about that when she had a chance to write down her wishes. Hard luck.
|
The problem here is that her husband claims it was her wish not to be kept alive in such a situation.
Of course, even if you made no declaration either way, I can't think of any better definition of hell than to be consious and aware, yet completely unable to do or communicate anything.
I'd certantly rather be put out of my misery. In this scenario, it is possible that this woman has spent the last 15 years hoping to be released from that prison. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, I agree with your opinion that being aware and "trapped" would be a living hell. That is why any adult should have some directive written down, because unfortunately the law is full of grey areas and the alleged statements to her husband aren't enough.
I was trying to make the point that if she were, somehow, aware, then you've got to think that she still has the "right" to live. A right which really shouldn't be revoked without the appropriate consent...which she didn't give. So if you don't want to live in hell, write a directive! Of course, I haven't done that. Maybe I should fire off an email to my closest relatives eh?
I think in reality she's no longer conscious...therefore, I have no problem with pulling the tube.
Edit:
From CNN story, the Schindlers are using exactly that argument, that "removing the tube represented `an unconstitutional deprivation of Terri Schiavo's constitutional right to life.' " Much of the wrangling in court is over who has jurisdiction, but it's apparent that any judge who has ruled on the case believes that she no longer has the right to life.
D'oh...500th post had to come in the off-topic forum!