[candy wy.]

Originally Posted by Taffyles Yes my sympathies are with the husband- he lived with the Schindlers for a few years after Terri's collapse and all was hunky dory with them until it became clear there would be no recovery for Terri- that's when the trouble started. In '98 he petitioned to have her feeding tube removed having tried everything. Every court involved in this case has said that the parents don't have any evidence to make a case to re-insert the feeding tube. Terri had told her sister- in -law and close friends that she would not want to be kept alive artifically.

i wonder though how many people really think about what they are saying in situations like this. to me being kept alive artifically meant life support machines.
not a feeding tube, being given food to me is not an artifical way of being kept alive.

[jjmb]

Just read this article in the Guardian and it had me in tears.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/salon/stor...444823,00.html
I have a 17yr old son and in all honesty, I don't know how I would cope if this was my situation but I would hope I would do what was 'best' for my son, despite the pain it would cause me.

[Lesley1020]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4380997.stm

[Iginla]

Originally Posted by candy wy. not a feeding tube, being given food to me is not an artifical way of being kept alive.

It is to me.

No-one naturally ingests their food via a plastic tube through their skin and into their stomach. It is an artificial feeding method.

[candy wy.]

Originally Posted by Iginla It is to me. No-one naturally ingests their food via a plastic tube through their skin and into their stomach. It is an artificial feeding method.

so are you saying that anyone who has a feeding tube should be allowed to die?
people have kidney dialysis that is an artificial way of cleaning the kidney,so you would not want kidney dialysis you would want to be allowed to die in that situation? even though you could live a fairly normal life?

[AlisonPA]

I still want to know why her estranged husband has all the right to say whether she lives or dies. He lives with another woman and has two children by this woman. I have been lots of court transcripts from 1992 when her husband was awarded the money for her care. He said he loved her and would look after her and get her the best treatment and wanted her home. The next year she developed an urinary tract infection and he refused to have her treated for it. He was told that if was not treated that it would spread and possibly kill her. He said he realised that. He refused her any type of treatment that might actually have helped her then but now it has gone on far too long. That poor woman. I certainly hope she isn't trapped inside her body and knows she's being starved to death!

[Iginla]

Originally Posted by candy wy. so are you saying that anyone who has a feeding tube should be allowed to die? people have kidney dialysis this is an artificial way of cleaning the kidney,so you would not want kidney dialysis you would want to be allowed to die in that situation? even though you could live a fairly normal life?

Please don't twist my words.

I was simply pointing out to you that a feeding tube is an artificial way of sustaining life.

If the individual was in PVS such as the individual concerned then yes I would cease kidney dialysis.

You are the one that mentioned a "fairly normal life". You're moving the goal posts. Think about it.

Can you elaborate how giving food to someone who has no swallow reflex via a tube that goes through the skin into the stomach is not artificial?

[Iginla]

Originally Posted by AlisonPA I still want to know why her estranged husband has all the right to say whether she lives or dies.

Because he is legally her NOK.

[AlisonPA]

Originally Posted by Iginla Because he is legally her NOK.

I guess that's why he wouldn't divorce her then - so he can stay her next of kin. I find it appalling that it has always been the same judge (Judge Greer) that has resided over all the local court cases.

[fatbrit]

Originally Posted by AlisonPA I guess that's why he wouldn't divorce her then - so he can stay her next of kin. I find it appalling that it has always been the same judge (Judge Greer) that has resided over all the local court cases.

Who would be best to make this decision?

GWB?
Congress?
Joe the Ragman?
My local pastor on a mission from god?
Man on top of a Clapham omnibus?
Vote on a newsgroup poll?

Would seem to me the next of kin, i.e. in this case the husband, along with oversight by a court is the best way to go.

[AlisonPA]

Originally Posted by fatbrit Who would be best to make this decision? GWB? Congress? Joe the Ragman? My local pastor on a mission from god? Man on top of a Clapham omnibus? Vote on a newsgroup poll? Would seem to me the next of kin, i.e. in this case the husband, along with oversight by a court is the best way to go.

If her husband was now her ex-husband he would not be the next of kin. In all essence he has a new life. I do not believe he should make the decision.

[candy wy.]

Originally Posted by Iginla Please don't twist my words. I was simply pointing out to you that a feeding tube is an artificial way of sustaining life. If the individual was in PVS such as the individual concerned then yes I would cease kidney dialysis. You are the one that mentioned a "fairly normal life". You're moving the goal posts. Think about it. Can you elaborate how giving food to someone who has no swallow reflex via a tube that goes through the skin into the body is not artificial?

giving someone food is not artificial in my mind food is something that we take for granted every day of our lives to survive. how that food is administered does not in my mind make any difference. there are a lot of people on feeding tubes for different reasons. so would it be right to pull there feeding tubes and let them die just because they don't swallow there food.
sorry but in my mind if someone can breath on there own and the heart beats on its own then refusuing them food is nothing less than murder

[Iginla]

Originally Posted by AlisonPA If her husband was now her ex-husband he would not be the next of kin. In all essence he has a new life. I do not believe he should make the decision.

But the fact of the matter is that he is not her ex-husband.

Can you prove to me that he doesn't care about her?

[fatbrit]

Originally Posted by AlisonPA If her husband was now her ex-husband he would not be the next of kin. In all essence he has a new life. I do not believe he should make the decision.

But he is! Do you not believe he should not make the decision because you don't like his decision. If the mother were authorized to make the decision instead, and she wanted the tube removed but the husband did not, would you reverse again?

[candy wy.]

Originally Posted by fatbrit But he is! Do you not believe he should not make the decision because you don't like his decision. If the mother were authorized to make the decision instead, and she wanted the tube removed but the husband did not, would you reverse again?

i think if she hasn't got anything in writing no one should be making any dicisions because no one knows what she wanted..