*I* decided nothing. I went off the comments of Dr. Hammesfahr, who spent a heck of a lot more time with Terri than Michael’s two “doctors.”

As far as the autopsy report, it held very little value for me considering that I think it’d be a little easier to tell how Terri function when she was alive, rather than dead (that almost goes without saying). And no doubt being starved to death for two weeks did absolutely nothing to help matters, either.

You decided that “Terri Schiavo can and does respond to what’s going on around her”; now doctors have performed an autopsy and guess what? There wasn’t enough gray matter to power an amoeba, much less cognitive thinking.

Not a reason for euthanasia, but not a reason to keep her alive either. But Conservatives jumped to the conclusion that “SHE COULD TOO respond to what’s going on around her’ and now it’s been proved that that is just not so.

“Do you agree it is not logical for those who oppose humane injection, to use death by inhumane starving and thirsting as a reason why the unrecoverable should not be allowed to die?”

Truthfully, I’m not sure what to think about it anymore. For so long we’ve been told that death by starvation in a hospital was such a cruel way to let someone go, then when the Schiavo case pops up, the mediots get a hold of a few doctors and other medical experts to tell us all that death by starvation is ‘gentle’ and ‘painless’ when done in conjunction with painkillers.

“Would you agree it would likely require a lawyer’s help to meet legal requirements of *explicitly clear and in writing,”"

Yes.

“and one reason busy and budget limited folks just don’t do it?”

Sorry, I’ve not heard where getting your wishes expressed in writing is expensive.

“If so, isn’t it reasonable for our legal system to resolve family disputed cases after 15 years?”

I don’t have any problem with it being solved legally – but I think we need more deciding these cases than hearsay … and the motivations of the person advocating the pulling of the plug needs to be taken into account, too. Outside of the second GAL, no one really seemed to consider that in the Schiavo case.

“Unfortunately in Terri’s case, her husband(I use the term in a legal sense only) is behaving like a real jerk, so it is hard to use this case for a reasonable unemotional argument for a right to die.”

Yes, having ppl like M. Schiavo involved definitely clouds the issue, no question about it.

Do you agree it is not logical for those who oppose humane injection, to use death by inhumane starving and thirsting as a reason why the unrecoverable should not be allowed to die?

Would you agree it would likely require a lawyer’s help to meet legal requirements of *explicitly clear and in writing “, and one reason busy and budget limited folks just don’t do it? If so, isn’t it reasonable for our legal system to resolve family disputed cases after 15 years?

Unfortunately in Terri’s case, her husband(I use the term in a legal sense only) is behaving like a real jerk, so it is hard to use this case for a reasonable unemotional argument for a right to die.

It’s not up to me to support or not support someone’s choice to live or not live a life that you would describe as a living hell as long as the person who is going through it made their wishes *explicitly clear* and in writing *or* there’s agreement amongst the family. The best way to make sure their wishes are known are through a living will. In that case I would support their right to refuse medical treatment – but I would not support euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

I cannot support taking away the life of someone who’s wishes weren’t clear and where there’s a dispute involved based purely on hearsay. This case was tragic on multiple levels but it would not have gone as far as it did if there had been a living will present (in my view). I know many families make such difficult decisions everyday without fanfare – whether or not to continue on with a family member who’s outlook for recovery is bleak. My family did many years ago with my ailing grandmother, who’s lungs collapsed from years of smoking too much. My mother had the option to put her on life support – but she didn’t. I was in the hospital while this was taking place.

I know what you’re saying and I can appreciate it but again it’s really not up to me to support or not support someone’s right to die with dignity – as long as that person’s wishes are made very clear, I have to support their wishes. If they’ve not been made clear and there’s a dispute based on hearsay, then I support the President’s position that we err on the side of life.

Wouldn’t the more horrifying possibility, though remote, be that Terri was not ‘vegetative’(I hate this term) and was fully cognitive and living in hell for 15 long years, with 15 more to go?

I consider it a blessing for her if in fact the doctors were right and she had no sensitivities. In fact, this would be the best argument for keeping her alive, to satisfy others sensitivities without any hell for her. The better argument for letting her die would be she was cognitive.

Anchoress: Thanks!

Screenplay: Thanks for the info … I pray Terri is not suffering right now but not knowing is one of the worst parts. May God bless her.