Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
First up she's not in a coma as the title of this thread implies, unless you call a coma being awake and able to see and recognise faces.
I saw footage of her being carted around outside yesterday, and that's no coma Chewbacca.
|
The press is calling it a coma, but if it bothers you that much I will change the title to read "persistent vegative state victim whom doctors say has no consciousness".
Link
Quote:
|
Terri Schiavo, 39, has been in what doctors call a "persistent vegetative state" since 1990, when her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance. Her eyes are open, but doctors say she has no consciousness.
|
Her ability to recognize faces is unsubstantiated and doctors dispute that she is "awake" in so far that she is conscious and aware of her surroundings.
Amazing how so many laypeople can draw a conclusion from a short video tape when doctors on this womans case have drawn the exact opposite conclusion and testified so much in court under oath.
Who should I trust? The well-meaning laypeople or the doctors? Should I trust the courts that have heard the testimony and ruled based on the law, or the Governor who saw a short video tape and *changed* the law for this one individual and this one individual only.
I'll trust the professionals, the doctors who have treated this woman and the courts who have reveiwed *all* the facts and who arent driven by mere do- gooder-intentions and self-morality. [/QUOTE]It does bother me. My father was in a coma for three months. She is not. She is severely brain damaged. He was not.
I still don;t understand how we can get to a point where an ex-husband is able to prevent two parent from feeding a daughter who can;t feed herself. I don;t understand how we get to that point. He doesn;t own her. He has another woman. In Australia, he would not be recognised as next of kin if he's been living with another woman and has a child with her.
Why are people ignoring the million dollar payout he's already received, that he did NOT spend on her rehabilitation. How is this not lunacy? How did we get to this point? In abortion, parents are given the right to kill their child, but here they are not allowed to help their child stay alive? I don't understand.
There is reasonable doubt the woman wanted to not live if in this circumstance.
I'm repeating myself now. Feeding tube is not a respirator. Feeding tube is not a respirator. She is not terminally ill. She is not terminally ill.