What are your beliefs on euthanizing someone in a state that she was in? Who should have the right to decide on the procedure, and what about the persons wishes, such as her, she told her husband that if she fell in a state like that she would want to be killed. One thing that I really not agree with at all was the way they euthanized her, by starving her, wouldn't it be easier to have given her a leathal injection?
2006-07-01 10:15:50 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Terry Schiavo should have been let go long before she was. The only thing that held her here were her parents. I know it is hard to lose a child but she was gone along time ago. At autopsy the pathologist said her brain was liquid. She was not living. And she did not starve to death. My father died at home and he would not eat for the last 5 days( he was semi comatose). And her husband did not kill her , he let her go to God. And I would bet she is smiling on him now. In her state she felt nothing. My family knows my wishes and I hope yours does too.
2006-07-01 10:40:30 · answer #1 · answered by olderandwiser 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
technically, they did not euthanize her, which is helping the dying process along, such as a lethal injection. What they did was stop the treatment to the dying process by removing her feeding tube, and allowed her to basically starve to death. They withheld treatment rather than actively assist in her death. They let her die. I know, its a technicality, but its the one that fit what they did.
I don't know which way to feel in her case. There are too many people shouting and getting involved in a very painful process for the families. What I took from this is: WRITE DOWN WHAT YOU WANT DONE TO YOU IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES.
This way, there is no argument to what your wishes are. Don't believe that you are too young to do this, Terry was in her early to mid 20s I believe when she entered her condition.
2006-07-01 10:23:23 · answer #2 · answered by Raidered81 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they just gave her a lethal injection, they could've saved some money as well as this all being over soon. After all, she was in a coma for 15 years.
Since she said she'd want to be killed if she went into such a state, they've should've killed her off a long time ago!!! It was her wish, after all!
The whole thing was just screwy.
2006-07-01 10:25:42 · answer #3 · answered by Elizabeth 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that Euthanasia is right only if the person requests it and with the families consent. I wouldn't want to see anyone suffer like the way terry Schiavo did. But it's hard to watch any one die especially when it's someone you love. I disagree with the way they performed the euthanasia, it would of been less drama with the lethal injection.
2006-07-01 10:29:28 · answer #4 · answered by Da Kid 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I remember it. It was handled all wrong. I defiantly would not want to be kept alive by artificial means, and luckily my parents, kids, ex-husband and his new wife, all know how I feel. Unfortunately I came close to it a couple of years ago but luckily I lived. But I am lucky that if it ever does happen, plenty of the right people know my feelings. Everybody should tell more than one person their feelings on this subject to keep another controversy from happening. Terri was treated wrong I feel so sorry for her, but she is at peace now.
2006-07-01 10:33:37 · answer #5 · answered by creeklops 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think she actually told her husband she'd want to be killed if she was ever incapacitated. I'm sure she said something along the lines of " I don't want to be in a vegetative state, so don't string me along, let me die" I think living wills are very very important. You need to let people know what your wishes are or your life will be in someone elses hands who will try to do their best, but it might not be what you were expecting. Starvation would cause a more natural death versus actually murdering someone with drugs and chemicals.
2006-07-01 10:22:28 · answer #6 · answered by Me 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, first they did not euthinize her. Euthinasia is introducing a compound to the body to cause death. As far as I know, that is still illegal. What they did is remove all methods of artifical life support.
Now the beleif, well in absence of living will it should be up to the next of kin if means of supporting the life of a person her condition shall remain. In this case the next of kin was the husband. In no case should it be the decision of any church or goverment official.
2006-07-01 10:26:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I believe she will live in alot of peoples hearts for many years to come. She was really a good survivor, she lasted what 10 years on life support,and being in a coma. Though her brain was detereating,she was still able to recognize who was in her room, i.e. parents, siblings and no good husband.
That husband of hers was dating a woman for many of years before they decided to pull the plug from her, to get that big life insurance policy.I would not do that to a loved one of mine, unless they said UPFRONT or had a stipulation made up saying if ever in a bad accident, I dont want to live if it means being on life support.
2006-07-01 10:38:52 · answer #8 · answered by Moose 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a very emotional issue.
But I believe that if there is no hope for recovery, there is no point in prolonging the life and the anguish of that persons loved ones. I know there will be many that disagree with this position, but that how I feel on this one.
2006-07-01 10:23:46 · answer #9 · answered by whisperer 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey its the families choice really. I would say it was a burden not only to the family but the state as well if she was going to be that way for the rest of her life, she was being kept alive by machines. If there were not machines to feed her and keep her alive she would have died that way anyways.
2006-07-01 10:20:45 · answer #10 · answered by irishfan46241 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋