SwiftVets.com

[srmorton]

I just saw an interview on Greta's show with a newspaper reporter.
She was talking about the rift that occured between Michael and
the Schindlers in 1993. On February 14 of that year, Michael says
that the Schindlers got upset with him because he would not give them
part of the money. This is the "testimony" referred to by Fort Campell
above. In fairness to the reporter, she said that the Schindlers told a
different side of the story. She said that they were upset because Terri
had an infection that Michael would not allow to be treated.

Later, Terri's brother Bobby was on the phone and said that what Michael
said about the incident was totally untrue. The family was upset that he
was not continuing with the rehabilitation that he had promised to provide
for Terri in order to get the settlement in the first place.

So once again, we only have Michael's word for it that the Schindlers
ever made any such request of him. With his track record and his
obvious moral deficiencies, I would bet that the Schindlers' account is
the accurate one.
_________________
Susan R. Morton

[USS Endicott]

Fort Cambell, I'm sorry to hear that you had to go through something similar to what Terri's family are going through. However, your case is different. As you said "My husband died in 1997 after a four year battle with cancer. He did sign a Living Will and declined ventilaters and feeding tubes. He also had a DNR Order . For that I am thankful. I did not have to endure the personal attacks and character assassination that Mr. Schiavo is undergoing." There is the difference, your husband did have a living will. Terri did not have one, so the judges decision comes down to believing the word of a man who's actions have been questionable. What makes her ex's word carry more weight than four of her family members and several of her friends?

To be truthful, I have no problem with debating this case. One the story first broke, before all the details were released, I leaned more towards removing the tube. My thinking was that I would not want to live like that. After hearing discussions and debate on this topic, I have changed my mind. First off, I was projecting my feelings and beliefs onto Terri and determined that since I would not want to live like that, she wouldn't. However, my beliefs and feelings are not Terri's. I don't know how she truly felt about euthanasia, did she consider it a mercy killing or a suicide that was against God's laws? Since she never gave a written record of her beliefs, all we have is the word of those who know her. Most friends and family say that she would not want this and her ex husband says she would. We will never know for sure what she wanted. Since we will never know, it seems we should err on the side of life in this case. What is wrong with allowing this woman the benefit of a doubt and allowing a review of her circumstances.

Secondly, as I am now, I would not want to live like Terri. However, in a diminished mental state, that belief could change. How can we be sure that Terri does not find some joy in life, maybe just in seeing her parents. She is like an infant, does this mean that an infant does not feel pain, does not feel happiness?

What worries me about this case is that we now have judges determining what the quality of life is and when it should be terminated for citizens who have commited no crime. And when the sentence comes, they don't even have the mercy to kill the victim quickly. No, the judges think it is more humane to let her starve for a few weeks until she is dead. If a person were to starve an old dog, cat, horse, duck, rabbit, rat or any other animal because they were too old to care for themselves and then went before a judge, they would be convicted for cruelty to animals. It takes decades to end the life of a deathrow inmate and when we do we have to do it in a quick, painless manner. Scott Peterson will have more hearings to save his life than what Terri has had.

In the future, is the inability to feed oneself the bar we will use to determine if a person is alive or dead? Will we decide that the mentally impaired are not living the right quality of life and have them starved to death? After we decide to exterminate the impaired and disabled, will we go after certain other undesirables? I have known people who could not feed themselves and they were not dead or vegatables or so much garbage to be gotten rid of.
_________________
"God Bless America and keep watch over our military personnel. Thanks to all who have served and are serving now!" from a California American.

[Jerald L. Parsoneault]

I have read the arguments for both sides of this issue, and, for the life of me, I can't figure out why some people zealously argue that starving Terri to death is the right thing to do. . . some even rant and rave about this whole thing being political.

I read the other day that Terri's mother is searched before she is allowed to visit her daughter, this inorder to prevent her from bringing Terri any water. Is it "political" to think that a mother should be able to give her child dying of thirst a small cup of water, or even a tiny bit of water from an eyedropper to moisten her daugter's lips or mouth. . . . .how can anybody with the slightest amount of humanity think this is right? Where do people who order, condone, and enforce such torture come from?

God bless Governor Bush if he can still do something.


Nalt

[scotty61]

[Rdtf]

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Okay chill. Scotty, you are correct in that the topic is open for debate.

Fort Campbell made repeated comments that implied that we were all naive and ignorant of the matter.

But she didn't leave because one person drove her off. There were several who disagreed with her and perhaps the discussion was hitting too close to home for her. It seemed clear that she was identifying with the spouse in this case - maybe it felt as she were being attacked whenever we said something disparaging about the spouse.

But, in the end, she left because she chose to, not because one person cannot tolerate dissent. Such is the life of a bulletin board - it ebbs and flows.

And Rdtf, nowhere do I see that Scotty has called you "stupid" or implied that you are.

I think nerves are getting beyond "a little frazzled," here. I know mine are.

Meanwhile, as we bicker and pee in each other's Wheaties, you might not notice that the media is already re-writing this story. In history, it'll be a couple of phrases that are starting to go something like this;

"One heartbroken family who couldn't give up despite all scientific evidence, supported by a handful of bible-thumping, abortion clinic bombers."
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[tony54]

In Ohio you must have a "living will" for any such action to take place.
If all you needed was hearsay, no one would have a living will,
just tell your paperboy what you want done to you, and he can relay it.
Secondly, no "living will" can authorize dehydration and starvation.
By law Doctors have to make every effort to keep you alive other than "artificial" life support. Oral intake of water is not "artificial life support" so by forbidding anyone from giving water orally they overstepped their bounds.
Basically the husband and the judge are trying to purposely end her life.
And that's called MURDER.