Coral Rhedd

Thanks for that one. My first chuckle of the day.

Yes, I believe in active euthanasia. The same kindness and courtesy that I would grant to my dog, I would also grant to another human being. I would hope in some circumstance that such kindness and courtesty would be granted to me. I think that this was where you were trying to get to with your reference to thoat-cutting, was it not? I lived on a ranch for many years and saw animals slaughtered by that method. It is not a pretty sight, but the animals suffered little and far less than they would have if starved, notwithstanding that I believe Terri Schiave will feel nothing. It has also been explained to me by an oncology nurse that, even with consciousness, as the patient's body begins to shut down death is quite painless. Since neither I nor she has not actually experienced such a death, I cannot vouch for her opinion. I know I am venturing into an area that will disgust and frighten some people, but blood is clean and hypocrisy is not. Morphine is not used more often, I think, because of we have more squeamishness about people actually enjoying themselves than we do about death. Some people seem to think that death should be a "true," possibly positive, wholly natural spiritual experience. I say that if we can ease someone on their way, we should. Any other action, connotes tyranny. Should we use active euthanasia when the person indicated such a wish in an advance directive. Of course we should. Any other action connotes cowardice. Noted.

The site you gave is a clear propaganda site for the Schindler's and "right-to-life" causes. I don't get my information from such clearly biased sources. What you call "facts" are clearly one-sided. As someone who once worked in the newspaper business, I prefer my information to be as objective as is possible. Call me old-fashioned, but there are huge differences between a news story and an editorial. Daily newspapers used to be the backbone of intelligent information in this country before they were infected by the desire to pander to their readers with stories more closely related to gossip than fact. Perhaps you are too young to remember this. If this is someone on television, I don't watch television. I believe I have stated that elsewhere on this site. I went to this link and read it. It is acceptable. However, it did not change my mind. The character, or lack of it, of Terri Schiavo's husband has nothing to do with the fact that I think "Terri's Law" is an improper venture of the Legislative Branch into Judicial territory. BTW, you should learn to spell idle, guidance, whether, it's and many others, but I am too bored with your ranting to look back at your other posts.

Florida law allows the removal of sustenence, seeing it as a form of treatment. She is not eating as a normal person would. By law, a person has a right to refuse all forms on medical intervention. If you were hospitalized for any physical illness, you could at any time demand the termination of treatment. Advance directives are ways in which people say in advance of illness what treatment they would or would not accept. The courts have held that Terri Schiavo made statements to her husband and others in advance of falling ill that she would not want to be sustained by such supports. So yes, according to current law, it is just a matter of letting nature take its course without treatment. Her heart will stop working. Her brain ceased to function long ago. What people cannot understand is that modern medicine has made it possible for "death" to be a long lingering process rather than a single event. If the heart stops, the brain is deprived of oxygen and brain damage can occur. The heart can then be started again by medical intervention, and kept going indefinitely. But if all meaningful activity has ceased in the brain, what is the point? Schiavo suffered brain damage that put her in a Persistent Vegetative State. Doctors who have examined her have said this repeatedly. Just how many people do you want to keep alive in this state? Hundreds of thousands? This is possible. Is this what we want? If public resources are used to keep these "living" dead alive, how many children will lack medical and proper nutrition because of it? Everything about this case has been an appalling waste of resources: time, effort, money, emotion. It is ghoulish.

IMO, she is already dead. When her heart stops, when her lungs stop, it is only two less functions. Without her brain functioning, little else matters. But, like funerals, the formality of her "death" should be for the living. That is why cutting her throat would not do. Aardvark wishes to shock us I think. It is a strategy that seems excessive.

We define death how? By the lack of a heartbeat? You can keep someone's heartbeating indefinitely. How is that life? Were I conscious but trapped by her circumstances, I would wish someone would kill me. If someone who is unable to kill herself requests that you do that for them, is that murder? We distinguish between killing and murder.

I have posted a link and you have not. You have presented assertions but not evidence. Furthermore, you have not refuted my link which you prefer to characterize as rubbish without saying why. I do not believe you have read it. Judging by your posts tonight, I am not sure you can read it. And why should I be polite to someone who argues by attack, by calling me an idiot and "trailor trash?" You are not aquitting yourself well tonight.

Where are your links Newtonian? If you have been researching, where is your evidence? All you have presented is piety and emotionalism. Show us some proof of your assertions. Answer this: Do you recognize a person's right to refuse medical care? Answer this: Do you think that medical care should be withheld at a person's advance directive when they are in a Persistent Vegetative State? If you cannot answer yes to these questions then your argument amounts to the fact that Michael is a bad person. So what? The world is full of bad people! The courts have chosen to believe time and time again that he told the truth when he said Terri had indicated she would not wish to be kept alive by such means. Unless you were a fly on the wall during a private conversation in which she said the contrary, you cannot know what her wishes were. I do not find it unlikely that this is an issue that a husband and wife would discuss. I do not believe that your arguments have anything to do with the case at hand. I believe that you are one of those perserve life at all costs and under whatever circumstances people. Instead of creating a smoke screen, defend your basic premise!

You didn't read the link I posted' date=' did you? http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119 The one which said: So Michael wasn't the only one who wanted some to the money. You seem to think you are the only one who has access to the facts. Where are your links. On the radio tonight I heard that Michael objected to surgeries that would keep her alive when he felt that this would be very much against her wishes. These matter really come down to he said, they said. What the doctors have generally said in the cases before the court is that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state. Why should I care what the President says? His politics are not mine and I didn't vote for him. Why should I care what the Pope says? I am not Catholic. As for Terri's parents, of course I am sad for them. But I do believe in principle of Separation of Powers and the President and the politicians have overstepped their boundaries. I bet the current judge rules the same. Could you please tell me what AH means? I am too stupid to figure it out on my own and would appreciate your elaboration.

Ah yes, well in the countryside we all boffing each other's spouses. Clearly your trailer trash reference means you think I am a Southerner, but I can assure you that I am a Texan through and through.

If she is alive as you contend' date=' she should be able to express her own wishes about divorce. Since when do parents get to decide that their children should be divorced. Suspicious how? That people should want a share of money. Sounds quite human to me. Are you aware that Terri's parents admitted to wanting a share of Michael's lawsuit award? This is simply not true. Did you read the link I posted? But he does not. Are you aware that Terri died because a physician did not catch the signs of bulimia that were endangering her life. It was Michael who brought and won the lawsuit. Are you aware of what the term "loss of consortium means?" Terri cannot really act as a wife to Michael anymore. Whatever his motives, moving on to form another relationship does not make him a monster. Tell me Lance, just how long would you be willing to remain celibate and alone, watching your chances for love and children bypass you?

Cadmus, what he received $300,000 dollars for was "loss of consortium." We can put whatever spin we want on it, but for all emotional and physical intents and purposes, he doesn't have a wife. Legally he has a wife. That is hardly a ceremony I would stand on. It is not like he is 80 years old, is it? If he wants to have a sexual and emotional bond with another woman, he is only normal. Lance and Newtonian would like to argue that he is committing adultery only because they want to make the case that she is still "alive." If Michael were enjoying sex with her still, they would then argue that he is a beast.

To add a little more less emotional background: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119 These same players have certainly been on this same stage before. What is sad is that the star can't take bows. This poor woman cannot see and cannot understand how people she once loved fight over money like dogs over a bone. It is silly to pretend that either her parents or her husband have high intentions. That is placing an interpretation upon their feelings that we cannot know from news stories. We can only surmise. What is clear is that laws are being passed to cater to this one individual case. Jeb and George are trying to override Florida state law. I think I can probably surmise more about their political intentions than I can about Terri Schiavo's family members. Last night, prompted by this circus of a case, my daughter and I discussed on the phone how, when she next visits, we will both make Living Wills and tape record our feelings and intentions about being kept alive in such a state. Neither one of us would want our lives prolonged by either medical care or sustenance. The purpose of a Living Will is to speak for us when we cannot speak for ourselves.

Hi Bettina, I googled HSP and I was a little confused when the first site was for a Hot Soup Processor. I finally figured out that it means Highly Sensitive Person. So I went this site and took the test and guess what? I'm one too. Although many of the questions would also pick up anyone who is Inatttentive ADD, which I also am. But I don't think the DSM actually lists HSP as a mental disorder, which is good because you don't want to be mentally disordered if you can help it. I do few reassured however that eventually all of us will be diagnosed. And sooner or later, we will all be medicated as well. BTW, I don't think my heart is blue or I wouldn't be breathing. Wait a minute. I can't catch my breath. Oh dear . . . gaaaasp! glug! Well, it was nice knowing you guys.

Boy did you say it! At least I wouldn't remarry my ex. I married him at 19. It should be against the law to get married at 19. Why is pot illegal but getting married at 19 is not?

Okay. I think that most people separate the idea of friendship and romance fairly definitively when they are young. I see you are 18 and therefore must be dealing with girls about that age. At that age, girls really want something exciting and romantic to happen in their lives, especially right after high school. They want life to begin. Friendships they already know. Maybe they know some experimentation with relationships with boys. This stuff is familiar. What they usually do not know is that great passsion they are looking for. (Nevermind that they may have had other great passions. Nothing is deader than passion past.) So if you are a nice gentlemanly fellow who doesn't like to be pushy and is maybe a little shy, you will be establishing friendship. Which is, in the opinion of someone as old as I, not at all a bad basis for a relationship. Trouble is, with girls around my daughter's age (22) or younger, once you fit yourself into the friendship category, you may have trouble being seen any other way. Now the best thing to do is learn to achieve a friendship that establishes trust and the beginning of romance. (Forgive me if I am not addressing directly your most pressing concerns, but I am old fashioned and like the word romance.) How to do that? The absolutely best way I know to do this is good humor and mild flirting. These are very much related. Learn to establish that your interest may be more than friendship alone early in an acquaintance by being warm, humorous, and caring. Add a little teasing and a companionable arm around the shoulder. And then, once you have their attention ask them out if you are so inclined. If you are not inclined, prepare to spend some time alone. The world has not evolved to the point where guys and girls do equal asking. A friend of mine once said that if men read romance novels they would learn to seduce women. I very much disagreed with her. What works in books sounds silly in real life. Instead, in my opinion, people of both sexes wanting to learn more about how to appeal to the opposite sex should watch a movie called "The Horse Whisperer." Don't watch the relationship between the man and the woman. You will only learn a little from that. Watch the relationship between the man and the horse.