I wanted to bump this thread up over here, because at RTVP. The topic has become nothing but a political battlefield... ~~~For those of you planning now to make a living will, which actually is nothing more than a death warrent, consider this...... Think of other people who might have signed their lives away if they’d had their futures described to them. What if Christopher Reeve had written a "Living Will" before falling off his horse? What if Steven Hawking had issued advanced directives in case of losing his voice and motor functions? With a "Living Will" would Tuesdays With Morrie have ever touched our hearts? Did you know that Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy lived with a feeding tube? And what if Pope John Paul II had written a "Living Will" in case of neurological impairment? (Of course, he wouldn’t. But if he wouldn’t, should you?) "My doctor would know what’s best for me," you say. Keep in mind that it’s usually specialists who guide your care in tough medical situations, not the doctor you’ve known and trusted for years. And, unfortunately, even specialists have a strong track record of being wrong. Think of the times when doctors (or the courts) have been proven wrong: Patricia White Bull awoke from an "irreversible" coma after sixteen years. Terry Wallis awakened from another "irreversible" coma after nineteen years. Rus Cooper-Dowda could hear her husband and doctors discuss when to remove her ventilator and feeding tube, since she would "never" regain any meaningful function. Unbeknownst to these doctors, Rus was pregnant at the very moment they wanted to kill her. With the surreptitious help of a nurse, she was able to recover; her son will soon turn twenty. Evan J. Kemp, Jr., former chairman of the EEOC, was told that his neurological disease would kill him by the age of 18. He’s now 59 years old, and describes himself as having "an extraordinarily high quality of life." Kate Adamson was given the diagnosis of Persistent Vegetative State and had her feeding tube removed for eight days. Though she was "locked in" and could not communicate, she was completely conscious, completely aware, and in agony from the starvation she suffered. Her husband threatened legal action until her feeding tube was restored, and Ms. Adamson is today a motivational speaker. A wheelchair-bound young man, Joe Ehman was pressured by hospital staff to sign a Do Not Resuscitate order while just waking up from anesthesia. To stop the pressure, he had to muster the strength to scream, "I’m 30 years old. I don’t want to die!" Rick Hoyt suffered from a lack of oxygen when he was born and doctors said he would live his life as a "vegetable." His parents, however, never gave up on him, and taught him to communicate with the help of a computer. Today, he’s working for Boston College to develop mobility aids that can be controlled by a paralyzed person’s eye movements. In 1993, Maria Matzik, a woman who continues to live with the help of a ventilator, fought against nurses who wanted her to sign a Do Not Resuscitate order. When she refused, they informed her that because she is on a ventilator, nothing would be done if she suffered a cardiac arrest. Today she feels fortunate to have survived that hospital stay. Marjorie Nighbert signed an "advance directive" before she was hospitalized for a stroke in 1996. This document stated that she desired no "heroic measures." Based on this, her family requested that her feeding tube be removed. When Ms. Nighbert begged for food, the courts deemed her "not medically competent to ask for such a treatment," and the hospital physically restrained her in bed so that she could not pilfer food from other patients. She died ten days later. Within my own circle of intimates, two have survived over three decades each past their doctors’ declarations that they were "terminal." David Mack, a police sergeant, was shot in the line of duty. A neurologist diagnosed him as "definitely . . . in a persistent vegetative state . . . never regain cognitive, sapient functioning . . . never be aware of his condition." Less than two years later, Sgt. Mack woke up and went on to make a good recovery. The physician? Dr. Ronald Cranford, the same doctor who has declared Terri Schiavo to be in a Persistent Vegetative State. In recent years, medical ethics and the law have been twisted in frightening ways. Food and water have been reclassified as "medical treatments" if they’re administered "artificially." Dr. Ronald Cranford has even testified in court that spoon-feeding may be classed as "artificial," presumably because helping people to eat is somehow unnatural. This is a fundamental shift in patient care; we all need food and water. Food and water are not "medical treatments," they’re basic necessities of life. Without them, everyone is "terminal." As the Pope has said, "the presumption should be in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to all patients who need them." Let’s look at how this redefinition is playing out in Terri Schiavo’s case. Terri collapsed in 1990, when Florida considered "artificial sustenance and hydration" to be nothing more than basic food and water. It was not until 1999 that Florida laws changed to redefine tube feeding as "life-prolonging" treatment which could be discontinued. So even if Terri had expressed that which her husband alleges, "no tubes," she could not possibly have imagined that "tubes" would one day be redefined to include "food." Even worse, this supposed dislike for "tubes" is only hearsay; Terri never filled out any written directives. Her parents are convinced that she never said she’d want to die. A court appointed guardian determined that Michael’s claim is not credible given how long he waited, the money he would inherit, and his (adulterous) romantic relationship. At best, the only testimony given has been that Terri’s alleged comments were episodic, made in the face of tragic circumstances or television documentaries. How do we know whether she was badgered into these alleged statements, as in, "You wouldn’t want to be kept alive like that, would you?" Yet the courts are saying that there is "clear and convincing evidence" that starving to death is exactly what she would have wanted. Since when are people eligible to be killed because of making a passing comment? Why isn’t her choice not to write it down considered clearer evidence than the hearsay presented in court? And why have her alleged wishes for "nothing artificial" morphed into "nothing"? The court has ordered that Terri may not be fed anything by mouth because she might choke and it could be fatal. If fatality is of concern to the court, why are they ordering Terri’s starvation and dehydration? This summer, Terri’s parents petitioned the court for eight weeks of rehabilitation so she could be weaned off the feeding tube. Judge George Greer refused their request, writing that it was simply "an attempt by Mr. and Mrs. Schindler to relitigate the entire case." (Funny, some thought it sounded like a way that Terri could live without "tubes.") Michael Schiavo, in his role as Terri’s guardian, will not allow her to receive Holy Communion. Even after her feeding tube was removed, the police officers guarding her prevented a priest from giving her viaticum. This is a clear denial of Terri’s canonical and First Amendment rights. http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5524 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have heard of cases where a patient has been under anesthesia, they don`t give then enough meds to knock them out, so they try to move. when the Doctor sees the movement, instead of giving them more anesthesia they instead give them more muscle numbing, and they can`t move. They try to scream, and the whole time they feel everything the Doctor is doing to them. While saying all that. I do believe everyone has the right to end their life if they choose. I didn`t even have as much problems with them removing her feeding tubes. Them forbidding any food and water, when a nurse testified she was able to consume pudding and jello in a bottle. She can swallow her saliva. She doesn`t drool. If I felt Terri chose to die this way. Fine, then let her go. Can you imagine what she might be going through if in fact she truly wants to live?.................... She tried to talk. Ahhhh..., Waaaaa. As she tried to say I want to live. Since she couldn`t say the rest, she cried instead. What a horrible feeling. I`m praying now, she goes quickly. I can`t stand the thought of her suffering and can`t yell out.

Just to make it clear about what can and can't be discussed on this board, I have no problem with people expressing their views on topics we're discussing. My only problem is when personal attacks get involved. As mature adults, we should be able to discuss differences of opinion without name-calling or threatening other posters. Please have respect for others even if you don't agree with their point of view. That's all I ask.

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' "Then they also will answer Him, saying, "Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' Then He will answer them, saying, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25: 41-46, NKJV)

There is so much reading on this site and I may very well have missed this, but why couldn't he just divorce her and allow her parents and all the groups of celebritys and advocacy groups care for her? Why was it his call and only his call/ Why didn't he divorce her? Does he have access to her money after she is gone? Although I have heard most of that is gone. Forgive me for not reading every single post, buy I was hoping someoe could give me a brief synopsis of this whole thing.

But how does anyone know how much damage was done after someone is deprived of water and food for 13 days? As a nurse, maybe Michael knows her brain will deteriorate more. Most people trust her frinds, her family, and the Doctor`s testimony who say she isn`t in a persistent vehetative state more than Michael who has changed his story on more than one occasion... Besides, he said in his sworn testimony that he himself was never aware Terri had an eating disorder. How could he sue for something he himself wasn`t aware she had? That is, until he got the settlement. Then he changed his story. :roll: It`s a public record if anyone else wants to read it. Water has a profound effect on brain function and energy levels. Even a slight dehydration can produce a small but critical shrinkage of the brain, impairing neuromuscular coordination, concentration and thinking. A deficiency of water can alter the concentration of electrolytes such as sodium, potassium and chloride which has a negative effect on the function of the brain.

Tara, You`re mistaken again. That link wasn`t from a right wing site. It was a medical report on the dangers of dehydration.

And the URL is?