I've been watching the Terri Schiavo case in the US quite closely and I'm afraid I do side with the husband that 15 years in that condition is enough and is no life. That said, I can sympathise with the parents whose natural instincts must be to "save" their daughter.

Seems a very cruel way to die though.

What are your thoughts?

I wouldn't condemn any living thing to death by dehydration and starvation - what a wickedly cruel thing to do. If you did it to a dog you'd rightly be prosecuted. But it seems it's okay to do it to a human being. :( Surely, death sentences should be quick, especially for someone whose only crime is to be expensive; whose upkeep is using all the compensation money her husband got for her condition. :(

I agree with you JG - I would really hate to think this girl's death was all down to the cost of keeping her alive :(

CG

I think I side with the parents.  Terri is their daughter and as long as she's alive she should be cared for surely.  But I definitely do not think starving and thirsting anyone to death, no matter how ill, is a very nice way to go about it.  Must be a better way surely.  We wouldn't do a death like that to our animals would we?  Very sad case all round.

CG

Has Terri actually communicate that she wants to die?

My OH have discussed it and said if we were in her position we would rather not live...our own personal choices...

She does not appear to be brain dead or in a coma, so I feel that witholding food and water is no better then murdering her.  A line has to be drawn somewhere, as sad as the case is.

Being made to die of starvation, wicked - and with people who supposedly love her standing by watching. Can't get much more cruel than that. She must be in agony.

Val

Mass murderers in the US get put to death by lethal injection (amongst other methods) which takes minutes. What has this woman done to deserve two weeks of torture?

She and all people who love her and have to see her go through this can thank their goverment and the religious extremist for this being the only way to let her go.
(sorry don't want to offend but religion is one of the institutes that don't allow euthenasia and prevent any action to legalize this or make it more humane)

So torture is legal in the US?

What you (and most people, and myself) see as torture for a humane being in normal circumstances seems to be the only way possible to let her go.
If you would ask the husband if he would rather have this happening in a more humane way I think he would whole heartetly say YES PLEASE!
But since this is not allowed there is no other option.
Let's just hope that since she is not able to feel pain she will also not be able to feel hunger or thurst.

As Isobel pointed out, we don't know if she is suffering, so the people who are 'suffering' are those who love her.  So, to play devil's advocate, does the husband want his wife's suffering to end or his own?

I think that the people who love her would love to have another way of letting her go after being totally depending on care 24/7 for 15 years without any quality of life (sorry but my personal opinion of quality of life isn't lying without being able to communicate, take care of myself, feed myself, enjoy anything, be able to move, talk, eat, drink, anything)

There is no other option in the USA since euthenisia isn't legal in most states.

Nice details is that one of the people fighting to keep her 'alive' actually pulled the plug on his own father!!

How do we know that she does not enjoy anything, how do we know she does not take pleasure in seeing her parents she may just be unable to articulate it.
The trouble with making value judgments of peoples quality of life is where do you draw the line.  To Stephen Hawkins, the people who enjoy slumping on the sofa and watching soaps with absolutely no ability to understand life, the universe and everything may be of questionable value but to others his predicament, unable to do anything but ponder big bangs, would seem a pointless existence. 

<<To Stephen Hawkins, the people who enjoy slumping on the sofa and watching soaps with absolutely no ability to understand life, the universe and everything may be of questionable value but to others his predicament, unable to do anything but ponder big bangs, would seem a pointless existence>>

They can feel pain, eat, drink, see, feed themselves, clean themselves, cry, walk, hug, register what is going on around them.
She has NO brainactivity when stimulated by sound, touch, sight.
I think there is a slight difference.

She may still have other brain function in terms of feelings we just don't know because she cannot articulate them.
I have Googles decubites they appear to be an American term for bedsores.  With proper nursing care, attention to pressure areas and modern specialist beds these should not happen.  I have had a very close relative disabled physically to almost this degree so I do know something about what is required to care for them.
BTW I meant the coach potatoes life as opposed to Stephen Hawkins' of course I think they are valuable I'm one of them :)

Have you seen the scans of her brain? She is in a coma.
She's not brain dead (she would be on a resperator is she was).
And to be honest she would have had a more humane death in that case.

We cannot create life, therefore we do not have the right to take it away.
I haven't been following it closely so apologise if the facts are wrong, while advances in medical science have meant people are kept alive artificially (on machines) when perhaps it would be better to let them go, is she not alive without artificial means, only needing food and water?
If we base a decision on whether or not she has quality of life, where do we draw the line as to what is and what is not 'quality of life'? and who are we to make that decision?  If we are a 'civilised' race, surely we look after those unable to look after themselves.

I agree that we should take care of people who are 'unable' to look after themselves if this means that they have a quality of life.
Like I posted before not being able to speak, feel, eat, drink, think, communicate in any way isn't life (IMO)
Her being 'alive' is restricted to have a heartbeat and being able to breatch...is that life that you want for someone you love ??

Don't get me wrong. I can't even imagine what it would be like to loose a child for parents.
And something like this can never be a easy decision.
But I also can't imagine seeing your baby lying there vegetating.
Same goes for her husband. He's be living this aswell for 15 years.
And this is not due to costs for taking care of her in any way.

>And this is not due to costs for taking care of her in any way.

That's not the view of my American friends.

Will the husband become a millionair when his wife dies?
If this was the reason for this action why don't the parents pay and is everything solved?
If this was the reason that why didn't he start this action after 2 weeks of her being in a coma?

How did your friends come up with this reason if I may ask?

It is my belief that no man should exercise a power that rightly belongs to God.  To withdraw food and drink from anyone in such a dependent situation seems very cruel and inhumane.

If it was a loved one of mine I think I would simply be praying 'Thy will be done...' 

And what are your views on keeping somebody alive through artificial (medical) help even if that person would otherwise die if humans didn't prevent that from happening?
Isn't that also exercising a power that's rightly belongs to God?

My American friends have been following this closely over the years, and of course it's much higher profile than it is this side of the Pond.

Doctors have reported that she's been making efforts to swallow, but the judge has forbidden anyone to attempt to help her drink - they're not even allowed to wet her lips.

Her parents clearly do want her alive though, in any state.  I think, for me, this is the most distressing aspect of this case, her parents do not want her to die.  It is so appalling to loose a child but to loose one in these circumstances, being deliberately starved, against your wishes is something beyond comprehension to the rest of us :(  I think if someone loves her and wants her here on earth and she is not suffering I see no excuse for causing her death.

That is why I'm so amazed that Mr Jebb Bush (big brother of George W Bush) made it legal (!!!!) for hospitals to end life support for babies and children (!!!!) agains their parents wishes !!!!!! But he doesn't agree with the fact that feeding will be stopped on an adult who has been in a coma for 15 year and he is yelling from the top of his lungs to stop this !
If somebody can explain this to me please do so !

What sort of support, food and water or something more invasive and are we talking about children who might be suffering due to their condition or the therapies required to stay alive?  I don't think that is the case here but if the children in question were in the same boat just requiring food and drink and basic nursing care that I think that is wrong too.

She is not able to eat or drink. She is being fed through a tube. She can not swallow.
Have you ever seen decubites? She also needs additional care to be able to stay breathing without actually
falling apart. She needs excersize, she needs to be moved, joints will otherwise grow solid and she will freeze.

So if the goverment says a kid has to die it's ok? Even if the parents don't want that at that moment.
But if the husband says enough is enough after 15 years than is wrong?

I don't think she is getting nearly as much as Mr Hawkins needs should we withdraw his support?  The only difference I can see is she is unable to communicate so we do not know what she is thinking.
In the case of the children, if a court says their therapy is too distressing, they are suffering and there is no prospect that they will ever survive without the therapy I think it is reasonable to withdraw the therapy but not food and water even tube feeding.
She has been long seperated from her husband and he has gone on to new relationships so I am not sure that he is any longer a good advocate for her interests, her parents however have always been by her side.

They passed a law stating that the hospital can decide to stop treatment.
They don't even have to go to court. And the parents can no longer decide for themselves when enough is enough for their child.

Her husband is still involved. He could have walked away. Partners have walked away for less than 15 years of coma. He didn't! That shows involvement to me.

She is not thinking. She doesn't react to pain or any stimuly. The only part of her brain still functioning is
the part that makes her breath and makes her heart beat.
This is proven by so many medical tests.

But that is my point (at least in part).  Who decides whether or not there is quality of life?  Do we have one rule for certain situations, and another rule for others?  Do we take the opinion that the quality of life isn't lying without being able to communicate, take care of myself, feed myself, enjoy anything, be able to move, talk, eat, drink, to be the right one, or do we take the opinion of the parents (for example) that while she is living they see a value in her life.  Who makes those decisions, and who is right and who is wrong? 

And who are making these disicions and for who are they making them?
Do the parents want her to stay this way because they don't want to let her go?? (which in part is the most natural way to feel but there is also the daughters intrest)
Or do they want her to stay this way because she has such a good 'life'??

Isn't the question "does she have a value of life"  instead of do her parents see her still being here as value to their life?

I understand the poor woman has now died. At least she is now at peace.

i think iguana 74 has some very good points. and isobel also has good points and i think this debate will go on and on i personally wouldnt like to see any of my family suffer like this poor women has to do. so i agree with the husband wanting to end it for here. but i dont agree with the way its been done like others have said she is been starved to death which weather she can feel it or not its still not a very nice way to die. so why cant they give here an injection that will end it quietly and peacefully where all her family can be at her side while she drifts off much more humane. plus i think they have come to the end of the road with this particular patitent theres nothing else they can do for her. and i dont think for 1 min it was an easy decision for her husband to make.