And the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube has been pushed to the 18th.

[conuly]

Here.

Before people start debating this, let's get the following out of the way:
She doesn't use a ventilator.
She's not "hooked up to a machine" to live.
She isn't on life support, at least not as it's been defined to me.
She uses a feeding tube to eat. Removing this would cause her to starve to death/dehydrate.
Her parents say that she's minimally aware.
Her husband disagrees, and says that she didn't want to live like this.
He is living with another woman.
AFAIK, nothing from the insurance went to cover therapy for her.
It is argued that this therapy could've improved her condition.


Now you can go duke it out in my journal.

Comments

[leora.livejournal.com]

That he is living with another woman is put in no context. Perhaps they all lived together before she became ill. We have no information in that article, and thus to assume that this is in any way a disloyalty to his wife is to make a potentially horrible assumption.

If I were to be in Terri's position, I would still want my partner making the decisions for me, and I'd be thrilled if he were living with another woman. My parents wouldn't know that, because I am not that open about these matters to my parents.

However, to remove the feeding tube and to not euthanize her is a horribly cruel thing that should only be done in an evil world. Whether or not she should be euthanized is a more difficult question, but I would want to see if the husband has even attempted to get that to happen. If he didn't, then I can't imagine he cares for her that much to choose to let her die from dehydration.

I find it worrisome that therapy was not tried. And I would push for therapy as the next step. It is hard not to be suspicious of the husband. But there is a decent chance that this was truly her wish, and that should not just be discarded.

So, basically, I feel I don't have nearly enough information in this case.