I don't know! No, that the legalaity of that is wrong. The original post was about something other than Schiavo.
Like draw a horse, drive a car, count to 20 in spanish.....? What was she supposed to do? Some autistics don't show that they are aware. She's brain damaged. What is this consistently thing? You know why you have to say that right? Cause she was following her mom's hand with her eyes huh? That's right she was. So, in order to meet your guidelines, she has to play basketball or follow a hand everytime?
To me it comes down to this: the woman was alive. Bottomline. She could breath on her own and was awake. The law should be, unless you have a document showing the person's wishes, we will not allow people to be killed by starvation, smothering...whatever kinds of horrible deaths you people want to perform on the sick or infirm. That's what I mean by not sanctioning the killing of the inncoments. If you want to die that way, then you have to have a document saying so. If it is so important to you to make sure you don't go on in PVS, then get a document. Just like a will. That's also the part about as a country, legally, we should respect more someone's right to LIFE more than their right to die. If they want to die, they can....that's fine. But have a document if it means that much to you because the US government will not provide you the right to be starved to death. Is that so hard? Why can't people accept that?
Despite your impressions, we aren't people that want to just go around killing off the sick & old. Quit trying to portray us as murderers. I don't care how your god will judge me. Which of course, we do. Legal guardianship transfers that right and puts it in the hands of someone else to make that decision. Why can't you accept that?
Because it brought on the Schiavo case. You can't see where somebody may be opposed to her death? If there was a doc showing her wishes, no one could argue with that. It went to court, a US court had to say that her husband has the right to be the final arbitor of her death. I can see your side of it. We should be careful of who we marry also with the law as it is.
Yes, but it's not like she had ever told anyone that she did want to be kept on "life support". So in absence of a document either way, someone has to make the decision.
Neither is inhaling air, but when a machine does it for you because you can't do it yourself - it's life support.
The two are totally different. When involuntary funtions fail machines extend someone's life artificially. Giving someone food does not artificially extend life. It keeps a self sustained life going naturally. If all one needs is to be fed and hydrated they are not on life support anymore than you or I. If your were a quadrouple amputee mute, someone would have to feed you. Would this be life support? If you in that case wanted to be starved to death would the law allow it? Teri Schiavo was essentially reduced to a full grown baby. I don't think anyone could convince a court to let a baby starve to death. The functionality of her brain her ability to interact is moot. She was a living person who was not allowed to die. She was forced to die.
