The whole story is just incredibly sad.

Imagine if Mrs. Schiavo were a convicted serial killer, and the state decided to carry out her death sentence by "starvation and dehydration".

Is there any doubt that those who are cheerleaders for her impending death would be the same ones claiming it was an unconstitutionally "cruel and unusual" imposition of the death penalty?

How do some people sleep at night?

Damn, ace. Very, VERY well put.

There is still some hope.

Late Thursday night, several senators announced they were still holding talks and Congress -- which is supposed to start a two-week recess -- might return on Monday to work on the bill. Even if Schiavo's feeding tube is removed at 1 p.m. Friday, death would not be instantaneous.

It's hard to imagine that these guys won't figure something out with all of the publicity.

Who knows?

This whole thing makes my blood boil. How can one friggin' judge rule on this case over and over and over when he is so clearly biased in favor of killing Terri?

Everybody should read the Johansen piece at NRO if you haven't already.

It's sickening.

You know...I wish there were something proactive we could do in the blogworld to show solidarity with Ms. Schiavo and her family (besides asking folks to contact their congressmen).

I dont have photoshop, and I have awful "html" coding skills, but I would like to put something up on my blog (in the sidebar perhaps?) that identifies tomorrow as "Black Friday" or something. Just something to serve as a constant reminder of the evil that is being played out in front of us, and those aspects of the system that failed the Schiavo family.

I'm not gonna pimp my blog. I'm not even gonna put it in the url. I will place my e-mail address in the header above. If anyone likes this idea or would like to join in a sort of "Schiavo alliance" (for lack of a better term), please feel free to contact me with ideas.

I yield the floor to Ace. Hope this "bleg" is OK, Ace. If not, please feel free to delete the post.

I'm afraid at this late hour the best we can do is work through the established online pro-Terri presence. www.terrisfight.org

(Also, a little OT, but you don't have to have photoshop to make good images. You can get the GIMP. It's just as good and free.)

Ace, this is hands down the best-written thing I've ever read on your blog. I've been in touch with the Schindler's attorneys and written about this case for about four years now. You stated it quite well. If people who want Terri to slip away out of sympathy for her think they know the facts of the case, or the quality of the conduct of Judge Greer, they most likely have gotten their information from a MSM that is very much a part of the Global Death Cult.

Thanks for writing this. Tomorrow is a watershed day for our values, culture, and civilization. And it says a lot about the lack of courage our politicians have when it comes to confronting judges who rule us like kings.

Our judicial overlords at work.

You hit the nail on the head, Ace. Unfortunately, there are a lot of conservatives who also feel Terri should be "allowed to die" because they're either uninformed or misinformed about her condition, the (lack of) care she's received and the many questions surrounding her (possibly illegal) transfer to a hospice facility, which is subject to far less regulation that hospitals or nursing facilities. She's had to have teeth pulled due to neglect and has 'bed sores' because she is not turned regularly.

The biggest misconception is that she's in a 'coma' or 'persistent vegatative state'. The NRO article demonstrates that there are serious questions about that diagnosis, and if you watch the videos of her here, you'll see that she has an awareness of her surroundings and the people around her.

And the ruling handed down by Judge Greer does not apply only to the feeding tube we hear so much about, Terri's family believes she can swallow jello for nutrition, and get her water from ice, but Judge Greer has forbidden anyone from attempting to feed her by mouth.

Michael Schiavo was awarded a $1.4 million settlement when he sued for malpractice. He was suing for $20 million, and said he needed the money because of the cost of the medical treatment and therapy Terri would need. 3 months after he was awarded the money, he placed her in a hospice facility and petitioned the state for medicare. It was granted, and he has refused to allow any kind of therapy for Terri, regardless of who paid for it.

Terri might not even need a feeding tube - people who suffer brain injuries often lose and have to re-learn certain motor skills, like swallowing. Michael Schiavo has blocked any attempts to provide therapy for Terri that might help her to leanr to swallow again.

There's a lot more to this than meets the eye. It's not a right-to-die case.

Thanks Dave.

I know about the "Blogs for Terri" and all of those good people at other site who have worked so hard on her behalf.

I probably wasn't clear enough in my above post. The fault lies with me for not expressing myself properly.

It is my belief that if her feeding tube gets pulled tomorrow through the day that Ms. Schiavo dies (should she in fact suffer that fate) a seminal event will have occured over that period.

When Ace writes:

"Chalk it up as a victory... for what, exactly? For the cherished principle that we all have the right to be done away with by someone to whom we've grown inconvenient?

I think the main reason so many want Terri Schiavo to die is the extreme antipathy towards the Christian right. If the Christian right wants something, they want the opposite-- even if it means letting someone who is now a perfect stranger to Terri Schiavo decide her fate, rather than the parents who have not abandoned her in favor of someone cuter and sexier.

Terri Schiavo will die tomorrow. And idiotic judges and legislators will celebrate that they've beaten back those damn Christian conservatives and all their crazy ideas."

I think he hits the nail squarely on the head. This is a trgedy on several levels:

1) It's an immediate human tragedy for Ms. Schiavo, her friends, and, in particular, her family.
2) It's an invitation to future tragedy's for people who might find themselves in the same situation as Ms. Schiavo.
3) It's a "metaphysical" tragedy as well. It's simply a triumph of certain people's arrogance (identified by Ace as hostility to those crazy Christians) as well asa triumph of those same people's moral bankruptcy (identified by Ace in the husband who traded in Ms. Schiavo's life for a "cuter and sexier" woman) .

To me, Terri Schiavo's death marks a victory for any theologies "evil" over any theologies "good". If anything, I think Ace's comment underscores the scope of "evil's" victory here. Is it motivated in part by domestic political malice towards the Christian right? I believe that to be true.

But I also believe it is an "evil" that is a slap in the face to most religious people, regardless of their particular beliefs. Call me simplistic or naive (as some probably will) but I do believe in the concepts of "evil" and "good", of "darkness" and of "light".

What I was really getting at was I don't think that this is the sort of "victory" that ought to be forgotten, as I fear that complacency, precedent and repitition somehow works with "evil" to make the Schiavo situation the norm. On the assumption that Ms. Schiavo does die, I wanted something to commemorate this lesson in the abstract. With Ms. Schiavo's death, society will have lost more than just the life of one person, society will have lost something much deeper and important as well.

Hopefully one of the better writers here can sum up my thoughts more eloquently. (I don't mean that in a snide way..I realize this entry is long and meandering!) And hopefully there are others who will understand what I'm trying to say, and, if they are so inclined, help make some sense of it. :)

Thanks again for your reply to my comment. I'll try to find GIMP (I've never used that software before).

Captain Ed has a big piece on this NRO article on Terri.
The ''expert'' doctor who DX'd Terri as PVS [persistent vegetative state] is a notorious euthanasia-medical suicide activist
[i wonder if he gets $$ from kindred spirit George Soros?]
Dr Doom here made this DX w/o even the benefit of an MRI, the standard test in injury cases, especially brain injury.
Why bother?
This quack reportedly sees PVS everywhere.,even in alzheimers pts and the wheelchair bound.
AND He believes any and all of these conditions merit Dr.-imposed starvation and dehydration.
Not even the CA Supreme Court buys his dangerous nonsense
This so called ''expert'' is being marketed by the Hemlock society lawyer who is representing Michael Schiavo.
The Doctor's quackery is accepted w/o question by the Fla judge, Judge Greer, allegedly another pro-euthanasia activist.
The article says one doctor even punched Terri between the eyes.

onlinepetition.com is hosting a petition to impeach judge greer. it lists his malfeasance in detail.

Mel Martinez of Fla and Kurt Weldon of PA are sponsoring Incapacitated Person's Act--to bar the denial of food and water to the disabled.
call your congresscritters and urge them to support.

here's JEB's contact info:
jeb.bush@myflorida.com
850-488-4441

The weird thing is that the feminist left ought to be jumping up and down about this -- a woman being put to death because she's no longer sexually useful to her husband?

Yes, but Michael Schiavo can't help protect abortion rights and put women into combat positions in the military.

This really makes little sense even on a cynical level. Cynical motives are at least logical motives, motives of enlightened selfish interest.

This, I think, is a gut emotional response. They just hate the idea of anyone championing anything smacking of "pro-life."

To put into into abortion terms: the left fights to keep partial birth abortion to protect what they're really concerned with, abortion generally.

Here, they seem to actually be supporting the execution of a woman to help protect the general idea of euthanasia, which in turn helps protect abortion rights.

Does that make any sense? It doesn't make any sense to me. But I really can't understand how this country sits by and lets a woman be killed on the say-so of her husband.

She wanted to die in this situation, you say? Oh really? Living wills and such usually ask you a range of questions of what you'd want done in a particular situation. Are we really to understand that sometime, in casual conversation, Terri Schiavo announced "If I am breathing on my own and need no outside medical assistance to live, apart from being fed and watered intravenously, and some doctor thinks I'm in a permanent vegative state even though my parents believe me to be aware, I'd like to be starved to death for two weeks"?

Really, Michael? She really said that?

Unbelievable.

But I'll tell you, it's not just moonbats. People whose opinions and judgment I respect just seem hell-bent on killing her, and they just wave off the facts as if they're beneath consideration.

I was talking with a friend about this case today and a liberal acquaintance popped by.

"I'm sorry, but she has no life to rescue. She's brain-dead."

I said no, she's brain damged, not brain dead. She's never had an MRI to say she's brain dead, and she responds to stimulus and recognizes people.

He thought about that a while, and then said "Oh, never mind."

Which was nice, knowing I've actually changed someone's mind after all the writing and shouting I do. But it doesn't save Terri's life.

Ace,

I am not an extremist, but anyone would call me an ardent liberal, that is certain. Perhaps I am an anomaly, but I am devastated over what is about to happen here. To even be debating this is perverse. It is murder, nothing shy of that very accurate description. Murder. She will not die tomorrow, but she will be murdered tomorrow. By all estimates it will take her 7 - 10 days to actually die of starvation and dehydration. Terri is being executed by calculated, cruel and inhumane measure. We do not even execute condemned criminals with such unthinkable methods. And this woman's crime? Needing more love and care than the average human being. I am sick over this. Desperate almost. I sit writing this tonight with an utter punctured equilibrium over what will happen tomorrow and my inability to do anything about it.

Lesbien,

I am befuddled why more liberal women don't see things your way. Again -- I just do not get it.

I mean, let any man ask his gf or wife if, under these circumstances, with the man now living with another woman and siring children and, oh, by the way, having a decent amount of money via a malpractice suit, she would want his word to be taken in court without substantiation as the official word on her intent, and she'll look at you and say: "Are you out of your fucking mind, sir?"

And yet here... they don't seem to give a shit.

I have never understood this. And I am just baffled at friends of mine, whom I consider to be generally level-headed, who just wave off the facts as pesky little things that shouldn't get in the way of an orderly murder.

One more thing:

The g*ddamn Senate was just all over the baseball steroids thing today. They just found time at the end to cobble together a new bill for Terri after "pro-life" Harry Reid scuttled the House bill, too late to do anything with the House.

The federal government doesn't have any business regulating baseball. They had an opportunity to save a life today and they found something stupid to waste their time on.

Useless bastards.

I was actually surprised last weekend to here Mike McConnell (sp?) on the radio advocating killing her on his show. I usually agree with him, but everything he said was based upon the same faulty premise: "She said she wanted it."

So many people don't seem to be aware that it is nothing more than his word. I think the media has done a pretty good job of doing to this story what they do to so many others.. by cleverly omitting certain facts and repeating certain others, they slowly build the idea in peoples' minds that there is some sort of concensus about something. In this case, there is a perceived "concensus" that Terri is PSV and also that Terri made her wishes clear, when neither is true.

WHOA! CHECK DRUDGE! TERRI'S SAFE FOR NOW! THIS IS FRICKIN' BRILLIANT!

"The Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Committee, Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) has requested Terri Schiavo to testify before his congressional committee, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. In so doing it triggers legal or statutory protections for the witness, among those protections is that nothing can be done to cause harm or death to this individual."

If you folks are the praying sorts, please say thanks. And even if you're not, what'll it hurt?

Ace,

It is a mystery to me as well. Now, I must say (and it might as a surprise to you) but most of my close circle are of the same thinking I am. But I have run across many other liberals who will hold to the "fight for EVERY DAMN thing...well, the right to die...well...". Ace, I look at them like they are speaking greek!! WHAT ABOUT HER RIGHT TO LIVE!!! She has a right to believe that her own husband won't murder her because she has outlived her usefulness to him. Too many people (liberal and conservative) forget the realities and march behind their group with no thought what-so-ever. I am a woman, a lesbian, a feminist, a liberal...but there is NO way I am going to equate human rights with someone's right to murder someone else.

I have to thank you for pointing this out to me. I think I knew it, but was not willing to really see it. Most liberals are standing behing this grotesque definition of human rights for no other reason than "well, this is the way the liberals are leaning". I will never become that numb.

Ace:

You are really have a heart of grace, you know that? I know a lot about this story, because, well, it's sort of in my own backyard, so to speak. It gets covered daily.

The parents of this poor woman have asked the jackass for custody, and he still fights. And now he's some hero to people, fighting for his wife's wishes.

Let us presume that her husband is sincere. Take that and also assume that the parents of the woman are sincere. The parents offered to take the woman off of the husband's hands and let him go on with his life. At that point, early on in the case, he had plenty of money and could have walked away a wealthy man and still let the parents have their desire fulfilled.

This brings us back to the assumption about both being sincere. If the husband is correct in his assertion that his wife would have wanted the life support stopped (and this is a real knotty assumption, because think of how many different ways you could discuss this with your spouse; the permutations are infinite. You'd have to have such discussions in the hypothetical sense, going over different scenarios), then is that something you would fight until the very end for? There are few things in my life that I would fight this long and hard for. Very few. This doesn't seem to be one of them. If my wife's dying wish were "Never let our children forgot about their mother," I'd fight for that. But then, who would fight to deny me that?

People who fight with the tenacity as this man usually have some overarching moral primary principal that they are defending, such as their reputation, their family's safety, their honor, etc.

What would her husband lose by giving in to the parent's desires? That's where his motives are suspect, in my eyes. It just doesn't seem to be something I would fight this long and hard for.

So there's got to be something else going on here, and that something else is a political agenda. And Ace, you've captured it perfectly.

Finally, here is a beautiful article written by a reporter for the Tampa Tribune about this case, who went through a fairly similar situation in his own life; his daughter. It's rather breathtaking, and it's not something you'd find very easily. I think it's important to share this with your readers:

---BEGIN COLUMN IN TAMPA TRIBUNE, 10/05/2003--

HEADLINE: To Live Each Day

BYLINE: TOM JACKSON , tjackson@tampatrib.com

The potential for neuroscience to further decode the mysteries of the human brain sustains hope for a victim of traumatic brain injury.

I don't know Terri Schiavo, or anyone in the trenches of the fight to clamp the feeding tube that has allowed her to be kept alive these last 13 years. But I am intimately familiar with another victim of traumatic brain injury whose life circumstance seems eerily similar, and I wouldn't consent to denying her food and water through the hole in her stomach even at gunpoint.

Elizabeth Chelsea Jackson, horribly injured in a news-making traffic collision more than 61/2 years ago, lives in much the same state of suspended animation that affects Terri Schiavo, whose brain suffered oxygen deprivation as a result of a heart attack in 1990.

They slumber at night (Elizabeth dreams, revealed by the rapid eye movement under her eyelids) and awake in the morning. They follow objects with their eyes. They seem to recognize and respond to familiar people.

I can't speak for Terri, but as Elizabeth has grown older - she's 14 - she has demonstrated a preference for peer-appropriate music (although we stop short of tuning in rap; lines must be drawn in every civil household), as well as the tales of Harry Potter and Ann of Green Gables, which form the foundation of her formidable audiobook library. Elizabeth is, in more ways than I can count, a typical teenager.

Never mind that she cannot speak or dance or eat from a spoon. These are skills she one day may regain, either by persistent therapy, medical progress or - why not? - divine intervention.

It's true. There are, at present, no satisfactory treatments for human brain injury that are both demonstrably and consistently effective. At best, the evidence is anecdotal. Some folks swear by intensive application of speech, physical and occupational therapy. Others praise visits to a hyperbaric chamber, where the patient is surrounded in pure oxygen at two and three times sea-level pressure, on the theory that deep-penetrating oxygen encourages the regrowth of injured nerve endings. There also are advocates for reaching the cortex by stimulating the optic nerve with special lights and the aural center with modulated music.

When applications of any or all of these methods are followed by even minor improvements - which many in the skeptical neurological community might claim are mere coincidence - loved ones are infused with hope. Those who live in the parallel universe of caring for survivors of traumatic brain injury take it on faith that what neuroscience doesn't yet know about the human brain leaves open the door to some future cure.

After all, remarkable things are happening in laboratories around the world through the massaging of stem cells, both fetal and adult, and the isolation of chemicals that prevent nerves and neurons from regenerating.

This, then, is a remarkable time to have a personal stake in brain science. After generations of frustration, researchers finally are peeling in meaningful ways at the onions of paralysis, Alzheimer's, stroke, Huntington's and Parkinson's disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease); success in any of these areas could have marvelous implications for survivors of traumatic brain injury.

And so we cling to hope.

The question, particularly as it applies to Terri Schiavo, 39, becomes: How long is too long to wait? Three years? Eight? Ten? Suppose neuroscientists could promise an effective repair for injured brains in 12 years. Would that be too long? No? What if 12 years passed, and researchers said it would be another 36 months. Would you clamp the feeding tube then?

Elizabeth has youth on her side, and so we will wait until there is no waiting left to be done. She is 14 and in remarkable condition for her condition. For this we credit the small and growing army of therapists, nurses, special*sts, teachers, aides, friends, family and respite care providers. Elizabeth does not lack for attention, comfort or stimulation, and, we believe, the combination contributes to her general well-being, not to mention a perception among her team members that her brain has rewired to some small degree and will continue to do so.

As her guardians, her mother and I perceive the question of Elizabeth's continued survival in a way that either has eluded or has been dismissed by Schiavo's husband, Michael. He says she was firm on not wanting to live supported by artificial means; others doubt the clarity of her philosophy. Florida courts, following the directive of the state Legislature, have sided with Michael Schiavo and against Terri's feeding tube.

This is unfortunate. Considered from either the secular/scientific or spiritual viewpoint, only one conclusion is logical: Where there is life, there are possibilities, and because there are possibilities, there is hope.

The scientific case already has been laid out. It seems inconceivable that researchers will not someday figure out how to retrofit damaged brains. We have vowed to make Elizabeth the best possible candidate for the inevitable breakthrough therapy. Terri Schiavo's parents appear to want a similar opportunity for their daughter; if, as Michael Schiavo's hired medical experts suggest, Terri lacks awareness, what difference does it make if the Schindlers take over her care with an eye to improving her situation now and preparing her for eventual medical intervention?

What about the argument, advanced by some religious folks, that Terri has suffered enough and that the short-term pain of a starvation death would lead to an everlasting reward? For openers, the debate regarding Terri's suffering is unresolved. I do know this: Neurologists who have read Elizabeth's EEG results over a span of years say that there is every indication that she (a) feels hunger, (b) responds to pain and pleasure and (c) is in a generally blissful state. Hers is a life well worth preserving. Terri's may be as well.

But even if it weren't, the claim that she should be ushered into the hereafter fails muster, simply because, as those embraced by Terri's circle of Christian faith believe, everlasting means precisely that. What is a handful of mortal years compared with a spiritual life without end? Particularly when those mortal years could be spent in the attentive, loving embrace of a family that brought her up and has proved its devotion by spending the better part of a decade fighting to keep her alive against enormous odds and bitter disappointments.

And what if people of religious faith are wrong, and all that waits beyond death is the void? Should Terri Schiavo be rushed into nothingness when every day that she is nourished and hydrated brings her closer to the day when science solves the puzzle of brain injury? Even if their time lines never intersect, which even doctors cannot forecast, the effort seems irrefutably worthwhile. To do otherwise is to cast out hope, the fundamental human emotion.

Elizabeth feeds our hope through incremental advancements - a head nod here, an appropriate coo there and enthusiastic sighs when her little brother displays some annoying pre-K trait.

I don't know Terri Schiavo, or anyone in the trenches of the fight to clamp her feeding tube. But to shut off her food and water will not, as has been reported, "allow her to die." It will be the killing of Terri and the murder of hope.

Lesbien,

Write your own post; don't link to mine. You can quote me but don't link me; you don't even have to attribute to me.

But do try to contact other liberal bloggers and convince them that they are not fighting for the general principle of one's right-to-die here; rather, they are supporting, in this particular case, the peculiar right of a husband to do have the state whack his inconvenient brain-damaged wife.

The right and left blogospheres both teamed up against Trent Lott and got results. If a couple of dozen liberal bloggers could be persuaded to look at the facts in this case and write posts about it, I think we could actually move some on-the-fence florida legislators.

For example: nine Florida *REPUBLICAN* state senators voted against a bill to save Terri. These guys are problably "moderate" Republicans who believe, maybe mistakenly, that their constituencies want them to let her be killed. If they got some heat from both right and left, they might be inclined to re-evaluate their positions.

Face it. What we have here is a typical knee-jerk leftist reaction: If Bush/Christians/Conservatives are FOR it, then we on the left are obliged to be against it.

Time was when basic human decency was not an issue where political lines were drawn.

Instead of Bible-Thumping, I'm going to do some Catechism-Thumping. Note that the Catechism is the Church's interpretation and guidance on all issues of morality, life in a civil society, geopolitics, charity; in a word, everything one might encounter in almost any situation. There is some mention of God in this set of statements, but I think that the arguments or observations by the Church stand on their own merits. Read them as an atheist or a person of religious convictions, regardless of your leanings, and argue with them on the merits of the case the Vatican makes. I think item 2277 sums this up perfectly.

Here's the Vatican's view on this issue. This taken from the full "Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition," copyright 2000 (I believe this is the latest). This is the big, full version, not those little streamlined ones you might have read as a kid in Catholic school. Since I went through the Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults (RCIA), I was encouraged to read this version. And, typical for me, I read it twice.

This falls under the heading "Euthanasia."

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able, or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

Wow! Great posts! Thanks Ace! If you were anywhere near me I'd give you a big hug. A manly hug, that is. Like a Viking kind of hug.

Ace, I'm not sure this is entirely a liberal-vs.-conservative issue either, though there are elements of that certainly. But what I am seeing more in the reaction of people who are saying "oh, let that poor woman die, she's a vegetable, who would want to live like that" is a complete inability to see something from a viewpoint other than their own. Let me clarify: these people are coming at this issue from their own standpoint of how horrifying they find the thought of being in this condition. There is a complete refusal to realize that this is not about them, it's about a completely other person, whose state of mind we have no way of knowing (and by all accounts does not seem to be living in some perpetual horror of her own condition, for whatever reason). It's a complete inability to see things from another point of view. Far from being a position in favor of personal autonomy, it's evidence that they never have developed a complete understanding that other people are individuals like themselves. It's an essentially toddler point of view and I am afraid that our society fosters, rather than discourages, this sort of ingrained selfishness in its adults.

Andrea,

Good analysis and I would add that critical thinking skills seem to be in short supply at time like these. As others have pointed out there seems to be a large group of people who have latched onto this as a right-to-die issue; e.g. I have a living will so just pull the plug and i'll die peacefully in my sleep. I really don't think people are making the connection that they are going to kill this poor lady by DEHYDRATION! As I've said in other comments these same people would never allow this to be done to their family dog. And then there are those who say "Fine, then just euthenize her" but somehow wouldn't approve of this for the BTK serial killer. God help us all.

We have some 2.5 million people die every year. Many dying processes would be prolonged weeks, months, even years by heroic measures. Where we are headed in the Schiavo case is cutting the caregivers and family out and saying Right to Life, every scrap of life that can be squeezed out regardless of pain, cost, loss of dignity MUST be done - and that all end of life decisions belong to the state - not the patient, doctors, family.

And not the state of residence, not the state court. The Right to Lifers are trying to make Terri Schiavo's case a way to control those 2.5 million cases according to their religious beliefs - by potentially making any dying person under the purview of the Feds - just like each Death Penalty case - a huge expansion of Federal Power over the individual states and families.

Only 15% of Americans have a Living Will, and many are purposely left vague since there are a myriad of diseases or conditions could diminish their judgement or make them completely incompetant to manage their affairs. Living wills then frequently say "when my family decides knowing me that I am in a place where life is not worth living " - pull the plug...etc.

To summarize the facts:

1. We have someone whose entire cerebral cortex died and rotted away, leaving her irreversably vegetative.

2. A cut and splice video was made, similar to a horse randomly stomping can be made to show the horse doing math after editing. It does not show the actual condition.

3. Starvation and dehydration is the prevalent way that advanced cancer patients, kidney failure patients that have full mental processes at the end chose to die and report it causes no pain. Doctors agree that it is a good way to go, like senior pneumonia.

4. Schiavo is being used by Right to Life fanatics as a way to get families, courts, and doctors out of decisions and make all deaths political - as involved and Federalized as each Death Penalty case - and to seek each life be forcably extended in keeping with "Culture of Preserving All Life", as long as humanly possible.

The RTL position appears to call for a dramatic expansion in Federal power....Where the Religious Right or Hillycare, whoever is pulling the strings...will decide what's best.

Gee, Cedar, I thought the Zionists were behind it all. Or is that the Illuminati? Or are they the same thing? Enlighten me, oh guru, I get so confused.

God, Cedarford, it's so nice to see you back.

1) Let's see...living wills fix everything. Check.
2) Right-to-Lifers (Christian conservatives/pro-lifers) are using the woman as a tool. Check.
3) Right-to-Lifers (anti-death penalty/don't know what political leaning people) use the courts to prevent the death penalty being carried out. And they are using the criminal as the tool. Check.
4) Conspiracies lie behind everything. Check.
5) You're a video expert. Check.
6) You're a doctor. Check.
7) You're a socialogist. Check.
8) It's all political. The actual players in this dance aren't fighting a personal battle. Check.
9) Right to Lifers are after the same thing as those that want socialized medicine. Check.
10) You are fucking insane. Check.

Got it.

I guess the woman's parents are pawns and are unaware of their desires.

Now here is a little chuckle for you, Cedarford, since I think you could use it.

This week's Onion Word on the Street:

Question: Last week, the Senate made moves toward approving pro-business legislation that will make it harder for individuals to file for bankruptcy. What do you think?

Funniest Answer: "This is a victory for good, hard-working, God-fearing credit-card companies everywhere. Dry your eyes, Citibank, help is on the way!"

"3. Starvation and dehydration is the prevalent way that advanced cancer patients, kidney failure patients that have full mental processes at the end chose to die and report it causes no pain. Doctors agree that it is a good way to go, like senior pneumonia."

Yes. My dad and uncle both died of cancer, and in the last few weeks their bodies simply shut down and didn't want food. They could barely keep water down.

However, Terri is not dying. She is physically healthy. Her body wants food. Starving her would be like starving you. This is a most asinine argument that compares apples and oranges.

Why not? He stands to gain 1.3 million from his wife's murder. His new girlfriend can live pretty well on this for some time to come.