“and once they found it they just refused to see anything else. ”
Sad but true. May your tour guide show you ever sandy beaches and calm water. Because it is tough out there without a lifeboat. As a result of the TS case, you still have a lifeboat but you are going to have bail like mad and when you stop it will sink.

I think a lot of people found EXACTLY what they went to the Schiavo case looking for and once they found it they just refused to see anything else.

Only now, they can face a death we find illegal for animals less than human. What has become legal will morph so that it is legal in many more circumstances less valid than this one.

To be honest if a person was disabled AND paranoid the Schiavo case wouldn’t have effected their rights as a disabled person but it probably wouldn’t make them any less paranoid either.

Whatever baggage a tourist brings in they generally bring out- and with a little extra weight added.

Americans can rest assured that the courts will enforce their CHOICE and their right of self determination no matter who comes forward with a challenge.

Friend, family, activist, powerful and well funded special interest group- no matter who brings the challenge the courts have demonstrated they will uphold the right of an American citizen to refuse unwanted medical treatments, surgery or even life support.

Americans can rest assured that their CHOICE will be enforced even if powerful, influential and popular special interest groups ally themselves with the challenger.

They can rest assured that the courts are willing and able to defend the constitution when politicians fail to understand it or support it and when special interest groups think they are powerful enough to overcome what it contains.

That is why powers are separated. That was the wisdom of the founders of this old republic.

To be fair, it served the needs of two particular special interest groups. And a foundation and a PAC were created.

“This did not change the balance of power between the able bodied and the disabled.” The balance of power has always been skewed. Ask a disabled person.

Only now, they can face a death we find illegal for animals less than human. What has become legal will morph so that it is legal in many more circumstances less valid than this one.

The only thing “new” here is that a probate court case was removed from the legal system and thrust onto the public stage by individuals that disagreed with the results of the testimony, expert testimony, fact finding and presentation of evidence. Legal appeals were lost. Ultimately the last recourse was the court of popular public opinion.

A hospice was laid seige and made into a war zone without regard for the fact that more than one individual and more than one family was present and trying to cope under extradordinary and stressful circumstances. Many of the individual patients in that hospice and their families were facing EXACTLY what the Schindlers were facing- these circumstances are faced accross the country and all over the world without a spectacle. Without demonstrations. Without news trucks. Without busloads of out of state protestors because the local protestors were too sparse to make any real impression.

This ONE case became a spectacle because making it a spectacle served the needs of a particular special interest group and their political agenda.

A media circus was staged and expert manipulators showed up along with profiteers and opportunists of every sort imaginable and political and social agendas were furthered.

This did not change the balance of power between the able bodied and the disabled.

People profitted, money was collected, a “foundation” was started and money was funneled into its accounts.

The world continues spinning. There is still greed and dishonesty just as there was before this case hit the media spotlight.

Individuals and families were making CHOICES and DECISIONS about medical treatment including whether to continue medical treatment and whether to end medical treatment long before the Schiavo case.

The only real difference between this case and all the others like it is that most families don’t start foundations and appeal for donations or get invited to showcase their tragedy and parade their suffering for an international audience.

That question is the point.

Her choice to refuse treatment has already been upheld.

If that kind of death is ok for her, who else is it ok for?

That kind of question misses the point entirely. Deciding whether something is ok or not okay requires a personal judgement.

The point is not what we would agree to or want for ourselves or our family members and friends. It is not about what we estimate a similarly situated or reasonable person would want for themselves.

The point is not about imagining horrors or being repulsed by inflammatory but not necessarily medically accurate imagery or how strongly we object to such portrayals and descriptions whether they are factually accurate or not.

The central issue is one of CHOICE and having personal decisions and self determination respected. Do you have to agree with another persons decision before it is carried out? I think not. Should it matter that others who don’t agree with the decision go to extremes with graphic, lurid, inflammatory descriptions? Should it matter how emotional and passionate the pleas are to ignore the persons expressed decision? Should it make any difference that the ultimate outcome of abiding by an individuals decisions about medical treatment is a hastened death? The person understood they were making a life and death decision.

Terri Schiavo chose to be married to Michael Schiavo. He was her proxy. Putting aside any unproven and unsubstantiated allegations, manipulations, selective memories, rumor mongering and the rewriting of the history of their marriage the fact of the matter is that she entered into the marriage contract eyes open. If her parents are to be beleived she did so with strongly held religious convictions as well.

As I pointed out earlier the supporters of the Schindler family absolutely avoided any discussion about CHOICE and about the right to refuse invasive, intrusive, scarring, painful, experimental or just plain UNWANTED medical treatments and surgeries.

Is it possible to be a VICTIM when it is your own choice and your own decision? Is it possible to have your medical CHOICE and medical decision inflicted upon you like a punishment or a grave injustice?

Did Terri Schiavo give up any right to self determination and personal CHOICE as a unique individual on the day that someone decided to associate her with special interest groups (the “disabled”) and their posturing and self agrandizing leadership?

Is the ultimate fate of the universe or a particular special interest group (with a political agenda) affected by the decision and choice of one unique individual who never voluntarily joined that group or signed up to be a member?

It was not an end of life decision. She was not terminal by any legal definition. If it had been an end of life decision it would not have necessitated the huge trial and spectacle it became. States recognize end of life decisions for the terminally ill. There are specific criteria to fulfill for a terminal illnes.

She expressed a desire to refuse treatment. It resulted in death by starvation and dehydration. It is an ugly, tortuous death.

It cannot be veiled over into a lovely ending for a lovely life.

This case made it legal to end the lives of the disabled by dehydration and starvation. That is what happened. That is the way it is now.

Your discomfort with the state countermanding personal decision will become trifold when it can recommend the ending a life that is not terminal by dehydration and starvation. This was life ending procdure previously thought too inhumane.

Somehow you have rosied up this kind of demise with your prose. I assure you, the state will use this new means to its advantage, not to yours.

“no man is an island…” and you are no exception. This is an issue that will become your business if expect ever to be incapacitated at any point in life. Who won’t be?

I encourage you to find your awareness. If you do not, you most assuredly will be a burden to people.

Amazed is exactly right: “Terri Schiavo had expressed an end of life decision.”

Those who argue that she should have been kept alive are arguing that her wishes should have been countermanded by the state. That’s not something I’m comfortable with.

That’s why it’s none of my business or Charles’ business or your business. It’s because it was her business, and the business of those she gave the right to make decisions for her.

—Myca

As for:

“How does anything you are saying justify this kind of death being imposed on someone not terminally ill, some one not making an end-of-life decision? ”

Terri Schiavo had expressed an end of life decision. Whether her decision was enforced immediately or adjudicated and then enforced several years later is irrelevant. She was most definately terminal in the absence of artificial life support and I don’t think it is possible to argue that plastic tubes are natural and not artificial.

The end does not justify the means.

Cutting through the skin, fascia, muscle and through the stomache wall is most assuredly an invasive surgical operation with all the inherent risks.

There is no reasonable comparrison between spoon feeding an infant and cutting into someone to place a plastic tube into them.

No life support = don’t keep me alive

“no man is an island…” and you are no exception. This is an issue that will become your business if expect ever to be incapacitated at any point in life. Who won’t be?

I encourage you to find your awareness. If you do not, you most assuredly will be a burden to people.

As to becoming a media spectacle, who has control over that?

I have pretty much always stayed out of Terri Schiavo discussions, because I have somewhat mixed feelings about it, and my strongest belief about it is that it is none of my business. I feel like the greatest wrong in the entire process is the fact that I know anything about it. If I ever end up like Terri was, there are only two things I care about, that I not be a burden to people I love now, and that I not become the center of a media spectacle.

How does anything you are saying justify this kind of death being imposed on someone not terminally ill, some one not making an end-of-life decision?

“People who are fully conscious and terminally ill routinely choose to die like this, and are able to report their experience throughout all but the very end of the process ”

The part of dying by dehydration and starvation that are claimed to be inhumane are not the last bit where you are fading out of consciousness, it is the long days where you are imagined to suffer horribly from dehydration and starvation.

This is a reasonable thing to imagine, without any additional evidence, as being very hungry or very thirsty is extremely unpleasant, and dying of dehydration without an amelioration of suffering is a horrible death, as your mouth becomes extremely parched and all you can think about is water (people who have survived extreme dehydration without any amelioration have described trying to tear their tongues out because the tongue felt like a foreign object once their mouth and tongue was completely dry).

However, the experience of dying of dehydration in a bed, with your mouth kept moist, has also been described (except for the last moments of semi-consciousness), and there is good agreement that dying this way is not a bad death for the days leading up to the last moments (and the last moments show no sign of being any worse than any other form of peaceful death).

The way the case was tried, administering an injection was not an option. A drug induced hastening of death of is not legal for a non-terminally ill person. That is why her case was not tried as a “right-to-die” case. “Right-to-die” refers to terminally ill facing imminent death.

Yet another example of the complexities and subtleties of the case.

The end result, which I find tragic, is that a human was legally dehydrated and starved to death over a period of ten days. That is the plain and final fact. It is what we are left with. I am amazed that people want to make this ok. Her death was hideous.

Consciousness is as yet undefined. Pain is like the ocean, only 1/10 understood. The bottom line is you have no idea what the death of Terri Schiavo was like. You can only hope.

If that kind of death is ok for her, who else is it ok for?

Surely you see the irony in this statement?

Imposing death by starvation or dehydration is universally recognized as inhumane.

Do you know what the word “universal” means? If so, then you must realize that it is not universally recognized that a death without any suffering at all — even if that death is via dehydration — is inhumane. If there were universal recognition, then everyone would agree, and there would be no controversy over the manner of Ms. Schiavo’s death.

However, let me ask you this: Suppose that Terri Schiavo had been killed, instead, with an injection of anesthetic, followed by a drug that would stop her heart. (This is the humane death that many vets use to put pets to sleep). Or any other sort of “humane” death you can imagine. If the court had ordered that method of death for Ms. Schiavo, and the death had been carried out in that fashion, would that have been okay with you?