Terri Schiavo's Husband: Jeb Bush 'Put Me Through Hell'

[ChrisL]

Well, I think the husband is a jerk. He did not HAVE to kill her. That was completely unnecessary.

What was the point? She was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state?

Her parents loved her and wanted to care for her. THAT is the point. Obviously, her husband had stopped loving her a long time ago. A parent's love is unconditional.

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

 

[Faun]

The reports of her being cognizant were from doctors willing to lie for the Schindler's. The state's selected physician declared her in a PVS. And again, since you didn't answer ... why keep her alive in that condition? It wasn't about her parents. It wasn't about their needs or inability to let go. It was about Terri. How long would you want someone to keep you in that condition?

Oh please. Lol. I don't think the doctors would lie about a patient's medical condition and risk their entire livelihoods and careers. That is just . . . ridiculous.

Oh, I almost forgot .... Bill Frist even lied about her condition. Without ever even examining her, he declared she did not appear to be in a PVS to him. So yeah, people lie to support their position -- even doctors.

That is because she was awake and interacting. People who are "brain dead" don't do that. Sorry.

You just lost the argument. You clearly don't understand the difference between being "brain dead" with being in a "persistent vegitative state."

Oh, well.

People who are "vegetables" don't respond. Brain dead means NO brain activity. That means you cannot breathe, eat, or respond on your own. She was not on a ventilator. She was breathing on her own. She was awake and reportedly cognizant. That would be more like severe brain damage than brain death. You don't wake up from brain death. You are pretty much literally dead.

No doctor ever said she was brain dead. Again, you don't know what persistent vegitative state means. Educate yourself.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh please. Lol. I don't think the doctors would lie about a patient's medical condition and risk their entire livelihoods and careers. That is just . . . ridiculous.

Oh, I almost forgot .... Bill Frist even lied about her condition. Without ever even examining her, he declared she did not appear to be in a PVS to him. So yeah, people lie to support their position -- even doctors.

That is because she was awake and interacting. People who are "brain dead" don't do that. Sorry.

You just lost the argument. You clearly don't understand the difference between being "brain dead" with being in a "persistent vegitative state."

Oh, well.

People who are "vegetables" don't respond. Brain dead means NO brain activity. That means you cannot breathe, eat, or respond on your own. She was not on a ventilator. She was breathing on her own. She was awake and reportedly cognizant. That would be more like severe brain damage than brain death. You don't wake up from brain death. You are pretty much literally dead.

No doctor ever said she was brain dead. Again, you don't know what persistent vegitative state means. Educate yourself.

Well, it might be helpful if you learned how to spell "vegetative." Also, I am educated a bit in the medical field. I am actually a certified medical assistant, although I stuck to the administrative side of the medical field.

 

[Faun]

And yet, there was no risk to either. So much for your strawman.

Of course there is! Doctors cannot lie about a patient's condition. That goes against their oath.

First of all, there's nothing in the Hippocratic oath about lying. But even if there was, the oath is not legally binding and no [legal] consequences stem from violating it. That's not to say there aren't legal risks for other malpractices which may or may not break their oath, but that would be an appearance of coincidence and due to the malpractice violation, not breaking the Hippocratic oath.

And as it happened, the Schindlers' physicians lied about her condition, which was ultimately proven she truly was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state, and no consequences befell them. Most notibly, because a diagnosis to some degree, is based on opinion. But such opinions can be bought, as the Schindler's did.

yes, your premise is ridiculous that the physicians would risk their careers and reputations to lie about a patient's condition, but I'm sure you know that already.

As pointed out, there was no risk. Hell, you couldn't even defend your idiocy other than to mindlessly repeat it.

You demonstrate ignorance on that matter on par with your ignorance of PVS.

I think you are the one losing the argument. That is why you are getting so upset and resorting to insults instead of defending your position.

Cries the idiot who's making shit up. Let me remind you, you said the Hippocratic oath prevents a doctor from lying; when in fact, it doesn't. You said a doctor wouldn't lie about a diagnosis because of the risk they face, when in fact, there is risk as doctors are granted plenty of latitude when forming a diagnosis. You confused persistent vegitative state with being "brain dead." You have no clue of what you're talking about, yet you idiotically think you've won the debate.

 

[Faun]

Well, I think the husband is a jerk. He did not HAVE to kill her. That was completely unnecessary.

What was the point? She was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state?

Her parents loved her and wanted to care for her. THAT is the point. Obviously, her husband had stopped loving her a long time ago. A parent's love is unconditional.

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Nope, that's not the end of the story. You got that one wrong too. When one doesn't express their own wishes in a living will, the decision is left to the next of kin. THEN it's the end of the story.

Oh, and get this ... your (collectively) disapproval is not a consideration.

 

[Faun]

Well, I think the husband is a jerk. He did not HAVE to kill her. That was completely unnecessary.

What was the point? She was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state?

Her parents loved her and wanted to care for her. THAT is the point. Obviously, her husband had stopped loving her a long time ago. A parent's love is unconditional.

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

 

[Faun]

Oh, I almost forgot .... Bill Frist even lied about her condition. Without ever even examining her, he declared she did not appear to be in a PVS to him. So yeah, people lie to support their position -- even doctors.

That is because she was awake and interacting. People who are "brain dead" don't do that. Sorry.

You just lost the argument. You clearly don't understand the difference between being "brain dead" with being in a "persistent vegitative state."

Oh, well.

People who are "vegetables" don't respond. Brain dead means NO brain activity. That means you cannot breathe, eat, or respond on your own. She was not on a ventilator. She was breathing on her own. She was awake and reportedly cognizant. That would be more like severe brain damage than brain death. You don't wake up from brain death. You are pretty much literally dead.

No doctor ever said she was brain dead. Again, you don't know what persistent vegitative state means. Educate yourself.

Well, it might be helpful if you learned how to spell "vegetative." Also, I am educated a bit in the medical field. I am actually a certified medical assistant, although I stuck to the administrative side of the medical field.

And look, now that you found something you're adept in, finding spelling mistakes, you may qualify as being a secretary. But for the safety of others, you should stay clear of the medical industry. Hell, you still think a person in a PVS is "brain dead."

 

[ChrisL]

That is because she was awake and interacting. People who are "brain dead" don't do that. Sorry.

You just lost the argument. You clearly don't understand the difference between being "brain dead" with being in a "persistent vegitative state."

Oh, well.

People who are "vegetables" don't respond. Brain dead means NO brain activity. That means you cannot breathe, eat, or respond on your own. She was not on a ventilator. She was breathing on her own. She was awake and reportedly cognizant. That would be more like severe brain damage than brain death. You don't wake up from brain death. You are pretty much literally dead.

No doctor ever said she was brain dead. Again, you don't know what persistent vegitative state means. Educate yourself.

Well, it might be helpful if you learned how to spell "vegetative." Also, I am educated a bit in the medical field. I am actually a certified medical assistant, although I stuck to the administrative side of the medical field.

And look, now that you found something you're adept in, finding spelling mistakes, you may qualify as being a secretary. But for the safety of others, you should stay clear of the medical industry. Hell, you still think a person in a PVS is "brain dead."

Too late. I am a part of the medical profession. Lol. And no, I said Terry Schiavo was not brain dead.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I think the husband is a jerk. He did not HAVE to kill her. That was completely unnecessary.

What was the point? She was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state?

Her parents loved her and wanted to care for her. THAT is the point. Obviously, her husband had stopped loving her a long time ago. A parent's love is unconditional.

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

 

[ChrisL]

That is because she was awake and interacting. People who are "brain dead" don't do that. Sorry.

You just lost the argument. You clearly don't understand the difference between being "brain dead" with being in a "persistent vegitative state."

Oh, well.

People who are "vegetables" don't respond. Brain dead means NO brain activity. That means you cannot breathe, eat, or respond on your own. She was not on a ventilator. She was breathing on her own. She was awake and reportedly cognizant. That would be more like severe brain damage than brain death. You don't wake up from brain death. You are pretty much literally dead.

No doctor ever said she was brain dead. Again, you don't know what persistent vegitative state means. Educate yourself.

Well, it might be helpful if you learned how to spell "vegetative." Also, I am educated a bit in the medical field. I am actually a certified medical assistant, although I stuck to the administrative side of the medical field.

And look, now that you found something you're adept in, finding spelling mistakes, you may qualify as being a secretary. But for the safety of others, you should stay clear of the medical industry. Hell, you still think a person in a PVS is "brain dead."

Do you normally want to kill people who are brain damaged?

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I think the husband is a jerk. He did not HAVE to kill her. That was completely unnecessary.

What was the point? She was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state?

Her parents loved her and wanted to care for her. THAT is the point. Obviously, her husband had stopped loving her a long time ago. A parent's love is unconditional.

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Nope, that's not the end of the story. You got that one wrong too. When one doesn't express their own wishes in a living will, the decision is left to the next of kin. THEN it's the end of the story.

Oh, and get this ... your (collectively) disapproval is not a consideration.

I disagree. Her husband should not have been the ultimate decider since the chances are quite high that he only had HIS best interests at heart.

 

[Faun]

You just lost the argument. You clearly don't understand the difference between being "brain dead" with being in a "persistent vegitative state."

Oh, well.

People who are "vegetables" don't respond. Brain dead means NO brain activity. That means you cannot breathe, eat, or respond on your own. She was not on a ventilator. She was breathing on her own. She was awake and reportedly cognizant. That would be more like severe brain damage than brain death. You don't wake up from brain death. You are pretty much literally dead.

No doctor ever said she was brain dead. Again, you don't know what persistent vegitative state means. Educate yourself.

Well, it might be helpful if you learned how to spell "vegetative." Also, I am educated a bit in the medical field. I am actually a certified medical assistant, although I stuck to the administrative side of the medical field.

And look, now that you found something you're adept in, finding spelling mistakes, you may qualify as being a secretary. But for the safety of others, you should stay clear of the medical industry. Hell, you still think a person in a PVS is "brain dead."

Too late. I am a part of the medical profession. Lol. And no, I said Terry Schiavo was not brain dead.

And what did her brain activity have to do with her being in a persistent vegetative state?

 

[ChrisL]

People who are "vegetables" don't respond. Brain dead means NO brain activity. That means you cannot breathe, eat, or respond on your own. She was not on a ventilator. She was breathing on her own. She was awake and reportedly cognizant. That would be more like severe brain damage than brain death. You don't wake up from brain death. You are pretty much literally dead.

No doctor ever said she was brain dead. Again, you don't know what persistent vegitative state means. Educate yourself.

Well, it might be helpful if you learned how to spell "vegetative." Also, I am educated a bit in the medical field. I am actually a certified medical assistant, although I stuck to the administrative side of the medical field.

And look, now that you found something you're adept in, finding spelling mistakes, you may qualify as being a secretary. But for the safety of others, you should stay clear of the medical industry. Hell, you still think a person in a PVS is "brain dead."

Too late. I am a part of the medical profession. Lol. And no, I said Terry Schiavo was not brain dead.

And what did her brain activity have to do with her being in a persistent vegetative state?

That it is wrong to kill her. She was starved to death. How awful.

 

[Faun]

What was the point? She was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state?

Her parents loved her and wanted to care for her. THAT is the point. Obviously, her husband had stopped loving her a long time ago. A parent's love is unconditional.

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

 

[ChrisL]

Her parents loved her and wanted to care for her. THAT is the point. Obviously, her husband had stopped loving her a long time ago. A parent's love is unconditional.

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

She was killed. End of story.

 

[ChrisL]

Her parents loved her and wanted to care for her. THAT is the point. Obviously, her husband had stopped loving her a long time ago. A parent's love is unconditional.

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

Her family, friends, priest and some of her doctors disagree with your assessment of her state of mind. They saw her, spoke with her and interacted with her. I will take their words over yours.

 

[ChrisL]

Her parents loved her and wanted to care for her. THAT is the point. Obviously, her husband had stopped loving her a long time ago. A parent's love is unconditional.

Children don't exist to make their parents happy.

Children are the future of our nation and they have their own lives. They have their own destiny to live out and no parent should keep their child just for the parent's own pleasure.

Terri was her own person and her parents had no right to step in and take her rights as a separate person away from her.

No good parent wants their child to exist with a liquified brain and no eyesight. A good parent would put their child's needs before the parents own selfish wants. A good parent would want what's best for their child. Not want their child to exist to make the parents happy.

Happiness is found within a person.

I laid in a coma for a time in my life due to an accident. If I was in a perpetual vegetative state, I would want it stopped. My parents would have wanted the same thing.

The only reason Terri's body survived that long was modern medicine. If feeding tubes didn't exist, Terri would have been laid to rest years before 2005.

She had no living will. End of story. If anything, her parents would have HER best interests at heart, and what would be wrong with letting them take her home? I notice none of you can answer that. If Terry was truly "brain dead" she wouldn't be aware of whether she was alive or dead anyways, so it really doesn't matter to HER. What is wrong with letting her parents take her home, care for her, and if they think it is best to let her go, than let them decide that on their own time. There was absolutely NO hurry.

Again, she wasn't "brain dead." When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself and educate yourself on "persistent vegetative state?"

Right, which means she was NOT brain dead. Her brain was still functioning. She was awake and partially aware, correct?

No, not correct. She was not even partially aware. Again, this is where educating yourself on persistent vegetative state would serve you most useful. Who knows why you resist?

Why don't you try to put yourself in the shoes of her parents for just a couple of minutes. Imagine that was your child and you wanted to spend some time with her at home before her death, but were told "nope, too bad, we are going to kill your child because we don't think her life is worth living anymore." That is shitty no matter how you try to slice it.

 

[Faun]

You just lost the argument. You clearly don't understand the difference between being "brain dead" with being in a "persistent vegitative state."

Oh, well.

People who are "vegetables" don't respond. Brain dead means NO brain activity. That means you cannot breathe, eat, or respond on your own. She was not on a ventilator. She was breathing on her own. She was awake and reportedly cognizant. That would be more like severe brain damage than brain death. You don't wake up from brain death. You are pretty much literally dead.

No doctor ever said she was brain dead. Again, you don't know what persistent vegitative state means. Educate yourself.

Well, it might be helpful if you learned how to spell "vegetative." Also, I am educated a bit in the medical field. I am actually a certified medical assistant, although I stuck to the administrative side of the medical field.

And look, now that you found something you're adept in, finding spelling mistakes, you may qualify as being a secretary. But for the safety of others, you should stay clear of the medical industry. Hell, you still think a person in a PVS is "brain dead."

Do you normally want to kill people who are brain damaged?

I don't make that choice for others. It's a deeply profound and personal decision to make. And while I pray I'm neither in a position to have to make that call nor in a position where someone has to over me; I respect, honor, and defend others who do make that choice. My personal preference, which my wife and I have discussed, is to not be kept alive if I ever end up in that condition.

 

[ChrisL]

People who are "vegetables" don't respond. Brain dead means NO brain activity. That means you cannot breathe, eat, or respond on your own. She was not on a ventilator. She was breathing on her own. She was awake and reportedly cognizant. That would be more like severe brain damage than brain death. You don't wake up from brain death. You are pretty much literally dead.

No doctor ever said she was brain dead. Again, you don't know what persistent vegitative state means. Educate yourself.

Well, it might be helpful if you learned how to spell "vegetative." Also, I am educated a bit in the medical field. I am actually a certified medical assistant, although I stuck to the administrative side of the medical field.

And look, now that you found something you're adept in, finding spelling mistakes, you may qualify as being a secretary. But for the safety of others, you should stay clear of the medical industry. Hell, you still think a person in a PVS is "brain dead."

Do you normally want to kill people who are brain damaged?

People who are "vegetables" don't respond. Brain dead means NO brain activity. That means you cannot breathe, eat, or respond on your own. She was not on a ventilator. She was breathing on her own. She was awake and reportedly cognizant. That would be more like severe brain damage than brain death. You don't wake up from brain death. You are pretty much literally dead.

No doctor ever said she was brain dead. Again, you don't know what persistent vegitative state means. Educate yourself.

Well, it might be helpful if you learned how to spell "vegetative." Also, I am educated a bit in the medical field. I am actually a certified medical assistant, although I stuck to the administrative side of the medical field.

And look, now that you found something you're adept in, finding spelling mistakes, you may qualify as being a secretary. But for the safety of others, you should stay clear of the medical industry. Hell, you still think a person in a PVS is "brain dead."

Do you normally want to kill people who are brain damaged?

I don't make that choice for others. It's a deeply profound and personal decision to make. And while I pray I'm neither in a position to have to make that call nor in a position where someone has to over me; I respect, honor, and defend others who do make that choice. My personal preference, which my wife and I have discussed, is to not be kept alive if I ever end up in that condition.

I didn't ask you to make a decision for anyone. I said to put yourself in place of her parents for a few minutes, and then maybe you can feel some compassion for them.

If that's how you really feel and feel strongly about it, I would suggest you make up a living will. Otherwise, the decision is going to lie with someone else.

 

[Faun]

No doctor ever said she was brain dead. Again, you don't know what persistent vegitative state means. Educate yourself.

Well, it might be helpful if you learned how to spell "vegetative." Also, I am educated a bit in the medical field. I am actually a certified medical assistant, although I stuck to the administrative side of the medical field.

And look, now that you found something you're adept in, finding spelling mistakes, you may qualify as being a secretary. But for the safety of others, you should stay clear of the medical industry. Hell, you still think a person in a PVS is "brain dead."

Too late. I am a part of the medical profession. Lol. And no, I said Terry Schiavo was not brain dead.

And what did her brain activity have to do with her being in a persistent vegetative state?

That it is wrong to kill her. She was starved to death. How awful.

Not awful. She lacked the cognitive ability to comprehend her starvation.