Originally posted by Liberator
I find it odd that he remembered here saying that she didn't want to be kept alive artificially only after he'd won a malpractice suit.
There is anecdotal evidence that swirling around as well.
There are multiple healthcare workers that state that he has denied her even basic care. Once of the more disturbing ones told that Michael was in with Terry for a period of 20 minutes with the door shut and that when she went to check on her after he left, Terry's IV had been turned all the way down, there were multiple needle tracks in places there shouldn't have been any(under her breasts, ect) and there was a mostly empty bottle of insulin hidden in the trash.
On a more general note: I find it horrifying that life has become so cheap that some of us can sit by and watch another human starve to death.
6 years later (after the suit), he first filed to have the tube removed. That's a long time (8 years) to wait for any improvement.
Is their proof of this? Not anecdotal evidence, because that can be made up on emotive grounds. And if it is true, why wasn't there legal action taken at the time? And when was this? Was it after the first court case actions was taken? (in which case was it an attempt at euthanasia?). Because the implication you seem to make is that he, what? wanted to reduce his wife to a vegetative state and fight a (porbably vastly expensive) 7 year legal battle? Or did he just grow tired of watching his wife suffer?
Secondly, what's worse? Letting someone painlessly die (remember, her brain is almost literally mush - she doesn't feel hunger or indeed anything), or letting them live in a mindless state with no ability to reason, communicate, care for themselves - a state devoid of emotion, of understanding - of anything that makes the human brain 'human'. In a virtual coma, without the hope of ever 'waking up' and regaining consciousness.
Me? I'd choose death over that, any time.
Oh, and what I find horrifying, is that a debate over the right to die has suddenly became a mud-slinging fight attacking the husband - rather than considering the medical condition itself and the prospects of recovery.
The parents/relatives objection is because they perceive interaction from Terry Schiavo - isn't the medical evidence behind this what is important?
