Noomi
Ninja Kicker
- Jul 6, 2012
- 18,121
- 4,007
Okay, first of all, Dementia Girl, Terri Schiavo was never on "artificial life support" at all. Her body worked just fine to keep itself alive, needing only to be fed.
Second of all, no one ever disputed that Terri Schiavo had massive brain damage. The question was always 1) whether or not she would have wanted to be starved to death, and 2) whether or not it was appropriate to let a man who was suspected of having caused the brain damage decide to starve her to death.
Third, I'm kinda fascinated by how you say, "As to the party in question", and then start babbling on about some anecdote involving someone else entirely. It surprises me a little that I have to tell you that whatever people you have or have not had "dealings" with have fuck-all to do with the woman who is actually the topic. I would think the fact that human beings are all unique individuals should be blindingly obvious to anyone.
Fourth, who said anyone here - EXCEPT the abortion champions, oddly enough - want to "decide her fate for her"? The position has been that it's not appropriate for the judge to take over the decision from HER PARENTS, who certainly know her better than you and your "I can certainly tell you it will be THIS way for her" do. Are you just incapable of reading well enough to understand that that's what we've been saying, or is it just that you automatically assume everyone is as eager to make definitive statements and judgements as you are?
Terri Schiavo had a brain that had turned to mush. She was on life support, and that life support was her feeding tube. If her family wanted to pay millions to ensure she remained a vegetable for the rest of her life, good luck to them, but if the taxpayers are expected to foot the bill to keep someone like that alive, the taxpayers can, and should, fight to pull the plug.
When did you graduate from med school?
Have you not read the autopsy reports?