Terry Schiavo

Originally, I was under the impression that she was a vegetable and on
life support, and I felt it was humane to allow her to die. Keeping
someone "alive" at all costs is an abuse of our technology and robs them
of their dignity as a human being.

I have changed my mind on this case. First, she has not been on life
support. She breathes on her own; she can hold herself up if propped up;
and she reacts to people around her, even if minutely. The feeding tube
in question is used because she physically cannot eat.

Withdrawing food and water from her is the cruelest form of execution,
and she has not committed any crime (except for being in her husband's
way). Now that the tube has been withdrawn, the doctors say she will die
in TEN days to TWO WEEKS. Of course, I'm no doctor, but this length of
time indicates to me that she is still functional. Other than physically
not being able to eat, she is not dependent upon machines to keep her
alive. And I don't believe this is a "painless" way to die.

Why is her husband, Michael, so damned intent on killing his wife? He's
moved on to another woman with whom he has had TWO children. The only
person who says she wouldn't want to be kept alive is Michael. And why
only mention this after she has been in this condition for EIGHT years?
If her parents are willing to take on her care; why not let them? They
have even filed divorce papers on her behalf so he doesn't have to keep
the responsibility, and he has refused to allow it. He's determined that
she must die.