Aspies For Freedom

Two words - legalised murder.

While i support voluntary euthanasia, i have to say in cases where the person DOES want to carry on living, to starve them to death is just plain murder. I hope Terri makes it.

If we compare how she is being treated with how Christopher Reeve was treated, it is world's apart.
I know that there were medical differences, but nevertheless could you imagine his wife being allowed to let him starve to death?
:-(

Noetic, a few points. It was a misdiagnosed potassium deficiency that caused the brain damage. The hospital were negligent and that is why she had a compensation payout.

The potassium deficiency was caused by an eating disorder, but even if it was caused by her attempting suicide, it doesn't mean that she should get treated less well than anyone else.

She is not a vegetable at all from what I can see, and I hate that term so much. I don't know why they can't use a better term than vegetable and vegetative state. Have you seen the video? She is able to breathe on her own, she is concious, she can make sounds, she reacts to light, and noise.

I know she is concious because she is not asleep or in a coma. I don't think that there is any dispute that she is concious.

Noetic said "I object to the culture of avoiding responsibility "cos you can always find someone to blame for not taking responsibility, and hey why not sue their ar**s off while we're at it" (as Terry's hubby did and as sadly is becoming ever more trendy here in the UK)"

You seem to be seriously misunderstanding the system for getting compensation. There are very strict laws concerning negligence, responsibility, and accidents, people can not simply get a hand out for avoiding responsibility. The only reason that we hear more about it is that the law was changed regarding TV advertising for companies that offer such a service.
The government changed the laws regarding legal aid for compensation claims a few years ago, and that has actually cut down on pointless claims as they are now thoroughly assessed by a company who would take on any claim. They don't want to take on claims that aren't totally valid, and risk losing money.
If you ever had a car accident and not been at fault and still had months and months of pain and hassle, before being offered a minor payout you would know that the reality is very different from the myth.

Don't be fooled by media writings on court cases as if it is giving all the facts. They miss out the legal boring details to focus on dramatic points.
The real story behind a case is known by those present in the court room, and if you read a transcript of a case it can make much more sense.

"don't make the mistake of reducing your credibility by subscribing to rumour mills and lies about supposed conspiracies and hidden motivations."

I don't understand what that means, how would someone reduce their credibility? What credibility, where?

"Turning this tragic but PRIVATE case into a hotbed for conspiracy nutcases and paranoid worriers does not contribute to a sensible discussion and is not about human rights and dignity, it's about a small minority who latch onto anything they can get their hands on to propagate "their cause" (such as religious movements or private people with paranoid ideation gone haywire)."

Important and significant legal firsts are everybody's business, because they set legal precedents that can then be followed by other Judges in other cases.

This is a case about human rights, I cannot see how its anything else. Even her husband is arguing that its about her human rights. That she has the right to die because she requested it.
If that is true why has he waited years to say that she wanted to die, and not to tell the doctors immediately that she diagnosed PVS that she shouldnt have a feeding tube because she would not have wanted that?

Regarding the question of whether what made Terri Terri is still there - the only way to find out for 100% is by looking for neural activity. If all the brain is doing is acting as a biological signal processor (i.e just sending regular signals to her heart and lung muscles) then she is no longer there. However, based on the fact that she does appear to have at least some basic signs of conciousness. Terri is still there. Even if she may not recover to how she was.

If anyone has 100% proof that Terri herself never wished to be kept alive artificially, and would have wanted her feeding tube removed - then they may declare it acceptable for her feeding tube to be removed. I fail to see though why any human would have wished this upon themselves.

If it was me, i would not want to be starved to death, i would not want to be kept alive in this state either. As i've said before, i am for voluntary euthanasia, but the only humane way to do this is (with consent from the patient, and only the patient) via lethal injection or another painless method.

Her mind must remain, have you seen the video footage?

Any reaction shows that she does indeed still have her conciousness

If she is reacting to her family, then she must still be aware of who they are. That was my point.

As for lethal injection - it depends on the drug used, but the idea is to put the patient to sleep first, then stop the heart using another drug. That is why it is painless.

I am well aware of the dangers of putting emotional responses above logic, however all i am saying is that we must not simply label her as not being concious when she is still showing some reactions.

It would take a lot to completely detroy human conciousness while still leaving the brainstem intact.

different kind of reaction from a reflex such as kicking whet hit on the knee or moving the hand away when you touch something hot - i was referring to actual reactions to her family.