Honestly, I could understand her parents wanting to keep their child on life-support, irregardlessly of the fact that it wasn't truely living...Parents expect their children to bury them, not the reverse.

Still though, it was her husband's wishes that should have been honored, not their emotional need to hang on to a daughter who had left her body the moment of her illness/accident. There was absolutely no chance of a full or even partial recovery for Terry.

That 7 years spent appealing and repealing did nothing more then prolong the suffering for all those who survived Terry.

It was a terrible decision that her husband had to make...But it was the right choice in my opinion. It was also a lesson to the rest of us of the importance of having a living will, to let our families know in advance of our wishes to ensure that what happened with the Schiavo case doesn't have to be repeated for the loved ones we'll leave behind in cases of death/lifesupport issues.

And all those individuals who got involved in a private family matter (the politicians) should have thier bumms smacked.

Wait a sec...I've done that myself. Of course, I'd just had a tumor removed from my sinuses and was heavily medicated at the time...But I was telling my brother that the red light ment go and trying to make him stop at green lights...

One should never side-seat drive when under medical care and strong pain medication....

I don't know how traffic works in Chicagoland, but I've seen some gross offenders of left-turn lights and people jaywalking against the red hand signal out here in San Diego.

I'm sure her mom thought of that, but she mislead herself into thinking that Terri could reclaim her health. It's sad Terri had a catastrophic heart attack, which turned her from a beautiful young lady into a world of health problems.

Not just blind, her brain was soup.

Yeah, but what made her mother think that Terri could reclaim her health, outside of prayers and divine intervention? I don't want to say that she went too far overboard, but she did.

BTW, so nice to see you again since Yahoo.

Thanks

As a mother myself, I think it was mostly wishful thinking.

But also as a mother, you have to think about what is best for your child. I think that Mrs. Schindler was so caught up in her desire not to lose her child that she forgot about the pain her child must have been in.

Sometimes the best thing to do for your child is to let them go.

My mom and dad faced that when my older brother died before I was born. He had renal (kidney) failsure in 1951, not long before the world's first idney transplant was performed on a ten-year old patient in a Boston hospital. Three urologists performed the surgery.

Medicine, of course, was sophisticated back then, but my mom and dad had no choice but to watch my brother die.

Right at the time my brother died, animals were being used for medical research for the same purpose before the transplant.

I couldn't agree with you more Knot.

It probably shouldn't bother you so much. Cases that go before the SC are always very contentious issues that have somewhat solid arguments for both sides. The SC doesn't exist to make easy decisions.