That tool, of course, is Mass Civil Disobedience. History is replete with successful use of this tool to force an issue. What do I mean by Mass Civil Disobedience? Don't be surprised if by, say, Easter Sunday, that a few hundred of those protestors on the ground try to force their way into Terri's room, attempt to feed her, and barricade themselves into the hospice until they get their way.

Or until something REALLY BLOODY happens

In her husband's defense, based on my own marriage of 20 years, I truly believe I would be more in tune with my wife's wishes than her parents. Also, as a parent, no matter how old your children are, they still are your children and you instinctively want to protect and preserve them.

The problem with the husband, however is his credibility. This is a man who recived a huge settlement to ostensibly "care for her for the rest of her life" and then decided he didn't want to. This is also a man who has been witnessed saying things like "Is she dead yet?" and "When is the b--ch going to die?"

Given the fact that there is no clear directive from Terri herself, and believing (perhaps naively) that the first priority for the medical community is to preserve life and "do no harm", I think the most correct answer is to default to the job description, and try to sustain her.

The disclaimer is that we all bring into this our personal views and emotions. The fact however is that none of us who are posting here know what Terri would have wanted, and neither her husband or her parents have convinced me that they absolutely know either. So the simple question it boils down to is this: Is the job of medical science to let us die unless we have told them we want to live? Or is it to help us live unless we have told them we want to die?

So many people willing to openly display their ignorance of HOSPICE care. You don't get into hospice if you're not dying, and it's all about dying with comfort and dignity. Sciavo will not suffer at all. Stop being such emotional morons.

Oh, and you can believe what is going on is wrong without being a "Jesus freak". I wouldn't starve prisoners or dogs to death, and I am for killing both in the right cases. I am for turning off life support for those who can't live without it, but starving someone to death because it is convenient is just wrong.

If you think it's okay, let's hope you don't get Alzheimer's.

If Michael Schiavo's concern is for Terri's "privacy," that ship has LONG since sailed. If it's for her "dignity," how can he justify denying her sufficient PT at least to prevent or minimize her contractures? If it's for his own peace of mind, to know that he's done all he can to carry out her wishes, then under what rationale did he pursue the medical malpractice suit intended to provide her treatment? I understand that new therapies have had success in training some patients previously thought unable to swallow, so that they can subsist without a feeding tube. What are we to make of Schiavo's unwillingness to let these therapies be attempted, except that a feeding tube is the only form of "life support" that could legitimately be withdrawn from her to bring about her death? If my position, regardless of my motives, were as cloudy as his, I know I'd be doing everything in my power to make the process, both medical and legal, as transparent as possible so that I could eventually walk through a supermarket without people spitting on me.

I understand her Husband mentioned she had said she did not want to be kept on "Life Support" (Respirator / Heart Machine) but he only mentioned this several years after she had gotten sick during the court case.

While I was living in the mid-east I witnessed a public hanging and thought "for such an advanced culture, how could they be so primitive"?

Now my country is starving a woman hoping she will die in a few weeks if we don't feed her.

We could never do something this inhumane to a dog or a cat. But we seem to except it for this woman.

I understand she is/ was not "dying".

The question is "can we kill a person because someone else (only the Husband, with nothing in writing) said she asked him to kill her?

I believe in a "Do Not Resuscitate", but I do not believe in a "Starve me to death and make me suffer if I become a burden to you".

I just can't imagine the discussion

"Honey, if I ever lose most of my abilities, or suffer very serious brain damage and become reliant on you, well actually my Family whom I have know for 41 years, many more then you and I have been together, and I become a burden to you and your “Common Law Wife” please just kill me in a very slow, painful, inhuman way. What would be best is, make it as painful and horrible as you possibly can (drying up and starving is not an easy way to die)."

Or do you think she might have said something more like this; “Honey, if I ever become sick and am on a life support system (Respirator / Heart Machine), please just pull the plug (cut the electricity)”.

She is not and was not on “Life Support.

She has a feeding tube much like many other disabled people.

As for the person in the medical field who wrote;

“Those of us who have worked in the medical field understand that this woman ceased to be a functioning human being at the time of her brain damage.”

You obviously have not loved a person who has suffered serious brain damage. Perhaps someday you too will have that opportunity and will find that even if they are not “functioning” they are still a “human being”

If she is in a "Vegetative State" (as her Husband claims) then she would not be cognitive of her in-ability. She would not be cognitive of her situation or her state. We would be killing a person who would not understand "why" we are being so cruel to her and not helping her.

Husband is off the hook. He should let the Family take care of her and head off and enjoy his life with his "Common Law Wife".

If she is not in a "Vegetative State" then she may have the ability to get some enjoyment from being alive on some level. And intentionally killing a living being capable, or cognitive, of pain and pleasure is just plain sick.

What kind of society are we?

P.S.
Hey Jeff Baker, thanks for your input. I am sure we all value your well though-out, adult comments and will consider your point of view.

It’s folks like you that we all respect, and tend to listen to when we discuss serious subjects.

I am kidding; you do bring humor to a serious subject. You do make a difference.

As for the allegations of abuse, they are all total fabrications. Please look at the primary documents in the case. The only allegations of abuse are coming from ignorant outsiders without access to primary evidence. In other words, they are just making it up.

Get it straight right-wing Jesuslanders: there is no credible medical belief that Terri Schiavo can be anything other than a digestive system with muscles. The courts have ruled over and over again that Mr. Schiavo is the guardian and they have ruled repeatedly that he is carrying out his wifes wishes.

Sad that the neurosurgeon in question doesn't have the backing of many of his contemporaries! Maybe then people would believe he's not a quack.

Sad that the public and the federal government can't keep out of other peoples personal business.

Sad that we're willing to put Fido down quick and painlessly when he's had a good run but we can't give ourselves the same courtesy!

As a father, I couldn't let my daughter or son suffer for so long!

As a husband, my wife expects me to provide the quickest most painless end possible and to get on with my life!

As a human being, I expect nothing less!