« Starting to Get it | Main | Cross Your Fingers »


I find this story incredibly sad.

How can her husband just sit by and watch her starve to death? I have a really hard time believing he even loves her any more. He lives with another woman and had a child with her, but he never divorced Terri. What's up with that?

Maybe she isn't the person she was 15 years ago, but there is clearly someone there.

It hurts to be hungry, to be thirsty, how can doctors think it's ok to starve someone to death? If a criminal were sentenced to death they wouldn't be starved to death, that would be considered cruel and unusual. Why isn't it cruel and unusual to starve a disabled woman?

I also find it hard to believe that she told her husband she wouldn't want to be hooked up to a machine when none of the rest of her family had ever heard her say that. It seems like he came up with that to give himself an excuse to get rid of the pain of dealing with her.

I know there's probably lots more to this than what has been reported, but it just seems to sad and wrong to me.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (5)


Interesting. I wouldn't want to be her, hooked up to machines for 15 years. I'd rather they do what they are doing now...but 14 years ago, when it was obvious I wasn't going to make it...and everyone could go on with their lives, without false hope. And all that money spent.


I dunno...I guess I was under the impression that the tube was the only thing keeping her alive and she wasn't responsive to anything. At least that's the version I head on GMA or something. Personally, I'd rather have them unhook the damn thing than be kept alive. What good is life if you can't interact in any way with the ones you love? I would much rather have say 50 good years with my family, than 75 if I had to live the next 25 not being aware of anything. It does sound fishy from the husband's end, but still. Quality over Quantity, at least for me.

Horrible story, any way it's laid out.


What's sadder? Letting her pass on or keeping her alive in a vegetative state with no dignity? There is the issue of quality of life. This poor woman doesn't have any. Hasn't had any for 14 years. What is life without a thinking, feeling, responding mind behind it?? She has no life other than to be in her shell of a body and not able to interact with her loved ones. Her family is selfish and they should let her pass on to the next life. Keep her alive?? For what?? If she was a dog, or a cat, or horse they would have done the humane thing, but NOOOOOOO. Keep her alive because she's human. We are humane to animals and cruel to humans. Let her pass in peace and with some dignity. My last will and testament is very specific should a similar thing happen to me. It's all written out nice and legal. If you don't have a LWAT with medical directives and power of attorney I suggest you contact a lawyer and get one.


My brother was just legally starved to death after having a stroke, 69 days without food. Only one person in the family wanted this. Unfortunately she was his guardian like Mr. Schiavo. Like Schiavo she had the most to gain financially. The patient is not the only one affected by starvation. I suggest everyone choose a person to come to their house and starve a loved one for 69 days and you sit there everyday and watch being helpless. Oh yes, you can also watch the mother and young children watch the person starve. Oh yes, you can listen to hospice, doctors, administrators, and nurses lie and mislead you about the patient's condition. And you can answer stupid questions like, "How was your Christmas?" Thank you for letting me vent.

Post a comment


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 16, 2003 12:12 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Starting to Get it.

The next post in this blog is Cross Your Fingers.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.