The following represents my views. It may or may not represent those of
other people.

Mark Schiavo: what's the hurry in killing your wife Terri?

And please don't feed us the "She didn't want to live like this,"
baloney.  For one, I seriously doubt that she ever said that to you or
to anybody else.  You never brought that up in the first seven-plus
years after she collapsed.  Why not?  If that was her wish, you should
have had the figurative plug pulled back in 1990 when it happened.
Certainly no later than 1992.  Why did it take you seven years to
remember that?

I'll tell you why. Because she never said it, Mark.  It's your cop out.
You couldn't take it anymore.  You couldn't handle the stress of the
situation any longer.  So you decided to get rid of the inconvenience.
You claim to love her.  You have a weird way of showing it---starving
her literally to death.  And I understand that there's another woman in
your life.  Terri's being alive isn't convenient for that situation, is
it?  Better off killing the old girl off and getting it out of the way,
right?

But it wasn't that simple, was it?  Many others were opposed to it,
most notably her parents.  So why didn't you turn Terri's custody over
to them and be done with it?   Then you could do as you please with the
other woman.  Would your conscience bother you then?

Let's assume that you're doing this because you simply can't stand to
see her in this state anymore and that there isn't any ulterior motive
involved with the other woman (or women).  Don't you understand that
there are still people who love your wife and want to see her continue
to live?  Why can't you turn her over to them?  They'd take care of
her.  Assign guardianship to them.

Instead, you've gotten stubborn about it.  You're bound and determined
to have her killed off----and make no bones about it, that's exactly
what you're doing.  This isn't a case of a person who has no brain wave
activity, who will die within seconds or minutes of a heart-lung
machine being disconnected, and who won't even know that it happened
because his/her brain is already dead.  We're talking about a person
whose body is still functioning with the aid of feeding.  True, she has
to be cared for, but so do millions of other people.  Many elderly
people are that way.  Most infants are that way. Should we kill all of
them, too?

Please don't feed me the "She's in a persistent vegetative state."  If
that doesn't matter to her parents, and if the state and/or private
sectors are willing to take care of her and relieve you of all
responsibility, why would it matter to you?

I see that some experts think that she might be in a minimally
conscious state.  Shouldn't that be looked into?  Why are you so
insistent about killing Terri off?  You've waited fifteen years.  Why
would another few months matter?

I understand the the courts have ruled that you're her guardian and can
decide matters such as removing her feeding tube.  But just who
appointed you God here to decide whether she lives or dies?  What's she
guilty of?  Not being able to function normally on her own account?  If
so, how about killing off all the learning-challenged people?  How
about killing off all the elderly who need care?  Why not end the lives
of all infants under the age of two?  Most of those can't care for
themselves, either.

What's the hurry, Mark?

I've read that you haven't left her bedside since the feeding tube was
removed.  Is that supposed to be a final gesture of love?  Or are you
staying nearby to make sure nobody sneaks her food or water until she
dies of a lack of both?

Whether you realize it or not, her death won't bring you peace.  Far
from it.  It will make things worse.  You won't understand that until
after she's gone though.  But trust me on this, Mark: I've been through
your situation twice with loved ones who were (in each case) in
supposedly irreversible states.  I wanted to take the easy out like
you're doing.  But I stuck it out both times.  Once it worked out well
and the person came back to us and lived a reasonable life for a few
more years.  The other time it didn't and the person passed on.  It's
tough, but in retrospect, I realize that I made the right decision both
times.  You haven't----yet.  You seem so obsesed with ending this that
you won't listen to anybody who has an opposing view.  You won't just
turn your wife over to your parents and be done with it.  They'll love
her.  They'll care for her. If they pass on while Terri's still alive,
others will gladly continue her care.

In other words, Mark, you're not going to be out anything or
inconvenienced in any way by turning Terri over to your parents.  By
not doing so and forcing her death, you're alienating not only Mr. and
Mrs. Schindler, but literally millions of others.  I doubt anybody
would be majorly angry at you if you let Terri's feeding tube be
reconnected.  But I shudder to think of all the people who will be very
unhappy with you if she dies from your imposed starvation.  Or what
those people might do.

If none of the above makes any sense to you, remember your marriage
vows that stated:

"....to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to
cherish, till death do us part"

"Better or worse", Mark. Not just "better".  "Sickness and health".
Not just good health.  In other words, you were supposed to stick it
out, even though times are bad.  Not get rid of what you probably
perceive to be a problem and/or inconvenience because things aren't all
that rosy.

Oh, and "till death do us part," doesn't mean that you're supposed to
hasten her death.  Because you're essentially her executioner here.
And it just doesn't make sense to me no matter how its sugar
coated----it's still murder.

Tom Barrister.

(apologies if this appears more than once in a newsgroup)