I'm opposed to euthanasia and wouldn't want to see the courts decide who should live and who should die unless it's for some horrible crime. I know there are some countries (like the Netherlands) that do allow doctors to determine who should receive treatment and who should be exterminated. So I appreciate efforts to fight against policies that would legalize this practice in the United States. However, does Terri Schiavo and those who love her really want to prolong her vegetative life?

My wife and I have discussed this case and we wouldn't want to have respirators or feeding tubes preventing a normal death to occur if it were one of us. Who (if they could make the decision) would want to be kept alive in that condition with no hope for recovery?

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a chemical imbalance. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.

Court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Her husband says she would not want to be kept alive in that condition, but her parents insist she could recover with treatment. So the issue now is not living on her own but being kept alive by others.

Can anyone tell me whether there has been improvement in her condition since she suffered the brain damage? Is there really hope for recovery with treatment?


Wes

When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts