Alive until proven dead.

With all the controversy surrounding the Terri Schiavo case one has to wonder why without the medical proof to back up pulling the feeding tube why anyone has the right to do so or not. I mean take out the politics. Take away the parents, sister,brother, and husband. Then ask yourself without the proper medical tests provided, does she deserve to die? Should'nt there be medical proof to back up allowing her death?
In a world where convicts on death row get a much more humane death, should'nt someone lobby to change the laws that allow for such suffering?
Through out this entire ordeal all I have wondered is why the law allows anyone to make this call. How can someone, family or not say whether a person should live or die without having solid documentation from medical experts. MRI'S ect.
When you say coma, you expect to see someone looking as if they are sleeping, not someone with open eyes, smiling and trying to speak.
Let this be a lesson to all...make sure you have a living will that clearly states who has any rights to your life! Also make sure that you make the correct call on equipment that you would allow if such occured in your lifetime.
I'm sure many of the people on this board would have less of a problem with this issue if there were less questions and more proof about her medical background,ie: the treatments had not been halted, ect. And there were a less painfull way for her to die.

DuDe!!! Will you stop posting all these frickin threads about Terri Shiavo?!!

NOPE. Because everytime I post what I am trying to say somebody turns the thread into something completly different than it was intended. So if you have no comment on this particular thread, then go away.

Oh and i'm not the only one posting about this subject. You also have MauiStacey, and dgtempe posting about Terri, and fine post they are.
For the record...ima female...not a dude

I thought flooding a forum with repeated identical messages was against the Terms of Service. Why don't you just add on to your pre-existing threads instead of creating new ones? This is clearly all the same topic and does nothing but try to get people's attention to your agenda.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I thought flooding a forum with repeated identical messages was against the Terms of Service. Why don't you just add on to your pre-existing threads instead of creating new ones? This is clearly all the same topic and does nothing but try to get people's attention to your agenda.

Not an identical message. Asking thoughts on new laws. And if they should or not be lobbied for?
There are alot of John Tittor post, but not all are the same just because his name is in them.
So please read the questions and answer only if you have one. Or if you wish to add more points to the subject.