It's been stated that it was against Terri Schiavo's wishes to be kept alive if she were ever put in the situation she is currently in, but certain mitigating factors MUST BE examined that perhaps have not been examined.
------------------------------
Reason's why I think it's murder to remove the feeding tube that gives nutrition to Terri Schiavio.
Reason number #1 why it's murder to not feed Terri Schiavo...
Schiavo was bulimic when she was "normal" and apparently it was bulimia that caused her present medical condition. It's very possible that Terri's concerns about being hooked up were based on how she would "look" hooked up to life saving machines.
According to the rule of law, how you look is not a good enough reason to end your own life. YOU CANNOT LEGALLY END YOUR LIFE BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY YOU LOOK, so the very thing that caused Terri to end up needing medical attention, her bulimia, is not reason enough to end her own life.
-------------------
Reason number #2 why it's murder...
The Ender's argue that Terri's brain has turned liguid and she is no longer "there", therefore it is not murder to end her life...
If Terri is no longer there, then the Terri that allegedly wanted her life ended if she ever ended up vegetative is no longer there, either. It's a different Terri that existed before. The enders are saying the wishes of a child outweigh the wishes of that child when they become older. (a child's view does not have precedence over that same person's view as they get older.)
Bulimia is NOT a normal activity, so to imply Terri was completely within her sound mind when she may have made her statements about not wanting to be hooked up to an "ELECTRICAL" life saving machine is not reason enough to kill her now.
---------------------
Reason number #3 why it's murder to end Terri Schiavo's life...
Terri Schiavo is NOT being artifically kept alive. There is no electricity keeping Terri
Schiavo alive, it's strictly a feeding tube that sends nutrition to her stomach.
This is no different than having a colostomy bag in place, or a breathing tube in place, neither of those scenarios constitutes being artifically kept alive because there is no plug to pull. It appears judges are branding being kept artificially alive by electricity and machinery as being identical to being kept alive by non electrical methods. This is a big mistake. By combining these two very different methods of life support into the same interpretation Judges are making a precedent setting ruling without even realizing it.
If a judge doesn't acknowlege precedent when they make a precendent setting case then they have bungled their ruling. The judges are saying it's rule of existing law but in fact the judges have CHANGED the rule of existing law by combining electrical life support with non electrical life-support. By not acknowleging the precedent setting ruling they are making and alleging they are following existing law, they have erred.
---------
Reason number #4
It's barbaric to take a living human being and snuff out their life by depriving them of nutrition!
Whether it's putting a pillow over their head and stopping them from breathing, or pulling their feeding tube out of their gullet that provides nutrition, IT'S THE SAME THING!
If the judges won't allow someone to put a pillow over Terri Shiavo's mouth and simply suffocate her, then they shouldn't allow her to be FORCEFULLY STARVED over a span of TEN DAYS OR MORE! This is torture sanctioned by the government!
In the past, ELECTRICAL power has been turned off to end someone's life, but there are NO ELECTRICAL PLUGS this time! Forced torture by starvation has been mistakenly sanctioned by our government.
Terri Schiavo is a prisoner and needs to be rescued from her captors by our government.
------------------
Reason #5
Terri is suffering and she has the right to die with dignity...
Which is worse, being denied FOOD AND WATER until you die, or being cared for by a society that still values your life?
A standard needs to be set that if someone can survive a short term interruption of assisted breathing or assisting feeding, then their life should not be terminated by the ongoing method of starvation.
Unless Ms. Schiavo feels pain in her day to day life, or is awake enough to state she wants to die NOW, she should be taken care of IF SOMEONE FROM HER HER OWN FAMILY, be it either her husband or her own parents, want to continue her care.
The wish of the husband should not outweigh the wish of the parents, especially if the husband has moved on and started a new life with another partner.
The husband has probably broken some law by starting a family with a new person without divorcing from Ms. Schiavo.
Ms. Schiavo's parents should be allowed to represent Ms. Schiavo in divorce proceedings because her husband has has a conflict of interest and cannot best represent Ms. Schiavo and himself and his new relationship and their kids that he has fathered.
Ms. Schiavo's fate should transfer to her parents IF THEY WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY, and it appears they do.
