Right to die: Who should decide?

A severely brain damaged woman in the US is being kept alive artificially, despite evidence from doctors that she will never recover.

A tube feeding Terri Schiavo, who has been incapacitated since she collapsed in 1990, was removed last week, but doctors began rehydrating her intravenously in preparation for re-insertion of her feeding tube.

They were acting on orders from Florida Governor Jeb Bush after legislators had passed a bill giving him the power to do so.

Terri has been at the centre of a bitter court battle between her husband Michael, who says his wife told him she would never want to be kept alive, and her family.

Do you agree with the Governor's orders to keep her alive? Who should make the final decision? Send us your views.

---

This debate is now closed. Read your comments below.

Your reaction:

The comments below reflect a balance of views received:

All I know is that I DO NOT want a bunch of religious fundamentalists making the decision for me. Just think of all the resources they're wasting in this case. Resources that could be used on people who actually do have a chance of recovery!
Katrina, Norway

A person who has been reduced to nothing in life, as in this case, should be put out of their immense suffering.
John, USA

It is so inhumane to let Terri Schiavo suffer Thomas, UK

It is so inhumane to let Terri Schiavo suffer. As I do not know the full specifics of the case I do think that if Terri's family agrees with her death being the best for her then she should be allowed to die peacefully and the doctors should then let her die in the most peaceful way.
Thomas, UK

Please give her a chance to live even if she has health problem till the end of her life.
Anwar, Ethiopia

Governor Jeb Bush's orders to keep Terri Schiavo alive is the right to do. Almighty God is the only Supreme Being who should make the final decision on matters of life and death. Terri Schiavo should be allowed to end her days through natural causes. Do we actually know what this poor lady is thinking this very minute? If she wants to live, then God have mercy on those poor souls who want to hasten her death.
Jaward Sesay, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Whilst I do not know the specifics of this case, in general I believe that quality of life is far more important than quantity of life. A belief I had to stand by when I asked for my father's life support to be turned off.
Philip, UK

Whoever does have the moral right to make this horrible decision, one thing is for sure; The Governor of the State of Florida is certainly not that person.
Matt, UK

Terri wants to live. Let her. But it doesn't sound as if this hospice is an ideal place for her - she should be somewhere where the doctors haven't given up on her.
Gill, Wales

Let this poor woman die with dignity Denise, UK

Let this poor woman die with dignity. 13 Years kept alive is long enough. If this was me I know in my heart that I would not want to go on like that. Give this lady the peace she now deserves.
Denise, UK

The "final" decision, if there is one to be made at all; must be made jointly by all affected parties, there are too many emotions running rampant to put it in just one party's hands. Last November, I suffered 3 strokes, which have paralyzed my right hand and foot. I told my family and physicians (all 5 of them) when I was in hospital 'use any and all means necessary to keep me alive'. God will come for me, and Terri, when he will. No one knows our "best interests" better. No human being has the right to kill me, and that's what this "right to die" is all about, legally sanctioned murder.
Steve Politowicz, USA

This is a judgement Solomon would have difficulty with. With the lack of a living will, and without unanimous consent within the family, medical experts, nurse, and ethical debate, then maybe there is no option to maintain life and await nature. What has been sad is the ignorance of the US Supreme Court not to get involved. They could and should take a lead. BUT they FAILED EVERYONE including Terri.
Scott Wallace, UK/Japan

Although I do not know the specifics of the case regarding Terri Schiavo, I believe that people who knowingly have an illness that will leave them debilitated of suffer a death that they would not want to go through should be able to have their lives ended at their wishes. Motor neurone disease sufferers for example would have time to make sufficient legal documentation should euthanasia become legal, to make clear instructions regarding their "life" and "death". The law needs to be reviewed and soon.
Zoe, England

I feel sorry for Terri, being the centre of a tug of love. Yet if everyone stood back and looked clearly at the state of this pitiful woman, one would endeavour to do what was best for her. And that is, simply: give her the human rights to live and die with dignity.
Cindy, UK

The people who should decide are the people that are suffering the most - the victim and her family Janet Paulin, Philippines/Australia

The people who should decide are the people that are suffering the most - the victim and her family. It is painful enough that the family has lost their loved one. Now they aren't even allowed to let go. The doctors don't care about how these people feel. They just care about what medical breakthrough they can accomplish that will bring them fame and fortune.
Janet Paulin, Philippines/Australia

This woman deserves a chance to live. If her husband doesn't want to have anything to do with her, why doesn't he divorce her and give the rights and the money to her parents. This is insane. Thanks Gov Bush for stepping in on this matter!!!! This should be her parents' choice as well as her husband.
Julie Wilson, USA

If there is no cure or hope of a solution to the suffering person, then at their request they should be allowed to pass on. If you would not allow an animal to suffer in this way, then why do it to a fellow human being? Let the sufferer decide. Don't play GOD.
R L Drain, UK

I am one of the volunteers who has been working with diligence for three months to protect Terri from this horrible death sentence. As a Yorkshire woman I go in fighting when I know that something is wrong, and Judge Greers sentence of death was plainly wrong. I can only hope that the world takes the time to look into this case, and into this particular hospice. A hospice which SHOULD only keep terminal patients for a period of time not to exceed six months. And I hope they wonder why the lawyer working on behalf of Michael, Felos, JUST HAPPENED to be on the board of directors of the hospice.

Then you get the director of the hospice who has made a handsome sum of money running around the nation using Terri as a crutch for her euthanasia scheme. All have some financial gain involved. And the world reads a brief account and never realizes that these waters run deep. When Terri was told she would have to have the feeding tube removed. A feeding tube that would NOT have been required had Michael spent ANY of the money on rehabilitation, Terri tried to get out of her chair in fear. Yes, this "comatose" "vegetative" woman actually tried to save herself. Perhaps the State of Florida has a different definition - HUNDREDS of specialists across the nation are saying that Terri IS A WONDERFUL CANDIDATE FOR REHABILITATION.
Denise Bundy, USA

Denise Bundy, I think you are terribly selfish. If Terri has requested to be allowed to die, what right do you have in torturing her like this? Put yourself in her shoes, her pain, her state of mind and then imagine how painful it would be if I did all I could to keep you in that terrible state. But people like you will never listen to the wishes of people who are in a condition that you will, hopefully, never have to experience.
Rick, UK

To all those who say it should be entirely a medical decision, I would like to point out that in hearing this case over the past ten years, the court heard exhaustive medical evidence on Terri. Based on these medical facts, the courts decided to take Terri off the feeding tube. Now, however, the Florida legislature has overruled the court's decision based only on what they have heard in the media. It is simply ridiculous.
Al, USA

The courts must have the final say in this particular situation Andrew Smith, USA

Normally I would support the move by the Florida legislature because taking out her feeding tube and letting her slowly starve to death is not dying with "dignity," but the legislature's decision to defy the courts is a dangerous demonstration of an overblown view of states' rights. In the end, I don't know if either the husband, the family, or the governor is fit to keep this woman alive. Therefore, I think the courts must have the final say in this particular situation.
Andrew Smith, USA

Thanks to advances in medical science, numbers of these tragic cases increase yearly. That being the case, every adult, mentally competent person should be strongly encouraged to make a legally binding "Living Will" where they set out exactly what treatments they do or do not accept, and under what circumstances they wish all treatment to cease. I believe everyone should have the right to decide their own fate, based on their own beliefs. This is also a responsibility - you owe it to the peace of mind of your family and kin to make your own decision. In cases, where there is no living will, I believe a panel of 3 doctors should decide, based on clear cut guidelines which have been drawn up. The guidelines should be based solely on the patient's quality of life and hope for improvement.
Alexis, UK

It pretty obvious most people who commented haven't bothered to read anything about this woman. It's apparent when viewing the video of this woman she is hardly the vegetable her husband and his lawyer have made her out to be. Severely handicapped is more descriptive. Governor Bush is correct. Allowing someone to starve to death over a period of weeks or a month is hardly "painless" nor is it euthanasia. It's wrong.
Steven, US

I think it is ridiculous that mercy killing is allowed to relieve the pets from their misery, but the humans have to live because a politician says so. Some of us are appalled that both parties who say they have "their loved one's interest in mind are fighting over a person who is in a vegetative state for umpteen years.
Subiha, USA

My spouse was a prominent Federal Prosecutor in New York. She lived the life of Terri Schiavo for almost a year but with a deadly painful cancer. She always begged me not to let her live like a vegetable. We were just lucky to have a Health Proxy. Witnessing my only love in my life suffering every single day for a year was beyond that I could bear. Since doctors gave me no hope of cure except a continuous pain, I was left sharing the suffering pain with her. The life of someone I love to death. Rather, I kept watching her suffering. People tend to judge by feeling, media, politics, religion or other means. They would never understand the wish of someone else unless they live it themselves. Which I hope never someone will.
KC, Morocco/USA

A curious argument, to say we should not "play God." What are we doing, if not playing God? If she is self-aware, we have placed her in a literal Hell on Earth.
Matthew, USA

No one has the right to decide on whether you should die. There should be an amendment in congress to protect our human rights/life. Not decisions to discard us. We are not to play God. I agree with the Governor's orders to keep her alive.
Darlene, USA

Surely it is up to the person to decide whether they are kept alive or not. It should not be left to any other party/parties apart from close family members who know what the person would want. Why would you want someone to go through the humiliation of being a vegetable who cannot do anything for themselves? It is in-human to keep a person 'alive' when they are not going to recover, and not to let the person decide whether they want to die or not!
Catherine Payne, England

I think she should live. The reason was she has the right to live and there is hope in the world. I think she can overcome this serious illness as she gets our support and encourage.
Kylie, Hong Kong

It is no one's right to decide on someone else's life Duncan Thorp, Scotland

What is this bizarre mentality about the 'Right to Die'? What about the Right to Life? We should stop listening to religious zealots who think we will go to some magical kingdom in the clouds when we die. We should support life - not death - at all costs. It is no one's right to decide on someone else's life. Only the individual has that right.
Duncan Thorp, Scotland

If the Governor has the power to decide whether she lives or dies, and he decided that she should live; then he should cover all her medical expenses. Because is very easy to take the decision and then just lay off the matter.
Victoria, Venezuela

This will not end happily for whichever side comes out on top. Unfortunately, despite whoever has their say, nobody will ever be able to take into account the only real view that matters - Terri's.
Richard Hawley, UK

Since it is medical science that is keeping Terri alive, isn't it against God's will? It sounds harsh, but if it were up to God, she would have died 13 years ago. Let her rest in peace.
Shawn, Washington, DC, USA

If she told her husband she didn't want to be kept alive shouldn't her wishes be taken seriously? It isn't doing her or the family any good now is the time to admit that her soul is no longer there. They need to start the grieving process properly.
Kelly Phillips, UK

The trouble is that this essentially a new problem - medical science has advanced such that people who previously would have died now can be kept 'alive' and that fact is most definitely relevant to situations such as this. We need to take the bull by the horns and deal with these situations - e.g. living wills. Personally I think Ms Schiavo should be allowed to die with dignity and Mr Schiavo shouldn't be anywhere near her or the money when it happens.
Katherine, UK

I think today there is an overvaluation of life itself, not thinking about quality of this life. In fact, it should be the quality of this life what tells us if it deserves to be lived of if it's too much weight to wear. In this particular case it's clear that the last decision must be the affected person's. It's common sense that nobody has the right to decide about other's life.
Cristian, Catalonia

I think her parents should be allowed to have their way in the dispute Deborah, UK

Her husband is right to wish her to be allowed to die, but contemptible if he is motivated by financial considerations. Her parents are (presumably) motivated by love, but are misguided to wish her to continue in this non-life. Unfortunately, however, I think her parents should be allowed to have their way in the dispute. Her husband has the alternative of divorce; they cannot cease to be her parents and therefore their wishes should prevail, since death is irrevocable and artificially maintained life is not. But it is not what I would wish for myself in her place.
Deborah, UK

It's a very tough question, but ultimately if someone is in a position where they have no quality of life, they should have the right to decide if they want to die. As far as I'm concerned, letting her die would be freeing her from continued suffering.
Malcolm, Australia

It is a pity that more people are not aware that ALL adults, in sound mind, in this country can ask their solicitor to draw up what is called a 'living Will'. The cost is quite small and ensures that you are not kept alive if you are a 'vegetable' as a result of an accident or illness. A copy of this 'living Will' can be given to your GP, and as many of your next of kin as you wish. This ensures that your wish is carried out, and not the wish of politicians or groups with vested interests or beliefs.
J. Pardoe, UK

I believe that the husband should have his wish and thus Terri own wish to be carried out. Once again the political correctness and foolhardiness of the political mind is stepping into the path of practicality. Put aside the sentiments for an instant and think what is the point of a body to just exist. Think of the trauma that the family has to go through each second, each hour, each day, each and every moment. Also think of the fact that such a person a stress on the resources.
Ritesh Patel, New Zealand

It's medical intervention going to far. In past years Terri would have died peacefully and this situation would never have arisen. Personally if I ever get into that state I would hope that my family would let me go and then they could get on with their lives. Terri isn't living, she is existing.
Joanne, UK

Extraordinary measures to keep someone alive when there is no hope of recovery (her brain is mostly liquid) is not required under Catholic law. Palliative though not intrusive treatment should be given until she passes away. As for "starving her"; well, the body does not require food or drink before it dies; there is no feeling of thirst or hunger. Did you ever hear of a dying man asking for a ham sandwich in his last breath? This is not euthanasia, death is not hastened but only let run its course.
Niamh Choo, Singapore

I wouldn't want to be kept alive in this state Dan, England

I wouldn't want to be kept alive in this state, and in making this statement I am sound of mind and healthy right now. It worries me that people who don't know me would assume some kind of authoritative role in life decisions without consideration of my wishes. We do not allow animals to suffer like this, because it is cruel, so why is it a human is not afforded the same courtesy. Shame on Jeb Bush and his supporters for their selfish views.
Dan, England

Stop feeding her, and let the poor woman have a break from something she clearly did not want in the first place. For those who say it is God's choice to take her I can only say that it is men who keep her alive and not a god.
Malcolm, UK

If she is actually brain dead then is that not the classification for being dead. I could not make the decision to kill someone and to be honest the doctors vows that they take would have to change if this is to happen. The vow they take states that they will do anything in their power to keep someone alive and never kill someone using their knowledge. So allowing euthanasia under their current vow of practice would be breaking that vow straight away.
Nina, UK

Jeb Bush was right about this - whatever bias people may have against him. The husband's present situation and behaviour would make terminating Terri's life by depriving her of sustenance - akin to murder. She's conscious and may one day revive to a point where she can communicate. People who have revived in the past say they have been aware of what's going on around them. If Terri realises her life is being terminated she might feel very different to how she felt when she told her husband (assuming he's honest) that she would rather die in such circumstances.
Dorothy

The commentators concerned about Terri's husband or the expense of keeping Terri alive should understand two things: he is free to divorce her at any time, but if he does he will lose the right to inherit the large sum of money (won in a lawsuit) intended for her future care. He is not the right person to decide whether she should live or die.
Carolyn, USA

She should be given a dignified death, not kept "alive" nor "allowed" to die through starvation. In these cases we treat pet animals better than each other. Given a choice between a drug induced high and a body screaming for sustenance I know how I'd prefer to die.
David, UK

Her husband cannot continue to act as guardian as he has a conflict of interest Deborah, Australia

The guardianship should be handed over to her parents immediately and shame on the Judges in the past that have not done this already. Her parents truly do have their daughters best interests at heart. Her husband cannot continue to act as guardian as he has a conflict of interest with the life he leads now and the money involved.

There should be court action taken to inquire as to why he was allowed to waste her "rehabilitation money" on trying to get a death sentence instead. There should be a huge, and I mean huge, investigation into Terri's last seven years. An investigation into the alleged neglect, lack of rehabilitation and the behaviour of her husband. How difficult would it be to ask Terri herself if she wants to be killed off? Oops I mean die? She can blink, smile and hear.
Deborah, Australia

Life is supreme. It should be extended as far as it can.
Ali Asghar Shabbir, Pakistan

Is there no way that the law can grant Terri and her husband a divorce? If he wants to move on with his girlfriend and daughter then he should give up all rights to any of the money that was meant for Terri's rehabilitation and should hand over responsibility of her care to her family.
Faye, England

I think it is a crime to force this poor woman to continue living like this. She's not having any kind of life at all in the hospital bed with a tube. She should be allowed to finally die and have peace. It is too bad that no one can say for certain what she would have wanted. This is why there needs to be more laws making euthanasia and such legal so that there can be set ways of people being able to make choices for themselves well before the need to implement the choices ever comes into being.
Fiorenza, Italy

Having read the background to this case I think it illustrates perfectly why we have laws against Euthanasia; to safeguard against people like Michael Schiavo who have ulterior motives. I hope that she now gets the rehab care she and deserves. It should also be pointed out that removing her feeding tubes does not allow a natural, dignified end. Death by this means is particularly drawn out and painful.
Catherine Parkes, England

Terri Schiavo obviously didn't agree with her parents' religious beliefs when she told her husband not to keep her alive if she needed artificial life support. Not everybody shares this view, but it's up to each individual married couple to decide what they want. She was an adult, married woman when she collapsed and as such her parents should listen to her husband. He is her next of kind, not Jeb Bush.
Christine, UK

I think it is high time a group of doctors get together and from a solid opinion on Terri's state Rebecca, USA

I think it is high time a group of doctors get together and from a solid opinion on Terri's state. It seems to me that her parents are in denial of her true health and her husband, being engaged to another woman, is living a new life that is not focused on Terri. If a group of doctors decide that the current doctors, are correct, her parents should be told to face the facts and let her die in peace.
Rebecca, USA

This must be so very difficult for the family. Personally I would not and could not give the go ahead to let a person die deliberately, we do not have that right to say who can and cannot live. It will not be long before us humans will be told that we have lived long enough and our time is up even though we are still healthy and alive - let her live naturally and let her die naturally.
Rita Scriven, England

I know if i were in her position i wouldn't want to live. The parents obviously want their child to live so as they don't have to cope with the loss of the child and from what I've heard the husband may well be looking for financial gain. If it can be proved that she did in fact say to her husband that she didn't want to live like she is then i think her wishes should be allowed.
Joe, UK

Terri's parents and nurses point out that Terri is conscious, and doctors recommend therapy to help her regain some independence. She is disabled, not in a coma. Her husband has refused all therapy, made comments to nurses that she should hurry up and die, etc. He is living with his current girlfriend, with whom he has a child. He could divorce Terri, and marry again, but he wants the money. He has no interest in her getting better; he wants her dead. This husband should not have the ability to kill his wife.
Kathy W, USA

If her husband wants her dead for the insurance money, then surely the first thing should be to get Terri assessed by someone other than his Doctors, to find out if any change in the treatment she is getting will improve any chance of possible recovery. Poor woman is being used as a pawn in a very unkind game - feeding her then not feeding her!! If she cannot make her own choice and her husband actually just wants to get on with his life, then the kindest thing to do would be to hand over responsibility for her welfare to her parents - Terri still is part of their lives!
JJ, UK

Surely this should be a medical decision and made on those grounds alone? It should not be made by husband or family (nor by meddling Governors or religious groups). If it were me I'd want the medics to decide to let me die.
LH, UK

I believe life belongs to God and no matter how one is being kept alive whether on life support or not. If a person is still alive it means God is allowing it to be so. Nobody has the right to take life. Let God decide whether to take her or not. God comes in when all others have failed and the fact that this woman is still alive shows that there is hope. Please do not kill her.
Mercy Kummwenda, Malawi

She should be relieved of the torture of being alive Ratna, USA

If the doctors have the evidence that brain is beyond repair and she had herself told her husband that she did not want to live like a vegetable then she should be relieved of the torture of being alive. It is not Jeb Bush's business to play God and torture a helpless individual.
Ratna, USA

I don't think that the Governor or Terri's parents have the right to intervene in this situation. The husband should be allowed to make the final decision; Terri married him hoping that when disorder came about he would make the right decision. If the governor or the parents are allowed to make the final decision in this situation they should be held accountable for all expenses and trauma caused to others. The governor and her parents should put aside politics and look at the situation as if it were them lying in that bed. Would they want to put their family through the pain of seeing them suffer with no hopes of ever getting better?
VF, USA

To those who would pull the plug, go spend an hour with a patient like this and then decide whether you personally could walk over and remove that feeding tube from a helpless, disabled human being who has as much right to live as you or I. Europeans, who have socialistic medicine, seem to be under the impression that the expense of this woman's care is on the state, thus taking funds away from others. Wrong. In America, insurance pays some and the family pays the rest. Besides, if the family's faith dictates that she should not be murdered, who are we to interfere?
Audrey, USA

How many who say it's okay to put Terri Schaivo to death by slow and painful starvation thinks it's awful to put to death a mass murderer who's committed unspeakable acts of horror by a quick and painless injection?
Tom E., USA

Unfortunately she is just a living vegetable and deserves the dignity of a clean end to a miserable existence.
Alan Huckerby, USA/Australia

Both of my parents have made their position absolutely clear to me: If ever they get to a state where they cannot indicate otherwise, they want the life-support turned off. I would want the same, and no government has the right to take this choice away from the individual.
Anon, UK

I think this whole argument is the wrong way round - it's the individual's life and they should be free to do as they please with it. What we should be debating is the right of other people to control your life.
David Howe, UK

I feel a better solution would be to allow this man to divorce her and then let the parents decide the fate of their own child Shawn, Washington, DC, USA

She has the right to choose for herself however, without a living will, no one can know for certain what her wishes would be. Therefore, unfortunately, her next of kin, her husband, has the right to make that decision. I feel a better solution would be to allow this man to divorce her and then let the parents decide the fate of their own child.
Shawn, Washington, DC, USA

In cases like this it is far easier if the husband and the family are on the same side. But this is a very sad case indeed. I don't think that Governor Bush has much to gain from his order. My view is that in uncertain cases the courts should have the final say.
Topi Lappalainen, Finland

If she responds and understands anything at all, it would be wrong to let her die. Unless someone has a living will which states that they do not want to be kept alive by artificial means, pulling the plug on someone is tantamount to murder.
Kelly, Hershey, PA, USA

I think Terri should be allowed to die - what sort of life has she got? She made her wishes clear to her husband and these should be respected. They will never have a 'normal' life whilst again, but how can be move on with her in a coma? As she is unable to take in food naturally, it us very UNNATURAL to keep her alive.
Elaine Allan, UK

I have read a good deal about this woman recently. Her family claim that she can recognise them and reacted with distress to the news that her husband wanted to withdraw her feeding tube. If they are correct then she should never have been refused help. She may have expressed her wish to die rather than be left in a persistent vegetative state to her husband before her collapse but I do not believe she ever thought that she would be euthanised in such a barbaric manner. If Terri is to be euthanised, at least make it quick and painless. There is a chance that she cannot feel the pain but you wouldn't starve a dog in this manner.
Kat Wesley, UK

Double standards operating here. Florida is a state that has the death penalty for criminals. Death is inflicted by the state on those that have no choice in the matter whereas life, it seems, is inflicted on those that have specifically requested to die. If Mr Bush values life so much then perhaps he should stand by his principles and commute all prisoners on death row to a life sentence. If his conscience is clear about consigning criminals to death then he should have no qualms about letting Mrs Schiavo have the peaceful release her family have requested.
Lorraine, UK

As long as there is life there is hope. We should not give up on Terri Ruby, US

As long as there is life there is hope. We should not give up on Terri. I think she should start an intensive rehabilitation program as soon as the rehydration and the feeding tube has been reinserted. God will never leave you or fail you. God will never abandon his people. The LORD will not abandon his chosen people. 1 Samuel 12:22. God will never desert those who trust in him and love him. When you feel abandoned, don't give up on God.
Ruby, US

This woman has suffered enough. The family need to let her die peacefully to end their own prolonged suffering and hers. Then they need to be able to grieve and move forward with their lives.
Richard H, Manchester, UK

There have been many comments on how disheartening it is to see the Florida State Government trying to use this case for politically motivated purposes and how the Government should be staying away from the case. But what if her marital life with her husband was strained? Then will her husband be the right person to call the shots? And anyways killing somebody without her knowledge, howsoever pitiful her life might be, is even crueller than euthanasia because the person doesn't even know when her life is being snatched away. There have been many cases in the field of medical sciences where even the best of doctors have been surprised. After all, there would not be so many winners in the history of mankind without hope and optimism in their hearts.
Shyam Bedbak, India

We should all have to decide this one for ourselves and make wills, or at least make our wishes known to those we trust. Perhaps we carry some sort of card which expresses our wishes. I wouldn't like it to be left to the courts or one doctor if it were me.
Meg, UK

When people feel that live is precious they are right. But the money needed to keep a hopeless case alive could also be earmarked to keep hopeful cases alive. Certainly if a person a family has to suffer the continued existence where further living is expressly not wanted it is a waste. When people are so pro life, let them first fund the hopeful cases before they get on their soap box and meddle with other people's life.
Gerard M, Nederland

The decision should be an extremely informed one - in consultation with doctors - but nonetheless should be taken by her husband. They did, after all, give themselves to each other on their wedding day.
Joseph, UK

It should not be down to a legal system to impose a continued 'sentence' upon this woman. The right to choose in a free state should be upheld rigorously. Is this not why we fight so vehemently to protect democracy? To keep someone artificially alive in such a degrading a humiliating manner is a clear breach of human rights. Let nature take over and may she rest in peace!
DF, UK

I applaud the Florida legislature and Governor Bush for their actions Steve, USA

You understand that the husband has about $1,000,000 to gain from her dying, correct? Think he hasn't cheated on his wife in the past 12 years? There is no written evidence that she didn't want this, only the husband's word. The removal of the tube was a court ordered death sentence for someone who committed no crime. If you don't want this to happen to you, put your wish down in writing in a living will, so there can be no question. I applaud the Florida legislature and Governor Bush for their actions.
Steve, USA

I first read about this a few weeks ago and my first thoughts were that she should be allowed to die. However, I then visited the website set up by her family and viewed video footage. Bearing in mind what was said about the possible treatment by her husband and how she reacted to things, there is no way I could say she should starve to death. If she really wanted to die there should be a humane way. By from what I saw on the website, my views changed completely - this is not a completely comatose person as I'd imagined. I think the family should be able to make the decision and not a husband who may have put her in this state in the first place.
Alison, Switzerland

It is times like this that we must cast aside silly religious beliefs and focus on the fact that these people who are suffering every second of every day are not being given the right to end their pain. I think it is disgusting that a person in this predicament is not allowed to make their own decision.
Grant Bullock, Teesside England

This has got to be one of the hardest decisions to make, two sets of people who obviously care for her but think the completely opposite things to be the best for her. Personally I wouldn't want to continue in this kind of state, and my family know this, but this appears as say that she only told her husband not the rest of her family that she didn't want to be kept alive in a state like this, so it may not be that clear cut. Somebody is going to have there wishes denied, and there is going to be at lot more pain and hurt before this is resolved.
Claire, UK

This is just cruel. This woman has no real life at all, medicine is supposed to be about preventing suffering and this is not what's happening here. If she had a chance of recovery it would be understandable but this is just torture.
Katy, UK

A will is written so that after a person dies, that their possessions go to the people they have chosen to have those things. A donor card is signed, so that a wish to donate organs after death is carried out as is a person's wish. Why can there not be something similar, so that people who are "dead" or will not recover to a dignified standard of life, can choose for themselves, like a will or a donor card, when they are unable to verbalise their choices.
Sarah, Wales

To keep someone alive and suffering, with no chance of recovery is wrong Chris Jones-Gill, UK

To keep someone alive and suffering, with no chance of recovery is wrong. If the person is able to make a decision for themselves (i.e. Do not treat me / help me / force feed me) then their wishes should be respected. Allow them to die naturally (this is not euthanasia, as no help is required to induce death - just allowing nature to take its course). If they are unable to make this decision, it is up to doctors and family (that persons nominated next of kin only - they are chosen as next of kin because that person respects them, and expects them to what is best)to decide.
Chris Jones-Gill, UK

Surely the time has come for people to stipulate what they want to happen should this terrible situation ever occur in a legally binding will. Too many times the wishes of the individual are forgotten over the self-serving interests of other parties.
Dean, UK

It definitely seems that a husband who already has a fiancée to get married again should not be the one to decide. It is quite clear that his motives can be suspect at the very least. It is also possible for there to be a reversal and for this woman to make substantial strides in recovery. There have been a number of cases where doctors have been wrong and people have come out of long term comas to live. One of them was a relative of mine.
Norman E. Harper, USA

I would hate my husband to have to suffer the torment of watching me being kept alive with no prospect of recovery. How can anyone be this cruel to a fellow human being? This poor man has most probably already lost the best years of his life and deserves to be released to make the best of what he has left. Let this unfortunate woman die with dignity.
Msmo, London

It is time that we think for the feelings of the husband. It is not the easiest time for him. He should have the right to decide for the wife. The Governor's decision merely adds on to the agony of the husband. Let Terri die in grace!
Christina Spybey, United Kingdom

What kind of life is this poor lady having? The governor has no right to decide this kind of thing surely it should be up to a team of medical professionals who should decide whether she has any chance of recovery. If the answer is no, then why keep putting the stress and strain onto a family already upset by what has happened without it being prolonged. The final decision should be between the family and medical professionals, either that or the person concerned we already have DNR agreements in hospitals why not something similar for the terminally ill that can be signed in the presence of a solicitor and witnesses like your will.
Helen W, UK

The final decision should come from the husband, as she told him her wish Tracey, UK

I think it is so wrong to keep people alive like this. If it is the patient's wish to die then let her do so. The final decision should come from the husband, as she told him her wish. It must be hard for her family to accept this but they should do it for her. I know that were I in that position then I would not want to be kept alive - I am in favour of euthanasia and do not see any problem with admitting that.
Tracey, UK

Everyone has the right to put an end to their own life if that 'life' cannot be regarded as tolerable. Anyone saying the opposite is committing a grave error and must carry this sin on their conscience!
M. Bar, NL

I am against euthanasia. But this is not euthanasia, it is the right to refuse treatment, and under no circumstances should the state take away that right.
A Legge, UK

Surely this woman has no real life anyway? Lying in a bed, comatose is not the way I wish to go out, and certainly not for over 13 years! If an animal gets sick, it can be put down. Why not extend the same courtesy to humans? At the end of the day, it should be the victims decision, and failing that, the Families. Politicians, quite frankly, should butt out. It is sickening to see a woman life being used to garner votes.
Ross Allan, UK

This is ridiculous. If the courts didn't want anything to do with it, why did the Governor have to get involved? Having made this decision, I hope the Florida State Government is now going to pay to keep her alive.
Tim, UK