We're buying the damned entertainment center we can't really afford that puts the components behind glass.

Can you lock the doors?

Ginger, I'm going to look into that. Though Kara can probably pick locks with the pieces of her doctor kit, or the left front leg of her toy raptor.

On the other hand, I can understand her parents frustration that the husband had denied therapy since the early 90s.

My reaction is that the husband fought for his wife's recovery then, in the early 90s, admitted to himself that she was never going to recover. His parents have never made that admission.

And according to the appeals court, they're wrong. She's not getting better, not ever.

The text of the decision is here, and it's worth reading.

[link]

In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.

This is what annoys me about the news coverage. It presents primarily the parents' side of the story. The judges' story says that we had to pick one of two points of view; based on the facts as presented to us, the husband's view is correct.

It's like any court case. Person A says beep. Person B says boop. Somebody has to lose. The fact that the Schiavo parents have lost doesn't mean that their case wasn't fully presented. It meant that they lost. Somebody had to lose.

The one phone jack in our house is in an awkward place, so we got a cordless phone. Unfortunately, if I have the handset near me so I can answer it easily, it tends to run out of juice and not ring when someone calls. And if I leave it on the charger/cradle, I have to do a mad dash from wherever else I am to the phone to catch it before it slips over into answering machine mode. I don't feel like doing that very often.

No one calls my cell phone. It is a lonely and neglected piece of electronic equipment.

I have a peephole. However, I'm also on the third floor of a building without an elevator. Salesfolk/Evangelists/Loonies rarely make it up past the second floor.

Ditto.

I don't answer the phone unless I know who it is or was expecting a call. I am very happy to have caller ID.

This too. I like to check the ID to see if I need to pick up and tell the telemarketer off or if I should swallow my food before answering to talk to a prospective employer.

No one calls my cell phone. It is a lonely and neglected piece of electronic equipment.

Mine is a pre-paid cell phone that I use rarely. It's mostly for emergencies, for when I'm travelling or other minimal uses. It is not my primary phone.

It's nearly 5, and we're all caught up here. Can I go home?

It's like any court case. Person A says beep. Person B says boop. Somebody has to lose. The fact that the Schiavo parents have lost doesn't mean that their case wasn't fully presented. It meant that they lost. Somebody had to lose.

This is also the way I see it. Not to mention the fact that her parents hint at rumors of spousal abuse to further their case. When it's unsubstatiated and only meant to prejudice the husband's case. I do understand that it's only Michael Schiavo's word that his wife didn't want to be kept alive. But whose word are we supposed to accept in these cases? By continuing this painful, emotional battle, it's only going to open up the courts to every custody/right-to-die case in the country if the families don't agree on the same course of action.

My FiL doesn't believe in organ transplant (no idea, don't ask me why). His wife had a brother who owed his life to a liver transplant. If my FiL dies first and his wife donates his organs, it is still her decision to make.

I know Terry's not dying and could probably be kept alive indefinitely. But if she didn't want that, why should her parents be allowed to impose their will on her--especially if they're completely biased?

Jessica, yes, go home.

Tell anyone who questions you to call me. I won't answer my phone.

BWAH! Even in light of today's incident with the coffee table, I would NEVER do this to Owen.

I swear! On my life!!