The Schiavo issue [Archive] - Page 2

Claire

03-24-2005, 10:45 AM

Gotta love DeLay:

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo to elevate the visibility of what is going on in America, that Americans would be so barbaric as to pull a feeding tube out of a person that is lucid and starve them to death," he said in remarks Friday to a conservative group and made public Wednesday.

"This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," added DeLay, lately at the center of a controversy concerning his overseas travel.

Definition of lucid from Dictionary.com:

Main Entry: lu·cid
Pronunciation: 'lü-s&d
Function: adjective
: having, showing, or characterized by an ability to think clearly and rationally —lu·cid·i·ty noun plural -ties
Yeah, the guy has no agenda tied to the Schiavo case. I'm so tired of him already and it's not even election season.

Same speech:

"The point is the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement," he said after mentioning Schiavo, "and that is to go after people personally, charge them with frivolous charges and link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros and then get the national media on their side.

"That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only, and that's to destroy the conservative movement. It's to destroy conservative leaders." Soros is a billionaire who contributed several million dollars last year to the unsuccessful effort to deny President Bush a second term.

Yeah, because Republicans have no financial backers or engage in smear campaigns against Democrats.

Claire

03-24-2005, 10:49 AM

Careful - not until several years after she entered this state did he have his remembrance that she had said she wouldn't want to live this way.

Yes, careful--just because he finally went and did something about his concerns legally in 1998, does not mean he suddenly remembered. He'd been battling with her family for years by this time, but privately.

And Michael at this point, to my understanding, cannot request that the tube be re-inserted. It's the court's decision, solely, and has been for several years now.

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2005, 10:52 AM

"That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only, and that's to destroy the conservative movement. It's to destroy conservative leaders."I don't know about a "syndicate" but, umm, how DARE he imply that as a more-or-less liberal my goal is to get the people I disagree with out of power. What an outrageous accusation :rolleyes:

SacTown Chronic

03-24-2005, 10:54 AM

Yeah, Claire, I chewed on DeLay's ass a couple pages ago for this. But I did enjoy going over it again. It's such a fun read!

scaeagles

03-24-2005, 10:54 AM

Yes, careful--just because he finally went and did something about his concerns legally in 1998, does not mean he suddenly remembered. He'd been battling with her family for years by this time, but privately.

Sorry to be snarky, but was he battling before or after he was impregnating his girlfriend?

Personal note - while my mom was dying of lupus, my dad chose not to be around much. I can deal with that. Hard situation. However, he chose to spend a lot of time with other women. I cannot deal with that.

Last I checked, wedding vows included such things as "in sickness and in health". Perhaps theirs did not.

Claire

03-24-2005, 11:04 AM

Sorry to be snarky, but was he battling before or after he was impregnating his girlfriend?

Personal note - while my mom was dying of lupus, my dad chose not to be around much. I can deal with that. Hard situation. However, he chose to spend a lot of time with other women. I cannot deal with that.

Last I checked, wedding vows included such things as "in sickness and in health". Perhaps theirs did not.

I'm really sorry, Leo. It's obviously very personal and you didn't have to share, yet you did. Thank you for that.

scaeagles

03-24-2005, 11:10 AM

You view every situation from the experiences you have in life.

SacTown Chronic

03-24-2005, 11:13 AM

Crystal asked me this morning why so many people choose to assume the worst about Michael Shiavo. My answer was that I suspected some people, on both sides of the issue, were forming their opinions of his motivation based on personal experience -- including past (and present) relationships and marriages. I told her I believed the husband mainly because I know that I would battle to honor her wishes and give her peace. And I know she would do the same for me.

I also said that as our kids get older and start having serious relationships, I might start to agree with Terri's parents' point of view. I already feel that no man will be good enough for my Caitlin, so how would I respond to this situation if it were my daughter? I cannot say. But I freely admit that I would analyze my son-in-law's every move looking for hidden agendas.

Betty

03-24-2005, 11:23 AM

But I trust the trial process

How can you say this and yet not trust the 19 (or 23?) courts that have ruled on this already?

Nephythys

03-24-2005, 11:44 AM

How can you say this and yet not trust the 19 (or 23?) courts that have ruled on this already?

Note: I have not said a word about the court rulings. Not one- other than if she had spoken against the ruling it was court ordered execution. I also did not support the congressional action. I was the one who said Jeb ought to give it up already- you are ascribing an opinion to me that I don't even have.

I distrust the husband, I think the whole thing is horrid- but nowhere have I said I agreed nor disagreed with the courts. I don't know enough to do so-

I feel for the parents- and I think the whole thing is painful and awful to witness.

Is that clearer?

(side note- I don't think you can assume that using the word lucid was anything more than a poor choice of words- a mistake as it were and not automatically deliberate)

I also see no one is willing to tackle the question I asked above-

Claire

03-24-2005, 11:58 AM

(side note- I don't think you can assume that using the word lucid was anything more than a poor choice of words- a mistake as it were and not automatically deliberate)

And I don't think you can assume it wasn't deliberate.

What question did you ask above? I just scrolled through your last few posts. Thanks.

SacTown Chronic

03-24-2005, 12:01 PM

Judging by Mr. DeLay's track record, I'm going with deliberate.

Nephythys

03-24-2005, 12:04 PM

Sac- I would expect nothing less-

Claire- the question was- if someone went in right now and smothered her- would they charge them with murder?

Claire

03-24-2005, 12:08 PM

I have to assume that the person would be charged in her death, but I don't know if they'd be found guilty of murder.

BarTopDancer

03-24-2005, 12:19 PM

Yes, careful--just because he finally went and did something about his concerns legally in 1998, does not mean he suddenly remembered. He'd been battling with her family for years by this time, but privately.

Thank you Claire!

And just because he made this decision after she had been in a PVS for a while doesn't mean he "suddenly remembered". There has to be a holding out all hope stage before you can reach the grieving and acceptance stages.

Nephythys

03-24-2005, 12:43 PM

A circuit court judge denied Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's request to take protective custody of Terri Schiavo (search) on Thursday, perhaps spelling the end of the protracted legal battled over how the severely brain-damaged woman ought to die.

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151347,00.html)

mousepod

03-24-2005, 12:54 PM

This is such a f-ing sad story.

Personal politics aside, I'm heartened by this thread. There's humanity here in the LoT - I'm grateful for everyone's opinion. Thanks.

Not Afraid

03-24-2005, 01:55 PM

This poor girl! She can speak nor conprehend much and her entire life is in the hands of others with beliefs that may or may not coincide with hers. What a terrible place to be in.

Disneyphile

03-24-2005, 03:58 PM

Politics aside, I'm still not over the fact that someone is dying of dehydration because someone wanted her to.

Her parents even petitioned to provide food and water to their daughter in hopes to teach her to eat, and that was denied. And people are being arrested outside her hospital just because they want to bring her water.

It's disgusting.

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2005, 04:15 PM

Her parents even petitioned to provide food and water to their daughter in hopes to teach her to eat, and that was denied.It's been 16 years. She can't eat, that's been confirmed by doctor after doctor after doctor.

And people are being arrested outside her hospital just because they want to bring her water. People were being arrested for trespass, and possibly disorderly conduct. It had nothing to do with what was in their hands. It was a form of protest and they did it with the purpose of getting arrested. Ia ny of them actually thought they'd get through and give her water, they are delusional. But they didn't, they did it to cause a scene.

It's disgusting.What I find disgusting is people demonizing others based on a distorted, one-sided assessment of the situation.

I've said several times that I honestly don't have an opinion one way or the other about it. The only thing I know is that the right to decide is Michael Shiavos and it should be (and was) upheld.

alphabassettgrrl

03-24-2005, 05:05 PM

Someone asked how can a husband look for her death if he's acting in a loving manner?

My husband would do the same thing as Michael Shiavo is- hold out for as long as is reasonable to hope for recovery, and if recovery is impossible, then to make sure I die. He'd probably be just as demonized for it, but he knows what I want.

"Netherlands (apparently) no longer need consent for assisted suicide" -

Ok that's a problem. The person *must* consent. My biggest fear is that I will wind up with something debilitating, and be unable to say that I want out.

"It took Michael S. seven years to 'remember' she didn't want to live like this."

I'm sure it took some time to come to terms with the probability that she will never recover. You don't exactly want to say, ok she's been in a coma for a week, that's it, give her a big tube of morphine.

I think the whole thing is creepy and horrible from any angle. My heart goes out to you who've had to deal with this stuff in your own families. I worked in a couple of nursing homes, and it's hard even when the family *is* in agreement. I can't imagine if the family is fighting amongst themselves. There's a lot of denial going on, and that's hard to watch, but what can you do if someone refuses to face reality? Ouch.

Motorboat Cruiser

03-24-2005, 05:22 PM

You view every situation from the experiences you have in life.

And with all due respect, my friend, those experiences can also cloud your judgement. You mentioned many times in this thread that Michael was the only one who stated that she wished to not be kept alive. That just isn't true though. At least 4 other people, including her best friend and close family members said the same thing. You see him as having alterior motives and being creepy but not once was any of that proven in the 20 plus courtroom battles. There was ample time for this to be proven and each time the accusations were found to be without merit. Isn't it possible that just maybe, this guy just wants to carry out the wishes of his wife.

I really can't fault him for finding someone else to share his life with either. At some point, you do have the right to move on. That doesn't mean you have to relinquish your rights in the process. I can't imagine that Terry would have wanted her husband to not move forward. She has been gone for almost 20 years. This isn't an "in sickness and in health" situation to me. Terry isn't sick, she is long gone. Her husband has done everything in his power to respect her wishes and for that, he is demonized. I'll tell you this, if I was in her position, I would want my spouse to move on and find happiness AND I would want him to ensure that my wishes were carried out to the letter. There is no reason why he can't do both.

I do understand that this situation hits very close to home to you and I'm sorry for that. It just seems that you have your mind made up that this guy is evil and from everything I have read about this case, I see no evidence to back that up, other than a few people who are making unsubstantiated claims.

Disneyphile

03-24-2005, 05:28 PM

It's been 16 years. She can't eat, that's been confirmed by doctor after doctor after doctor.And, doctor after doctor after doctor have also claimed that she CAN feel pain and is aware of her surroundings and can interact. And, there are doctors who have denied that. The human brain is so complex that no one will ever know exactly where full "awareness" and "thought" come from. That's one thing all the doctors can agree on.

Something happened to me as a child where I went into a "non-responsive" state. To this day, I can recall in great detail what was going on around me, things that were said, etc. even though none of that detail was ever told to me by my parents. And, I remember wanting to respond, but my body wouldn't. I remember being taken to the hospital where I could feel the prick of an IV needle and the pain associated, yet couldn't cry out. All I did was stare "off into space". 5 days later, after many tests, I was released with an "inconclusive diagnosis". I only regained "full awareness and responsiveness" once I awoke the next morning, after having been knocked out with drugs. My parents are utterly amazed that I can recount word for word their actions and statements up to that point. And still, no one knows what happened. But, damn, I know what I experienced, and that can't be argued.

Sorry, but I'm too convinced that Terri is quite aware of what's happening to her right now. And, I don't give a crap what "evidence" or "scientific" blabber is thrown at me.

I go off of my heart and hunch on this one, and that woman is very much alive. But, not for long, apparently.

Also, if her husband was so concerned about her, then he would have waited until she passed before having another woman and children. At least, if marriage meant anything to him. He would have stayed with Terri, and only Terri, through the end. And, he obviously didn't support her enough to seek help for her bulemia before it caused this in the first place (wow, there's a supportive spouse - ick).

As for going with my heart and hunch on this one, I'm entitled to do so without explanation, and besides - I do believe in miracles. One just might have happened if she was offered food and/or water at this point, but it's not "allowed". :rolleyes:

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2005, 05:34 PM

Of course you're entitled, however, I'm entitled to point out that VERY few doctors contradict what the several court-appointed as well as personal doctors have concluded. Those that do are on the fringe of their profession, and have little to back up their claim. You want support? No one who has 1) lost blood flow to the brain as long as Terri did and 2) remained unresponsive for more than a few months has ever been known to subsequently regain responsiveness. This isn't a psychological anomoly, a large and vital portion of her brain has been destroyed. It's simply not there.

But all of that is beside the point. The point is, she said she did not want to be kept alive if she was in a state where she was a burden and she had no hope for recovery.

scaeagles

03-24-2005, 05:37 PM

And with all due respect, my friend, those experiences can also cloud your judgement.

I do understand that this situation hits very close to home to you and I'm sorry for that. It just seems that you have your mind made up that this guy is evil

There is a fine line between influencing and clouding.

I have said I have no proof of it. However, as it does hit close to home, I am perfectly open to that he is not "evil" (your word, not mine), but have stated my opinion as every one else here has.

If you'll note, I have also stated several times in this thread that I have no problem with her dying - just that someone needs to do it rather than forcing her to die slowly of dehydration and making those close to her - her parents, in particular - watch and endure it. That is inhumane and cannot be characterized as anything else.

I will choose to believe the personal accounts that I choose to believe. You can choose to believe others. Odds are we will choose to believe those accounts that are more closely related to our own positions.

One question - why is it that Michael Schiavo has refused to allow newer technology to be used to test her - such as PET and CAT scans or MRIs? A curiosity.

Disneyphile

03-24-2005, 05:40 PM

why is it that Michael Schiavo has refused to allow newer technology to be used to test her - such as PET and CAT scans or MRIs? A curiosity.Oh, I'm betting because of the money involved..... which he's also claimed he'll donate to charity upon its receipt. If anything, I guess we'll see quite soon if he upholds that promise.

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2005, 05:42 PM

Oh, I'm betting because of the money involved..... which he's also claimed he'll donate to charity upon its receipt. If anything, I guess we'll see quite soon if he upholds that promise.A claim that continues to make no sense considering the millions he's refused over the years.

scaeagles

03-24-2005, 05:44 PM

A claim that continues to make no sense considering the millions he's refused over the years.

Unless I am mistaken, there has been only one offer to him to take money and walk away, and that was recent. I am open to that I may not be aware of the others.

Disneyphile

03-24-2005, 05:50 PM

Unless I am mistaken, there has been only one offer to him to take money and walk away, and that was recent. I am open to that I may not be aware of the others.Precisely why I rely on my hunches. :p

BarTopDancer

03-24-2005, 05:56 PM

Unless I am mistaken, there has been only one offer to him to take money and walk away, and that was recent. I am open to that I may not be aware of the others.

Here ya go

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-10-schiavo_x.htm

Other such offers, including one for $10 million, had already been made and rejected by Michael Schiavo, said his attorney, George Felos

And, he obviously didn't support her enough to seek help for her bulemia before it caused this in the first place (wow, there's a supportive spouse - ick).

I don't know that he did try, how do you know he didn't?

You can't force someone into treatment for their eating disorder. Well you can but it won't be effective. They have to want to change and want to stop it. So even if he did try it doesn't mean it worked.

Nephythys

03-24-2005, 06:07 PM

Disneyphile

03-24-2005, 06:11 PM

You can't force someone into treatment for their eating disorder. Well you can but it won't be effective. They have to want to change and want to stop it. So even if he did try it doesn't mean it worked.
Well, usually eating disorders are caused by low self-esteem issues. For starters, he could have gotten her counseling. And, even showed her how beautiful and sexy she was. Granted, self esteem issues stem from within, and won't go away until the person actually believes it themselves. (The latter again being taken from personal experience - mine. I can't recall how many times I'd feel "miserable" about my size. Now, I know I'm beautiful, and don't need anyone to tell me, since I'm quite happy with just being me. ;) ) And, if she still showed no hope of improving, then he could have had her hospitalized, considering the life-and-death seriousness of eating disorders.

Also, according to a former girlfriend of his, he used to come down on Terri for being "too fat". I don't think that's being very "supportive".

BarTopDancer

03-24-2005, 06:29 PM

Well, usually eating disorders are caused by low self-esteem issues. For starters, he could have gotten her counseling. And, even showed her how beautiful and sexy she was. Granted, self esteem issues stem from within, and won't go away until the person actually believes it themselves. (The latter again being taken from personal experience - mine. I can't recall how many times I'd feel "miserable" about my size. Now, I know I'm beautiful, and don't need anyone to tell me, since I'm quite happy with just being me. ;) ) And, if she still showed no hope of improving, then he could have had her hospitalized, considering the life-and-death seriousness of eating disorders.

Also, according to a former girlfriend of his, he used to come down on Terri for being "too fat". I don't think that's being very "supportive".

I had a very good friend who had an eating disorder. And she had the most supportative boyfriend. They aren't just caused by low self-esteem issues. There are many other issues that are or could be involved. And to say that he could have hospilitazed her and that would have fixed everything is is just nieve.

We don't know that he didn't get her help. We don't know that she wasn't hospitalized.

BarTopDancer

03-24-2005, 06:31 PM

I also think alot of people are going to do their damndest to believe the Dr's who say she feels nothing, and believe the husband is doing what she wanted- because to believe otherwise is too horrific to handle.

It's amazing what we will do to justify, even when we only know the small details fed to us through news stories.

I can't believe that people are trying to circumvent a law that your spouse is your next of kin and makes all medical decisions regarding your care because to believe otherwise is too horrific to handle.

It really is amazing what we will to justify, even when we only know the small portion fed through news stories.

Mousey Girl

03-24-2005, 07:18 PM

I have read through this, even the blogger link that was posted earlier. BTD, I agree with everything you have said. I only wish there was another way for her to go... Locally this is getting some extra air time. A woman who was sideswiped while coming down the grapevine 2 years ago and had been in a coma ever since is now awake and talking. Any hope for Terry's recovery is long gone.

Disneyphile

03-24-2005, 07:47 PM

They aren't just caused by low self-esteem issues. Hence why I didn't say *all*. "Usually" does not mean "all". And to say that he could have hospilitazed her and that would have fixed everything is is just nieve. Nope. Sorry, but believing there was a *possibility* that her being in the hospital for her disorder just *may* have prevented her collapse is NOT "nieve" (naive). It's called using one's brain while trying to come up with solutions.

Oh, and you're not the only person who knows someone with or having had an eating disorder. Thanks. ;) Maybe I should have mentioned that I once got help through Overeaters' Anonymous at one point (I used to eat "Claim Jumper" sized meals about twice a day, and couldn't go 30 minutes without some kind of food. I'm quite happy those days are long gone.). And yes, I ended up with the problem due to very low self-esteem, which was fed by my highly chauvanistic, controlling, and belittling ex-husband, who couldn't get over the fact that I "just wasn't nice to look at as the girls at the strip bars", which he would tell me all the time. :rolleyes:

Morrigoon

03-24-2005, 08:02 PM

I think where this becomes an issue is because his behavior does not seem to support the idea that this is what she always wanted. If this is what she always wanted, why was she on it for so long? If this is what she always wanted, why did he make promises for getting her care during the lawsuit he filed for damages? Why, after being awarded damages in said lawsuit, did he immediately place her in a hospice and refuse all recovery-oriented treatment for her?

Having seen Terry herself in all these many tv clips, I for one, do not consider her to be completely "gone". There does seem to be something of a reaction in her, and she requires only the feeding tube to keep her nourished. It's not like she's on a breathing machine or anything. Nor does she appear to be in any physical pain.

Now, you could argue that if he wasn't watching out for her best interests, why wouldn't he just divorce her, hand her over to her family and get on with his life - simple: money. First of all, there's the money he was awarded in the lawsuit, if divorced, half to all of it would be awarded to her, along with her half of all their marriage assets. Second, if she has any kind of a life insurance policy worth anything, and if he's not specifically mentioned as her beneficiary (eg: if it's just in her "estate", as many policies are), then by divorcing her, he would not get any of that upon her death, whenever that would be. On the other hand, by legally "allowing her to die", he stands to receive all the lawsuit money, all their marriage assets, and anything in her estate.

Lest you misunderstand me, I am all for euthanasia, where one is terminally ill and the remainder of one's life is so painful as to render it unworthy of suffering (eg: where there's no hope of feeling any better, and every expectation of feeling worse until death comes - different from a permanent, static disability). She is not terminally ill, and is but a feeding tube away from living out the rest of her years. Years, which ought to be funded by the money won in the lawsuit, which we all know he'd rather keep to himself despite his promises to use the money to care for her and try to help her improve.

Administering euthanasia by lethal injection or by cutting off a breathing machine (yes, I know suffocation isn't pleasant, but at least it's only a few minutes) is one thing. Making someone starve to death or die of dehydration, especially when they are unable to tell you if they feel the pain of that method of dying, and when there's at least a 50/50 chance that they DO.... that's just every kind of wrong.

I'm not cool with letting her die in the first place, because I think there is at least some consciousness on her part, but if they MUST do it, then for heaven's sake, end the suffering with lethal injection!

scaeagles

03-24-2005, 08:30 PM

Great and incredibly well thought out post.

CoasterMatt

03-24-2005, 08:49 PM

Wonderful post, Morrigoon

Not Afraid

03-24-2005, 08:51 PM

I'm just wondering how long it is going to take her to die. Does that make me a bad person?

sleepyjeff

03-24-2005, 08:53 PM

I'm just wondering how long it is going to take her to die. Does that make me a bad person?

I don't think it does....unless you are wringing your hands while wondering :eek:

Not Afraid

03-24-2005, 08:59 PM

No. Not yet. But I hope it doesn't take long for her sake.

wendybeth

03-24-2005, 10:35 PM

A claim that continues to make no sense considering the millions he's refused over the years.

Mr. Schiavo couldn't accept the money, because it was the court that ordered the tube to be removed, a decison based upon his statements that Terri had specifically said she would not want to live that way. (I know, there were several other corroborating statements from his relatives and an old friend). At any rate, he would have to state that perhaps he was wrong, or he lied, or whatever, to nullify the court ruling. He's not about to do that, now is he? He is planning on having her cremated, he refuses all advanced-type scans, etc- why? If he's right, then maybe they will shut up all his detractors. I understand he has plans to have her immediately cremated as well, so no autopsy.

The truth is going to come out on this one, there is no way it's not. I just wish the damned politicians and religious zealots would back off and quit making this an issue of power and control. In my mind, this is simply a case of parents who love their daughter very much, and don't want her to die. Mr. Schiavo may have loved her at one time, but he left the marriage long ago, and he left behind the right to speak as her husband as well.

Motorboat Cruiser

03-25-2005, 08:38 AM

I really try to see both sides here. I realize that I don't know Michael Shievo's intentions or motives any better than any of you do. Really, Michael is the only one that knows the answer to that.

I also don't like that it will take weeks for her to die. I really wish there was a way to end her life sooner but that isn't going to happen.

The thing I keep falling back on though, is that this case has been heard something like 23 times in the courts. They have always reached the same verdict. Terry cannot recover from this, her wishes were to not be kept alive, and Michael has the legal right to act on her behalf. I have a very hard time understanding how, out of all of those courtrooms, a reasonable doubt to the contrary was never persuasively made if there actually was reasonable doubt. I don't believe that the courts have any sort of "death wish" for Terry. That just doesn't make sense. What makes sense is that they have heard the testimony of her loved ones and of impartial medical experts and have decided that, based on that evidence, this is the proper course of action. I believe that most judges are good, impartial, people who of course would err on the side of caution if they felt any of the contradicting arguments had any merit.

What Terry's parents have presented though is heavily edited video footage trying to show their daughters condition in the best possible light. It isn't enough though that in the video she can appear responsive. The question is, is there any evidence of it being repeatable, or are these merely random movements. The consensus among respectable doctors is that her actions are entirely random and not unusual for someone who has lost their cerebral cortex. Yes, the parents have doctors on their side, doctors that are being paid because they will say what the parents want. There is no impartiality there. Still, the courts heard their side and dismissed it as not being credible.

Then the right to lifers jump in full force and paint anyone that disagrees with their stance as having a "death wish" for Terry. Sorry, but it isn't as simple as that. The politicians see the opportunity to further strengthen their base and jump in "to help" when they really have no authority to do so. It is maddening.

I can only speak for myself but I don't wish for anyone to die. I do believe in erring on the side of caution, whether in this case or a capital punishment case. But exactly how much caution can you exercise? If we keep this woman alive for the rest of her natural life through artificial means, we are going against her wishes. We are going against the wishes of the person who has the legal right to make these decisions for her. What does that say? You have rights unless we disagree with them? That's not how it works. You either have legal rights or you don't, and in this case, the law is on Michael and Terry's side.

I understand how much the parents love their daughter and I feel an enormous amount of pain for them. How horrific this must be. I also know that when you love someone that much, you may not make the most rational decisions. Are they trying to keep Terry alive for her or for them? When my mother was suffering from terminal cancer, I wanted the doctors to do everything possible to extend her life for every moment possible but she had no quality of life. She was no longer able to function anymore. She wasn't going to get better. At some point I realized that it was for selfish reasons that I wanted to keep her alive. I realized that she wouldn't want to continue in the condition she was in. Luckily, we never had to make that decision because the end came very quickly and there was nothing anyone could do about it. And as heartbroken as I was when she passed away, there was also a strong sense of relief. I hope the parents experience that one day. Once the healing process begins, maybe they can see that they really lost their daughter a long long time ago.

mousepod

03-25-2005, 09:02 AM

MBC - Thanks for your post. You have eloquently articulated what I'm feeling.

scaeagles

03-25-2005, 10:22 AM

After much thought, I have come to the following conclusions, some of which contradict what I had earlier posted.

First - the contradictory one - I no longer believe it was proper for the legislative branch of the US - the federal government - to get involved in what is an internal issue of the state of Florida. GWBush should not have signed the law. The law should not have been passed. (This is with a caveat, which I will go into shortly.) The Supreme Court was right in not hearing the case.

Because I believe it to be an internal issue to the state or Florida, I do not fault Jeb Bush for any action he took. He is the governor of Florida, and as the highest official of the executive branch, it was his duty to follow whatever he thought best for Florida and the laws thereof. Even if that means passing a law later deemed unConstitutional. That is how the system is set up - the legislative branch passes, the executive signs, and the judicial hears suits regarding the constitutionality thereof.

I still do not trust Michael Schiavo, and this is only based on one thing, which is provable - why not use the large funds for her care to provide for some up to date technologically advanced medical tests? That is the one thing I cannot reconcile or get past. (That and the fact that he hooked up with the other woman while supposedly still looking out for Terri's interests, but I have no evidence to suggest he isn't. Just a feeling.)

I think a law should be passed - within each state, of course - that says that any immediate relative (spouse, of age children, parents) that are willing to pay for the care of a non-terminally ill patient should be given the right to do so. While against what is happening, I suppose it does come down to the right of Michael Schiavo. It does not change that it is inhumane to starve someone. The idea for this law is not mine - it is from Charles Krauthammer, a quadraplegic MD and columnist whom I hold in the highest regard.

Now for my caveat - what if a civil rights suit had been filed on behalf of Terri? Is denial of food or water to end her life a violation of her civil rights? I would suppose it is, and I doubt it would have been dismissed by federal courts. Regardless of the ruling, the case would have been heard. Her husband does not have the authority to deny her civil rights in making a medical decision, I would suppose.

Is it not a violation of her civil rights?

SacTown Chronic

03-25-2005, 10:51 AM

I think a law should be passed - within each state, of course - that says that any immediate relative (spouse, of age children, parents) that are willing to pay for the care of a non-terminally ill patient should be given the right to do so.
Are you suggesting that anyone who wishes to decline being kept alive by extraordinary measures would be SOL?

scaeagles

03-25-2005, 11:03 AM

Are you suggesting that anyone who wishes to decline being kept alive by extraordinary measures would be SOL?

Pardon me - I should have included in that the following -

"In the absence of a living will or physical documentation of the patient's wishes."

SacTown Chronic

03-25-2005, 11:09 AM

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

Betty

03-25-2005, 11:22 AM

Article from OC Weekly on the issue that brings up some interesting points: http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/05/29/commie-schoenkopf.php

innerSpaceman

03-25-2005, 12:53 PM

I just want to ditto the props for MBC's post. I can't give him any mojo, cause I guess I've given too much to him recently. That's to be expected for someone who so often eloquently expresses thoughts I share with him to such a degree that I oft wonder why he has more of a direct connection to my heart and mind than I do.

I have been following this thread, but have never yet posted in it. Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has refused to take the case and a Florida judge has ruled that the state cannot take over her care, I am flabbergasted as to why reasonable people cannot have faith in our judicial system when the case has been heard by skeighty-eight justices from the lowest in the land to the highest in the land and on every level in between. If that kind of judicial test won't pass muster, then you are denying our entire system of lawful society. And if the laws themselves that denote a spouse as next of kin are wrong in your view, then you are denying far more of society's harmonious structure.

Disneyphile

03-25-2005, 01:08 PM

I'd just like to state for the record that if I should ever become decapitated, please let me die. I also request a monument in the form of one pair of red longjohns to be displayed by the attraction that is unanimously chosen by my boyfriend, family, and the swanky folks on this board. And under no circumstances should my head ever be frozen. Thanks! ;)

Nephythys

03-25-2005, 02:34 PM

Um, if you are decapitated death will NOT be something we need to quibble about. Now, should you become incapacitated, that may be a different issue.

You do at least need to have your head attached. LOL ;)

€uroMeinke

03-25-2005, 02:37 PM

Um, if you are decapitated death will NOT be something we need to quibble about.

You obviously have never seen They Saved Hitler's Brain (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0265870/)

Disneyphile

03-25-2005, 03:18 PM

Um, if you are decapitated death will NOT be something we need to quibble about. Well, with the way things have been lately, it just might end up an issue that the entire nation would debate. :eek:
You do at least need to have your head attached. LOL ;)Ditto my above comment. ;)

Anyone remember that headless chicken that lived until old age?

So, please, please, please. I beg of you all. Please let me die if my head should become removed. Even if the argument arises that I'd look better that way. ;)

BarTopDancer

03-25-2005, 03:45 PM

Can we donate your head to Trader Sam? We may get a good deal in return.

Disneyphile

03-25-2005, 04:20 PM

As long as it's more than his usual two-for-one deal. My head's worth at least three of his. I don't want you all feeling ripped off of anything. :D
Can we donate your head to Trader Sam? We may get a good deal in return.

scaeagles

03-31-2005, 07:58 AM

Just announced - she has died. Now more litigation comes, I'm sure.

MickeyLumbo

03-31-2005, 07:58 AM

May God Bless Terry Schiavo's soul.

Rest in Peace.

Nephythys

03-31-2005, 08:45 AM

Ghoulish Delight

03-31-2005, 09:10 AM

Nephythys

03-31-2005, 09:19 AM

:rolleyes: yeah so.... who cares if he's an asshole who out of the nastiness of his heart he would not allow her parents to say goodbye in those last moments.

Great compassion there-

Break time- I can't deal with the apathy and attitude I find here today.

Poof- see you guys in a few days again.

Ghoulish Delight

03-31-2005, 09:24 AM

:rolleyes: yeah so.... who cares if he's an asshole who out of the nastiness of his heart he would not allow her parents to say goodbye in those last moments.I never should have known about this in the first place, it's none of my business. So whether he's an asshole is completely irrelevant to me. I could bring out evidence of what assholes her parents were to him (like telling him VERY early on to "just move on with life", and then using the fact that he DID move on with life as a mark against him in court), but it's also completely irrelevant. The character of these people is not my concern.

Claire

03-31-2005, 10:34 AM

Weird, I woke up this morning, thinking....this has to be it, today's the day. My heart hurts.

Ghoulish Delight

03-31-2005, 10:54 AM

South Park did an episode sending up this case yesterday. As usual, in the midst their over-the-top crude take, they manage to make some very salient points. In their version, Kenny is "dead" for a day, but is brought back to life and kept alive, in a PVS, using a feeding tube. He has left a living will, but the last page is missing, so all they have is, "If I'm ever in a PVS, please..."

The episode unfolds parallel to the Schiavo case, Cartman wanting him dead so he can inherit his Play Station Portable, Stan and Kyle wanting him kept alive because he deserves to live. At the end of the episode, the lawyer finally finds the rest of his will. His wishes state:

"If I'm ever in a PVS please...for the love of God, whatever you do don't show me in that state on national television."

Name

03-31-2005, 11:00 AM

Thank God she has finally passed on, now for the endless coverage of the after death litigation for the next several weeks. Guess I will watch endless episodes of the simpsons for the next several weeks.

Cadaverous Pallor

03-31-2005, 11:11 AM

Thank God her trapped soul is finally at peace. No one is happier than Terry today.

alphabassettgrrl

03-31-2005, 11:58 AM

Ok, Michael really should have let her parents be there at the end. I think enough damage has been done in this family; that at least would have been a start at healing and reconciliation, hopefully.

It really should not have drawn the attention it did; it should have stayed a private matter. My heart does hurt for both sides, no matter who's a jerk and who isn't. Both sides are probably reacting out of hurt feelings and that's never a good place to come from.

I'm glad it's over. I just hope the litigation over her body gets done with quickly. I don't want to hear about it for months.

Not Afraid

03-31-2005, 12:28 PM

You know, family BS when people are dying or dead is the worst. It absolutely brings out the worst in people. Who knows all of the details and the reasons, I sure don't, so I'm not going to make any judgements as if I know the "real" story. I don't. I guess the important thing here is that she is a peace. I know all I feel is relief.

BarTopDancer

03-31-2005, 02:25 PM

and one more shot from the "husband"- he flat our refused to let her parents be with her at the end.

I don't give a shyt how anyone else sees him- in those last moments- when he had WON- he was still a piece of shyt bastard. Mercy and a shared sadness should have made this moment available for them all-

Michael Schaivo is an asshole- period

Because it's not possible for her death to come when it was his time to visit.
Nor was it possible for that they couldn't predict the exact moment of death to ask her family back in.
And we all know her parents would have allowed him back in had her last moments come during their time to visit.
Lets not forget that her family left for a 'medical asseesment' to be preformed and theres a good chance that she had passed on when her siblings were in the room and not Michael but it wasn't 'called' until he was back in there.

We will never know the full story. We shouldn't have known this much.

I hope Teri can rest in peace.

And I swear, if I am in a PVS and plastered all over the news I will haunt the people who did that to me for eternity.

Motorboat Cruiser

03-31-2005, 06:13 PM

According to the attorney for Michael Shievo, the parents hadn't even arrived at the hospice yet when she died, so they weren't kicked out. According to him (for what it is worth), the family that was "kicked out" was her brother and sister. The reason given was that when it was time for the medical assessment, the brother and sister were asked to step out momentarily. At that point, the brother got quite upset and had a physical altercation with a police officer, who removed him. Michael Shievo decided at that point that it would not be possible to have the brother in the room without the possibility of it getting ugly. He also said that had the parents been there at the time, he would have let them in.

Granted, this is only the word of the attorney but he was in the room at the time, along with approximately 10 others (including 4 or 5 hospice workers) who, I would assume, could back up his story. It would seem odd for him to lie with that many witnesses. And, if it is true, it is a far different picture than that painted by the other side.

The parents attorney says that the brother told him it wasn't true, for what it is worth. As an aside, shortly after death when they were showing coverage around the hospice, I did see what looked like a not-so friendly exchange between two police officers and the brother. I thought it was strange at the time.

The fact remains, of course, that none of this is really anyone's business, like GD points out. It is over (well, maybe not legally) and this woman is finally at peace and her wishes were hopefully carried out. Hopefully the healing process can begin for all involved.

€uroMeinke

03-31-2005, 08:08 PM

I think Terry Shaivo should be plasticized so she can be displayed in the next Body Wars.

Not Afraid

03-31-2005, 08:26 PM

Careful. That head of yours will be on that pike sooner than expected. ;)

€uroMeinke

03-31-2005, 08:28 PM

If there is a Hell, I expect to be there.

MickeyLumbo

03-31-2005, 08:33 PM

As an aside, shortly after death when they were showing coverage around the hospice, I did see what looked like a not-so friendly exchange between two police officers and the brother. I thought it was strange at the time.
.

i noticed that also.

Name

03-31-2005, 08:35 PM

If there is a Hell, I expect to be there.
It'll be a party, I'll bring the absinthe.

FEJ

04-01-2005, 07:37 AM

If there is a Hell, I expect to be there.

Isnt this it?

lizziebith

04-01-2005, 11:28 AM

I'll be joining you all in hell for this... (http://www.durrrrr.blogspot.com/)

Not Afraid

04-01-2005, 11:50 AM

I'll be joining you all in hell for this... (http://www.durrrrr.blogspot.com/)

Nice!

Motorboat Cruiser

04-01-2005, 12:34 PM

I'll be joining you all in hell for this... (http://www.durrrrr.blogspot.com/)

It seems that the more I laugh, the warmer it gets in here. Interesting. :evil:

SacTown Chronic

06-15-2005, 12:09 PM

The autopsy is out (http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/15/schiavo.autopsy.ap/index.html)

An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner's office said Wednesday. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.

Motorboat Cruiser

06-15-2005, 12:45 PM

So how exactly does a blind person respond to visual stimuli again? I seem to recall this claim being made frequently.

Gn2Dlnd

06-15-2005, 12:57 PM

Well, actually, blind comes in many variations. Light and shadow sensitivity is fairly common among people who are "totally blind." My friend Mike, who is "legally blind," can't see well enough to drive or ride a bike, but his limited vision (far right side and very blurry, left eye completely blind) allows him to walk most places, read with magnification, and comment on my yellow shirt. He doesn't use a cane (he should, curbs can be a bitch with no depth perception,) or a guide dog. Most people have no idea he can't see them.
My friend Debbie, who is completely blind from birth, shocked the hell out of us one day at rehearsal when she asked, "Who turned out the lights?" This, from a woman with no pupils!

Motorboat Cruiser

06-15-2005, 01:09 PM

Fair enough. All I really have to go by is the wording of the article which states that "the vision centers of her brain were dead, meaning she was blind." It seemed logical to assume that if the vision center of her brain is dead, that it meant total blindness. I could be wrong though.

Ghoulish Delight

06-15-2005, 01:33 PM

Prudence

06-15-2005, 05:02 PM

They also said her brain was half the size it should have been. And the medical examiner said, "This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

Gn2Dlnd

06-15-2005, 05:40 PM

No, she was definitely a veg. But it's possible that she responded to visual stimuli.

wendybeth

06-15-2005, 05:41 PM

Well, it's just a darn good thing they killed her, then! I mean, half a brain? Blind? She was obviously just taking up space.:rolleyes:

Sorry- but I still have problems with their methodology and such, and stating that she had severe impairments does nothing to change that.

Scrooge McSam

06-15-2005, 05:48 PM

The brain is highly adaptive, especially when it comes to the senses. It's very possible that even if the vision centers were dead, neighboring areas eventually adapted to process at least a portion of the visual data her retinas would have still been receiving.

My understanding earlier was that her cerebral cortex was gone. If that turns out not to be true, what you suggest is possible.

But if the cortex is gone, I don't see how vision would be possible.

MickeyLumbo

06-15-2005, 06:56 PM

please post my autopsy report when i'm gone

MickeyD

06-15-2005, 07:28 PM

Sorry- but I still have problems with their methodology and such, and stating that she had severe impairments does nothing to change that.

No, but regardless of what people think of Michael Schiavo, the autopsy report does verify that the impairments were there and a) even if her parents had been sucessfully able to administer food and water to her by mouth, she would not have been able to swallow, and b) absolutely no amount of therapy would have improved her condition, as was asserted by her parents.

scaeagles

06-15-2005, 08:22 PM

I am saddened that this is in the news again, quite frankly.

Interestingly, though, from what I understand, there is no evidence of a heart attack or of an eating disorder, as was previously thought to be the cause of her brain damage. So I do woinder what caused it....but not that much, really. It was a sad, sad, chapter in the news cycle an of the people close to the situation on every side, and i wish it would just stop.

wendybeth

06-15-2005, 09:52 PM

No, but regardless of what people think of Michael Schiavo, the autopsy report does verify that the impairments were there and a) even if her parents had been sucessfully able to administer food and water to her by mouth, she would not have been able to swallow, and b) absolutely no amount of therapy would have improved her condition, as was asserted by her parents.

It is interesting how there doesn't appear to be any mention as to whether or not she could feel pain- I've only read that she had half her brain mass. If her brain stem truly was decimated, why didn't they clarify that? Anyone's brain will atrophy after so many years of non- stimulation. Also, is Micheal going to pay back the doc he won all that money from for not diagnosing a non-existant ailment? THere are quite a few Alzheimer's patients that fit the above description- perhaps we should just stop feeding them as well? By the time they pass, they have almost no brain function, yet no one seems to be rushing out to off the old folks.

Prudence

06-15-2005, 10:00 PM

I don't think anyone's suggesting a great movement to just "off" anyone -- old folks or otherwise. However, if the individual in question has left no living will and is completely dependent on mechanical support, I do support the right of their legally designated guardian to make decisions on whether or not to continue care. If you don't write down your wishes in a legally recognized way, someone else will be appointed to speak for you.

MickeyD

06-15-2005, 10:40 PM

THere are quite a few Alzheimer's patients that fit the above description- perhaps we should just stop feeding them as well? By the time they pass, they have almost no brain function, yet no one seems to be rushing out to off the old folks.

Not "off" in my definition, but many next of kin of those old folks will state "no extrordinary measures." My paternal grandmother had Alzheimer's before she died, and yes, my family considered a feeding tube to be extrodinary measures. Did we "off" her? Not in my book. You're entitled to your opinion, though.

wendybeth

06-15-2005, 11:41 PM

That's fine, Mickey, but what about hydration? Listen, I have left a living will specifying what I want done. She did not. All we had was the word of a man who had a vested interest in her expiring. It's ironic that she was alive enough to prevent him from remarrying, but not not enough to prevent her legally sanctioned death. I'm still waiting to hear whether or not she was considered to be enough of a person to feel pain. Not a lot has been said on that as yet, post mortem, so I'll wait and see what the experts have to say about that, based on her autopsy results.

Motorboat Cruiser

06-16-2005, 01:01 AM

All we had was the word of a man who had a vested interest in her expiring.

Sorry but that is incorrect. Michael Sheivo was in no way the only person who testified that these were her wishes in court. There were at least 3 or 4 others.

I also don't understand what is so hard to understand concerning him staying married to her. For all intensive purposes, she was gone and never going to come back. Still, he had the duty to see that her wishes were respected. If he had divorced her, that power would have gone to her parents. They stated that they would keep her alive even if it meant the amputation of all of her limbs. What other option did he have if he wanted to make sure that his wifes wishes were carried out? I think he had every right to try to make a new life for himself and yet, rather than take the easy way out, he stayed married and thus retained the ability to carry out her wishes. I really don't see what else he was supposed to do.

Nephythys

06-16-2005, 07:23 AM

I'm still stunned that WB and I actually are pretty much in agreement on this.

Frankly I have taken the lesson of putting your wishes in writing and I just wish it would all stop now.....

*sigh*

Kels

06-16-2005, 07:42 AM

Kels

06-16-2005, 07:45 AM

Sorry but that is incorrect. Michael Sheivo was in no way the only person who testified that these were her wishes in court. There were at least 3 or 4 others.

I also don't understand what is so hard to understand concerning him staying married to her. For all intensive purposes, she was gone and never going to come back. Still, he had the duty to see that her wishes were respected. If he had divorced her, that power would have gone to her parents. They stated that they would keep her alive even if it meant the amputation of all of her limbs. What other option did he have if he wanted to make sure that his wifes wishes were carried out? I think he had every right to try to make a new life for himself and yet, rather than take the easy way out, he stayed married and thus retained the ability to carry out her wishes. I really don't see what else he was supposed to do.

Well said.

Kevy Baby

06-16-2005, 07:50 PM

I'm still waiting to hear whether or not she was considered to be enough of a person to feel pain. Not a lot has been said on that as yet, post mortem, so I'll wait and see what the experts have to say about that, based on her autopsy results.You've brought this point up a couple of times, so I will throw my thoughts out on this.

If she was in pain, was this pain in existance just when the feeding tube was removed? Or could this pain have been around for a month, a year, or more? Even if she felt pain, I would have no regrets about this decision. I do not know of many people who would, if given the choice, rather stay in what was obviously (after all this time) a permanently vegatative state rather than face relatively short-term pain or discomfort. While I am sure that dying from starvation isn't a whole of fun, the couple of weeks of it sure beats being a lifeless vegatable!

To me (as others) the REAL tradgedy in this case was not that we allowed her to die, but rather that we allowed her to die the way she did. If ever there was a case to be made for euthenasia, this was it (as was my grandfather who died of emphasyma and many other people who have had to suffer needlessly!).

As cold as it may sound, I say "so what" if her last couple of days were painful because of the removal of the feeding tube: it is a hell of a lot better than the way she was "living"!