The Schiavo issue
 

I am a right to die proponent because of some personal issues I won't go into.

However, I am sickened by what is happening here.

If she should die, then just do it. Slit her throat. Bludgeon her to death. Inject her with draino. Smother her. All of these things would be far more humane than removing her feeding tube and allowing her to starve over a few weeks.

Inhumane and sickening.

Her husband or the judge should have to go do the deed instead of sanitizing it by removing the damn tube and washing their hands while other people have to F(*&ing watch her die.

Perhaps Terry Schiavo should murder someone. Then she'd be on death row and no one would allowed to do this to her.

She is not on life support. She has a feeding tube. There is no living will.

Whoever orders her tube to be pulled should grow some damn balls and go do it themselves instead of hiding behind the facade of mercy.

I'm pissed.

Thank Jeb Bush and John Ashcroft. There are more humane ways to die. Ashcroft likes to step in a block any humane right-to-die legislation (stay out of Oregon, Mr. Asscroft, you are NOT welcome here) And Jeb over-stepped his bounds by stopping her death....they need to leave their personal beliefs at the door and follow the letter of the law. Whatever it is, at this point. The whole thing is so screwed up now.

I'm on the husband's side, which is difficult for me.....I watched my uncle die of MS and I watched how his wife, my aunt, suffered but stayed put. He deteriorated to the point that he was harsh and mean to her, like a small child, then pretty much a vegetable on a feeding tube until his body gave out. He didn't starve to death, but his pain was managed until he eventually died. We were lucky enough to know what he wanted to have happen in that final year. Yes, year. It took a year for him to die. It was the most horrific year of my life. Ugh.

If there's a humane way to do it, do it. The whole situation sickens me. I've been following it for years.

Modern society pooh-poohs ethics/philsophy as a meaningless, irrelevant career pursuit. And yet here we are -- huge advances in medical science leave us in these predicaments and we as a society don't know what to do.

My mom died of lupus slowly over 13 years. Died when I was 15. Ripped our family apart. In the case of my mom, the doctor threatened to sue our fmaily if we only stopped giving her her medication, as he was fearful of a malpractice suit. I have no problem with the terminally ill being permitted to do whatever.

Terry Schiavo isn't terminally ill. What she is is an inconvenience to her "husband", who could simply divorce her, as he has obviously moved on emotionally. Her parents are willing to care full time for her.

Claire, I would suggest that should you be in the shoes of her parents, you might just want to keep your child alive. If I am assuming too much, my apologies.

Claire, sorry, but to blame Ashcroft and Jeb Bush is simply ridiculous. I could go into all the reasons why, but that's not the point of the post. Bush did step in, yes, but there is most certainly governmental interests in this case related to law. I bet Terry's parents were pretty glad he did.

Unfortunately, there's no way to prove one way or the other if what he claims is true, but if your loved one had specifically said to you, "Don't ever keep me alive as a vegetable, would you just them over to someone to keep them alive? Assuming he's telling the truth, it's not about the expens of keeping her alive, it's about her specifically saying she would rather die than be in the state she's in. I'm have no opinion on it, because there's literally no way to know if he's telling the truth. He'd fight just as hard either way.

This is why there are legal documents to cover such things.

I am having surgery on April 14. Believe me, I made my living will when the surgery was set.

He may very well be telling the truth. The point is, we don't know. It is apparent to me that he has completely emotionally divorced himself from the situation, but I could be wrong. I don't see how he could be in the long term relationship ith the other woman, having a couple of kids with her, if it weren't the case. If I am right in that he has, wouldn't it makes sense to allow someone else to make the decision, such as her parents, who are desperate to care for her and keep her alive?

Again, I can't form an opinion. If, in fact, she did say that to him, even if they didn't have the sense to draw up the legal document, it must be horrible to know she's suffering against her will. As for emotionally divorcing himself from her, everyone deals with things their own way and it's been so many years I can't exactly blame him for cointinuing to want to live despite the horrible stuggle he's dealing with. No matter what, IF what he claims is true, then I don't blame him one bit for fighting to grant his wife her wish no matter what he's done with his continuing life. While at the same time, IF what he says is false, then screw him. That's the one and only thing it hinges on, and the one and only thing that can't be determined. So I can't say either way what I think is right. Only he knows.

I have to say that frankly I don't care who has the decision making process. It's an issue, but frankly, whether she lives or dies isn't the issue to me.

My point is this - I do not know how it is possible for a judge to order someone to starve to death. That is just sickening. The person who gives the order for that, regardless of the reason why, should grow a big set and go kill her in a quick and humane fashion.

I'll tell you - if the order is passed and they pull the tube and I were her dad, I'd kill her. Is there a jury in the world that would convict? Now that would be a mercy killing. Killing her so that the government mandated starvation wouldn't be such torture.

Even if she had it in writing it doesn't mean her wishes would followed. Living wills are turning more into *guidelines* then anything.

This whole situation is very sad. To starve to death will be a horrible way to die. Let her die without pain, without suffering.
Sca, I fully agree with you. Someone needs to grow a set and just let her die painfree.

We can put our pets to sleep when they are in pain and terminal. We don't want them to suffer. Why do we allow humans to suffer?

I think that if the husband didn't care or was in it for the money he would have divorced her and turned custody over to her parents. He's turned down boatloads of money to relinquish care to her family. Back when this all started I doubt the husband said "this will drag on for years and I can make so much money from this and get fame and fortune".

If Jeb didn't get involved and pass a law that was later deemed unconstitutional no one would be blaming him. If our rights weren't slowing being taken away because of the religious undertones and beliefs of this government no one would be blaming the government (any members of it).

It's not about "growing a set" it's about the stupidity that assissted suicide is illegal.

So law makers need to grow a set and make assissted suicide legal.

No one would force you to partake in it. There would have to be written instructions and signed documents. But really.... What harm does it do to society as a whole to allow people who have a terminal illness, who will die a horrible slow painful death to take their own life? To die with dignaity?

Couldn't disagree more. There's no evidence anywhere, other than the word of her husband, that she wants to die. The issue about which I posted in the OP is that a judge can order someone to starve to death for whatever reason.

It is not an assisted suicide issue. She hasn't told anyone or written anything to suggest that she wants to die. The only thing is the word of her husband. And that is enough to starve her to death?

I think not. That's not even enough to kill her humanely.

She is not terminally ill. She is fed through a feeding tube. This is not an assisted suicide issue. It's an issue that the word of one man can lead to legal starvation of this woman.

I suppose I agree with you on a purely legal level. But knowing that there's a possibility that this woman has already been tortured far worse than a few days of hunger by being kept alive against her wishes, it's hard for me to just say, "keep her alive 'cause starving is torture."

I really can't believe he's still fighting for any other reason than he truly believes she wanted to die. The family keeps claiming that he wants the inheritance, but clearly it's not about money. If it were about money, he'd have given control over LONG ago. The cost of the care and the court battles I'm sure at this point have eclipsed and lapped any inheritance he might stand to receive by a LONG shot. If all he wanted was to get rid of an inconvenience, then as you said he could simply divorce her.

I agree that I cannot speak to the motivation of the husband.

However, I know if I truly loved someone, I wouldn't want them to go through the agony of starving to death even if I believed they wanted to be dead.

The thing is that he (the husband) has been adamant about it for years. Looong before she became an "inconvenience" to him.

And Leo, believe me, I have been in the parent's shoes. Totally. You don't think everyone in my family was a total jerk to my aunt who had to live with my dying uncle day in and day out? We were, at times. We judged her motives, her decisions. But ultimately, the decisions were hers. She was his wife, and she loved him. It hurt to watch. She did nothing wrong....it just.....hurt. Everything hurt. It hurt to watch her and her children move on with their lives while my uncle's life was turned upside down and backwards over the course of ten years. She stayed put. She did the best by him under the most difficult circumstances I could ever imagine. For years.

I don't doubt that Teri Sciavo's husband loved/loves her. But I also know that his life has been in limbo for years now, and that he has been rock solid sure in his belief that her current state is NOT the state she would have wanted to live in.

I just wish there was an easy answer.

These are difficult questions, to be sure.

I do believe, though, that the feeding tube IS life support. She cannot feed herself. So a mechanical means has been employed. That is life support.

It's the same with a respirator. When a patient can't breathe for themselves and an external system is employed to take over that function, that is life support.

I think people have a problem with the time period between cessation of life support and death. In the case of a respirator, it's only a few minutes but the patient still suffocates. In this case, it's a much longer time period. I think that makes some people very uncomfortable because it's not as quick. I know how it affects me.

I understand the emotions. It pulls at the heart. And there are no easy answers. Is there any more convincing argument than this to make sure you have a living will? I'm glad to hear you did just that, Leo, for yourself and for your family.

What I can't understand is the rumblings in the news about Congress wanting to subpoena Terry Schiavo for questioning before Congress.

From http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/sc...ged/index.html

I'm not trying to be dense, but just what are they hoping to get out of her?

I suppose they want to see for themselves, at least nominally, what sort of state she's in.

Actually, it's a tricky little manuever, from what I've heard. Anyone who is put under a congressional subpoena can be placed in protective custody. If she is under protective custody, guess what? She can't be starved to death.

Good points.

Couldn't the same be said of a lot of lifesaving medications? Or nearly any technological advancement that can save lives?

But again, the point is that she isn't terminally ill, and there is no proof (beyond the word of her husband) that she would wish to have the tube pulled. I just have a hard time accepting that the word of one man should be enough for her life to be ended by any means.

Sorry about you mom, Leo. My mom and sister are in the same boat. They both have lupus.

Absolutely, and courts have upheld the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment of any kind and by extension, the right of the closest family member (Spouse, adult children, parents, in that order of priority) to make the decission if the patient is unable to.

Here is a good perspective on it from someone whose profession is these kind of ethical questions.

If anything, I hope this case encourages everyone out there to make your wishes in a legally binding contract, be it a living will, a PoA, anything. I know it has me.

Grrr. This whole calling her as a witness just irks me. I belive it is yet another case of the government getting involved where they shouldn't be. This whole issue is a matter for the courts, the family and the doctors. Not the government. At all.

I am so sorry to hear that. One was bad enough, but two at a time would be unfathomable.

Terry is dead, for all intensive purposes. I've read doctor after doctor on this. She has no functioning cerebral cortex. It cannot be repaired, it cannot be fixed. Terry cannot suffer because she cannot feel.

When her and her husband were married, it became his decision to make concerning what would happen in the event something like this happened. It is not her parents decision and it shouldn't be a bunch of grandstanding politicians decision either. I thought sanctity of marriage was soooo important in Florida. Why not in this case?

This whole case sickens me. The husband wants to move on because his wife is dead. She is not coming out of this. He isn't in it for money. Any money he received so far went to her treatment and anything left over, he says is going to charity. He has turned down millions to relinquish his rights and has refused. That says a lot to me. Let this man have some peace, let his wife have some peace, and let these washington politicians stay out of what is a personal decision that this man has every right to make.

Feeling is a brain stem function, I believe. The cerebral cortex is for higher reasoning functions. I am no neurologist, so I could be wrong, of course. Those who spend lots of time with her - meaning her parents - seem to believe there is a certain amount of interaction from her. Of course that is probably from hope driving what they believe they have experienced with her - I accept that. The flip side to that is, of course, that if she has no feeling or higher brain function, how can she be suffering by being in the state that she is?

Sanctity of marriage taking precendence over a basic human right to live? I know you were making an attempt at sarcasm, but I think it fails there.

I have never said it is about the money to the man. However, he has certainly put himself in the position that he doesn't function as her husband, choosing to move on. I do not fault him for moving on with his life - what a tough situation for him. But if he's going to move on, it's an all or nothing proposition.

But this all started well before he moved on. It should have been done then and there. Next of kin (spouse) should have had the right to make the decission. He was denied that right and has been fighting ever since. So just because his life circumstances have changed due to the absurb amount of time, he should still have that right.

[derail rant]Because it's only important when it is conveinent to them (read will get them votes). [government official to voters]well the sanctity of marriage must be defended at all costs. Allowing gays to marry will destroy it.[/]= more votes

[government official to same voters]Terry must not be allowed to die. Her husband (in a heterosexual marriage which I promised you would only be allowed in this country to preserve the scantitiy of marriage if I had anything to do with it) should not be allowed to make the decision regarding her care in this case. Her husband, her caregiver, her next of kin by LAW should not be allowed to make this decision to kill her. Don't worry voters. We won't allow her next of kin to make a decision to carry out what he claims are her wishes. Never mind the law. You all know we can and will change it on a whim to support our agenda.[/]=more votes.

[derail rant]Gee, With this being yet another *right* that comes with *marriage* that seems to be taken away by our government why bother fighting for marriage rights? Pretty soon the goverment will be telling us what to wear every day. [/derail rant]

They removed her tube

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...maged_woman_69

I think this is the key. These aren't easy decisions. And different people may have conflicting views on what should happen. Plug the plug or no? Donate organs or no? Continue extraordinary measures or no?

They're terrible, gut-wrenching decisions. Medical science is a double-edged sword -- on the one hand, medicine gives wonderful hopes of life and recovery that even a hundred years ago could never have been imagined. On the other hand, it requires mere mortals, without the gift of foresight, to make irreversable decisions on whether a particular individual is likely to ever recover. What a horrible scale to balance -- the financial and emotional cost to the living of sustaining the unknowing body v. the terrible crushing guilt that maybe someday they'll wake up.

I sincerely hope that's a decision I will never have to make.

The concept of next of kin is intended to facilitate this decision-making process, as much as is possible, by outlining who has responsibility for that ultimate decision. In some more fortunate cases, the living left behind are in agreement over the proper course of action. In some cases, there are disagreements that are quite literally matters of life and death.

But the court system is not equipped to handle these on a case by case basis. And inevitably there will be situations where good, rational people will hold differing opinions on the proper course of action. And unless there's some obvious, underlying issue, such as a ginormous inheritance, there has to be a system that determines who "wins" in the win-less situation.

"Next of Kin" is supposed to resolve these differences by determining whose voice will speak for the patient. And the first candidate is spouse, if one exists and is competent to make the decision. It is the nature of human frailty that there will be some philanderking jerks or back-stabbing hos who will see an opportunity for enormous personal gain and make what any rational person would see is the wrong decision. Ideally the court system is available to help in these extreme situations.

The instant case appears to be an example of "what happens when this all goes horribly wrong." It should not drag on this long. The husband gets to say yay or nay. We could speculate all day whether or not she feels pain, whether or not she's aware, whether or not she has any quality of life, whether or not she'll ever recover. And the truth is that we don't know. No one knows. We might have our suspicions, but they are, at best, theories.

It's horrible to watch your last hope be extinguished. Her eyes open; it seems like she could snap out of it at any moment. How awful it must be for the parents to watch what they see as marvelous potential wither away. But absent any compelling evidence for future brain activity, it's the husband's decision to make. And barring any compelling evidence to the contrary, we have to assume he's doing what he believes is in her best interest, regardless of what we might think of him or his decision.

Yes, but does this just mean someone else can rule that it must go back in?
:confused:

I think so. In fact, if I recall correctly, it once before happened to this same poor woman. I think she had it removed for 7 days or so about 1.5 years ago, and another court ruled it must be reinserted.

I was going to say yes, and that it's been taken out twice before.....I've been following this since college, but sometimes the details are hazy.

It's been almost fifteen years since her heart attack. I'm pretty sure it happened in 1990.

You know, my Father chose when his life would end and I had upmost respect for his decision - although the grief was unbearable. He decided his life was at it's end. The quality of his life was not there any longer and he didn't want to live like that.

Why can't people see how important quality of life issues are? It's baffling to me.

It has been removed twice, and it's been 16 years since the heart attack.

They seem to have good periods and bad periods. They can go for months without symptoms and then all of a sudden they feel cruddy.
My sister gets the skin rashes symptoms, my mom gets the fatigue. My mom's has been in remission for a couple of years but my sister's seems always present some how. I'm afraid I don't know much about their issues regarding lupus because they don't like to talk about it outside of the Dr's office.
Ugh. That just made my stomach queasy. I feel sorry for Ms. Schiavo.
:(

I think that term is too vague. It is undefinable person to person. I think in general, though, people do understand it. What is hard for me to understand in this case is why it is being assumed, by the word of one man, that she would not want to stay alive. And the word of that one man being permitted to starve her to death.

I have thought about the post of Scrooge in regards to if it is different than pulling the plug on the respirator, and if it is simply the length of time that it takes, and in reality it is no different issue. Technically I suppose no, but the length does make a difference.

There is a debate on the death penalty. We consider it inhumane to have hangings anymore and it's pretty much all lethal injection. Why? Why not starve someone on death row instead of a quick, painless injection? I would guess it is because it is inhumane.

So the argument came up that this is the only way to do it with laws as they are. So since the only way to end her life is horrid that's what will be done? That doesn't seem like the proper course of action.

She is not brain dead. She is not terminal. I would suspect that I wouldn't want to live that way, but not because of me - because I wouldn't want my children to have to wtch me like that after watching my own mom die a slow and painful death. Tough on a kid.

I can ramble on without saying much. I'm not even sure where I'm going with the post. It isn't her life or death that is causing me such angst. It is the method. It is the thought of her parents being forced to endure this process, wanting to simply care for their offspring and being told it is out of their hands and they must submit to her dieing of starvation (or dehydration, I suppose). As a parent it almost makes me physically ill.

As with my anger in earlier posts, anyone who could order that should just take a gun and go do it himself. For this to be permitted by law is sickening to me.

Query:

What if the positions were reversed? What if the parents had spent umpteen years begging for the doctors to release their daughter from torment and let her soul be at rest. And what if it were the husband who was convinced she was responsive and refused, ever hopeful of recovery?

I'm trying to pinpoint which part of the issue concerns you the most so I can better understand your position. I know that you're concerned about multiple aspects, but if you had to pick what disturbs you most, is it the nature of the death? Or is it that you feel the parents are more qualified in this case to judge her wishes?

Prudence, I can't answer for Scaeagles, but I can for myself. I distrust Mr. Schiavo, and I am sickened by this whole circus. If her parents want to care for her, they should be allowed to. I know if it were my daughter, I would feel the same way. He has turned away from her- he has moved on and established a new family. There's a saying- where there is life, there is hope, and I think her parents have hope for her. The docs are not in agreement regarding her state of being- one side says one thing, the other days something else. I know a lot of special needs kids that have the same 'quality' of life that Mrs. Schiavo has, yet there is no question that they be allowed- even encouraged- to live. If someone proposed to do to them what Mr. Schiavo wants done to his wife, the public would be up in arms. Mrs. Schiavo, vegatative state or not, seems to have a very strong will to live. All she requires is a feeding tube, and if her parents want to to that for her, what is the problem? She was their child long before she married, and her husband turned away from his marriage long ago.

wendybeth: That's actually very helpful. The more I understand the very core issue for a person or group of people, the less I pontificate. :)

Would it be a fair restatement of your position that you are, in general, against the removal of necessary feeding tubes? That your distrust of the husband is secondary?

I guess my read on this is that she appears at least a little responsive. I'm all for Euthanasia, but I do worry about it in this case. Imagine if someone had decided that Stephen Hawking was "dead"?

I would feel exactly the same. Although I do think your question is somewhat loaded and disagree with the premise - "to release their daughter from torment and let her soul be at rest". No one can say if she is in torment. From what I've read, she seems to be quite happy to spend time with her parents.

My greatest objection is the method of starvation. We are expected and required - as it should be - to treat convicted murderers and terrorists more humanely than that. I must say that shold the entire family be in agreement on it I would still object to her being starved to death.

My second greatest objection is that no one should be permitted to rip life away from someone by court order when there is no living will and it is based on the word of one man alone. We require more to convict on misdemeanors.

I agree with Wendybeth in her distrust of the man. With such national prominence involved, do you really think he'd take money and turn away? He'd be a joke and a pariah on society and all he encountered. He has to stick by his guns. I have no proof, of course, but I do not trust him.

interesting that (some) conservatives are calling for her feeding tube to remain, going against her husband's wishes...but these same conservatives that champion the "sanctity of marriage" think that, in this case, the parental-child bond trumps a spouse's decision.

clearly this is a political football based on abortion and shameful that politicians are involved with this at all.




An Advanced Directive on Heath Care is vital to prevent oneself from suffering through a similar fate. also, a DNC, DO NOT RECESITATE.

Sorry, Mickey, but you're wrong. The "sanctity of marriage" issue is completely unrelated and a total red herring.

Based on abortion? How so? I would bet her parents are pretty happy that certain politicians have gotten involved. Perhaps they have even asked for assistance from their elected representatives.

And regarding the documents you listed - there are no documents in this case. Again, ending starving her to death is completely based on the word of one man. Not enough there.

This is not a state-sponsored execution so comparisons to the death penalty are irrelevant, imo. But I agree with you, scaeagles, it is a horrifying way to die. Put in that position, I would suffocate my child/spouse after the tube was removed.

As for the motivations of the parties involved, I don't see evil intent on either side. I believe the husband knows exactly what his wife wants. I believe the parents have hope of a recovery in their hearts (Though I do fear that Catholic dogma is playing a not so insignificant role in the parents' fight to keep their daughter alive). On a personal level, my wife's wishes would trump whatever hope, whether real or imagined, that her parents might have, and I would fight to give Crystal what she believes is the dignity, and peace, of death -- even after moving on in my personal life. I would owe her that.

And yes, you are correct, MickeyLumbo. That icky political/religious two-headed monster is putting it's fingerprints all over this tragedy. That's not to say that everone who is outraged over the removal of the tube is being driven by their beliefs, but, as with the abortion issue, the religious arm of the keep-her-alive army is in the majority.

Does this mean anything?

If true? What we then bear witness to is a court sanctioned murder.

Completely disagree. This is not a red herring. The law clearly states that as her husband, he is the only one with the authority to make this decision. These politicians are saying that the law should not be respected and that his rights are not valid. If that isn't a violation of the sanctity of marriage, I don't know what is. The courts have ruled over and over and over again that her parents do not have the right to make this decision. Nor do the clergy. That right lies with her husband solely so yes, in this case, the word of one man is enough. That is law and if people don't like it, they are more than able to change it. Until then, it should be followed.

I have yet to hear one independent doctor, one who does not have a special interest in this case, state that they feel there is any hope of recovery for this poor woman. She is being kept alive out of denial of the facts. And people like Bill Frist, who is a doctor and should know better, are using this for political reasons.

If Terry is kept alive, she will live out the next 10,20,30 + years, in exactly the same state that she has lived in for the last 16. Would anyone here really want that for themselves or a loved one?

Prudence, I have to admit that it is my distrust of the 'husband' that largely shaped my stance on this issue, but along the way my feelings as a parent came into play as well. I can't help but put myself into her parents position, and as I see it, the day the husband entered into a relationship with another woman before ending his marriage to their daughter was the day he gave up any rights as to what sort of say he had regarding her care. He could get a divorce, but he hasn't. Why? He sued the doctors, received a large chunk of money for her long-term care (which he still has, as he cannot use it for legal fees), and now he remembers that she wanted to die if something like this happened? I don't believe it , and I don't believe him. This is legally assisted murder, in my opinion. I have a friend with a son who is probably less cognitive than Terry, yet she and her husband love him dearly and would never think of starving him to death because he will never enjoy the same quality of life as they. Indeed, if they were to do so, they would be charged with murder.

Wendybeth,

IRRC, this battle to let her die has been going on for years (I think since 1990). It's just recently come into the public light so glaringly. What little money is left from the lawsuit will be going to charity. He's been offered money almost from the get-go walk away, and he's always turned it down. Right now all expenses must be approved by a judge down to her hair cuts. Lawyers on both sides haven't been paid in several years.

Since I don't have all the facts, am not in those peoples shoe's and believe the media is making this out to be something it isn't I can't give a good opinion. All I know is that I personally wouldn't want to be on life support except for a feeding tube.

I feel bad for both sides. It can't be an easy decision to make and to make matters worse they have to go through an ugly court battle.

The problem, though, is that she is not brain dead. She is not on the "traditional" life support. It is for this reason that I don't think the power of life and death should be his decision. In terms of "pulling the plug", yeah, it would be his decision. Food and liquid is a requirement for all of us to live. just because she cannot give it to herself we should deny her of it?

How many ten of thousands of people are in nursing homes, unable to communicate and unable to feed themselves? Is it any different because they eat from a spoon? Should their spouse or eldest children (next of kin) be permitted to just tell the nursing home to stop feeding them? Hardly.

As I earlier stated, I would not want this for a loved one - who would? It is an absolutely nightmarish situation. This is why my wife and I have living wills - so that there is no question. However, I could never stop feeding my child regardless of their condition. If they were brain dead and on a respirator? Yeah, I'd have to make the tough choice. Starvation? No.

I woke up to the newspaper reports of all the political crap going on in this case, and I'm sickened by it all.

I feel the Republicans jumping in and supporting Jeb. Bush's (unconstitutional) Terri's Law and the Congressional crap they are pulling is just to show a united party front. It seems that every Republican who wants to be in the White House has something to say about it this weekend (or they're covering their asses.....DeLay anyone?). I'm tired of this crap.

And I'm tired of the wussy ass Democrats not saying anything about it. Except Waxman and Blumenauer, no one has the balls to step up and call the Republicans on their arsiness.

Sorry. I've been irritated by this for so long.....years.

I'm married. I'd want my husband to make the decisions in this case.

Also, if I was a beautiful, vibrant young woman of 25 or 26 and I had a heart attack and subsequent brain damage due to my chemical imbalance (induced by my eating disorder), I'd want to just be allowed to die. The "fact" that she'd said she'd not want to be kept alive on a machine doesn't surprise me in the least.

I knew my mind on this topic by the time I was 19 or 20, and I haven't changed it. The fact that I've long said that I wouldn't want to be kept alive on a machine to my husband, but never to my parents concerns me. It shouldn't. Damn straight I'll now be doing something to make sure my family.....all my family does not go through something like this. I'm just sick about this. Ugh.

Don't get me wrong....I'm not a big fan of the husband or anything. I've put myself in Terri's spot forever. It's always from her point-of-view that I've held my beliefs. I feel so horrible for everyone involved. Her death will be a horrible one. But long overdue. It's just horrible.

I've seen the videos of Terri and as a special education teacher of kids with severe disabilities I have taught students (many) that are in similar physical and medical condition as Terri. I've had many a discussion with lay people (read: my friends and family that are not special ed teachers or in the medical field) and I always support the families of these students. I've unfortunately seen a few parents who did not actually have the needs of their children in the forefront of their minds (severe Munchausen's moms--scariest women ever).

I want those extremely dedicated parents (or sometimes their court-appointed advocates, and sometimes even the State--many medically fragile kids are wards of the State) to have the say-so in their children's educational and medical situations. Their dedication is amazing and overwhelming. They make me feel fortunate for the life I live and the health of my children.

But their children are children and they are un-married. Terri Schiavo has a husband, and he says that she said she wouldn't want to be kept alive on a machine. And give who she was and the type of person she seemed to be, I have never disbelieved him.

I hate how horrible her death will be. It's disgusting. But the fact that there is no other course of action in this case is something that should be addressed. To my core, I believe that government should not be involved in this case or any similar case. I feel like it's a slippery slope for right-to-die and physician-assisted suicide cases, yes, in a way, abortion (it's no shock that Right-to-Lifers are flocking to Florida right now). Where will we be if we allow the government to step in in these personal family matters on a Federal level?

You go girl :snap:

I'm getting just a tad tired of people using this as a stick to beat the republican party with- can't we move past political posturing?

Sure, if the Republicans in power could keep their noses out of it. Sorry, but I didn't start this fire.

We sure could if the Republican party would stay out of it and leave it to the family and/or the courts. This is not a matter for the government of FL or the USA. This is a matter for the family (husband) and/or courts to decide.

Sorry - the government has a clear and compelling interest because it is an issue of law. If asked by constituents, then the representatives or governors or whomever has the responsibility to become involved. Again, I'd bet Terri's parents are pretty happy for the help.

It is a large step from pulling the plug keeping someone breathing and beating to stopping nutrition and hydration. Let's head to the nursing homes and clear out the people with alzheimers who cannot feed themselves. Who would want to be alive in that state? There is absolutely no difference between starving Schiavo and doing that (assuming just one person who is the next of kin says it's what they would want - to hell with the other people who love and are willing to care for those individuals).

For each and every criticism of someone who thinks her life should be saved due to some religious concern (which it is not to me - it is a societal concern), I can throw a criticism saying that those who wish her dead are simply projecting their own fears of being in such a state or dealing with it (whether from personal experience or simple imagination) as a loved one.

The word of one man is not enough to starve a woman who is not brain dead. There is no medical consensus on her responsiveness. Why not err on the side of caution, if that would be consider erring at all?

another account-

Atty says Terri cried at the news

And that's your opinion. Other people have theirs.

But if "government" was really to respond to the concerns of every constituent, what would that entail, exactly? Are they (our governor, senators, and representatives) really compelled to become involved in every single personal situation where their assistance is requested? How would that work?

You can't tell me that there's no political posturing on the side of the Republicans. Step back and look at what's going on in Florida and tell me you don't see it.

In my opinion, the Democrats are keeping too low a profile on this one. Oh well. Let the Republicans hang themselves on their "life" issues.

Being willing to love and take care of a person who is extremely medically fragile is not equal to having the person's best interests at heart. Just because it fulfills the needs of the parents in this situation does not mean it serves Terri's best interests.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150922,00.html

If it was possible to make me feel a tiny bit better about her manner of death, this article provided it.....still horrible, still disgusting, but gave me a little peace on the issue.

So the Republicans are too involved, but the dems should be more so? So are you saying you want the government out of it, or that you want the portion of the government that disagrees with you out of it?

Of course members of the government are not compelled to become involved in what is requested of them. But they have chosen to on this one. Recently my representative became involved in in the case of a man from our district that was jailed in Mexico because he had a firearm in his vehicle that he was unaware of. Should he have become involved in that? Was he compelled to, or did it seem like a matter of life and death for a constituent?

I do apologize for appearing to have asked a loaded question. My intent was to ascribe to each side, hypothetically speaking, the most altruistic of intentions. I wasn't necessarily thinking of the specific case, but trying to imagine what reasons a genuinely loving set of parents might give for a wish to remove a feeding tube, and what a genuinely loving husband might give as his reasons for retaining the tube. I will try to be more careful with my language.

I do thank you, scaeagles, as well as wendybeth, for clarifying your positions. It definitely helps me understand both your feelings in this particular case, as well as what it is about your beliefs and experiences that led you to form that specific opinion. I really appreciate that you took the time to say more, and in a respectful fashion. I'd give snaps, but that seems a bit irreverent for this topic.

I'm not sure I honestly have a firm opinion in this case. My position changes depending on whose shoes I try to inhabit. And I don't have kids, so any attempts to conjecture how I might feel in that case is, well, conjecture. If my daughter were married to some guy I thought was a total jerk, I might well take similar steps to prevent him from having his say-so on her life and death.

And then I wonder what would happen if it was my husband with the feeding tube, and his parents insisted they wanted to keep the tube in. I can only imagine the things they would say about me. Meanwhile I think they don't know him, at least the adult him, half as well as they think they do.

My only solution is to rely on the "rules" which say who gets to decide. And don't think I don't know how unsatisfactory THAT solution is. Hearing more about what others think and *why* they think what they think helps me try to come up with something more satifactory.

The impression I get from a couple opinions posted here is that some of you view feeding tubes in the same way you might view, say, moving a quadriplegic to avoid bed sores. It's more of a routine maintenance than an extraordinary measure (like a respirator). I can't say I'm ready to agree with you, but I also can't say that I absolutely disagree with you. It's definitely something for me to think about.

As complicated as that issue is, even more complicated is: who speaks in her best interest? I don't even know how to tackle that. I honestly have no idea and I don't know if there's any way to accurately determine that. Of course people have their own opinions, but reasonable people differ. Scaeagles does bring up a good point of erring on the side of caution. And Claire brings up a good point of questioning whose best interests are being served -- Terri's or her parents?

I'm going to go offer and ponder all the good points a little more.

No. Not at all. My wish was for them (Democrats) to be a little more vocal about the inappropriateness of activity such as calling Terri Schiavo as a witness in order to block the removal of her feeding tube. And actually I think I'm okay with the Republicans spouting their "culture of life" rhetoric. It's thin and tired. I'm hoping that since the public opinion polls seem to be heavily on the side of Michael Shiavo that they'll back down a little.

Exactly the discussion my husband and I had this morning over coffee and the newspaper. We both agreed that our parents don't know the adult "us," and that we'd rather have one another in charge of life or death decisions, and that we want it in writing. Our daughter's preschool auction is next week, and we're already planning to purchase a "will-writing" package donated by a lawyer in our neighborhood. The thought of my Bill O-Reilleyesque/Rush Limbaugh lovin' father attempting to decide my fate someday is too much for both of us to bear.

Boy, that Mr. Bush is one compassionate man! I mean, wow, cutting short one of his legendarily frequent vacations to save this woman's life (nevermind that the poor woman wants to die). Cynics will say that he's just paying off his debt to the self-righteous fundamentalists who are his base, but we know better, don't we? When Mr. Bush states, as he did last night, that, "In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumtion in favor of life.", we should assume that he is sincere, right?

Then again, pandering to his base seems to be his m.o., so maybe we should assume nothing. When his base was the Try 'em and Fry 'em state of Texas , he had all the compassion of a rock. Executing the mentally retarded and then lying about it when you ran for president? That's low, even for you Mr. Bush. I mean, really, Mr. Bush, fighting a ban that would prevent the execution of those with an IQ of 65 or lower? For shame. Maybe compassionate conservatism means making sure Ol' Sparky's sponges are wet before frying someone who cannot comprehend what is happening to him, and who is wondering where the hell that hotdog smell is coming from. Where was all that "presumption in favor of life" talk when there were serious doubts about the competency of your execution victims to even comprehend what was happening to them, Mr. Bush?

And you, Mr. DeLay, you are some piece of work. Watching you lecture the nation about morals last night sent me in search of a hot shower. It was like watching a Saddam Hussein lecture about preventing the abuse of human rights. I have one word for you and your idea of morals, Mr. Delay. And that word, of course, is ::shudder::.

Pandering to his base?...........My goodness what is the world coming to when a leader does the bidding of those who elected him to be their leader :rolleyes:

Oh yes, and those "vacations" when he does everything he does at the White House- except he does it in TX. Heaven forbid! :rolleyes:

There's pandering to your base and then there's selling your morals to the highest bidder (or for votes). But I get your point.

Oh, and thanks for giving mojo even though you disagree with my take on this subject. You're a class act, sleepyjeff.

Too angry to post right now. But Sac nailed it.....Bush.....DeLay....all my thoughts on this topic have already been expressed on this thread. Bush just sealed the deal....culture of life, my ass.

Really? I have no idea what he does while on vacation (though I hear that abstaining from sex takes up most of his time) so I'll take your word for it.

and that is why I stay away from these things-can you see through your hatred? Or does the red cloud your vision?

Bye-gonna go lounge it.

OK. Now I'm pissed. In. Out. In. Out. The poor woman! Can't we have some death with dignity any longer? Can I just request here that I want MY feeding tube removed? And, Bush - any of the idiots - can't do any thing about it?

Maybe she just doesn't respond to people who want her to die?

Or we could just let her die and let God sort it out - provided she believes in God, of course ;)

Ah, but God told us suicide is a sin. So letting her die is a sin. Allowing others to sin is a sin, so we can't let God sort it out, because he'll deal harshly with us. And we base all our moral decisions on Christianity in this country. Especially now with the "mandate" going on.

Hmm, I need to find out the Jewish stance on suicide and the right to die.

Her parents are monsters. Absolute monsters. I wouldn't want my daughter caught in a living hell for 15 years, never mind any longer than that. Selfish monsters out of control.

I wonder if they've ever put a pet to sleep.

Or maybe her parents are in extreme denial and seeing what they want to see, rather than reality.

I'm just saying that it is possible.

Every doctor not on the family payroll has said that this woman has no chance of recovery.

Something else I don't agree with Judaism on. Oh well.

OR It could be that she doesn't respond because her cerebral cortex is GONE and has been replaced with cerebral spinal fluid.

YOU are such a brat! :p

MBC- I concede that as parents that is entirely possible.

CP- they are NOT monsters. They are parents caught in intolerable grief and pain. :( This is a horrible situation.

See, this is what puzzles me about Christianity and other heaven-based religions - If heaven is such a great place, why do you wnat to send the hienous of criminals there without pause, yet do your best to prevent loved ones from achieving it?

It's just a shame that a similar effort isn't made for conscious people starving around the world - I think there might be more hedons gained in that effort.

Okay I just read up on this case, had to do a bit of catch-up. So it seems like she didn't have an "ADVANCE HEALTHCARE DIRECTIVE," right? I know a bit about this stuff since my sister works in Hospice and EOL (End-Of-Life) care stuff. I think the Advance Healthcare Directive (I think that's the proper legalese) is something included in your Living Will & Trust. Sounds to me like she didn't have one.

Then again, I'm wondering how fool-proof those are. I mean, if this entire fiasco of government intervention (though one is reminded that perhaps it started w/ her parents?) is any indication, maybe the parameters of one's healthcare directive can be challenged by an opposing party.

Sigh. Your spouse, your next of kin can't make the medical decisions.

Your Living Wills and Advance Health Directives can be ignored.

Your life and your death will be decided on by the government.

After all the government knows you best. They know what you'd want better than what you or your own spouse.

This is very scary. Very very scary. I have never been so scared of my government in my life.

From what I hear, she does. And that's exactly what I keep coming back to. Her parents, who are supposedly Catholic, are keeping her in a permanently vegetative state in this life instead of letting her be with God in the next life.

Catholic dogma was mentioned way earlier in this thread. Here's the deal, Catholic dogma states to protect the sanctity of life, from conception to natural death. Terri Schiavo is alive due to a feeding tube, if the feeding tube is removed, similar to a situation where a respirator is removed, there will be natural death. Therefore, removing the feeding tube is acceptable according to "Catholic dogma."

Also earlier in the thread, someone mentioned that removing her feeding tube is similar to stopping feeding people who are spoon-fed. It's not, really. Spoon fed = ordinary means to keep someone alive. Feeding tube = extraordinary means.

It's all so sad to me. I certainly can't say that I would do the right thing if I was in her parents place.....or the husband's for that matter. They're all in my prayers.

And that this is all the result of an eating disorder....breaks my heart all over again.

I totally agree.

It's a brave new world.

I wouldn't mind this as much if she were "put to death" quickly and painlessly.

My main issue is that she's being starved and dehydrated to death - slow and agonizing. Normally, when the "plug is pulled" on someone, they stop breathing, etc. in just a few moments. But, to lay there suffering for days is completely inhumane. I wouldn't wish that on any of my loved ones.

About a week and a half before my grandmother died, she lost the ablility to swallow. She was in her eighties, had been diagnosed with Alzheimers for 8 years, hadn't spoken a word in 5 years, or moved a muscle on her own in about 2-3 years. Her eyes were still very expressive though. When she was afraid, you could see it in her eyes. When I'd come home from college, or when my dad would come home from work, her eyes would light up. When she was in pain, it was in her eyes. That last week or so, there was no pain in her eyes. None. Her breathing just became more and more shallow, then her spirit was gone. It was very peaceful. I'm no medical expert. I can't say that's how it is when everyone stops receiving food and nourishment. I can only say that was my experience when it happened with my grandma.

Do politicians make it a habit of stopping the "pulling the plug" when it happens all over the country on a regular basis? Ummm.....no. Perhaps it is because this case is different.

Anyone who says they know she wants to die is dillusional. No one can know. Unless you accept the word of one man. While comparisons are a-plenty here with support of the death penalty, I would not support the death penalty for anyone based on the word of one person.

I will only go with my feeling. If I were in the position of living(if you call it living) with a feeding tube shoved in me, unable to communicate, unable to move about. I would rather die. Because the truth of it is, I would not really be living anyway.

You said a mouthful there. Read the GOP talking points about using this cooked up drama to unseat a Florida Democrat.

That one man was her husband. Do you, or do you not, believe in the "sanctity of marriage"?

I do agree with you, Name, and I have a directive along with my will. (Eric and I finally broke down last year and had wills, etc, drawn up). I really would not want to live like that, either. I also agree with Disneyphile- this is a cruel way to die, and it is ironic, given how she wound up in this state to begin with. I suppose I mostly distrust the husband, but I distrust these damn politicians even more. I nearly choked on my coffee when I read Bush's comments- excuse me? :rolleyes:

However, the simple fact remains- the only person who claims to know what she would want is her husband, who let her live in such a state for some years before he conveniantly remembers her wishes. In my mind, he reliquished his rights as husband when he began a family with another person. I still do not understand why he didn't divorce her when he began his new family. I have my suspicions, but I'm sure he'd say it was so he could carry out her final wishes.

This is a sticking point for me as well, but I don't know why.

I've never seen any allegation that Mr. Schiavo has used the money awarded in the lawsuit for anything other than her care? Has anyone else?

Is it not possible that Mr. Schiavo carried on until the lawsuit was won and Terry had been evaluated over and over and over by competant medical personnel before he too gave up hope?

This is all speculation at this point. But the fact remains that these 2 were married when all this business started and court precedent is a surviving spouse makes these kinds of decision, before any grown children and before a surviving parent.

And anyone who says they know that she wants to live is not?

In her current state, is anyone even sure she is capable of understanding the situation and having an opinion either way. To say yes or no could be argued as dillusional.

disclaimer: I have not followed this at all closely, so I am unsure of the absolute facts of this case, so if it has been proven or if it is the opinion of the majority of the medical community that she is capable of rational thought, then this post is herby null and void. However, with that said, if there is disagreement amongst the medical community whether or not she has the ability to think, then this post is valid.

Then based on that information, any argument that she has an opinion on whether she lives or dies IS dillusional.

I haven't heard anyone other than her parents say they know she wants to live. I would suppose they probably are somewhat dillusional. Good lord knows if it was my kid I'd be, too.

If I recall, this batter has been going on for quite a few years. It wasn't just recently that he "remembered her wishes". It just recently came into the public light.

I believe he's trying to carry out her wishes, but at this point I think that he should just let her parents take custody of her if only to get the government to stop making all sorts of laws about this. It's a slippery slope no matter which way you go.

Her injury ocurred in 1990, the malpractice case was settled in 1992, and it wasn't until 1998 that Mr. Schiavo filed to have her feeding tube removed.

Thanks for the dates.

Thank you WB!

Can anyone find out when he became involved with the woman he now has a family with?

If my husband told me to pull the plug on him if he became a vegetable, I wouldn't be able to do it immediately. There are cases where the person regains consciousness, inexplicably.

But after 8 years (geez, perhaps sooner? I don't know), I'd follow his wishes, because I'd be sure he couldn't wake up. :( Ugh, why am I following this horrible story anyway? Now I've got to figure out how to make a living will or Dubya will decide my fate.

He moved in with the woman he now calls his fiancee in 1995. They have two kids.

Except that he moved in with the other woman 3 years prior to his first request to have her feeding tube removed. If I'm moving in with a woman other than my wife, I gotta figure I've given up hope that she's gonna get better.

By the way, while I don't have the exact Senate counts, the bill signed by Bush passed overwhelmingly, and in the House, it passed with a 4 to 1 margin.

Hardly an issue of the republicans forcing something through.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Will shed some light for a lot of people on this thread.....

Great site. Of particular interest is the ruling from February 2000 which, among other things, brings to light the fact that this is NOT the word of one man. 2 other people, her brother and sister-in-law as a matter of fact, also say that she had made comments to them about not wanting to be kept alive if she were a burden, and wanting to add a statement saying as much to her will.

Also from that site:

This is simplistic, but for many people who wonder why he won't "drop it," he can't.

For anyone questioning how exactly a life prolonging procedure is defined in Florida.

Great site, thanks Claire. Earlier today I was reading up on the most recent happenings over the weekend, and I had a sneaking suspicion there is a lot more backstory to this, and here there it is on that website, succintly w/o being broad or vague.

I'm in class and the prof is flinging hypotheticals, so I'm flinging a few hypos of my own that have been in my brain based on comments made here, in the news, by random passers-by, etc. Feel free to answer according to your own opinions, if you like, or ignore me, as I am ignoring my professor.

1) Some people feel removing a feeding tube is a particularly painful/gruesome/unpleasant death. If all other facts were the same, but she DID have a living will stating that she didn't want to be kept alive, would that justify removing the tube?

2) If all other facts were the same, but she DID have a living will stating that she didn't want to be kept alive, AND giving that decision to her husband, BUT it was proved that her husband was a philandering jerk before her incident, should her instructions still be followed? What if all the above and, like now, the parents want to and are capable of providing all her care and don't want to remove the tube?

3) What if the above, existence of living will, but the husband is obviously loving and devoted? If the parents want to and are capable of providing all her care and don't want to remove the tube, should they prevail over the living will?

4) Some people in various places here and elsewhere have mentioned her religious beliefs being incompatible with removing the tube. Other people have mentioned that the husband should just divorce her and let the parents care for her. But divorce would also be against the religion mentioned. Can these two ideas be reconciled? Or does no one person ever hold both positions so it's not an issue.

5) Various medical officials have stated that no one has ever recovered from a vegitative state of this length. People have miraculously, if you will, recovered from long-lasting comas. If congress and/or courts determine the outcome in this case, will this impact the enforceability of living wills in cases of persistent, non-responsive coma? (The more traditional "pull the plug" cases where breathing and other functions are performed mechanically.)

6) If in any of the above hypos it is determined that life-preserving measures are to be continued, who bears the financial cost? Can/should a spouse be required to pay all bills? Should divorces of vegitative or comatose patients be prohibited to prevent spouses from abandoning their financial responsibility? Is there a maximum cost after which treatment is discontinued? If treatment must be continued, does the community pay?

That's all I can come up with now. If I've offended, I apologize now because it's not my intent. I'm honestly curious where different people draw boundaries and whether or not people who seem on opposite sides might have commonalities of belief.

Not being so dogmatic, this is one of the most sensible things I've read - paerhaps we should have the Pope intervene? That would make this even more interesting.

I wonder how the public would have reacted if he insisted that he and his wife wanted children, so he insisted having her bear children in her vegatative state? What exactly are spousal rights anyway?

July 2004…Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment based on Pope John Paul II speech

October 2004…Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on Pope John Paul II speech) [READ]

I believe it passed through the Senate virtually unopposed. ;)


I don't know if they're gonna get the Dems to bite too hard on this one. At least not hard enough to affect the '06 midterm elections. Fool me twice and all that rot.

Sorry to burst your bubble on that one...

€uro, it's amazing someone hasn't done that yet.....

I don't have a problem with him moving on, I have a problem with him not moving on. He is still married to Terry, and he has two kids and a fiancee. Is it about control? Money? I don't get it.

Very well, just call in the antichrist and be done with it then...

Lol! It has been done....There are rumors that the Pope thinks Bush is Antichrist.

1-800-antichrist? Is that the number?

Thanks for the link, Claire. I was pretty sure that others, not just the husband, had stated that her wishes were not to be kept alive but I was unable to find a cite to back it up.

Also, concerning the suffering of Terry by the removal of these tubes; what I have read suggests that due to the condition of her brain, she is not feeling pain or discomfort from the process. I have no way of knowing this for sure, I suppose, but it is what many doctors have said.

If he truly believes that she would rather die than be kept alive, remaining married to her is the only chance he has of helping her receive that wish.

Maybe he has a burning desire to be a widower.

Again, it's the timeline that bothers me. He filed the motion three years after he moved in with his girlfriend, a full eight years after the injury.

I'm among the people who agree that tube feeding is an extraordinary measure (and if you've ever been responsible for doing it, as I have, then you can understand the significance of this feeding method). If a person wants no extraordinary measures taken, and in Florida an extraordinary measure includes hydration and feeding tubes, then honestly, I have no problem with the removal of the tubes. I'm not sure how painful the death will be for her. I'm not sure how much she feels, but since I've read only that she has no living cerebral matter, I'm not convinced that her death will be painful. Gruesome? Sure, for everyone else. Unpleasant, yes, for everyone.

Sorry, but I believe a living will is a living will. In this case, once again, the courts would be her guardian if petitioned to be, and I'm sure they'd find that she obviously wanted no extraordinary measures taken. The husband's philandering and the parents have nothing to do with it.

Same as above. The parents should stay out of it. The tube should be removed as per the living will.

I'm not religious, and I feel like that's a great question. One I've been grappling with since first reading up on this case.

I'm terrified by the thought of the federal government getting involved, quite honestly. I do believe that now every similar medical situation can come under similar public scrutiny and it's scary to me. Privacy is a thing of the past. I would be mortified if I were Terri.....embarrassed and mortified.

Great questions! Dang, you're good.

I don't have anything else to add tonight, I don't think. :( I'm wiped.

I'd like to think that I would have the loyalty to stay true to Crystal and fulfill her wishes. It would be a crappy job fighting her parents as I've grown to love them. But I'd do it. At least, I like to believe I would. Who knows for certain?

I'm not sure what people want him to do. He can't stop this process. Divorcing her won't stop the process. It was a court decision, a decision that has been appealed again and again and has been upheld.

I'd like to see more elaboration, but the judge in the February 2000 decission said about that, "That assertion hardly seems worthy of comment other than to say that he should not be faulted for having done what those opposed to him want to be continued." The decission also mentions that he consistently provided for a high level of care, and at the time visited her more regulararly than anyone else, including her family. Hardly sounds like someone who considered her a burden he wanted to get rid of.

This man's best hope of giving his "formerly cognitively-alive wife" her wishes is by remaining married to her. All the parties have acknowledged he could have gotten a divorce long ago.

This woman is only IN her vegetative state thanks to modern medicine's interventive measures. She'd have been buried long ago if she'd had the good fortune to have been born in a previous century. As my Catholic friend said: "if you believe in an afterlife, send her there NOW!"

The ONLY good thing that's happened due to this case so far is that many of us have been forced to visit the issue of living wills. My honey and are are talking to our attorney tomorrow.

Thanks for the link on that. I had read a couple weeks ago that they parents were acting with "the Vatican's support" but a quick perusal on my part of vatican.va didn't turn up any offical letters or exhortations written by the Pope on the subject.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that it is ok to discontinue extraordinary measures. Heck, a very well respected priest at the local seminary just recently died after refusing "extraordinary measures." (Luckily he had an Advanced Directive.) I guess Monsignor Elio Sgreccia doesn't consider a feeding tube to be extraordinary measures. There are many Theologians who have spoken out in support of removing Terri's feeding tube and letting her die peacefully including priests from Georgetown, Loyola, and a priest from Terri's own diocese (I'm assuming) of St. Petersburg.

Also, the Catechism states that the decision to terminate extraordinary measures should be made by the family member legally entitled to act for the patient, so the Vatican should actually be supporting Michael Schiavo, not Terri's parents, but the Vatican does countless things every week that baffle me.

Just heard the ruling of the Federal judge on the radio. The tube stays out.

There is a time to accept defeat, even when you disagree wholeheartedly. I hope that all involved will just let it go now.

I know there is no way anyone can be "happy" with the situation. It's sad no matter what.

Sorry, but that's not to be.

Terri's parents are preparing to file an appeal with the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

If a convicted killer on death row has the right to continue appeals until they reach the end of their options- so do these people. Whether anyone likes it or not.

It won't happen. Tom DeLay has an ass to save -- his own.


"On Friday, as the leaders of both chambers scrambled to try to stop the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, Mr. DeLay, a Texas Republican, turned his attention to social conservatives gathered at a Washington hotel and described what he viewed as the intertwined struggle to save Ms. Schiavo, expand the conservative movement and defend himself against accusations of ethical lapses.

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," Mr. DeLay told a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. A recording of the event was provided by the advocacy organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," Mr. DeLay said.

Mr. DeLay complained that "the other side" had figured out how "to defeat the conservative movement," by waging personal attacks, linking with liberal organizations and persuading the national news media to report the story. He charged that "the whole syndicate" was "a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in."


And all this time I thought DeLay was crooked and immoral. Turns out he's just a victim of politically driven personal attacks. :rolleyes:

They had reached the end of their options until this Congress decided to write a new set of rules for them.

Isn't that what Congress does? Write and change rules all the time? Tax law, speed limits, immigration policy, whatever.

While I am aware there is much disdain here for members of the republican party, it is important to remember that this is a largely bi-partisan issue, with support for the actions taken broad from each side of the aisle.

I do not begrudge her parents taking it to the next level. From their point of view, their daughter is being murdered. I'd probably do the same thing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7254897/?GT1=6305

A link to a story about today's decision.

The measure yesterday passed in a 203-58 vote. 47 Democrats voted for the bill, 53 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted against it.

The bill seems to contradict another law signed by Bush in Texas:

Just so we're clear: It was Jeb Bush's attorney, Ken Conner, with the help of a friend - Florida Congressman Dave Weldon (R), who schemed to take this issue to the next level.


I love, no, make that loathe, the attempt being made around the country to spin the Democrat's refusal to ensnare themselves into a moral values trap sprung by the Republicans into a "bipartisan" effort supported by everyone. With Pro-Life activist Randall Terry (Or read this if you can stomach the lies) and his army of like-minded zealots itching to label any politician who opposes Congress getting involved with this issue as being "against life", who can blame the Democrats for taking a pass on this fight?

Having said that, there are, I concede, many Democrats who do believe that Congress is doing the right thing here and they voted accordingly. There were also, much to my surprise, several Republicans who voted against this bill.

Oh my gosh, exactly. This is not at all about G.W. It's about the right being behind their new man. That's what makes me want to puke. It's the right covering Jeb.'s butt. He got involved and stayed involved, made it about something other than it is. And now he's backed by his party country-wide, and he'll be some sort of party martyr over it. It's disgusting.

This is a gut wrenching case for sure.

The problem is that I don't see providing nutrition as being "extraordinary" for keeping a person alive.

I become very afraid when people think that they can determine when other people's lives should end, based solely on what they think. It already happens now with the unborn, and it's starting to happen to the elderly. How many more years will it be before we become so sterilized that anyone with a serious medical affliction will be "put down for their own good," but really so society doesn't have to deal with them?

I do understand the concept of a living will. I'm not ignoring that, but to say the equate feeding someone with "extreme measures" is baffling to me. It's just another example of how human life is being cheapened by the day.

As a side note, folks above brought up the fact that since Mrs. Shiavo is Catholic, she can't get a divorce. Untrue. Any Catholic can get a divorce, they just can't remarry.

Florida law disagrees with you. In Florida, feeding and hudration tubes are extraordinary measures.

I think that people should be concentrating on changing that law if that's what they're really upset about. I know it's just one of many many issues that people are upset about, but that law could certainly be looked at.

tikiboy, I understand your gut reaction to the case....it's totally heartbreaking. :(

You didn't get the memo?

Springing da trap


"Although Republicans publicly rejected any ulterior motives, a memo surfaced over the weekend calling the Schiavo case "a great political issue" and saying that Christian conservatives would be "excited" by the Senate debate."

On Monday, they characterized the extraordinary decision to step into the middle of a legal dispute as the U.S. government taking a stand for "the culture of life."

Democrats, for their part, faced a "no-win" situation, another party official said. Although Senate Democrats could have objected in order to delay the proceedings, none did so. Only three senators actually showed up for the voice vote.

"The Republicans were demagoguing it to the point where they would go in and basically attack Democrats saying, 'They want to kill her, they want to kill her,"' the official said."



As I said: Trap set, trap avoided.

The most laughable quote I've seen has been from her father who said something like, "I'm so happy they've put politics aside and are working to save a life." Riiiiiiiiiight.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...cs_dc&e=1&ncid=

I really don't understand this "saving a life" thing. I mean what type of life is this woman living? I know in my heart, it is heart breaking to force her to suffer any longer in such a demeaning state, her soul trapped in a shell that is unable to function anymore. Let her go. Let her go unto the great beyond. It seems selfish to me to want to keep her here. What is the purpose of not allowing her to move on? But I tend to hold some pretty woo woo thoughts and idea's. So carry on.

Also, of interest:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...avo_texas_dc_1

He only granted one stay. 152 executions? Holy crap! Even I didn't know the number was that large.

But in Tucson yesterday, he claims to that it's "wise" to err on the side of life:

The complete transcript is here:
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/breakin...05bushtalk.php

It's happened.

Bill O'Reilley and I pretty much agree here.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151122,00.html

It's the end of the world as I know it.

Claire <3 Bill O'Reilley

:p

Claire and Billy
sitting in a tree
k-i-s-s-i-n-g!

Eeeewwwwww!
:eek:

Sure Sac- feel good about 5 Republicans that voted aganst vs. the 50 plus Dems who switched to vote for.

Can I watch????

Uh sure, scaeagles. You and Claire can even take turns trading places if you want.

Thanks for spoiling something that was gonna be really, really fun, Sac.

Actually it was 50 minus. 47 to be exact. With over 100 Dems not voting. And only 3 Dems present for the Senate voice vote. Believe my, I'm as disgusted at any spineless Dems who voted against their conscience for political reasons. But as has been mentioned, it was aggressive intervention by Jeb and his cronies that put them in that position to begin with. This case was decided in the courts 8 years ago. And for 8 years since, court after court has come to the same conclusion: She will not recover, and there is adequate reason to belive she requested not to be kept in a vegetative state (based on testimony of 3 individuals: her husband, her brother, and her sister-in-law). There has been no new evidence, no change in the opinions of the several medical experts who have examined her. All that's kept this going has been the concerted effort of activist politicians in power, using their positions to usurp the authority of the court systems.

I wanna give scaeagles mojo, but my pop-up blocker is working overtime. I never thought I'd giggle on this thread, but dangitall if I'm not.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2115123/ Another good link with a TON of good links attached. I've been going link by link through it for the past hour now.

Actually, as I read article iii, section ii of the Constitution, this is no such usurpation.

"In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate juridiction, both as to law an fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the congress shall make."

Based on this, I would suggest that no such usurpation exists. What happened is that Jeb and his attorney looked for a legal and Constitutional method to assist in what they - and Terri's parents - wanted to have happen. It is within the purview of the congress to make laws regarding jurisdiction.

Finding legal and constitutional ways to get the outcome you desire is not usurpation.

If "activist judges" on the Supreme Court can be accused of usurpation, so can Jeb. If they had something of merrit, I'd agree with you. But one law that was passed and signed by Jeb has already been struck down as unconstitutional. That, if not before, should have been the final straw. Instead, they are using their power and going to extraordinary lengths to contradict the courts and to deny what has been declared over and over Terry and Michael's rights. Perhaps they are technically within their rights, it doesn't mean it's not scummy.

Leo, in all seriousness, do you not think that the Republicans in power have used this family's case as a political manuever? I'm just curious on that point.

I think the bigger issue [of the government getting involved] here is the government taking away the right of the spouse to make medicinal decisions for his/her spouse and giving it to the parents because the parents disagree with the spouse.

Arrested for trying to give her water.

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/...&c=news_photos

That's amazing. Arresting someone for trying to give someone dying of dehydration a drink. Shows how screwed up the whole thing is.

I would suspect so. Unfortunately, I believe the large majority of politicians - regardless of party affiliation - play the political angle of everything and attempt to gain advantage from it.

So you try one thing, get stopped because it was declared as unconstitutional, and you should stop trying other avenues? I would suspect that you would be very persistent in pursuing what you thought was best in every situation if you hit a roadblock you thought you could get around.

They are not contradicting any court. They are working within an established system of government. You may think it scummy, and that's fine, but it's all about working within the system to acheive your goal.

Personally, I think it's scummy to make someone die of dehydration.

:rolleyes: Try arrested for trespassing. And these people were bringing sandwiches to a woman who is unable to eat and has no feeding tube. They were trying to get arrested. It's called civil disobedience. Good for them, I'm all for civil disobedience, but c'mon Leo, "arrested for giving her water"? You're above that kind of propoganda.

As far as I'm concerned, public officials getting this involved in a private matter that should have been (and was) resolved in the courts was over-stepping the bounds long ago.

I haven't weighed in on this one yet, because it just makes me sad on so many levels.

I do have one question, though: does this non-political humanitarian move by the federal government mean that they're going to pass a massive health care bill to take care of all the poor, sick and starving folks here in the US? If so, that's a great outcome to such a difficult case. I'm not going to be so cynical to imagine that they'd only vote on a case to make a statement without costing the Fed a cent.

Well, the link I posted only said water. Sandwiches, stupid, yes. Of course they were trying to get arrested, and it's pretty effective propaganda, really.

Go walk into any stranger's ICU room with a bottle of water in any hospital in this country and see what kind of reaction you get. What they were doing was a protest, they were protestors doing something illegal trying to get arrested. They weren't trying to give her water.

Did somebody say civil disobedience? This changes everything. Let me grab my water hose, swing by Subway to get her a meatball sub and I'm there, man.

Congress will be addressing our health care needs on a case-by-case basis. To get a vague idea as to when Congress will be voting on your issues, please consult the bipartisan priority seating schedule below.



The Patriotic Patriot's Priority Seating Guide for the Congressional Culture of Life Act - 2005:

States with a governor related to the president
Red States
Iraq
North Korea
Blue States
The home state of that b*tch who dumped the president in college

I'd be escorted out, but not arrested, unless I decided to do it several times.

Okay, now imgine the same scenario, but add a court order that she is not to be fed or given water, plus a high profile which means a increased probability of escalation. The job of the police is to maintain order. Following normal procedure where infractions are overlooked so as not to create a scene does not work in an abnormal situation. In those cases, they have every right to follow the letter of the law if it will maintain order. Just as they have every right to be more lenient if it's not necessary.

Links from someone who rants on this better than anyone else I have seen-

Lots of Good Points

I would suggest those who think the husband is such a loving man carrying out her wishes should check the link from the nurse- or like Rachel says, maybe she is just another political hack :rolleyes:

I've heard those stories, Nephy, and I thank you for the link.

Thank you Leo- your post was a nice way to start this morning.

Direct Link to Nurse's Affidavit

Yeah- that's someone I would trust.

oh yeah- here you go-

Check out the top cartoon- Small Gov't

This issue, more than anything else, demonstrates just how powerful a stranglehold the far, far religious right has on Mr. Bush's nuts. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there would be no President Dubya if it weren't for the fundamentalists who bought his bs early on.


Link (It's funny that Bush was against big government until he took possession of the hammer.)



Can anyone imagine being so beholden to a group of people that you have to cut short your vacation in order to do their bidding? ::shudder::


I almost pity the fool, but, as always, there's a price to pay when you sell your soul to such a powerful entity. Everybody knows that.

I am going to quibble with the link you provided. That link relies heavily on the testimony of a particulary doctor, William Hammesfahr. If this is the best medical support the parents can come up with, well, frankly it's unconvincing at best. I spent some time this morning googling the good doctor, and he's not exactly respected amongst his peers. The term "quack" came up more than once, as did sanctions from the Florida board of health (sanctions for overcharging patients for treatments not received were later overturned, as the Board did not prove they were intentional. The appellate court addressed only the overpayment issue, and not the finding by the Administrative Law Judge that Hammesfahr's treatments were outside the generally accepted standard of care.)

In fact, his name comes up almost exclusively in connection with this case. No presentations at medical conferences, not even a single publication listed in MEDLINE. Nearly every time he's mentioned, he's alleged to be a "Nobel prize nominee." And yet a quick google on the Nobel prize nomination process reveals that nominees are not supposed to be informed of their nomination, and that all nomination records are sealed for 50 years. Therefore, there's no way to validate. He does provide a copy of his alleged nomination letter, written by his congressman. Members of "national assemblies and governments of state" are allowed to nominate candidates. Any candidate they like. So it is possible his congressman nominated him. We can't verify this with the Nobel folks, and there's no minimum standard anyhow, so it's not that swell a qualification. (It actually smacks of desperation.)

I don't have a problem with people who reach different conclusions than I do. Some people here have made very good, well-reasoned statements distinguishing feeding tubes from "pulling the plug." I do have a problem with misleading, biased, and/or marginal information being passed off as hard science. Maybe it's the latent librarian in me, but it's not just what's said, it's who says it.

Why am I "picking on" this side of the argument? Because it's the one flying in the face of mainstream medical opinion. I would be absolutely willing to read and consider other medical opinions, but they'd better have better credentials than Dr. Hammesfahr.

Alright, enough of this fluff. Let's focus on the REAL issue. How the hell do you pronunce that name? Is it "she-aw-vo" which is how it's spelled and how I read it? Or is it "shy-vo" which is how I've heard most people pronounce it?

Are you in need of a cigarette? :evil:

Thanks for that, Prudence.

I was already familiar with Dr. Hammesfahr, so I wasn't going to spend much time knocking down that paper tiger.

The Carla Iyer info, though, is disturbing. I'm having trouble finding whether this information even made it into court.

If it didn't, why not? If it did, was it rejected?

Anyone?

I think her sworn statements speak for themselves.


7. Terri's medical condition was systematically distorted and
misrepresented by Michael. When I worked with her, she was alert
and oriented.


Alert and oriented....Aflac!!!

In reference to the link- I was not even referring to the Dr's report (in fact I did not read the article myself- so I am not about to even debate it)- I was specifically focused on Rachel's commentary and on the nurses affidavit- so this paper tiger was a construct of your own imagination, not my intentional set-up. It was not the purpose of my link- so quibble all you like about the Dr.

The nurses information however seems highly explosive- so the question of why more is not being made of it is very pertinent.

(It's shy-vo)


In the interest ot providing another side to the story-Nurses Affidavit dismissed as "incredible"

As far as big government, couldn't agree with you more. I am increasingly disturbed by such antics as the medicare prescription drug program. I have said before and say again that he spends too much money. (Now, before anyone starts in on Iraq and the expenditures there, as I consider national defense to be the main purpose of the federal government and did consider it to be worthwhile - a different debate, certainly - I do not include that in my disgust over over spending.)

Is it that Bush is beholden to the religious right or that Bush believes it? It is well known that Bush was a drunken partier long ago and had a "conversion experience". I realize that neither of these are acceptable to you Sac, but I think he is not so much beholden to them as he is a "believer" himself. So I doubt it is any sort of political payoff - I think he's doing what he thinks is right. And it is well within his purview to sign the bill, which was well within the purview of congress to pass (see my reference to the constitution in an earlier post).

I'm not exactly comfortable questioning a person's faith, and, believe it or not, that includes Bush. All I can go by is a person's actions. Bush's actions (And I've been watching him a long time. A lot longer than most Bush supporters in fact -- since back when he owned the Texas Rangers) do not lead me to believe he would cross the street to save someone's life, let alone cut short a vacation and fly back to Washington to do it. My opinion, of course. YMMV.

It doesn't help that the most vocal people who believe Carla Iyer's stories also believe that "Scientology Controlled Downtown Clearwater" is responsible for wanting Terri to die.

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

I'm sorry, but a lot of the "groups" supporting the Schindlers all sound like whack jobs, which is NOT helping Terri's parents' case. If they were less zealous sounding, perhaps they'd have some credibility. I really don't think that letting Terri die is a conspiracy cooked up by any one group of people.....does anyone here?

I read Carla Iyer's statements and I can't keep but rolling my eyes at her descriptions of Terri talking or responding. I haven't read any other accounts that are even close to hers. And the good Dr. Hammesfahr is full of bull ("God leaves no one behind" is his institute's mission statement). The judge counted all the stimulus commands versus her responses and it looked to me that any kind of responses that she had were involuntary.....and that's been the opinion of dozens of medical experts.

Below is from a 2002 ruling:

http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/...order11-02.txt

For the record, neither of these things would preclude me from voting for, or supporting, a presidential candidate. But that candidate's faith should not be worn on his sleeve as if it were a badge of honor. Not if he wanted my vote.

yeah- a guy who hides what he believes in is SO much more trustworthy.

Vishnu Almighty! I didn't say, or imply, that a candidate needs to hide his faith.

Not to speak for SacTown, but what I got out of that is the POTUS should not be running this country according to his religon and not be attempting to create laws because of his religion.

Have whatever religion you want. Practice it. Be proud to be it. But don't force it down the rest of our throats. Don't make laws that discriminate and use "the bible said so" to justify it. Don't make laws that take away others rights because "the bible said so".

You posted a URL you labelled as "links" (note the plural) to "lots of good points." The doctor bit was the first thing on there when I followed the URL this morning. How dare I actually *READ* what was posted via a link you describe as "lots of good points"! How dare I look at everything there when, despite your use of the plural, you only wanted people to look at one specific item carefully chosen to showcase your agenda! Well of course we don't want to debate that; that would just be silly!

Perhaps you'd like to borrow my tinfoil hat? My paper tiger did nibble on the edges a bit, but it still works just as well as it always did.

If he speaks of his faith it would be on his sleeve
If he doesn't then he is hiding it

Spare me- please. I was just saying that even I did not read the article on the Dr- so I was not going to debate it- and I did specifically point out the nurses statement. I am not showcasing anything- especially since it was ME who posted the article about the nurses statement being dismissed. And I am certainly allowed to post things that suit my view- you are not being forced to do diddly.

You know- I am used to swimming with the big bad liberal sharks here and am also used to being the guppy and I am used to getting my guppy ass beat up around here (even when I'm right ;) )- but I don't appreciate your tone. You did not even make the paper tiger comment- but the person who did doesn't feel the need to insult me. I fail to see why you do?

Let's be careful of personalizing this issue. None of us have a feeding tub in, no, out, no in, no out, of our mouths.

Just discuss.

Feeding tub??? How hungry are you? ;)

Always hungry. Always.

This has gone to far!

I suppose he thinks he should have custody over her parents and her husband because he knows her so well. :rolleyes: And I suppose he thinks he'll get it because he is the governer of Fl and his bro is the almighty prez. :rolleyes:

Didn't Jeb also try to take custody of a convicted killer with the mental development of a seven year old before his brother could execute him? No? Huh. Must be a false "culture of life" memory on my part.

Hey, it just ocurred to me. It was bullemia that caused the heart attack that lead to the brain damage in the first place. Maybe the family wants to keep the feeding tube in so she can exercise her right to force herself to vomit after being fed.






And that, folks, has been your tasteless humor of the day. Brought to you by "Bare Kitty Salon," specializing in all forms of Brazillian waxing.

And you don't get any mojo for that because Scaeagles and myself are so much alike.

Ugh.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...ush/index.html

For "fun," some of you should head over to Fox News and read Hannity and Colmes transcripts from the last few days. Pat Robertson is weighing in on the Schiavo case tonight.

Aren't feeding tubes themselves painful? After my mom watched my grandfather die with one (actually of one, his advanced alzheimers led to the placement of the tube which gave him pneumonia) she made us swear that we would never allow that to be done to her.

I'm not sure of where I stand on the issue. It's too hard to know the real facts, but I just wondered about the pain issue.

Death is inhumane - few ways to die are elegant. Becasue in the end we are reduced to the imperfect flesh we are made from.

But Shaivo is oblivious to whatever happens - alive or dead. Starve her, shoot her, burn her, bludgeon her like a baby seal. This has nothing to with her will that has long since passed into nonexistence. Only when her body passes with there be any rest for anyone - living or dead.

This is getting ridiculous. If these people are successful, what are they going to say in another 20 years, when there has been no improvement. I doubt there will be any apologies for prolonging the miniscule semblence of a life this poor woman has. Keeping her this way for the next 20 years is not humane in any way. The courts have spoken over and over and over again. So have the experts. Her husband knows her wishes and wants to act upon them. He has every right to do that. I cannot believe people refuse to see the facts here. I feel so bad for this woman.

Alright, who thought "Waco"?

You know you did

Fess up

What do you say at this point?

it was one year ago, THIS MONTH, that i, and i alone, had to make life and death decisions based upon my Grandmother's personal wishes. She and i had frank discussions years ago when she was of sound mind and we had her wishes written in a Living Will and had Power of Attorney papers for me and an advanced directive and DNC orders.

when the time came, it was still a gruelling experience for me and i am reliving those horrible last days with the current events in the news. it is extremely depressing.


what i know is this:

it was harder on me than on my grandmother.

she was as comfortable as possible with morphine while her body shut down after the removal of food and water.

she is in a better place.

her wishes where followed.

and no goddamn mother fvkker in a suit looking for VOTES got in between a very personal situation between my grandmother, her doctor and me.

God, i need a drink!:cheers:

MBC- with all due respect you don't know all the facts either- there are plenty of things that are being said about the husband, and even if some is not true, some is bound to be exactly that- true. You can't just assume that he is some saint- he has acted as anything but. I don't see how you can just assume he is sincerely acting out of concern to her or for her so-called wishes.

You know, lot's of people marry jerks - but should the legal presumption always be that the spouse might be a jerk and not really acting on the other spouses best behalf. With all the "unknowns" it seems you are left to fall back on the legal rules and procedures - and I'm not sure if they include a gaurdian jerk assessment. But this is well outside my realm of expertise.

I gave the DNR order for my father, and no one ever questioned my intentions. Still his death came long after he wanted it, after I foolishly talked him out of suicide. Such a wierd thing to regret.

But, Neph, how much is enough?

It's been through state and federal court several kinds of ways.

These "so-called wishes" have been gone over and accepted in court. What about them is "so-called"?

The things that are being said were being said when all this rumbled it's way through the courts. They were rejected.

And after that whole long painful process, are we now to draw guns?

One brother waging his war internationally, the other waging his at home and all of us just watching.

I am sick to my stomach

Really, both sides (political) are behaving in a disgusting manner. I think I am almost more sickened by their activities than I am by the actual 'event'. Somehow this got morphed into an abortion rights issue, and it's inappropriate, to say the least. I stand by my feelings on the matter- I don't trust the husband, I abhor the manner of her death and I question all the experts who can't even agree if she is suffering or not, and I think the whole situation is a tragedy. I wish someone had just suffocated her. She really will be better off away from this messed up world.:rolleyes:

My grandpa died from lung cancer a few years ago and he tried to kill himself by stuffing tiny pieces of tissue in his vent tube. He wanted to be done. He'd said his goodbyes in the prior week, he was ready to go. Then the alarm went off on his machines and everyone knew what he had done.....and you know, it made it easier to let him go. Knowing how extremely ready he was. He died about two weeks later. Ack. Now I'll cry. It was a private matter, and very difficult for everyone in my Catholic family to deal with--not just his death but that he'd tried to commit suicide.

The political stuff has really gotten to me. My family would be mortified if the fact that my grandpa had tried to kill himself was in the news. If any part of his death was in the news. Some things should remain in the family. When it can't stay that way--mediation. Beyond that? Okay, a local court. Ugh, then a state court. But to take it to a federal level? To me, it's just disgusting.

I know I've been personalizing it. Gosh I've been following the story for so freaking long and when Terri Schiavo dies, I'll bawl like a baby and wait for the politicians to jump on it, to point fingers and the ugliness will just get uglier.

Since we all agree that Europe is the model to follow.........

"One of the more disturbing things about euthanasia in the Netherlands is that there seems to have developed a view among a significant minority of doctors that consent is not necessary to end a life provided that the quality of that life is below some subjective threshold. Almost 5 percent of people who died in the Netherlands in 1990, for example, were killed by doctors who never received explicit consent for their actions. Even more disturbing is that a 1997 study found that as many as 8 percent of infants who died in the Netherlands were killed by their doctors"

---Brian Carnell

:eek:

:sigh: I hope she dies soon, not to be cruel, but so that this issue will end and we can move on to the next fvcked up issue. Basically, I am tired of seeing it all over the news, and there are far more (in my opinion, important) issues that the government needs to be dealing with(all three branches).

According to most accounts he did not even start to care about her "wishes" until the insurance money ran out and an insurance policy paid on her death became the prize. All I am saying is that it is naive to assume that this man IS in fact acting in a loving fashion and carrying out her wishes. You and I do NOT know the real truth to all of this- and I am with Wendybeth, the man is not to be trusted.

Bashing Bush (Gov. or Pres.) is just your side game, and it detracts from the core of the issue, IMO. I actually agree to some extent that the gov't should not have gotten so deeply involved, and yet I also see why they did-

Were I simply assuming, I would have to agree with you. I am basing my opinion on a situation that has been in court for over 10 years, discussed nine ways til Sunday and ruled on numerous times. If that's naive, then hell I'll wear that banner.

How many court rulings do you have in favor of the Schindlers and the Bushes?

How many was that again?

So it doesn't matter how many times the courts, both federal and state, have ruled, eh?

Seriously, why do you think the courts don't see or don't believe the evidence you see and believe? Are they on a mission to kill Terri, as Mrs. Schindler alleges in the news today about Judge Greer? Is the information just not getting to them for some reason?

Of course, you know I disagree. I do not believe Pres. Bush would have gotten involved in this if not for trying to score a few political points for himself and Gov. Bush by stirring up the fundies. His position now is in direct opposition to his position on the Futile Care law in Texas he signed while Governor of Texas.

And do we have to discuss Gov. Bush's last attempt to circumvent the courts being ruled unconstitutional? And now he's talking about taking up arms in defying the court.

G H W Bush must be so proud of his boys

Oh, so do I. So do I. And it has nothing to do with Terri Schiavo.

I love it- the courts are pure and unimpeachable when they are siding with Michael Shaivo- but you guys freak out about the possibility of an innocent man being sentenced to death because the courts and trials are so fallible. Which is it? Or are they only unimpeachable when they are doing something you approve of?

But beyond that- I love this quote from my favorite NON- conservative blogger-

Exactly.

Waco....whacko...what's the diff?



Actually, I thought "I wonder what the ransom demands will be.....a get-away car, a helicopter and a zillion dollars in unmarked bills?"



All jihads are worrisome to me.

First, in future please try and address my comments and questions instead of lumping me in with a group of people I don't necessarily agree with.

Further, I never called the courts pure and unimpeachable. I said this has been considered many times from many different angles and the Schindler's prevailed not a single time. I also asked you why you think this is, which you chose not to address in your rush to hyperbole.

I must remember that you are not calling me bat **** insane, not to mention a rotten human being, by citing a quote calling someone else bat **** insane, not to mention a rotten human being, since you can argue that you are not in fact calling ME bat **** insane, not to mention a rotten human being, just simply quoting an article calling someone else bat **** insane, not to mention a rotten human being.

As to your quote...

The argument is flawed, specifically this part...

Completely missing the point. She made a choice not to continue in that state. That's what it's about for me. The commentator (the one who called his opponent bat **** insane, not to mention a rotten human being) is setting up a false premise to bolster a flawed argument.

How is it you need to instruct me to not lump you in with people you may not agree with, but you can figure out that I am not calling you specifically bat**** insane?

Come on......why are peole so eager to assume they are being personally attacked.

As to the question about the courts I don't know why that is- since I don't know all the facts.

I hope this ends soon-

(my comment was also not hyperbole- I was not exaggerating. Check the attitudes about the death penalty- where the process is so deeply flawed as to not be trusted- yet this is? That is not hyperbole- it's a contradiction)

Terry Shiavo's parents have had every opportunity to make their case. They have failed in every court they have been in. They never even called that nurse in their defense and I can only assume it is because she is not credible. The arguments about Michael Shiavo just being in this for the money don't stand up to scrutiny either. He has been offered at least 1 million dollars, and some say even 20 million, to relinquish his rights to make decisions for his wife. He has refused. Why do you think that is?

All we have is a bunch of unsubstantiated hearsay that has tried to demonize him. I don't assume he is a saint, but I see someone who has tried for 20 years to uphold his wife's wishes. And I am interested in why you persist in calling them her "so-called" wishes. It is not just Michael's word. It was backed up by at least 4 other people in court. And EVERY court and EVERY judge has reached the same conclusion. Michael Shiavo has the right to make this decision for his wife. That is the law and it should be followed.

This is not a decision that should be made by Washington. That goes against everything conservatives are supposed to believe in. 70% of the population feels that they should stay the hell out of it because it isn't the governments role.

I can't help but feel that your opinion is 99% emotion and 1% facts and those facts weren't strong enough to sway any court this has been tried in. Yes, it is very sad that this woman is going to die. I do feel for her parents. They are doing what they are doing out of the love for their daughter. I get that. But they are not valuing their daughters wishes and that is wrong. There is not one doctor out there (not on the parents payroll) who sees any hope of recovery here. Let this poor woman go and stop using her for political purposes.

I think it is done. The Supreme court will not issue an order - news just in.

It's time to let it go- as horrible as it is, as creepy as the husband is, it is just time to let it go.

I don't give a rats ass about the politics. As I said before I think the gov't should have stayed out of it. Don't make the assumption that I want to have the gov't making the decisions, I never said I did.

It took him something like SEVEN years to start fighting to have this happen- If I feel something akin to disgust and distrust, oh well. If this was truly her wish, then why in the world did he drag it out this long?

At this point it needs to be over-

The position, at least my position, is that even if the justice system was 99.9% accurate with regards to convictions, the margin of error is still too high and the execution of one innocent person is one too many.

You have spoken out in this thread against the court ordered execution of innocents. Yet, in the Scott Peterson thread, you took the position that if Peterson is actually innocent, then oh well, God will sort it out.

I do not look at your seemingly conflicting stances as being hypocritical. I see them for what they are: Two different opinions on two different subjects.

-so you are saying Terri's death is a court ordered execution? I said it was IF the story of her speaking against the ruling was true- the post needs to be taken in context.

If Peterson is guilty, as he was found to be, then I do not object to the death penalty. If he were to get a reversal, but he was in fact guilty, then God can certainly sort it out. If he is innocent, same thing. But I trust the trial process- many others do not.

I just think the contrast is amazing- on on hand you have people against the death penalty on the chance that the jury/court find wrongly- yet there seems to be no quibble when the court decides on this case. In this case they are the grand arbiters saving Terri by allowing Michael to let her live or die and they seem to be viewed in this case as infallible. In death penalty cases they are flawed and too quick to deal death to a possibly innocent person. I don't see how you can trust them in one and not the other- but that's me.

Not at all.

I didn't think so- but you took my post out of context by removing the linked info I posted with it.

On the one hand you have the courts upholding the rights of an individual to make a personal decission he has the legal right to make as next-of-kin, on the other you have the state ordering and carrying out an execution. The Schiavo case is a case of deciding that the government should stay the hell out of it, death penalty is a case of government taking final action that I feel they have no right to take.

On the flip side GD- there are many people who feel that is exactly what the court is doing- carrying out an execution.

This mess is so subjective and emotional-

My last wish on it- that she dies faster than they predict so it can end. Then maybe people can find peace.

If the government had stayed out of it to begin with; if her parents had reconized her husbands rights as next-of-kin to begin with the courts would have never gotten involved and everyone who feels this is a court ordered execution couldn't have possiblay felt that way, since it was a private decision made by her legal next of kin. The way it should have been all along.

Sorry, but those people are wrong. The courts are not ordering her death. The ruling isn't, "Kill her." The ruling is, "Allow Michael Schiavo, the legal guardian, to make whatever decission he feels." There's a huge difference. The courts have upheld personal freedom to decide the fate of a loved one in an extraordinary medical condition. Any other decission would have been the courts and government intevening in a private matter.

To illustrate the difference...if today, Michael Shiavo had a sudden change of heart and said he wanted the feeding tube reinserted...it would be reinserted. Why? Because the court didn't order the tube removed because they want her to die. They ordered it removed because that's the decission that Michael made.

And if that was the case- then maybe it should have been done a long time ago. Then there would not be an issue would there- if Michael had been so intent on carrying out her wishes-

All I said was some people felt that way- my previous post continues to be taken out of context.

Of course you would say that-

It doesn't change the fact that some people feel exactly that way- including the Pope.

I have to say that if I honestly felt he (the husband) had the best interests of Terri at heart, I'd be more OK with it. I would again go back to my major point, being someone just needs to go do the deed rather than letting her die of dehydration.

I cannot speak to his motives, but he seems.....slimey to me. I don't trust him. Gut feeling. No evidence other than various testimony I've read.

I was just pondering- if someone went in there and smothered her- would they charge them with murder?

And that doesn't change the fact that they are wrong. The decission is Michael's, not the courts'. Now, a whole other argument is whether he should be allowed to make that decission, but as the law stands now, he is.

and YET- when they try to change the law all hell breaks loose.

How much complaining will there be if they try to change the law after she is dead.

(btw- off topic...kudos for the Bucky quote (I have one myself you see)- although you have his name spelled wrong ;) )

More Rachel-

?? Define "all hell".

I agree, the law needs to be changed. Euthanasia should be legal so starvation isn't the only option once the decission has been made.

Agreed.

( Geeez, Scaeagles- wtf is happening today? Two libs agreeing with you in two separate threads! ;) ) .

I must say how impressed I am that the Schiavo's had discussed end-of-life issues at such an early age. When I was twenty-five, I was immortal, and far too interested in worldy matters, such as partying until I dropped. Well, at least the situation has prompted people to make their wishes known now.

aw for the love of God-let it go!!!

Gov. Bush files for Custody

Won't work- appeals would be pointless. Sometimes it is time to let go-

LOL- what's weirder is that Scrooge also agreed with me, and you and I feel the same way about the husband.

Hell froze over today (at least it feels that way here in CO) :p

Well, if you go by her parents testimony, she had her mind made up at 11 when she commented on the Karen Ann Quinlen case while watching the news that her father should just leave her along and let her live.

Ummm....okay. I certainly didn't mean to take your words out of context and frankly I don't see, in this case, what difference it makes since I wasn't questioning whether Terri wanted to live or not. But you, of course, have a right to your perspective and if you feel I took your words out of context, then I apologize.

Let me try this again for clarity's sake:


If it's true that Terri Schiavo cried out to be saved then you say we are bearing witness to the court ordered execution of an innocent, and you have a problem with that.

If it's true that Scott Peterson is indeed innocent then the courts have ordered the execution of an innocent, and you say ::shrug:: God will sort it out.


Accurate?

He tried to have it removed a long time ago but her parents fought him at every turn! That discussion is on page 2 or 3 I think.

In this morning's paper (sorry, sometimes links don't work without subscribing:

Sorry, that was long, but it just made such an impression on me this morning that I had to share.

Where's the "creeped out" smilie guy? Guess I'll go with "eek" man. :eek:

Well, wb, you and scrooge have my utmost respect here, and if two libs and I are gonna find common ground, good lord knows I'm glad it isnt Sac and MBC! :evil:

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.

Gotta love DeLay:

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:

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

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.

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:

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!

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.

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

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.

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-

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's been 16 years. She can't eat, that's been confirmed by doctor after doctor after doctor.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

Here ya go

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hence why I didn't say *all*. "Usually" does not mean "all". 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:

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!

Great and incredibly well thought out post.

Wonderful post, Morrigoon

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:

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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."

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

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

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.

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! ;)

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 ;)

You obviously have never seen They Saved Hitler's Brain

Well, with the way things have been lately, it just might end up an issue that the entire nation would debate. :eek:
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. ;)

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

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

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

May God Bless Terry Schiavo's soul.

Rest in Peace.

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

So?

: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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

i noticed that also.

It'll be a party, I'll bring the absinthe.

Isnt this it?

I'll be joining you all in hell for this...

Nice!

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

The autopsy is out

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

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!

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

please post my autopsy report when i'm gone

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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*

I agree.

Well said.

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"!

We could go back and forth for ever with whether she was suffering, whether starving was suffering, whether she could have recovered, whether she was responsive, blah blah blah blah blah. The fact of the matter is, none of that matters. None of us should have ever known the name Terry Schiavo. This was a private matter that got pushed too far and was exploited by many many people. The only good that can possibly come out of this at this point is to serve as an example of why a) people should be diligent about making their wishes lear and b) people's individual rights for themselves and their rights as decisison-makers for their loved ones should be respected.

Sheez, why can't this issue have died with her.

Because it is an interesting topic of dicussion.

Jeb Bush seems to think there's still some political gold to be mined out of this issue.

Link



Likely more fool's gold, says I.

Aaaarrrrr