The Schiavo issue

[Claire]

Also from that site:

Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf.

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

The Legislature has also defined what is a "life-prolonging procedure":

"Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

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

[Prudence]

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.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by Prudence

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.)

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.

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?

Great questions! Dang, you're good.

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

[Not Afraid]

1-800-antichrist? Is that the number?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

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.

[scaeagles]

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.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I hope that all involved will just let it go now.

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.

[Scrooge McSam]

I hope that all involved will just let it go now.

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.

[Nephythys]

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.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

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.

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