The Schiavo issue

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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?

[wendybeth]

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.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Prudence

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 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.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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.