The Schiavo issue

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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

[Not Afraid]

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

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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

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

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

[Motorboat Cruiser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mousepod]

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

[scaeagles]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it not a violation of her civil rights?

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I think a law should be passed - within each state, of course - that says that any immediate relative (spouse, of age children, parents) that are willing to pay for the care of a non-terminally ill patient should be given the right to do so.

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

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

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

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

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

[SacTown Chronic]

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

[Betty]

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