The Schiavo issue

[wendybeth]

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

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

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

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

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

[Kels]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

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

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

Well said.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I'm still waiting to hear whether or not she was considered to be enough of a person to feel pain. Not a lot has been said on that as yet, post mortem, so I'll wait and see what the experts have to say about that, based on her autopsy results.

You've brought this point up a couple of times, so I will throw my thoughts out on this.

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

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

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