The Schiavo issue - Page 13

Ghoulish Delight · 03-21-2005, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

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.

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.

SacTown Chronic · 03-21-2005, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

He is still married to Terry, and he has two kids and a fiancee. Is it about control? Money? I don't get it.

Maybe he has a burning desire to be a widower.

wendybeth · 03-21-2005, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

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.

Claire · 03-21-2005, 08:14 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

SacTown Chronic · 03-21-2005, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

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?

Claire · 03-21-2005, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

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.

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.

Ghoulish Delight · 03-21-2005, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

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'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.

lizziebith · 03-22-2005, 02:03 AM

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.

MickeyD · 03-22-2005, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prudence

Sorry to burst your bubble on that one...

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.

scaeagles · 03-22-2005, 07:12 AM

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.

03-22-2005, 02:03 AM	#128
lizziebith Wishing these titles could be longe Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pearblossom CA Posts: 984	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. __________________ $ DO \|\| !$ DO ; TRY TRY: COMMAND NOT FOUND
	Submit to Quotes

03-22-2005, 07:12 AM	#130
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes