The Terri Schiavo case

[PS]

PS - While I agree with you to a certain extent, this isn't the right thread for that. get back on topic

On the topic at hand, it's absolutely horrible what they're doing to her. Even if she somehow or other comes back, she would still be in a vegetative state. After 15 years of being immobile, her muscles would have completely atrophied. A person probably wouldn't even be able to swallow water after a year in a state like this. I'll agree with everyone else. Pull the plug, give her euthanesia (sp?) so she doesn't "starve" for 2 weeks or whatever and free up that hospital bed for someone who really needs it.

I was just explaining to Duke what I meant.

But seriously, if she can move her eyes, why can't they get a "Kill me now please!!!1" confirmation from her? Has she suddenly lost her opinion as well? It's not like she's no longer human. And is starvation really necessary? Like...jesus christ. I still say Carbon Monoxide. 100% painless, may cause drowsiness.

 

[69Dodge_Charger]

Personally I think all things like this should be written down, such as a what if situation. Like my dad was saying at the dinner table, if he wrote down somewhere that if he were ever paralyzed beyond a certain point he would want my mom to pull the plug. But what if his parents said no don't do it? That way they could go to wherever he had it written and say, "See he said if this ever happens, to do this."

Planning ahead for the future (no matter how bad it may be) is always a good idea.

 

[Gil]

Okay, for the record, I've worked with rehab patients for the last 7 years.
With any kind of brain injury, the first 180 days are the critical time.
In the case of a stroke, Any progress made in the first six months, is usually the outer limit for progress.

As for this particular case, I understand that Ms. Schiavo's only life support is the feeding tube. And the hubby wants to marry the woman that he has been living with.
He is not seeking divorce because there is a rather hefty life insurance policy that will pay the hubby on the death of the wife.

Make of that what you will.

On the topic of advance directives I think everyone should have something in place so that their family has some idea of what to do.
I'm with Duke only, if I'm not making any progress after 200-250 days, and my quality of life is in the toilet, let me go.
If I have some quality of life, then we can go from there.

 

[PS]

Okay, for the record, I've worked with rehab patients for the last 7 years.
With any kind of brain injury, the first 180 days are the critical time.
In the case of a stroke, Any progress made in the first six months, is usually the outer limit for progress.

As for this particular case, I understand that Ms. Schiavo's only life support is the feeding tube. And the hubby wants to marry the woman that he has been living with.
He is not seeking divorce because there is a rather hefty life insurance policy that will pay the hubby on the death of the wife.

Make of that what you will.

On the topic of advance directives I think everyone should have something in place so that their family has some idea of what to do.
I'm with Duke only, if I'm not making any progress after 200 days, and my quality of life is in the toilet, let me go.

Heck, I'd do it if I were that shallow. I mean, she's like a lump of meat there for the past 15 years. Not to be insensitive or anything, but she's completely unable to communicate except with her eyes, can't move, can't do anything. Can't even feel, so with that she's probably become something to pay the medical bill.

 

[Mr. McShake]

I live in St. Petersburg around where all of this is happening, and I hear about it all the time.

She's had 15 years to get better, she's not getting better, why prolong her life any longer? She's basically dead anyways.

Just wasting my tax dollars now.

 

[Ev0]

He is not seeking divorce because there is a rather hefty life insurance policy that will pay the hubby on the death of the wife.

What I'd like to know is what type of life insurance company insures a vegetative woman?

 

[a6m5]

After all this mess, I think these are good advices:

Personally I think all things like this should be written down, such as a what if situation. Like my dad was saying at the dinner table, if he wrote down somewhere that if he were ever paralyzed beyond a certain point he would want my mom to pull the plug. But what if his parents said no don't do it? That way they could go to wherever he had it written and say, "See he said if this ever happens, to do this."

Planning ahead for the future (no matter how bad it may be) is always a good idea.

On the topic of advance directives I think everyone should have something in place so that their family has some idea of what to do.
I'm with Duke only, if I'm not making any progress after 200-250 days, and my quality of life is in the toilet, let me go.
If I have some quality of life, then we can go from there.

How about mandating registration and signing on your decision, when you turn 18-21 or something?

 

[Sage]

But seriously, if she can move her eyes, why can't they get a "Kill me now please!!!1" confirmation from her? Has she suddenly lost her opinion as well?

Of course. If you can't think, how can you have an opinion? Her eyes don't move because she wants them to – they move because a few random neurons are still firing (think of a snake that still twitches when its head is cut off – it twitches involuntarily).

I'm so making a living will when I turn 18. This whole mess with Congress and everything is annoying the crap out of me.

 

[pimp racer]

Sorry to interupt your conversation but I kinda think its horrible keeping her alive! Why the hell would you want your loved one to live even if they are suffering big time? I mean if I had a family member and for the past 15 years they have been doing nothing but suffering I dont think I would go to the government or anything I think I would just say let him/her suffer no more and kill them! ( I dont mean kill as in stab them or shoot them! I mean like pull the plugs. No more feeding tube or whatever it was.)

Just pretend you are her right now. Thats just my opinion. BTW I stayed up last night until 12 to see if they passed the bill thingy or not since this really kinda interested me.

 

[blargonator]

yeah a6m5 has a good idea, but personally i would like it more (if it actually was put into affect) if it was like a thing you did every 6 months, because things change such as new family members(children and spouses) and things of the sort.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry to interupt your conversation but I kinda think its horrible keeping her alive! Why the hell would you want your loved one to live even if they are suffering big time?

She's not suffering. Her brain is gone!! Part of it is physically gone, the rest of it just doesn't work anymore. She feels no pain. Starvation is not cruel in this case, because she can't feel it.

At this point she is an organ farm.

Just wasting my tax dollars now.

She's being kept alive on money won in a malpractice lawsuit against her doctor who "didn't diagnose the problem early enough." She starved herself and caused a chemical imbalance in her brain and then her family sued her doctor for not saving her from herself. To the best of my knowledge, she's been living off that money since.

 

[Ev0]

She's not suffering. Her brain is gone!! Part of it is physically gone, the rest of it just doesn't work anymore. She feels no pain. Starvation is not cruel in this case, because she can't feel it.

At this point she is an organ farm.

I think at this point she would be much more useful to society as an organ farm. Last time I checked there was a huge demand for some organs, and I know in Canada (not sure about the US) there is a large shortage of blood donors. Much better than taking up space, food, and money in a hostel.

 

[Duke]

She's being kept alive on money won in a malpractice lawsuit against her doctor who "didn't diagnose the problem early enough." She starved herself and caused a chemical imbalance in her brain and then her family sued her doctor for not saving her from herself. To the best of my knowledge, she's been living off that money since.

Her parents are living in what is quite possibly the worst case of denial seen since Michael Jackson.

 

[PS]

She's not suffering. Her brain is gone!! Part of it is physically gone, the rest of it just doesn't work anymore. She feels no pain. Starvation is not cruel in this case, because she can't feel it.

At this point she is an organ farm.



She's being kept alive on money won in a malpractice lawsuit against her doctor who "didn't diagnose the problem early enough." She starved herself and caused a chemical imbalance in her brain and then her family sued her doctor for not saving her from herself. To the best of my knowledge, she's been living off that money since.

...if you call that living

Of course. If you can't think, how can you have an opinion? Her eyes don't move because she wants them to – they move because a few random neurons are still firing (think of a snake that still twitches when its head is cut off – it twitches involuntarily).

I'm so making a living will when I turn 18. This whole mess with Congress and everything is annoying the crap out of me.

Whoa, I had no idea that she couldn't even think...

It's horrible to imagine what it would be like, I mean what if she really had conscious thought left in her mind and she was completely helpless? All these people thinking she couldn't feel pain, what if she just can't react? It must suck to be in that state. This is the first I've heard of the incident, so I'm still learning all the details.

 

[vladimir]

although i agree upon most of your views and think that life support should be switched off, i am really worried by some of you who mention economic reasons so often.

whether someone should live or not must not depend on how useful he or she is. otherwise we could as well just extinct the disabled and elderly in order to safe the welfare state.

this woman has no live anymore and no future. that is the reason why life support should be switched off. not for the sake of the tax payers, the president, the husband or her parents, but for her own's sake. in order to give her the ability to die humanly instead of "living" under these conditions till she can't even do that anymore...

 

[Danoff]

not for the sake of the tax payers

You were doing pretty well until you said that. I think that tax payer money should be pretty carefully regulated. If nobody should suffer for the sake of the tax payers then you have communism.

In short, if somebody starves in the streets because additional taxes were not collected from me... so be it. I'll give them my money if I want to.

whether someone should live or not must not depend on how useful he or she is

That's a toughie. Whether someone gets money sometimes depends on how useful they are, and whether they live sometimes depends on whether they have money.

But in the context of this case, I agree... whether to pull the plug in this situation should not depend on how useful terri is.

 

[Ev0]

although i agree upon most of your views and think that life support should be switched off, i am really worried by some of you who mention economic reasons so often.

whether someone should live or not must not depend on how useful he or she is. otherwise we could as well just extinct the disabled and elderly in order to safe the welfare state.

this woman has no live anymore and no future. that is the reason why life support should be switched off. not for the sake of the tax payers, the president, the husband or her parents, but for her own's sake. in order to give her the ability to die humanly instead of "living" under these conditions till she can't even do that anymore...

I have to agree with you, except one has to keep in mind that in Terri's current state, many would say she is not even 'living', since she essentially has no conciousness; no ability to think or feel. What is life without the ability to think or feel?

 

[pimp racer]

She's not suffering. Her brain is gone!! Part of it is physically gone, the rest of it just doesn't work anymore. She feels no pain. Starvation is not cruel in this case, because she can't feel it.

At this point she is an organ farm.

Ah I see now. But I still think they should just let her die. What good is it gonna do letting her live unless the governement want to perform some crazy experiment with her.

 

[vladimir]

I have to agree with you, except one has to keep in mind that in Terri's current state, many would say she is not even 'living', since she essentially has no conciousness; no ability to think or feel. What is life without the ability to think or feel?

that is why i wrote "living". biologically, she is living. plants don't have a conciousness either, but they are still living. of course for a human being, i think living means more than just processing food. that is why i said she had no life and the support should be switched off.

You were doing pretty well until you said that. I think that tax payer money should be pretty carefully regulated. If nobody should suffer for the sake of the tax payers then you have communism.

In short, if somebody starves in the streets because additional taxes were not collected from me... so be it. I'll give them my money if I want to.

That's a toughie. Whether someone gets money sometimes depends on how useful they are, and whether they live sometimes depends on whether they have money.

communism goes far further than that. but it is one of the key points of our western societies that everyone has the right to live even if he or she does not contribute to the society in any way, the society will still supply him or her with the very minimum he or she needs to lead a human life. that is even the case in the united states and it is usually even written down in the constitutions.

 

[ledhed]

Her husband has been trying for fifteen years to do right by this women . He has been offerd a million dollars by the parents to let them take care of her and he refused . He is now up against the congress of the US and is still fighting. I can only wish my wife would do the same for me. Not that I would leave her the trouble.

 

[Danoff]

but it is one of the key points of our western societies that everyone has the right to live even if he or she does not contribute to the society in any way, the society will still supply him or her with the very minimum he or she needs to lead a human life.

The first part and second part aren't really the same thing. A right to life is a right not to be murdered, that doesn't mean that you have a right to have your life sustained by others. There is a difference between letting someone die and killing them... a big difference - both legally and ethically.

Nobody in the US has the right to have the "very minimum he or she needs to lead a human life" provided for them - nor should they. That being said, Terri's situation is different. Her parents are willing to keep her brainless body alive. It may not be her right, but it is something they are willing to provide her. Of course, their wishes are beside the point since they aren't her legal guardian.

By the way. The legal argument the parents are bringing is that Terri's civil rights are being violated by her legal guardian (husband). They claim that she would not have wanted the plug to be pulled (I can't imagine that) and so, since they think she is still alive but unable to express her wishes, they thing that he's violating her civil rights... in which case they have a right to bring this suit to prevent the feeding tube from being removed. Of course, they're wrong, her civil rights are not being violated because she is a gonner - at least that's what all of the many judges that have looked at this case have decided.

 

[vladimir]

The first part and second part aren't really the same thing. A right to life is a right not to be murdered, that doesn't mean that you have a right to have your life sustained by others. There is a difference between letting someone die and killing them... a big difference - both legally and ethically.

Nobody in the US has the right to have the "very minimum he or she needs to lead a human life" provided for them - nor should they.

there is a difference, yes. but there is also something called "structural violence", which is killing people. that may not be direct murder, but in a state as wealthy as america, nobody should die of hunger or thirst.

as far as i know, there is social security, even in the united states.


of course that has nothing to do with this case.

 

[Danoff]

of course that has nothing to do with this case.

It has a little to do with this case, but not much.

as far as i know, there is social security, even in the united states.

No guarantees are made. No rights are claimed.

in a state as wealthy as america, nobody should die of hunger or thirst.

Terri Schiavo's body is well on its way.

 

[Gil]

I understand the dilemma.
However, with no advance directive in place, the area is ethically clear.
Doctors take an oath to preserve life.
Nurses take an oath to "do no harm".
Either could lose their license to practice, and possibly be incarcerated for denying this woman nourishment without some sort of legal document such as a living will/advance directive.
The husband's medical power of attorney, that is assumed because they are married, does not give the husband the power to decide to withdraw nourishment, theryby allowing the woman to die.

In this case they would be able to withdraw nourishment if and only if there were a living will/advance directive delineating the wishes of the patient.

 

[vladimir]

Terri Schiavo's body is well on its way.

i thought bush stopped it? (if not because of social security, thats for sure...)

 

[Ev0]

Bush tried, and failed to stop it. Apparently, a federal appeals court just ruled in favor of the husband.

 

[a6m5]

whether someone should live or not must not depend on how useful he or she is. otherwise we could as well just extinct the disabled and elderly in order to safe the welfare state.

this woman has no live anymore and no future. that is the reason why life support should be switched off. not for the sake of the tax payers, the president, the husband or her parents, but for her own's sake. in order to give her the ability to die humanly instead of "living" under these conditions till she can't even do that anymore...

Excellent point. 👍

Bush tried, and failed to stop it. Apparently, a federal appeals court just ruled in favor of the husband.

I don't oppose the decision, but I still can't understand this husband. How do you live with another woman, and still act like you are an caring husband to Terri? I realize that legally there's nothing wrong with it, but I feel that he should have either stuck with Terri or divorced her. This guy shouldn't have the custody/guardianship(I don't know what it's called) of Terri IMO.

Couple other things that bothered me was, today on the radio(rightwing), the host of the show was claiming that Terris' husband, admitted that Terri never actually indicated that she didn't want to live, if she were in the vegetative state, right on the Larry King Live. Another thing was that one of nurses that worked with Terri quoted the husband saying "why won't that bit*h just die". Again, it was on the station that is on the right, so I can't guarantee these accuracy of the reports. I listen to what these shows have to say with a grain of salt.

 

[Solid Fro]

I think Bill O'reilly has said it best:

The Politics of Life and Death
From the very beginning of this sad story, we have said that medical doctors should be the determining factor in what happens to Terri Schiavo.But now it's turned into a political circus and a good guy, bad guy soap opera, as many Americans have chosen sides, sometimes along ideological lines.

Some pro-life forces have made Terri's ordeal into a litmus test on compassion and life affirming values. Some pro-choice people have demanded the federal government stay out of things and want a single state judge to decide life and death.

"Talking Points" believes both sides are wrong. The key piece of evidence is provided by Florida doctors who examined Terri Schiavo and explained her condition to the court, quote:

"Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered a the time of her heart attack...at this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent on others..."

Terri's family, of course, is willing to live with that and care for her. Her husband is not.
Now it's impossible for any fair-minded person to make accurate judgments about these people. No one can read their hearts. Terri's family doesn't want to lose her. Her husband says he's fighting for her own wishes that she not be kept alive artificially.

There's very bad blood between the two camps. And that adds another element of confusion to the case.

Enter Congress, who's passed a law affirming the family's right to federal protection. So now the feds will decide the case. Predictably, the left-wing press is aghast. Today "The L.A. Times" blamed the whole thing on those radical right-wingers, calling the new law a "constitutional coup d'etat."

But a funny thing happened on the way to Liberalville. Every one of the liberal senators failed to show up to block the law. And any of them could have. All of them sat it out in a stunning display of partisan silence.

That happened, despite a new ABC News poll that says a majority of Americans agree that Terri Schiavo's 15 years of technological life should be ended.

In the end, that will happen, I believe. The medical evidence is just too overwhelming to justify keeping her on life support at taxpayer expense. But I'm glad Congress stepped up and voted to give her and her family every benefit of the doubt.

All life is worthy. And that should be a defining message for America.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151122,00.html

 

[Minnesota01R6]

I'm going to add something that is sorrowfully missing from this debate: some legal analysis.

1) Florida's laws regarding power of attorney and the right to refuse "death delaying medical care" required that the husband prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri had expressed her wishes to him before she was incapacitated, and that therefore it is HER wish (not his) that is being carried out. When in doubt, a court will always err on the side of life, which is what happened in the only "right to death" case that has ever come before the Supreme Court. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 479 U.S. 261 (1990).

2) The federal law that was passed giving federal courts jurisdiction in this case is an abomination of everything the US legal system holds sacred. It confers jurisdiction where no jurisdiction should exist. Justice is not perfect. We don't have perfect knowledge, and we don't have perfect jurists. But calling "do-over" because you don't like the decision is not what our legal system is about. It balances the interests of justice with the interests of efficiency, finality, and predictability.

3) As you can gather from my other posts in the O/T and opinions forums, I am a Republican. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with what the Republicans have done in this case. I don't care about the money, I don't care about the family, I care about Terri's wishes. Her wishes have been proven in a court of law to be that she wants to die. Her dignity and free will must be preserved, even after her mind has gone. The 15+ year battle needs to come to an end.

 

[a6m5]

Nice post, Minnesota! I guess the "student lawyer" was not a joke.

Was there an evidence expressing Terris' wish though?