Terri Schiavo's parents ask judge to let her divorce husband

[kskiska]

TAMPA, Fla. - Terri Schiavo's parents asked a Pinellas court judge Monday to allow her to divorce her husband - in either life or death - in a court filing accusing Michael Schiavo of adultery and not acting in his wife's best interests.

The filing was one of a flurry of 15 motions filed by Bob and Mary Schindler as they now have less than three weeks to find a legal way to keep their severely brain-damaged daughter alive.

(snip)

David Gibbs, the Schindler's attorney, said Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer has indicated he will not hear the divorce request and five other motions filed Monday - but that only means that the matters are now on their way to being appealed to the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland.

(snip)

"We have filed divorce proceedings because of (Michael Schiavo's) total disregard for Terri as his wife," Bob Schindler said. "He is married to Terri, but he is living with another woman and he has two children by her. It has become quite obvious that his priorities are not in Terri's best interest."

Gibbs said the divorce effort is one previously not seen in courts, allowing Terri Schiavo to end her marriage to Michael even after she dies.

more…
(subscription - use bugmenot.com)
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/11014872.htm

[Dookus]

1. I hope some judge

slaps a huge fine against these people for abusing the court system.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

4. Her MONSTER parents are the ones putting the court system through the ring

not Michael Shiavo. He's a HERO! He's carrying out her wishes!

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

15. Back that shit up!

Tossing out accustations requires you back it up with proof! And don't blow that bullshit story her MOSTER parents started that was THROWN OUT OF FUCKING COURT!

Put it up. PROVE YOUR ALLEGATIONS!

[Dookus]

16. I read that argument

on another site, one that's not very liberal.

Why does this case bring out all the right-wing talking points?

[Walt Starr]

27. By their words ye shall know them

;)

[Dookus]

35. surprise surprise...

our visitor's been given the Granite Tribute.

[TahitiNut]

37. Taken for Granite, huh?

:evilgrin:

[Lindacooks]

414. Well, because it's another one they can be nosy about.

You see, right wing nuts think they can tell everybody else how to live, especially when it's a case where they don't know the person or the family, have no emotional investment in the case at all, and it won't cost them a dime.

This is what right wing wackos do best: butt in where they don't belong and mess up people's lives.

[Liberal Veteran]

17. Yes...and the courts and DCF have investigated that angle....

....and have yet to provide the court with ANY evidence that would sway the courts to make that determination.

We live in a society where a person is presumed innocent until PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law.

Innuendo and slander and rumor mongering to sway the court of public opinion has no legal standing.

[Walt Starr]

29. And the doctor's insurance companies COMBED for that one, too

It went nowhere.

But the riechwing still spews it to defame a man who is carrying out his wife's wishes.

[TheFarseer]

98. typical rethug tactics

If someone stands between you and getting your way, make up a bunch of BS to demonize them and make it a personal popularity contest.

[truebrit71]

19. No it was the doctor's that botched a procedure that turned her into

..a vegetable....

Perhaps you should do a little more research.....

[LisaL]

119. What procedure, do tell?

She was apparently bulimic and had some sort of a heart attack, during which her brain was deprived of oxygen. She wasn't having any procedures done. I think you need to do the research yourself.

[Renew Deal]

20. How do you figure?

[truebrit71]

25. She was in the hospital for a procedure..and the doctor's fouled up..

..causing her brain to be starved of oxygen for many minutes. This caused her to be in the vegetative state she is currently in.

[Renew Deal]

28. So that means her husband caused it?

[Lars39]

32. Wrong.

She went into cardiac arrest at home.
The doctors fouled up by not properly diagnosing her bulimia.

Here's a factual website for information:
www.abstractappeal.com

[msanthrope]

83. What the Sam Hill are you talking about?

Terri went into cardiac arrest at home, the underlying cause being bulimia.

The doctors that were sued were sued because of failure to diagnose the bulimia, and they weren't the doctors who treated her for the collapse.

www.abstractappeal.com

read the actual case documents.

[LisaL]

124. Look, you obviously don't have any information.

She wasn't in the hospital and she wasn't having any procedures done.

[truebrit71]

278. "procedures" was the wrong word...

..whilst she was in the doctor's care they fouled her up...hence the $1 million settlement...

My basic point was to the original moran that said that maybe Terri was this way because of something her husband had done...Which is NOT the case, it is because the Doctor's effed up that she is the way she is...

[Lars39]

23. The court has already ruled that her cardiac arrest

was due to electrolyte imbalance, which is the result of bulimia.

[Warpy]

77. I have sympathy for the parents

because no parent wants to outlive a child. However, the entire body of law gives the right to make medical decisions to her husband, and it seems according to witnesses that he IS acting according to her wishes, albeit belatedly. No parent can divorce a child's spouse. This one will get tossed out, but will have to grind through the legal system first.

Everybody is howling abour slow starvation. Dehydration is what will eventually allow her to die. Hospice will make sure she is sedated and comfortable, on the off chance she is able to feel discomfort. The process will likely take about a week, maybe less.

The woman, for all intents and purposes, is already dead. Not allowing the person closest to her, her husband, to make the final decision in this case is going to open up a whole legal horror show for health professionals across the country.

I'm not sure if the Schindlers really want to go there.

[LisaL]

110. He is an adulterer. Any woman would be allowed to divorce

a husband like that. If my husband got himself a girlfriend and 2 kids, I sure wouldn't stay married to him. Who would? Why should he still be considered Terri's husband?

[PassingFair]

181. Are you kidding?

If I was brain dead for 15 years I would want my husband to have carried on with his life.

[LisaL]

183. Yes, sure-after a divorce.

He can carry on with his life all he wants if he divorces Terri. Otherwise, he is married to another woman yet carries on with another woman.

[northzax]

207. and adultery is not actually illegal

in Florida. It might be grounds for divorce, but only if one of the parties to the marriage uses it for that. It is not a mandatory divorce.

Look, her parents did not sign the marriage license, so they have no say in whether or not a divorce takes place. sorry.

tough cases make bad law.

[Sivafae]

549. FL is a no-fault state. N/T

[Kelvin Mace]

258. Methinks you are too hung up on technicalities

of the law and not concerned with the reality of the situation. If he divorces her, her parents will keep here in that ghoulish state until the end of time.

[moobu2]

447. And that is yours or anyone's business how? And because

he went on to have children, Terri should be forced to live on life support -against her expressed wishes?

Would it have made any of you happier, since Terri's cerebral cortex died through no fault of his, if he had live a miserable life never having children and he lived a lonely horrible existence?

you only live one time and life is short, none of this is his fault.

[SemperEadem]

270. except, she's not the one asking for the divorce

and no where has it been stated by her in any legal document that that is what she wanted while she still had control of her senses. The divorce is what her rapacious parents want because they can't get their way, not Terri.

Attention whores--that's what they are. And until she pops up out of her vegetative state and ask for a divorce, no judge is going to grant one. It would destroy the sanctity of marriage for the courts to allow anyone other than the two who are married to one another to interfere in that marriage.

[truebrit71]

284. Why? Because they are still legally married that's why...

She is brain dead, she has no idea what is going on around her, and she sure as hell isn't aware of the fact that he has fathered two other children...

[Pachamama]

496. He is not an "Adulterer"...his wife is in a vegetative state...I'd want my

husband to do the same as Micheal Schiavo has if I was in a coma...Shit, if I happened to wake up after 15 years in a coma and found out my husband had remained a "virgin" and had not gotten on with his life and "lived" during my coma and inability to be caring for his needs and being a partner, I'd divorce him then just for the fact that he had been "dead" himself during that time.

[radwriter0555]

115. She's a living, breathing, viable human being, who has thoughts, emotions

and expresses herself.

I've seen the video of her, have you?

[Lars39]

123. She is in a persistent vegetative state with no cerebral cortex

What you have seen are the parents' edited highly biased tapes.
What the courts and doctors have seen are the unedited version.

[LostinVA]

128. Yeah, I have

Including the first few minutes where her dad "jump starts" her motor reflexes. Sickening.

[hiley]

140. it is sickening and

her parents are not doing it for her but for theirselves and the rw thugery .

[Bouncy Ball]

216. Wow, what kind of tapes are YOU seeing?

Because I've seen nothing of the sort!

[truebrit71]

281. Absolutely wrong. She is brain dead.

And she absolutely does NOT "express" herself...

[Lindacooks]

419. You can't have thoughts or emotions if you don't have a

cerebral cortex, which she doesn't. You can't express yourself either. Her cerebral cortex has liquified. The cerebral cortex is where brain activity takes place that makes us human: thoughts and emotions.

[donheld]

498. Do her parents believe in heaven?

why don't they let her go there.

[Dookus]

8. Her husband is not the one

running to the courts every other day - her parents are.

[Walt Starr]

3. I agree, her parents are MONSTERS! Michael Shiavo is a HERO!

Let him carry out her wishes already!

[puddycat]

203. I agree. Her parents are monsters, wanting to torture their own daughter

Her parents represent the worst evil of the right-wing fascists in this country.

[LisaL]

262. If she is in PVS, and can not feel anything, how are they torturing her?

At least try to make some sense, will you?

[puddycat]

330. its you who isn't making sense, deary. Terri IS being tortured.

People who side with her parents are ill.

[Undercover Owl]

467. Great life, huh.

If she can't possibly be tortured, as you say, since she has no higher brain functions, she likely isn't having any kind of experience at all. There is extremely poor quality of life. Let her rest in peace, already!

[ixat]

522. Wow, this was way over the top. Have some compassion, please.

[TahitiNut]

9. It's self-righteousness on steroids and fed by zealots with a political ax

... to grind. It's a blessing that their daughter is long gone, diminished to something with only barely-functioning autonomic processes.

The arrogance of "the ends justifies the means" built upon a pile of false beliefs is astonishing.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. The anti-choice right have just about exploited this case to death.

And they have yet to win a single time in this.

When all is said and done and the Terri's body is finally allowed to pass, the anti-choicers will wail about it to anyone who will listen for a couple of weeks and then descend on someone else's family to exploit for their own agenda.

[Walt Starr]

38. Actually, they've had a fewe successes

not in the courts, but in the halls of the Florida Legislature and the office of Jeb Bush who create unconstitutional laws to placate the wackjobs and later are overturned by the courts.

[donheld]

22. Yes a nice large fine to shut them up would be nice

God forbid they should just let her die with dignity. Her parents are abusing the courts as well as their daughter.

[LiberalFighter]

117. Along with the lawyers being disbarred

[donheld]

150. And a Governor impeached while we're at it.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. Oh please....that's just pathetic.

No one has the right to file a divorce petition on the behalf of someone else unless they are her legal guardians, which they are not.

[Walt Starr]

7. BINGO, her parents have no legal standing in a divorce case

and Michael Shiavo is the legal guardian, so only he has standing.

They are gaming the system to get more money from the rightwingnut anti-choicers.

[Guaranteed]

46. Why not just do the divorce?

All he wants is to get away from her. Just dissolve the marriage! THAT way, he doesn't have to kill her to marry someone else.

[Walt Starr]

51. BULLSHIT!!!

"All he wants is to get away from her."

Blatantly false. All he wants to do is carry out the wishes of the woman he married.

[Guaranteed]

58. He's with another woman, Walt. nt

[Walt Starr]

63. It's beem 15 years, Bullgooselooney

Under the same circumstances, I'd want my wife to be with another man. I'd still want her to fight my family and make certain my wishes are carried out, but I'd want her to continue her life.

If I went into cardiac arrest today and the same thing happened, an identical situation could happen because I have no living will, but my wife knows my wishes!

[Guaranteed]

67. The being with someone else part isn't the wrong part.

It's the "I'm gonna starve you first- ain't no two ways about it!" part.

[Walt Starr]

68. BULLSHIT

The feeding tube is all that keeps her alive. It IS a life support system.

[Guaranteed]

73. I realize that. I'm using a harsh word

in calling it "killing." But it IS starving her.

[LostinVA]

102. It's Life Support

You don't call talking someone off of a respirator "suffocating" or "asphyxiating" them to death. She is not being denied food, she will no longer have a chemical mixture forced into her body, just barely keeping her alive. It is exactly like being taken off a respirator. If you also don't believe in that, then at least you're consistent, and I can respect that. If you think being taken off an artificial breather is okay, then so is this.

Terri no longer feels pain. You need a cerebral cortex for that.

AND: as Catholics, Terri's parents should know the Church allows people to be taken off of life support, INCLUDING FEEDING TUBES, no matter what the whacko priests on Randall Terry's side are saying.

[Guaranteed]

144. First- you don't need a cerebral cortex to feel pain.

You need a cerebral cortex- PERHAPS...at least that's the theory- to *recognize* that you are feeling pain.

Secondly, taking someone off of life support is nowhere near the same thing as stopping feeding them. There's no analogy there. In one case, you're breathing for them- something they have to be able to do on their own, 24 hours a day. In the other case, you're stopping an activity that they only need every few hours, and in fact dragging out their death for days, and allowing them to die in a very painful way.

[LostinVA]

154. Feeding tubes are legally considered life support

Don't argue with me, argue with the courts. And with the Catholic Church, that bastion of liberality, who also recognizes feeding tubes as life support.

If you can't recognize pain, then you're not feeling pain.

[Guaranteed]

159. So, is spoon-feeding a baby "life support" then?

I call that feeding a baby.

I'd call feeding Terri feeding a disabled woman.

I'd call feeding a person with no arms feeding someone with no arms. It's not life support.

And I totally disagree with your last statement. Animals don't have cerebral cortexes like we do, yet they feel pain. They just don't understand the fact that they are feeling pain. They don't understand their existence.

[LostinVA]

164. Give me a break

You are being ridiculous and you know it.

Terri is NOT DISABLED. She is PVS. The feeding tube she has is legally and medically considered life support. Again, you are absolutely allowed to have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Argue with the legal and medical community over this one, not me. Terri cannot be spoon feed, btw.

[Guaranteed]

180. Whatever form of food or sustenance they're putting in her

STOMACH, where FOOD goes, doesn't matter.

That's called "starvation" that they're using so that she may die (and here I'm going out of my way to say that they're not "killing" her).

[LostinVA]

191. Then taking someone off of a respirator

is asphyxiating them. You know? TRACH, where OXYGEN goes?

Same thing legally and medically. And, religiously, if you're Catholic.

[Guaranteed]

209. Is not feeding a baby starving them?

Is not feeding a man without arms starving him?

Yes. Yes, they are. And there is NO difference, here.

Alternatively, as to your point, is not resuscitating someone who isn't breathing asphyxiating them?

No. No, it's not. You're just not resuscitating them.

But, deliberately not feeding someone who needs food (or whatever you would give them to keep them alive) is starving them. Very simple.

In fact, now that I think about it- you know, if a machine is already breathing for someone, and you take them off of the machine- I suppose you are asphyxiating them.

[mondo joe]

229. Feeding a baby is not "Life Support"

You'd do well to stick to legal definitions if you want to argue a legal case.

[Guaranteed]

236. It doesn't even matter whether or not it's life support.

However they're giving her sustenance- by hand or machine- stopping giving her that sustenance is starving her.

[mondo joe]

240. Sure it matters.

This is a legal matter, and legal definitions matter.

[Guaranteed]

247. I'm not discussing the legality of starvation.

I'm simply saying it IS starvation- which others seem to want to argue.

It's pretty hilarious that they're even trying it, too.

[mondo joe]

250. Then you can be at peace knowing LEGALLY it's Michael's choice

Since you're not concerned with the legal aspect of the case.

[Guaranteed]

260. No, I said I'm not concerned with the legal aspect of STARVATION.

And THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.

Just to be REAL CLEAR.

STARVATION.

[Liberal Veteran]

268. And pulling the plug on the respirator is "asphixiation"....

And refusing dialysis is "blood poisoning".

What is it about this PARTICULAR form of life support technology that bothers you so much that you think of it as somehow "worse" than withdrawing other forms of life support?

[Guaranteed]

329. After I thought about it, yes, pulling the plug on

the respirator IS asphyxiation. They're being deprived of oxygen.

Any time someone dies because they didn't get the oxygen they needed, they asphyxiated.

[Liberal Veteran]

340. But you didn't answer the question....

What is it about this particular form of life support withdrawal that bothers you more than shutting down a respirator or dialysis machine?

[Guaranteed]

344. There's the length of time it takes for it to "work," to

begin with, and the suffering involved. That is a nasty way to die.

And, the fact that keeping someone "sustained" (as in "sustenance") is held to a different standard than keeping them breathing. Someone who can't breath on their own is in a much more dire state than someone who just can't feed themselves. They are very different situations.

[Liberal Veteran]

353. Perhaps you should read this....

It talks about the process of dying from food and hydration removal. It doesn't sound nearly as bad as some of you are making it out to be.

http://endoflifecare.tripod.com/Caregiving/id90.html

[moobu2]

269. Why dont you people who

want to be on life support -forever- under every circumstance, just save your money, write that down, and don't worry about others who disagree.

Why do you want to force everyone to have to do that?

[mondo joe]

277. By your standard, disconnecting ventilator is suffocating someone

"If you deprive a child of air are you not suffocating it?"

[LisaL]

288. Nope, suffocating someone is when you put a pillow over

their head. If you deprive a child of air-yes, you are suffocating the child, and will be arrested. But if a child stops breathing on his/her own-well, you are not at fault, and won't be charged with murder.

[mondo joe]

296. Incorrect. You're thinking SMOTHER.

Just the same, if you want to play semantics: By your standard, disconnecting ventilation machines is the same as asphyxiation.

Terri is incapable of eating, so a device is force feeding her just as a ventilator force breathes for someone.

[Guaranteed]

347. It IS asphyxiation.

YOU'RE thinking "smother." You guys are the ones who are trying to interchange those two words with this argument.

By the way, if Terri was fully conscious, for sure, but could only be fed by that machine, and then was taken off of it, would you THEN call it starvation?

[ldf]

420. well now, if she was fully conscious

why, lordy be, she could TELL us what she wanted, couldn't she?

or make some nod, eye wink, whatever, to let us know she wanted to continue her life.

but she AIN'T. and twisting everything will not make it so.

she indicated to her husband, who is her legal guardian, before this happened, that she DID NOT WANT TO LIVE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

if he divorces her, her parents can then FORCE HER TO LIVE UNDER THOSE VERY CIRCUMSTANCES.

he is NOT divorcing her for that very reason. if that is not love for your wife, then i don't know what could be. all the bullshit about the wife and the two kids, is just that. bullshit.

but this really isn't about this case, is it?

it is the whole nine yards. it is about the whole idea that the religous conservative, so-called christians, loud and proud republicans, forcing everyone to live by their rules.

it is about abortion, euthanasia, stem cell reserch.

this is just the beginning.

and you know that. if not, you are a damn fool.

SHAME!

[Kelvin Mace]

317. Suffocation is what happens

when you are taken off a ventilator. The is what happens to the body. it can't breath on it's own and the body dies from suffocation. Terri cannot take nutrients (breathe) without a feeding tube (ventilator). If the tube (ventilator) is removed, she will starve (asphixiate).

Since everyting that is Terri ceased to exist a long time ago, what is the problem with her husband following her wishes to let her body die in a dignified manner?

[Kelvin Mace]

309. Then you agree that

removing someone from a ventilator is asphixiation?

If you mean technically, they are "starving" her, yes you can argue that. But if you are trying to claim that what they are doing is illegal or immoral, you are wrong.

Horrible and painful death? Yes, if she still had anything left of a conscious brain, that would be true. But there is NOTHING going on in her brain, no awareness, no Terri there anymore. Terri died over a decade ago. All that remains is the meat. The meat continues to exist because its basic needs are met by someone else, not by Terry, after all she's dead.

If you worship at the altar of this existance, then by all means adjust your will accordingly and make sure you leave behind lots of money for your care.

Just don't try to impose it on anyone else.

[SemperEadem]

285. Babies aren't in persistent vegetative states

that is what makes your point fall flat on its face into the non sequitur.

[NashVegas]

303. Baby's Can Chew /Suckle / Swallow / Digest On Their Own

Can the same be said of Mrs. Schiavo?

[LisaL]

308. But babies have to be fed, they can't eat on their own.

If you don't feed them, they will die. The same goes for Terri.

[mondo joe]

312. Your same argument would apply to every ventilator and other

Your same argument would apply to every ventilator and other machine keeping a brain dead person's body alive.

Are you opposed to ever pulling the plug in any case?

[NashVegas]

528. If It Is Not My Decision

It is not my place to criticize or question those who would pull the plug on a brain-dead person. Brain-dead people do not recover from their condition. To keep the unthinking body alive serves no good purpose whatsoever.

[Kelvin Mace]

332. No.

A baby with full brain function is a living human being and we have a moral obligation to feed them. A baby with ANY cognitive brain function must be fed.

Terri has no cognitive brain function. There is no Terri there. I am sorry folks find this concept hard to believe. All that you are exists in a very small part of your brain. Destroy that part of the brain and you have been erased from existance.

Sorry if this truth isn't what folks want to here, but that's "life".

[NashVegas]

530. You Have to Get the Food to Them, But They DO Eat On Their Own

Try shoving a piece of fruit in Schiavo's mouth and see what happens.

[Kelvin Mace]

292. And you would keep her "alive"

in this ghoulish state because? It makes you feel better? Some day Jesus may appear and cure her?

You know, since you are being obtuse, I am going to point out that as a bulemic, starving is what Terri did to herself, so it can hardly be considered "against her wishes".

The person that was Terri no longer exists. Even the Catholic Church accepts that.

[Guaranteed]

341. I'm not being obtuse.

This is extremely important. I'm holding up the side of an argument that people here have not been taking seriously enough. I'm making this argument from a bio-medical ethical point of view.

I take death seriously- for capital punishment, for war, for abortion, AND for euthanasia. There are standards for each that need to be taken into account.

[Kelvin Mace]

399. Well, the majority of the bio-ethicists

disagree with you. I take the matter seriously as well and it is clear cut. I am quite satisfied with the science involved. Starving to death would be a horrible way to go for a cogent person. A morphine push is far more humane, but the law is the law.

Instead of arguing with these folks, you need to argue with the lawmakers.

[Thor_MN]

465. Feeding a baby is something entirely different than force feeding via

a nasal tube. A baby will cry when it's hungry and will swallow when you put food in it's mouth.

Put food in the mouth of Terri and she will choke on it. I have taken care of people who were essentially no better off than Terri, but they still were able to recognize that they were being fed and would swallow the pureed food they were spoon fed. You quickly learned to sit to the side of them, becasue if they cough, whatever you put in their mouth is going to be on your shirt.

If feeding via nasal tube is the only thing keeping her body alive, it's life support no matter if it's something you need every few seconds or every few hours.

If her parents want to keep something around to remember her by, they could have her freeze dried and propped up in a life-like position. It would make as much sense as keeping the Betsy-wetsy doll that her body is now around. Terri died 15 years ago, her body just hasn't realized it.

[donheld]

493. It is letting go

She's been virtually dead for years.

[Liberal Veteran]

64. So what? That doesn't mean he has no responsibility toward his wife.

He is supposed to live like a eunuch when his wife truly died 15 years ago, but he hasn't been able to bury the body because the ghouls on the right want to keep a person with no chance of recovery keep a living corpse breathing?

[Guaranteed]

70. If he wants to get away from her, he should just divorce her.

In fact, this whole "putting her down for his sake" thing you're pushing is really pretty messed up. This isn't about him, it's about her.

You're saying he's got to kill her to forget about her.

[Liberal Veteran]

80. If your wife told you her wishes if she was in this state...

...without ever putting it down on paper and her family came in to try to undermine your wishes would you do the right thing and live up to last and most important responsibility as a husband or would you just walk away?

Honor, obligation, and responsibility dictate that I fight to the end to carry out my spouse's wishes, and in return I expect the same.

I am not a person who takes the easy way out. Your mileage may vary.

[Guaranteed]

88. I'd be damned sure that she wasn't conscious, first.

It had better be clear as day before I wrote my wife off, that's for sure.

[Dookus]

95. he is damned sure

she's not conscious.

[Liberal Veteran]

105. And how long might take? A year? 5 years? 15 years?

You have already admitted you would NEVER "pull the plug" because you "can't get inside her head".

Most likely you wouldn't be "damned sure" unless Jesus Christ brought your wife down from heaven in front of a bunch of witnesses telling you to let the body die.

Or prove me wrong! Tell me EXACTLY what would convince you that it's time to let go? Since you don't believe the scores of doctors who have examined this case at length, what would it take?

[Guaranteed]

153. I didn't say I would never do it.

I'm just saying I'd have to be sure that she wasn't there.

HOWEVER- I WILL say that I would NEVER, EVER STARVE my wife.

Here's the test- if you're so sure that she really IS gone--- if you are SO, SO sure- you'd better be at the point where you could do something to her that you know for SURE would kill her, right away.

I.E. OD'ing her.

If he's SO damned sure, he should shoot her up with a syringe full of morphine. THAT'S a good husband.

None of this "Oh, we're just gonna starve her" shit.

[Liberal Veteran]

208. And how would you determine that?

Obviously, the opinions of every neurologist are meaningless to you, so tell me EXACTLY how you would make the determination?

[Guaranteed]

217. I'd certainly take the neurologist's opinion into account,

but they're not gods, like you seem to think. They're very fallible people, and they don't know nearly as much as you think they do.

To be honest, I don't know how I'd do it. But I sure wouldn't try to absolve myself of the responsibility by playing this "hey, I didn't do it" game.

[Liberal Veteran]

234. Sure....but EVERY neurologist is wrong in this case?

Years of medical history are wrong that are the basis for that opinions are wrong in this case?

All the court decisions are wrong in this case?

All our understanding about what happens when you don't have a cerebral cortex are wrong in this case?

15 years of being in a persistant vegetative state without any improvement are wrong in this case?

Other than one quack hired by the right wing nutcases exploiting this family, EVERYONE who has studied this case has come to the exact same conclusion.

Why are determined to second-guess the rights and responsibilities of the marriage contract between Michael and Terri?

And if you CAN'T accept Michael's decision in this case, then what makes you think anyone should respect your wishes and responsibilities regarding your own marriage?

You can't have it both ways. Without solid evidence of sinister motives on the part of Michael, you have to respect the marriage contract between Michael and Terri and if you can't do that, then you have no expectation that anyone should respect your marriage contract and the decisions and conversations and agreements between you and your spouse.

[Guaranteed]

245. Well, to begin with, if I wanted to legitimately hold myself out

as being MARRIED, I wouldn't be with another woman. And, if I was, I wouldn't sit there and maintain that I "have her best interests in mind." Michael HAS moved on, and away from his responsibilities to Terri. 15 years, right? 15 years' worth of moving on.

He has a very clear conflict of interest in this decision that he's making, here. I wouldn't expect anyone to take my decision seriously if I was in his position.

And the fact is that not EVERY neurologist, or even necessarily MOST neurologists would say that Terri is TOTALLY unconscious. In any case, whatever the neurologists say, you can't tell what Terri's state of mind is without actually being IN Terri's head. None of us can do that. And whether or not she has improved or will improve is totally beside the point. What matters is her state of mind at that moment, or in the very near future.

Again, this garbage with starving her doesn't help their case, either. If they're so sure, they shouldn't have a problem with doing it themselves, quickly and deliberately. I also think that if the decision rests on Michael, then he should be the one to do it.

[mondo joe]

266. No one needs to be in Terri's head. She chose someone to speak for her...

...regarding her care in the event that she could not: her husband.

Every day in every city someone makes a decision regarding the medical care of a spouse who is incapacitated. The fact that no one can read your mind in that state is the precise reason YOUR choice of a representative matters.

[Kelvin Mace]

343. Why stop at morphine

Hell, why not take a .357 in and make it instantaneous?

In case you haven't noticed, in this "enlightened" society we live in, according to the law, a morphine overdose would be "murder".

The only LEGAL way for her to die is to have the feeding tube removed.

[Guaranteed]

350. She's not "there," though, right?

That's the point- it's not murder, if she's no longer a person.

And, it DID occur to me that you could use a gun. But, I thought people would object to that because of the messiness, and the desecration of her body. And they would have missed the point in concentrating on that.

[Kelvin Mace]

373. You missed the point

A morphine push is legally murder. If you do it, you will be arrested and charged.

Removing the feeding tube is LEGAL.

If you have a problem with the method, contact your congressman and state rep.

[Guaranteed]

378. No, I didn't. I know the legalities.

That's beside the point that I'm making.

[chickenscratching]

520. then it's not starving her if she's no longer a person n/t

[ixat]

526. Her brain has dissolved. She is not conscious.

[LostinVA]

108. He doesn't want to get away from her

That's the point. He isn't some kind of completely devout Catholic who is 100% against divorce or anything. He could wash his hands of her right now -- YEARS ago -- and his life would be so much less complicated. What he is doing is called love, respect, compassion, and keeping a promise to someone you love no matter how damn hard it is for you.

Michael is getting nothing out of this. There is NO money, no matter what all the RW smear sites say. Terri's is basically a ward of the state concerning her medical care, and lawyers don't work for free.

[peacebird]

131. he's trying to give her what she told him she wanted in such a case

HE IS TRYING TO DO RIGHT BY THE WOMAN HE LOVES. sheesh.
I would want my hubby to move on but still to respect my wishes re:life support, etc.

He's trying to save her from continued "life" trapped in solitary.

To copy the phrase of another DUer in the last thread on this "She's dead and gone, her body just didn't get the message."

[Selteri]

157. Just to clear something up

He, should he wish to, would be able to divorce her and give her over to her parents, that has been stated multiple times. Stop treating it like he's trying to get rid of her for some convience, the subject matter is more complicated than some simple slogans and harsh words.

If I were in her posision I would want to be allowed to finish dieing!

You obviously feel very emotionally about this, but you are taking a very simplistic point of view on this. She has no operationa cerebral cortex. AKA She works as well as my computer would if I were to yank out the CPU. It would be able to power up and do basic functions, but not be able to do anything with any of the parts past the most basic features suce as powering up and running it's BIOS.

[Kelvin Mace]

339. No, he needs to let her die

to conform to her wishes on the matter. Are you opposed to all instances of people being allowed to die, or only in the case of a feeding tube?

[LostinVA]

79. Exactly, LV

I am so tired of hearing this shit about Micheal. He is a true Christian, no matter what his belief in god is. He has loved Terri enough all of this years to put with with untold, unimaginable abuse to see her wishes carried out. To see her DIGNITY carried out. I absolutely don't fault him with wanting love and companionship in his life. It is no way disrespecting Terri. She can no longer love him, but he can love her, and does.

Face it, people: it would be so much easier for him to divorce her. No more ugly rumors that he was a wife beater, that he wants to kill her, nothing. He's getting nothing out of this, no money, no glory, nothing. The very opposite, in fact. He's a good man. I agree with Walt, he's a hero. And Randall Terry is scum, and Terri's parents are either dupes or evil people.

[Guaranteed]

85. People who aren't so willing to write people off as brain-dead

aren't evil.

The human brain is probably the most complicated and least understood thing on this planet. When psychologists come along and say they know what someone is thinking, or not thinking, everyone should carry a healthy skepticism.

[LostinVA]

125. It's a FACT she will never come back

And what is evil is if they are exploiting here. I said there are either dupes OR evil.

I am no longer arguing whether or not she'll never regain consciousness. There is nothing there. NOTHING. You are definitely allowed your own opinion on taking someone off of life support, and I would never, ever disrespect you for that choice. But, you are not allowed to make up your own facts, and you and everyone else on these Schiavo threads do that when you say no one knows she isn't there. She isn't there. It is a fact. The brain is indeed complicated, but NEUROSURGEONS and many, many other medical experts (not psychologists... who mentioned them?) know for a fact that without your cerebral cortex, you're gone. It's like sitting in a car without an engine and turning the key over and over, wondering why the car won't start. It can't, unless you put a new engine in there.

Say what you want, I'm gonna go shovel snow and say a prayer for Michael Schiavo.

[Guaranteed]

148. She can't come back if she's not even gone yet.

That's what you don't know. And- you don't. I'm not making anything up.

[LostinVA]

160. I don't know, but the doctors do n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

357. We are not talking about the opinions of psychologists

we are talking about the opinions of neurobilogists. Different discipline with a lot more in the way of demonstrable fact behind it.

For thoughts to occur, for cognition to EXIST you must have electrical activity in certain parts of the brain. Certain levels exist when you are awake, another level exists when you sleep, and yet another when you are in a coma. However, when those activities cease altogether, YOU as a COGENT human being, cease to exist.

The question of human cognition was not left to a bunch of people putting other people on couches and trying to find out if toilet training traumatized them. This is about neuropathologists and neurobiologists who have studied and quantified this issue for over a half century.

It's called science.

[LostinVA]

87. It's either Nancy Cruzan's or Karen Ann Quinlan's tombstone

That says: Born (date), Departed from us (date of PVS), At Peace (date of physical death). Very poignant. That says it all. Terri Schiavo is gone. She's dead, she'll never be back. Her physical shell has been kept alive for over a decade, and it is time to finally kiss her goodbye and lay her body to rest. It's owed to her to have her dignity and respect restored. This whole disgusting exercise has been morbid beyond belief. Let her go.

[Guaranteed]

90. Yeah, you keep saying that, but you just can't tell. nt

[LostinVA]

132. You Can Tell

It's a medical fact. All of the doctors agree on this, except for the quack RW one her parents "hired." And yeah, he is a quack -- he's on several "quack watch" sites.

[Eloriel]

213. Do you know this Michael Schiavo?

You talk like you do. I think it would be appropriate for you to divulge any relationship you have, tho in broad terms.

[LostinVA]

248. Are you asking me?

No, I don't have any relationship with him, and I wasn't aware I was talking like I do anymore than anyone else on this thread is.

[LisaL]

111. Well, I guess he wants to have his cake and eat it too?

If he is Terri's husband, then why should he have a girlfriend and 2 children? Would you consider a man like that to be your husband, if he got himself a lady love and two kids on the side?

[Liberal Veteran]

127. If I was in the same state as Terri and my family was doing that...

...while my husband was trying to follow my wishes, then I would fully support his trying to build what happiness he could for himself while trying to fulfill his last obligations to our marriage.

I don't expect my husband to live lonely or loveless for 15 years while a tug-of-war is being played with my empty shell that isn't being allowed to die.

[SemperEadem]

325. If one were as brain dead as Terri,

one wouldn't be considering much of anything.

Terri is dead, but not at peace. She's not returning to her body. She hasn't returned in 15 years.. she is not going to get better. She is not going to recover. She is less than a grown baby, because at least a baby has a functioning brain. At least a baby will root for the nipple. Terri has to be fed because she doesn't naturally seek food automatically, as does a baby.

The commandment of "Let no man put asunder"--includes your mama and daddy interfering in your marriage. If he is removed against his will from being his wife's guardian, then it puts the validity of every single marriage in this country in jeopardy-more so than the wedge issue of allowing gays to marry. It will allow anyone, at will, to challenge the validity of a marriage by intefering in that marriage against the wishes of the married couple.

As far as Terri is concerned, only a shell remains--one that can't make a consideration in anything, including her folks pimping her for pity and money.

[Andromeda]

404. That is not false.

He's with another woman now and he's fathered two children by her.

Sure looks like moving on to me.

[donheld]

495. Of course he's moving on and he's wanting to let her move on too.

Death with dignity. Not a life on machines.

[Liberal Veteran]

60. Unless you can provide proof otherwise, I will take him at his word.

I don't buy into slander and innuendo put forth by groups that have a political agenda involved in this.

And shame on you for assuming he is a monster trying to "kill" a woman who really died in every way 15 years ago.

[Guaranteed]

Where's your proof that she's not conscious?

You're not in her head. You can't tell, and no one else can, either.

[Lars39]

She is in a persistent vegetative state,

her cerebral cortex has been replaced with spinal fluid.

[Liberal Veteran]

72. I don't see why people don't understand that CSF is NOT a substitute...

...for a brain tissue.

[Lars39]

82. It all works by magic, donchyaknow.

:silly: They never take the time to read the court documents either.
It's all emotion.

[Guaranteed]

78. So people who've had lobotomies aren't people anymore?

How can you honestly say you know what's going on in her mind? How can ANYONE say that?

You can't. And you're talking about starving her.

And, if they're so sure, why are they starving her (as if that absolves them of some kind of responsibility?) Why don't they OD her and get it over with? It's quicker, and if she IS there it's a lot less painful.

[Lars39]

89. People with lobotomies still have brain tissue,

It's just scrambled.
You need to read up on what the cerebral cortex is responsible for.

[Guaranteed]

92. So does Terri.

I know the brain. nt

[Lars39]

94. What made her 'Terri' does not exist anymore.

[Guaranteed]

97. Okay, just say it again, then. nt

[Lars39]

100. Not just me saying it; the courts have ruled on it,

based on findings from the doctors.

[chickenscratching]

521. ya, lobotomy is a bit different than soupy brain matter...

[Liberal Veteran]

69. I trust the many neurologists who have come to that conclusion...

...as well as the courts that have come to that same conclusion not once, but multiple times.

[Guaranteed]

76. Why? They're in her head?

How can they tell what's going on in her mind?

[Liberal Veteran]

96. Oh, I see. Team after team of doctors are wrong in this...

...but you are right.

Her brain has atrophied. Her cerebral cortex is almost completely made of fluid....not brain tissue.

She is an empty vessel. A tabula rasa that cannot be re-written to.

This is not my opinion. This is medical science.

There is only one recorded case of someone coming out of a persistent vegetative state and that person did have the extent of brain damage, brain shrinkage, and atrophy displayed in this particular case.

[Guaranteed]

99. Oh, the people who have been in that state before must

have told them that.

Tell me- what's death like, LV?

[Selteri]

214. By state I need to clarify

Are you talking consistant vegetative state, which includes catatonic schizophrenia.

Are you talking Comatose?

Are you talking by having a non functioning cerebral cortex?

So far as anyone knows, nobody's cerebral cortex has gone missing and they've lived. It's the same as the baby who was born without a cerbral cortex a few years ago, there was a big fight over basically a bag of flesh. A house with no owner.

[Guaranteed]

She is alive.

Clearly.

What's at issue is whether or not she's conscious. And you can't tell.

[Lars39]

231. Have you ever heard of PET scans?

They can tell.

[Guaranteed]

256. I see...so the dead or brain-dead people that they did

PET scans on, and got a certain result with, told them that they were brain-dead?

[Lars39]

261. Showed an absence of her cerebral cortex,

and that spinal fluid had replaced it.

[Guaranteed]

336. That's not responding to what I'm saying. nt

[Lars39]

349. No, it would be obvious from viewing the results of the scan.

[Guaranteed]

351. How?

When did they do tests on dead and brain-dead people with the PET scan, after which the dead or brain-dead people said to them, "Oh, no, I was brain-dead?"

[Lars39]

360. Obviously a brain dead person cannot speak.

A pet scan of Terri's brain would look very different from an intact
brain.

[Guaranteed]

363. But, are all people who can not speak brain dead?

Ahhhh.....

[mondo joe]

376. If anyone said not speaking was proof of brain death you'd have a point

If anyone said not speaking was proof of brain death you'd have a point.

But no one did.

[Guaranteed]

380. Someone was saying something about PET scans

and being proof of consciousness, or the lack thereof.

I'm still waiting on that proof that PET scans can conclusively show a lack of consciousness. It would seem that somewhere down the line, in order to show that, you'd have to have one of those talking brain-dead guys.

[mondo joe]

383. You remind me of the tobacco guys saying no proof smoking causes

You remind me of the tobacco guys saying no proof smoking causes cancer.

"Until the cancer can speak and testify that it was linked to smoking there is no conclusive proof. And not even then."

[Guaranteed]

385. No, there's a pretty clear link between those two.

Cancer is observable.

I'm just not sure where these guys are getting the lack of consciousness in their "experiments," since they can't TELL.

[mondo joe]

390. Terri's lack of a cerebral cortex is observable as well

[Guaranteed]

393. Her *level of consciousness* is not.

DAMN, dude.

[chickenscratching]

529. well, brain matter is observable too

though we cant have someone who is brain dead, verbally tell us so we can get a pretty clear indication when we scan their brain. why? because we can compare charts on people who have normal activity and people who don't.
on another note my grandmother suffered from alzheimers for 10 years, and she died five years before her body did. how could i tell? well, she didn't tell me, but i can tell because she couldn't eat by herself, she couldn't remember her own daughters, she showed SO much frustration until one day she decided to die. she decided to stop taking food or water, so does that mean that my mom should have put her on a feeding tube, because we really couldn't tell that she wasn't conscious anymore?? its a decision, and decision that one has to make.

[Lars39]

387. If the pet scan shows spinal fluid where her cerebral cortex

should be, that is proof.
Her cerebral cortex atrophied;it no longer
exists.
And I really must not say the obvious. ;)

[Guaranteed]

389. MUST I make the SAME argument over and over?

Damn.

[Lars39]

402. I think you are talking about brain mapping.

Yes, not everything is known about the brain,
but enough has been determined about the cerebral cortex to establish what the absence of one means.

[deek]

550. Bull, you'll get no where with these "compassionate progressives"

It's been framed as a RW vs liberal/fundie vs sane/antichoice vs prochoice situation.

Come join us at Disability Issues and Activism issues for some rational, humane discussion.

[Liberal Veteran]

379. No. And Terri is not "brain dead"....she is in PVS...

...with no chance of recovery. Parts of her brain still function, but that part of her brain that allows for and controls everything we call "sentience" no longer exists. She is more like an organic machine than a sentient being now.

Nothing that made Terri Schiavo who she was exists there anymore, nor can science and therapy create something from the nothingness that now exists. She is a blank slate that cannot be written to.

[gulfcoastliberal]

114. They attatch electrodes to the head and take an EEG

which reveals brain activity. Her EEGs are flat lines, indicating no synapses firing. It's a fact - you starve the brain of oxygen for over 3 minutes and the brain dies. It's also a fact that a flat EEG indicates no brain activity. Her parents and Jeb Bush are really disgusting.

[SemperEadem]

328. do you know her? Do you take care of her?

have you ever seen her in person? YOu speak as if you are inside this woman's head yourself, as if you have first hand knowledge of something... do share, won't you? Your medical credentials in neurology are....? You practice where and for how long?

[Kelvin Mace]

370. It called a flat EEG

There are entire battery of test to determine brain death.

If there is NO electrical activity in the congnitive center of the brain, then that person no longer exists. Sorry, basic physics come into play here. Even a person in a deep coma has electrical activity in the brain stem. When this activity is GONE, you are GONE.

Unless you can demonstrate some way of congnition that doesn't involve electrical impulses in the brain, the absence of these impulses equals DEATH.

How brain death is determined:

Conventional Cerebral Angiography

Selective 4-vessel angiography may be performed in the neuroradiology department. In patients with brain death, intracerebral filling is absent at the level of the carotid bifurcation or circle of Willis, whereas the external carotid circulation is patent.

Electroencephalography

A 16- or 18-channel instrument and guidelines developed by the American Electroencephalographic Society are used to determine brain death. In patients with brain death, no electrical activity occurs during a period of at least 30 minutes of electroencephalographic recording.

Transcranial Doppler Sonography

In transcranial Doppler sonography, intracranial arteries are insonated bilaterally (ie, middle cerebral artery through the temporal bone above the zygomatic arch). Ten percent of patients may not have temporal insonation windows. Therefore, initial absence of Doppler signals cannot be interpreted as consistent with brain death. Findings consistent with brain death indicate high vascular resistance associated with greatly increased intracranial pressure and include (1) absent diastolic or reverberating flow, (2) systolic-only flow or retrograde diastolic flow, and (3) small systolic peaks in early systole. Blood flow velocities may be influenced by marked changes in Pco2, hematocrit, and cardiac output.

Somatosensory and Brain Stem Auditory Evoked Potentials

Testing for somatosensory evoked potentials is done at the bedside with a portable instrument that provides bilateral stimulation of median nerves. In studies of patients with brain death, most patients had no responses to tests for somatosensory and brain stem auditory evoked potentials. Both types of tests are less sensitive than previously mentioned confirmatory tests.

Cerebral Blood Flow and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies
In one investigation, patients who met clinical criteria for brain death had no responses to tests for brain stem auditory evoked potentials and no cerebral perfusion as measured by radionuclide cerebral angiography and brain perfusion studies. Cerebral blood flow studies with xenon 133 have also been used to confirm brain death, and magnetic resonance imaging has been explored as a noninvasive method for determining the nonfilling phenomenon that occurs in brain death. In patients with brain death, technetium Tc 99m brain scans show no uptake of the radionuclide in brain parenchyma (“hollow skull phenomenon”).

Neurophysiological technology and neurodiagnostic testing have great promise for becoming the gold standards for confirmatory tests of brain death. However, current investigations of technology-driven confirmatory tests still require further replication and clinical application.

Having a clear understanding of how brain death is determined and being able to recognize that the criteria for brain death differ from the cardiopulmonary criteria used to determine death are the first steps in eliminating the confusion and misconceptions often associated with brain death. Family members of patients with brain death need reassurance and accurate information. They may think that their loved one has a heartbeat and is therefore being “kept alive” by mechanical ventilation. They may also think that their loved one will get better through treatment or intensive rehabilitation.

First and foremost, brain death is irreversible. Patients who are brain dead have permanently lost the capacity to think, be aware of self or surroundings, experience, or communicate with others.

The common pathological processes leading to brain death include massive head trauma, intracranial hemorrhage, and hypoxic ischemic damage suffered during cardiopulmonary arrest. These conditions rapidly produce marked brain edema, which increases brain volume. Because of the skull’s fixed capacity, the increase in brain volume produces an inevitable increase in intracranial pressure causing two morbid events to occur: (1) herniation and infarction of the brain stem as it is forcibly displaced from its original location; and (2) loss of cerebral perfusion pressure as intracranial pressure exceeds mean arterial blood pressure.

http://www.aacn.org/aacn/jrnlccn.nsf/0/5ebf8de743ead0fa8825674e005a8950?OpenDocument

As I said, this is not a bunch of people guessing.

[Guaranteed]

386. Funny- she HAS activity in her brain stem, obviously.

She's breathing on her own. She's not brain dead.

[Kelvin Mace]

400. Higher level functions are GONE!

autonomic functions are still working but she is cognitively DEAD>

[Guaranteed]

401. No, you said she had a FLAT EEG.

THEN you said:

"Even a person in a deep coma has electrical activity in the brain stem. When this activity is GONE, you are GONE."

She's breathing on her own. She has brain stem activity.

So, which is it?

[Kelvin Mace]

411. Let me clarify

there are 18 channels on an EEG, the ones that deal with high order cognition are FLAT.

[deek]

551. Terri's eeg is NOT flat, silly..... eom

.

[moobu2]

61. No evidence at all he wanted to "get away from her" quite the opposite

He's stuck with his wife through what has to be unimaginable harassment with creeps picketing his home and his work, false accusations, offers of huge sums of money for him to walk away, politicaly motivated investigations and on and on..

All the evidence points to him attempting to carry out her wishes not to be on life support.

[Inland]

75. I think then her parents become guardians and

keep her on life support forever--or keep her corpse warm, depending on your evaluation of her state.

I actually think he doesn't want that for her sake.

[msanthrope]

101. Worse---I think they would make her bedside a

shrine for every single sick fundie pilgrim in America.

I mean, they are already have a prayer card with her image on it....

[janx]

440. The vigils now include a "weeping" statue and a pet chicken as well.

And no, I am not making this up.

[hiley]

107. Michael is not trying to " get away from her "

He is respecting her wishes like her own parents and siblings should !

[LisaL]

162. According to her brother, her wishes were to divorce Michael.

[hiley]

201. maybe she should have filed and

done it then. What can I say, I believe Michael and you believe the parents and the brother ?
I also believe the
Doctors, tests and courts
who rule
she is brain dead and her head is full of spinal fluid so it does not work now and it never will.

[LisaL]

206. I think she never got the chance to file for a divorce-she got

into PVS, remember?

[Lars39]

227. I think it's all made up because the parents are running

out of ways to keep the inevitable from happening.

[hiley]

255. That is exactly what I

believe. I was being sarcastic when saying she should have filed and done it. The family has resorted to all kinds of tactics and I find it shameful and could not agree more with Walt and you.

[mondo joe]

228. So the legal verdiict should be based on your hunch...

...rather than the known facts?

[SemperEadem]

335. she told him that morning and that evening, she was in a PVS

that's rich

[SemperEadem]

334. and he doesn't have an angle to work in this, huh?

I'd expect for him to say that--he's looking for some $$$ too.

He has no proof that Terri told him this, either.

[soothsayer]

120. I thought he's after the insurance $ he'll get when she dies

or do i have that wrong?

[hiley]

163. the money , what about all the expense of the lawyers

I don't think there is any money left now anyhow.(above)
He is after fulfilling Terri's wish.

[soothsayer]

279. Well, we have only HIS word to go on. Hard to know.

[SemperEadem]

274. jeez.. what a disconnect from the facts of this case

you might want to try to familiarize yourself with the facts before demonstrating how flimsy your grasp on them really is.

[Andromeda]

398. Yeah, I wonder about that.

What does he have to lose by granting the divorce. He's already moved on with his life and Terri will never be able to be a wife to him again.

Dissolve the marriage and let him marry the woman he's had two children with. What about the kids?

He should have started the divorce proceedings when it became apparent he and Terri would never be together again, especially since children are involved in his current relationship. The divorce would allow him to marry this woman and give her legal protection under the law; for example, Social Security benefits in the event of his death. The childern could still be the beneficiaries, but not his girlfriend.

The woman he's living with needs the legal protection only a husband in the legal sense can provide. What about her?

Let Terri's parents deal with their daughter the way they see fit. I don't think they're right in keeping her alive and I think eventually they'll accept that she'll never come back to them the way she was. If they are deluding themselves, it's sad. Being a parent myself I can understand how they feel.

If Terri, however, had specifically requested she not be kept alive if brain dead, it should have been in writing. Because it wasn't, that's why this whole thing is such a mess.

As far as the right wing kooks are concerned -- they should just butt out as they have no standing in this case.

[zipplewrath]

518. The truth most don't know, from her one time legal guardian.

"Let Terri's parents deal with their daughter the way they see fit. I don't think they're right in keeping her alive and I think eventually they'll accept that she'll never come back to them the way she was. If they are deluding themselves, it's sad. Being a parent myself I can understand how they feel."

Terri's parents at one point testified under oath that they
would amputate her arms and legs and subject her to open heart
surgery if necessary to keep her alive in this condition. When
Michael heard this, he knew he had to act to protect her.

<http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-locmiket25022505feb25,1,1729313.column?ctrack=2&cset=true>

"If Terri, however, had specifically requested she not be kept alive if brain dead, it should have been in writing. Because it wasn't, that's why this whole thing is such a mess."

This whole thing is a mess because Terri's parents won't
recognize the law, and the reality.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

122. No one can file for anyone else's divorce.

Just so's ya know.

You have to be one of the married people - i.e., wife or husband - to file for divorce.

This latest joke of a maneuver tells me they're out-of-their-minds desperate, and have nothing left in their righteous quivers. Without Jeb Bush and the FL legislature, they're up shit creek.

So, the countdown begins. Wanna bet someone firebombs something?

[LostinVA]

136. Yeah! OldLeftieLawyer is Here!

Full of facts and legal stuff and not afraid to take a stand.

[LostinVA]

137. Yeah! OldLeftieLawyer is Here!

Full of facts and legal stuff and not afraid to take a stand.

[kskiska]

6. How can one divorce

after death?

[HockeyMom]

13. Catholics?

I thought her parents were "good" Catholics? "Terri would not want this because she would follow the Church's teaching on life and death issue." THERE IS NO DIVORCE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Hello? HYPOCRITES?

[tishaLA]

12. Can the Schindlers be more delusional?

Jeebus. How badly does Randall Terry and all his radical RW nut friends have this family brainwashed?

I hope this is dismissed with particularly tart language and a large fine for wasting the court's time. These are precisely the kind of tactics Terry used when he was head of Operation Rescue. It's too bad he has new friends now who are willing to indulge his sick fantasies.

[moobu2]

84. LOL , thats why Randall Terry moved to Florida

Terry got the crap sued out of him for those same tactics..Florida has laws that somewhat protect people from judgments from other states I believe.

A lot of people move to Florida after being sued.

[moobu2]

14. And these people claim to be Christians

I cant imagine what the husband has gone through over the years dealing with these sick twisted people.

[donheld]

500. If these people are Christians, they must believe in heaven

why don't they let their daughter pass on to heaven?

[Renew Deal]

18. Why doesn't the husband divorce her?

Would that settle it for the family? I think it will be worse for him personally if he is responsible for pulling the feeding tube. I don't understand why there has to be only one conclusion.

[Dookus]

24. Because

it's nobody else's right to tell him he must divorce his wife.

While I sympathize for the parents, they're being used as tools of a radical right-wing group. They have made countless baseless accuasations against Michael Schiavo, they have court-shopped to a degree I've never seen, and they've still lost at every turn.

A judge needs to make them stop.

[Liberal Veteran]

30. This is a clear case of exploitation by the so-called "right to lifers".

This is nothing more than a power play by them to promote a political agenda.

[Guaranteed]

49. He obviously wants to. He's trying to kill her

so he can marry someone else.

So, he's like "NO- she's got to DIE before I marry this other woman"? What the hell is that?

[Walt Starr]

54. WRONG

All he's trying to do is carry out the wishes of the woman he loved and married.

[Dookus]

56. I just disagree

he's fulfilling his obligation. Her parents are liars and dupes. He's a hero.

[bettyellen]

57. maybe he's hanging in there so he can do the right thing for

someone he loved.
there is no hope for her. her parents are delusional.

[LisaL]

252. During the malpractice trial, he said he was going to take

care of her for the rest of HIS life. Why didn't he remember her wishes back then, when it mattered? I think he and his lawyer estimated her life expectancy as a very long one. Not once did they mention they were going to have her feeding tube removed.

[radwriter0555]

118. Right, he REFUSES to divorce her. You have to understand why

he refuses to divorce her.

[Jacobin]

I've wondered about that myself

If the parents feel so strongly about keeping the feeding tubes in, against the advice of doctors who say she is brain dead, why not let them get divorced and then the parents can do what they want?

[Dookus]

33. If my partner

ever walked away from me and ignored my wishes so that my parents could sustain my body for a few decades more, I'd come back from the grave and haunt him.

The parents don't have rights in this case, and that's as it should be. Marriage means something, both morally and legally. Michael Schiavo is a hero in this case.

[Jacobin]

44. Good point.

I see what you mean.

The RW fundies are sucking on this tragedy for all its worth.

[hiley]

116. wonder why the rw fools aren't

protecting the "Sanctity of Marriage" on this issue ?
Such hypocrites !

[David__77]

42. My domestic partner, not my parents are responsible for such a thing.

I trust him completely--if I did not, I wouldn't be in a legal domestic partnership in California (legally equivalent to spouse in such matters). If I didn't trust him with this, I would make express legal documentation to the contrary. This is her next of kin, her husband. I want my parents to have no control over such a thing--I didn't ask for them to be my parents, but I did ask for my spouse to be my spouse.

[Liberal Veteran]

Well, if he really wanted to wash his hands of responsibility, he could...

, but sometimes doing the right thing is not taking the easy way out.

[Renew Deal]

31. I don't think there is an easy way out.

I think letting her die might be worse for him personally.

[Liberal Veteran]

36. Quite honestly, I would hope my "husband" would fight my family...

...to carry out my wishes. Even before I was diagnosed with AIDS and we both signed living wills and durable medical powers of attorney to make decisions for one another, I had made it clear to him that was my wish. I haven't discussed the issue at all with my surviving parent or my siblings.

[moobu2]

41. We have all the legal documents

and also made it very clear to as many family members as possible so there will be no doubt.
Hopefully there wont be a problem for us.

I cant imagine what it's like for that guy with all those crazy people demanding he divorce his wife, while he's just trying to honor her wishes.

It's crazy.

[LisaL]

133. He is living with another woman and their 2 children.

I am sorry, but any woman would be allowed to divorce a man like that. Why should Terri be married to him?

[mondo joe]

151. Her parents aren't her.

As soon as she can get herself a lawyer and make HER will known she can divorce him.

Until then HER choice for who wouls speak for her is her husband.

[LisaL]

165. Well, that's wrong, IMO. Her husband obviously has a conflict

of interest-a mistress and two children.

[mondo joe]

173. Her husbad is the person SHE chose to make these choices for her

Her parents have a conflict of interest - Terri vs their religion.

And he's been at this for a lot longer than the other woman and children were in the picture.

I would hope my partner would continue to fight for my wishes if I were in Terri's state. But I wouldn't expect him to put his own life on hold for 15 years.

[LisaL]

182. She didn't want to stay married to him.

She wanted a divorce, according to her brother.

[mondo joe]

189. That's hearsay. What we KNOW is that she DID choose Michael to be her

husband, with this power.

Maybe she wanted to divorce, maybe she didn't want to. But she didn't DO it.

[LisaL]

198. Hearsay? You got to be kidding me. And her wishes to

not live "that way" are not hearsay?

[mondo joe]

200. Why would I be kidding you?

She didn't divorce him. There's no evidence she was ABOUT to divorce him.

Did she want to divorce him? Unknown.

But we KNOW she chose Michael to be the responsible party for her in a circumstance like this.

And legally you have to go with what's known.

[LisaL]

210. Yet, any claims that she didn't want to live that way are just that-

hearsay. Did she leave a living will-no.

[mondo joe]

219. But it's his decision. He's got to base it on something.

But no one has the authority to decide she wants a divorce.

[Guaranteed]

232. It sounds to me like he has a conflict of interest, though.

I don't think he can fairly take on the responsibility for making the best decision for her when he obviously has his own best interests to keep in mind.

[Liberal Veteran]

239. Your opinion and a $1.50 will get you a single latte.....

...but are irrelevant to the legalities of this case.

[Guaranteed]

364. Conflicts of interest are most DEFINITELY relevant

when it comes to legal guardianships.

[LisaL]

444. In case you didn't notice, none of us actually get to decide

what will happen to Terri. So, you opinion won't get you much either.

[mondo joe]

243. That would be the case for EVERY spouse

So what you're arguing is that no spouse should be permitted to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse.

[Guaranteed]

366. No, I'm arguing that if a spouse has a conflict of interest

fifteen years out of the real marriage, then maybe they're not the person who should be making these kinds of life and death decisions.

[mondo joe]

374. But HE is the person SHE chose as her legal guardian.

Furthermore, the parents have testified that even if she did request to have life support removed they'd disregard her request.

So who has the conflict of interest again?

[Guaranteed]

382. Before the conflict of interest.

And, no, it doesn't sound as if her parents would make good legal guardians, either.

[mondo joe]

384. Apparently the only person qualified to act as her guardian is you.

She chose HIM. Why won't you honor her choice?

[Guaranteed]

388. YOU just moralized on her parents.

What with this self-righteous bullshit that you're putting out, huh?

What, the girl's parents don't have a right to be hopeful?

[mondo joe]

392. Again, why do you refuse to honor Terri's choice?

She chose a legal guardian.

Her parents won't honor that choice. Neither do you.

Why is that?

Incidentally, I have not one smattering of respect for her parents who have openly testified that they have no respect for her wishes.

[Guaranteed]

395. Because the guy making the decision- and his TESTIMONY

of her "choice"- have a serious conflict of interest.

Oh, but you believe the guy living with another woman and her kids. Well, good for you.

[Liberal Veteran]

403. And yet the sworn testimony of the parents says...

That even if she stated to them that she did not wish to be on life support they would still keep her on life support despite her wishes.

Isn't that a conflict of interest? They have already decided they will keep her body alive whether she wanted it not.

Doesn't sound to me like they have her best interests at heart.

"Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive . . . at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open-heart surgery. Within the testimony, as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it."

[Guaranteed]

407. I already said they're probably not, then.

Although at least they're erring on the side of her living.

But, you're right about that.

[Lars39]

405. The court has taken this into consideration.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

<snip>
Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.<snip>

[Guaranteed]

409. So, he decided that she wanted to die eight years afterward. nt

[mondo joe]

415. Obviously there's NO timeline that would satisfy you

Your stance is not based on any legal, medical or bio-ethical foundation.

You're simply opposed to this action and you'll argue anything to oppose it.

[Lars39]

416. No hope left at all by that time.

There probably wasn't any hope right from the start.

[Andromeda]

413. How do you know Terri ...

told this guy to pull the plug if she's ever in a vegetative state?

As I understand it, there was no written will or witness to that effect of Terri's wishes.

[mondo joe]

417. And in the abscence of written instruction the spouse...

...generally acts as next of kin.

But the Schiavo case is even more sound than that.

Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

[Romberry]

499. That seems pretty compelling to me

Looks like the husband went about everything the right way. He should be allowed to speak for his wife.

[Lars39]

418. There were other witnesses.

[RetroLounge]

355. You're really fixated on this other woman and kids stuff

Makes me go Hmmmmmm.

RL

[Toucano]

21. Very sad.

The desperation of these people is just sad.

Now they're out to "redefine marriage" as a union between a man, a woman, and her parents.

Let Terri rest in peace.

[PassingFair]

204. Obviously they have a problem with marriage

being a union between a man and a vegetable...
I know, not funny.
Lizzy, she is brain dead. She has been for a very long time. I have no patience for adulterers under almost any circumstances, but his "wife" is not really alive anymore. She can't chew or swallow. She doesn't care about the "other woman".
Would you want your husband to forgo living his life if you were brain dead? For 15 years? Imagine that it was a ventilator and not a feeding tube keeping him alive. Would you put his body through that? For untold years? When he was brain dead?

[LisaL]

226. I have no problem with turning off a ventilator.

In fact, the very same thing was done to someone I know-his ventilator was turned off. I have a big problem with starving someone to death by removing their feeding tube, however.

[Toucano]

293. Why?

Both are artificial.

I don't understand why you make this distinction.

Not forcing someone to eat or drink is not letting them starve to death. It's letting nature run it's course.

[LisaL]

304. If you turn off a ventilator, a person dies really fast.

If you remove a feeding tube, the person can go on for weeks. To me,that's extremely cruel-having someone suffer for weeks.

[Toucano]

345. What makes you think they're suffering?

I think suffocation is actually much more painful. Qucker, maybe, but not necessarily less painful. I'm not sure pain is a factor in this particular case.

There's a lot of consensus that the dehydration and withdrawal of nourishment will actuall increase her comfort, to the extent that she has any concept of comfort.

I think maybe you're projecting your desire to be full and nourished onto a being who doesn't have that desire.

Forcing someone to eat is cruel.

[LisaL]

426. Well, sure I can imagine how painful it is to be starved to death.

She is not being forced to eat. She is eating through a feeding tube.
I don't see that as being forced to eat. If I couldn't swallow, I sure wouldn't want to be starved to death. Well, maybe you and others would , but not me.

[mondo joe]

431. Can you imagine what it is to not have a cerebral cortex?

I'll resist the urge to make a crack about that.

Can you imagine what it's like to spend years trapped in a body that won't work, unable to say a word, lift a finger or communicate at all?

Can you imagine asking if that ever happened to you to not be kept alive, only to find your parents saying they don't CARE what you wanted?

I suggest you carefully word your living will - and then I suggest you respect the choices of others so that maybe YOUR choice will be respected as well.

[LisaL]

435. Can you?

I presume nobody can. I don't know what she feels, but neither do you. As for her wishes, I don't believe her husband. For one, he never said anything about her wishes during the malpractice trial. He and his lawyer estimated her life to be a long one-decades. The husband said he will care for her for the rest of HIS life. Why didn't he care about her wishes back then? Is it because the longer the patient lives, the more money is awarded for the patients care? Hah?

[mondo joe]

438. You're wrong on several points.

He DID care about her and does. In advocating for HER wish for her end he IS caring for her.

It wasn't just his say so that she did not want to be kept alive this way:

"Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures."
<http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html>

He has nothing to gain by seeing this through, and in fact has taken on a lot of grief.

Her parents on the other hand have testified that they would disregard her wishes ANYWAY. Nice. Real nice.

[LisaL]

445. Why don't you read his testimony during the malpractice trial?

The one where he said he will take care of Terri for the rest of HIS life. Why wasn't he honoring her wishes back then?
Is it because he wanted to get more money, because the longer the patient lives, the more money is awarded for the patient's care? Of course, after the money was awarded, some 8 years later, he realized she wouldn't want to live that way. And I am supposed to believe that?

[mondo joe]

450. Yes - he thought she could recover. 8 yrs later he knew she wouldn't.

I don't know why that's hard for you to understand.

If he wanted the money he could have done a lot more to get it - he could have abandoned her to some divey care provider. Instead he has diligently provided for her.

He has made multiple offers to the parents to remove any financial ties if they would stop their case.

"Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment."

<http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html>

It's quite apparent that you don't care about the actual case, or Terri's wishes. You're just opposed to removal of life support.

[LisaL]

459. Recover? From PVS? I have been called all kind of names

for suggesting she could improve, and he thought she would recover from PVS? Give me a break already! Furthermore, he had not mentioned her recovery as a criteria for him taking care of her for the rest of HIS life during the malpractice trial. He said he loves her and she is a joy, her recovery wasn't something necessary for her to continue on living back then.

[mondo joe]

463. Fine, if you want to ignore the actual record, go ahead

The history shows that rehabilitation was attempted for several years.

But you've already established you don't care about the facts of the case, you're just opposed to removal of life support.

[LisaL]

470. I know the rehabilitation was attempted, but why?

So many posts on how it's impossible for someone in PVS to recover. If her wishes were not to live that way, why wait 8 years to say so?

[mondo joe]

471. She is not NOW in the condition she was THEN

Early in her state there may have been more unknowns.

But now her cerebral cortex is GONE so there's no chance of any recovery of any measure.

But if Michael were in it for the money why waste so much of it on her attempted rehabilitation? Why not dump her in the cheapest place he could find?

Your theory has a lot of holes. In fact it's mostly holes.

[LisaL]

485. Because the part of money was awarded for her care.

It's pretty simple, no? He couldn't spend it on himself, it was for her care.

[mondo joe]

491. You keep proving how ignorant you are of the case

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

Take a look at the records. By all accounts he worked to ensure exceptionally good care.

He didn't dump her in the cheapest nursing home he could find.

I think it's really shameful of you to demonize in this way a man who has taken on a considerable burden just because YOU want artificial life support maintained on people who said they didn't want it.

[Toucano]

503. I still think you're projecting.

I don't mean that as a criticism, just an explanation of why you keep saying, "I know I wouldn't..." You're imagining being "starved to death" when you're not brain dead based on the hunger pains you've felt when you've skipped lunch.

That's the only way I can understand why you assume starvation is painful.

If she's "eating through a feeding tube" as you say, does she indicate when she's had enough? No, because she's being force fed. It's unnatural and serves no purpose.

Terri isn't going to have hunger pains.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

512. Sorry, but you are not correct

My late husband continued to shallowly breathe for 6 days after the ventilator was turned off, his lungs slowly filled with fluid, finally drowning him.

[progressivebydesign]

26. Why can't he just divorce this woman.. and let her go?

I know of another couple with a similar story. She is in a home, disabled.. but alive enough to not pull the plug on her. But.. her husband has an entire other life without her.. another "wife", kids, etc... it's like she's just left in the home married to him, so he can have her insurance money? Who knows... Let the parents have her, and let her live.

[moobu2]

34. There is no money.

He's keeping his legal relationship to carry out her wishes. How would you people like it if a crazed mob insisted you divorce your spouse?

[progressivebydesign]

218. I'd prefer that than having them kill me.

Think about it... It's one thing is she was able to voice her wishes.. but you're saying that death is preferable to divorce. I think her parents have a right here.. as my mother would.. to keep their daughter alive, whom they believe to be communicating with them. I DON"T want to have the tube removed or the plug pulled on me, in that case. No way. After I just read the story of the woman living similarly to Terry, who.. suddenly.. after 20 something years, began talking again. This is a woman who, like Terry, relies on a feeding tube, and whose injuries from a drunk driver are so severe that her body jerks in all directions.. and cannot even swallow on her own. Guess what? She can NOW communicate, and she would have been starved to death if she were in this same scenario in Florida. She wants to be alive.. regardless of her injuries.

[American Tragedy]

434. Had that woman's cerebral cortex disintegrated?

I doubt it.

[chickenscratching]

531. exactly, and the situation with the other woman,---

how often does that happen? was it a freak case? i think so.

[donheld]

497. I'd much prefer death with dignity

than life on machines. Let the woman go.

[mondo joe]

535. She ALREADY voiced her wishes

This has been through the courts.

She said she didn't want her body to be kept alive by machines.

There are multiple witnesses.

And the woman you're talking about was NOT like Terri - Terri has no CEREBRAL CORTEX left. It atrophied. She will NEVER communicate again.

[KittyWampus]

45. Because That Is Not What Terri Wanted. The Parent's Are Irrelevant

[LisaL]

149. She wanted to divorce him before her heart attack, she apparently

told it to her brother and to her girlfriend. So, divorce would be what she wanted.

[truebrit71]

287. Bull.

Absolute, pure, unadulterated, grade-a bull...

[LisaL]

432. And you know that how? What, you listened to all the conversations

she had? Her brother says she told him she wanted to divorce Michael. Now, were you present at all their conversations?
:spank:

[truebrit71]

544. No, and neither were you...

Funny how we're just hearing about this now.... :eyes:

[mondo joe]

538. You have no evidence of that.

I wish you'd stop lying just to pursuue your life-at-all-costs ideal.

[progressivebydesign]

222. She did NOT write that down anywhere... we're taking his word for it..

PARENTS usually know, Moms usually know those things better than spouses, oddly enough. That's the kind of thing women talk about with their mothers. WHy is it bothering him so much to have her alive? He's got a new life.. 2 children from another woman. He needs to just walk away and let her live on if that's what her family wants.

[Lars39]

265. He is her next of kin, not her parents.

[mondo joe]

381. You have GOT to be kidding.

Haven't you ever heard of the family of a deceased gay man challenging the surviving partner for what was their shared property?

If she wanted her parents to be her legal guardians she could have selected them.

But her husband is her ONLY designated legal guardian.

"Women talk about these things" isn't much of a legak defense.

[Walt Starr]

50. Why don't you just divorce your spouse?

Doesn't feel so nice when an outsider tells you to divorce your spouse, huh?

:shrug:

[Guaranteed]

53. ROFL, no, let's starve her, instead.

This is ridiculous.

[Walt Starr]

59. SHE HAS NO BRAIN!

Her cerebral cortex NO LONGER EXISTS. It's been replaced with spinal fluid.

He's attempting to carry out the wishes of his wife.

[LisaL]

113. Bigamy is not allowed in this country. And if he is living with

another woman and their 2 kids, yet still considers Terri to be his wife-well, that sounds an awful lot like bigamy.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

134. Thanks for all the laughs you've given me on this thread

I know you're joking, because no sentient human being (that's a category into which Mrs. Schiavo -and, quite possibly, her parents - do not fall) can keep making the hysterically funny and off-the-wall comments you've been posting without having someone's tongue planted firmly and convincingly in a cheek of some kind.

You really are precious.

Thanks so much.

[LisaL]

142. Glad to be of service.

Enjoy.

[LostinVA]

145. Bigamy? Hehehehhehe

He hasn't married the other woman. That's bigamy.

[LisaL]

146. But if he is living with her, wouldn't she be considered his

civil law wife?

[mondo joe]

158. "civil law wife"???

You probably mean "common law".

And no.

[LisaL]

168. They have two children together, one would think this girlfriend

should have some rights by now, no?

[LostinVA]

172. I Have great respect for her

She is giving up some "rights" by Michael staying married to Terri, and is also going through hell being harassed by Randall Terry, et al. It's just one more thing that tells me how deeply Michael feels about honoring Terri's wishes. And, at this point, it's almost beyond that: it's giving her back her dignity. It's stopping her from being a sideshow for those RW loonies.

[mondo joe]

176. There is no law that a married man can't live with another woman

Or have children with her?

[LisaL]

194. But any wife would be allowed to divorce such a man, no?

[mondo joe]

202. If SHE elected to, I expect she could.

But since Terri can't ELECT to do ANYTHING no one knows.

[LisaL]

215. The same goes for her "not wanting to live that way".

[mondo joe]

225. Or "Wanting to live that way". So there's a choice - and the person Terri

Or "Wanting to live that way". So there's a choice - and the person Terri elected to make her medical choices when she couldn't is her husband Michael.

That's a fact.

She didn't elect anyone to choose to ask for a divorce on her behalf.

[LostinVA]

167. Nope

Only if:

1.) he was not married, and

2.) the state has common law marriages. Most states don't

[LisaL]

170. So, the girlfriend has no rights, even though they got two kids

together? Should they separate, for instance, what happens to their property?

[LostinVA]

177. Of course she has right

There are property laws, and child support laws, etc. The "rights" she doesn't have are those society gives to a married woman.

[mondo joe]

178. She has the same rights as anyone else living w a man

But they're not married so there's no bigamy.

[LisaL]

188. So, if god forbid, the girlfriend becomes sick/disabled, he

won't have any rights over her care?

[mondo joe]

193. No.

That's how it goes.

[LostinVA]

197. Not unless there were legal documents saying this

Right, OldLeftieLawyer?

[Guaranteed]

147. It's almost as funny as the "they're really not starving her"

argument.

Yes- feeding her is just a "medical procedure," which, when stopped, isn't starving someone.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

156. It's not called "feeding,"

and I can see how language that complicated might trip you up.

Put your head down, and take a little rest. You're starting to make yourself throb with all that misinformation and foolishness.

You don't know the difference between eating and having chemicals piped into your gut?

No wonder you're so confused.

[Guaranteed]

174. I hope your argument isn't resting on "feeding"-

because I coulda sworn that we were talking about "starving" someone.

Maybe you could tell me how it is that they're not going to STARVE Terri so that she would die. LOL

I gotta say, for a lawyer, you're really not doing too well.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

196. You were talking about "starving,"

and that's why you're confused. The concept is irrelevant in the matter of Mrs. Schiavo.

Thanks to people like you, I've done quite well as an attorney. You see, my motto, in all my years of practice, was: "Stupidity's been very, very good to me."

Where would I have been without people like you?

Now, the topic was withholding medical treatment, and you're trying to turn it into "starving." I want to see you try to feed Mrs. Schiavo a burger and fries. You won't see THAT on that illegal videotape her parents - in defiance and reckless disregard of a court order and their daughter's privacy - made so that they could pretend she's not irretrievably gone.

Back to your kibble. You're sounding peckish.

[Guaranteed]

224. ROFL I would NEVER hire you as an attorney.

Not with that bullshit argument.

What would the cause of death be on her death certificate, you think?


STARVATION, buddy.

That's called STARVATION.

[Liberal Veteran]

249. Probably natural cause would be listed.

If you do any research on hospice workers, there will tell you case after case of people refusing liquids and food to hasten their death because they no longer have any quality of life.

And those are people who actually are capable of making decisions. If there was so much pain involved in this, we'd would hear stories like this:

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/2/15

"During the five years since physician-assisted suicide has been legal in their state, they reported in the March 6, 2003 New England Journal of Medicine, there has been an increase in the number of terminally ill patients who have elected this option. But the total number of people who have chosen it to date—129—is small relative to the overall number of deaths in Oregon—that is, 9 per 10,000 deaths.

What’s more, of those terminally ill Oregon patients who do decide to precipitate their deaths, twice as many die via cessation of eating and drinking than via physician-assisted suicide, according to a study reported at the annual meeting of the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine in San Diego in November."

snip....

The researchers also asked the nurse respondents to rate, on a scale from 1 to 10, the quality of deaths of patients with whom they had had contact who had rushed death either via fasting and dehydration or physician help.

The nurses rated the fasting and dehydration deaths as causing, on average, somewhat less suffering and pain than the physician-assisted suicides, and also as being somewhat more peaceful than death with physician help. In contrast, they rated the overall quality of death via both methods as being, on average, quite good. (Most patients who elected death with fasting and dehydration died within two weeks.)"


Either way, I rather doubt they list cause of death as "Starvation" in those cases.

[ElectroPrincess]

427. Thanks for the enlightening information ...

I'm not knowledgeable about the legalities but was also aware that the body does not "protest" greatly subsequent to two days or so of starvation. I think it is an alternative that many people contemplating a "living will" may wish to consider.

To me personally, feeding an dying individual through a tube who's in the process of wasting away from terminal Cancer is cruel and an extra-ordinary measure of extending their pain and suffering from the tumor eating away at them from the inside out.

It must be hell on earth for a loved one to make such decisions.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

254. I'm not your buddy,

and, you couldn't afford me.

Besides, I require my clients to have minimal intelligence.

[Guaranteed]

322. I'm sure they do have minimal intelligence- exclusively.

BTW, here's your knock-out punch:

Hypothetically, let's say that we knew, for sure, that Terri (or anyone else who wasn't able to be fed by anything but a machine) WAS conscious.

Would taking that person off of the machine then be called starvation?

Uh huh. That's what I thought.

STAY DOWN.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

342. Did you say something?

Sorry.

You lack so much, it's unfair of me to exploit you for my personal amusement.

You've been a laughfest, though. Best of luck to you.

[chickenscratching]

533. i think it's a few more things than just starvation, buddy n/t

[Walt Starr]

319. Nope, must have the civil document for it to be bigamy

Sorry.

[RetroLounge]

356. that sounds an awful lot like ignorance

You are pretty funny...

RL

[Liberal Veteran]

121. So why do you assume he is lying about her wishes?

That's the million dollar question here.

You weren't privy to their marriage and conversations. Barring evidence to the contrary, we presume a person is innocent of sinister motives in this society and legally the husband IS the next-of-kin.

That's part of the sanctity of the marriage contract that right wingers are always harping about.

But in this case, you and the anti-choicers want the state to insert themselves into their marriage and presume motives without an ounce of proof.

I am not sorry to say, but that it is deplorable that you feel the state has the right to strip away the rights and responsibilities of a marriage contract without any proof of sinister motives.

You don't have to agree with his decision and it may not be the decision you would make in his place, but if you have ANY respect for the marriage contract between two people, then you have respect his rights and responsibilities, or you should just divorce your own wife right now, since the contract between the two of you is rendered meaningless by your own disrespect for another's contract.

[hiley]

129. you see she won't know or

feel "Starving to Death" !

[LisaL]

135. Well, if I got myself another man and had 2 kids by that man-

why in the world would I stay married to my spouse?

[progressivebydesign]

223. Please.... If I had the choice between DEATH and Divorce???

I'll take the divorce. Thank you.

[Guaranteed]

331. That's what I'M sayin'. nt

[Andromeda]

425. But she's brain dead, isn't she?

No cerebral cortex, so no comprehension. She wouldn't even know if her husband divorced her.

If she has no recognition, no conscious awareness of anything around her, then why would it be so bad for her husband to divorce her?

He's with another woman that I assume he loves now and they have two kids. That's a very big commitment. I'm sure their relationship is going through a lot of stress because of this.

Why not end it, get a divorce and everybody can go on with their lives?

[bettyellen]

52. ......because she ain't "living"

in any real sense. most people i know wouldn't want to be kept in this state, i know i wouldn't.
she is married, this is supposed to be between her and her husband, not the parents' decision. they are delusional and will not face the fact that she is totally brain dead. it's so cruel.

[Guaranteed]

55. Cruel how?

You say she's brain dead. What's cruel about it, then? She doesn't know what's going on.

Or does she?

[moobu2]

74. Terri said she didn't want life support under these exact circumstances.

It's about respecting someone's wishes once they cant make those choices or help themselves any longer.

The husband is trying to honor her wishes and the parents said they could care less about what she wanted.

[bettyellen]

93. cruel to have to exist like that. i would never forgive someone for

leaving the shell of me out like that to slowly rot. i think the husband can't move on knowing she is like that. i don''t think she's physicaly numb. is she?
i think it would be cruel to have my mom in a nursing home like that when she has no ability to enjoy life and only feels physical pain. but people do it outta guilt or ignorance all the time. extreme measures are appropriate when theres hope of saving a life. a LIFE.

[Guaranteed]

103. According to them, she doesn't exist.

So I don't understand what the problem is.

In any case, how would you feel if they starved that shell of you, instead? Is that disrespectful?

Wouldn't you at least prefer to be OD'd?

[POAS]

126. So BGL Tell Me

What is it that Terri wants?

You used the arguement that the doctors cannot know what whe is thinking because they are not in her head, can you tell us that Terri does not want to have her life ended? If you can say that are you inside her head?

[Guaranteed]

130. I'd presume that she'd want to live. nt

[POAS]

138. No presumptions please

What does she want?

If you don't know what whe wants then how can you argue that she wants to live?

[Guaranteed]

169. That's the legal presumption that the doctors have to make. nt

[mondo joe]

185. No, they don't. They have someone to speak on Terri's behalf.

They have Terri's chosen representative - her husand - so they don't have to presume anything.

[Guaranteed]

221. They have to presume that IF Terri is conscious, then

she wants to live. She doesn't give up all her rights just because she can't talk.

[POAS]

186. But I'm not talking to or about

the doctors, I'm talking to and about you and your arguements about Terri.

You are making assumptions and presumptions about her wishes about life and death.

You are making arguements about others not being able to know her wishes and yet you argue that whe would want to live.

So again I ask you on what basis you make that assumption and thereby support her parents over her husband.

What gives you the special ability to read her mind and argue against the wishes she expressed before her brain was damaged?

[mondo joe]

199. You don't have to read her mind. She CHOSE Michael to be her legal voice

You don't have to read her mind. She CHOSE Michael to be her legal voice in a situation like this.

She wasn't ASIGNED Michael. He was her choice.

He might be right, he might be wrong, but SHE trusted him to make this choice for her.

[POAS]

220. Exactly

But dim bulbs like this person think they have the right to argue against her wishes because they believe they have all the RIGHT answers. In point of fact all they have is their own delusional self-righteousness.

[mondo joe]

155. The one thing we KNOW is Terri chose Michael to make these choices...

...for her in such an event.

Not her parents.

[hiley]

175. exactly !

Not her parents business anymore.
:shrug:

[POAS]

195. Nor is it this BGL guys business...

nor is it Ralph Reed's business, or the Bush Brothers for that matter.

It is the courts, doctors and her husbands business.

[Guaranteed]

348. Over 15 years ago, though, right? And things certainly have changed.

Would you expect that Terri would still want Michael to make this decision for her, knowing that he's with another woman?

[POAS]

359. There you go again

trying to read Terri's mind, putting your own misguided self-righteousness above that of the Terri, her husband, the courts, the doctors and perhaps even above God.

Can you say with absolute certainty that God hasn't already accepted Terri into heaven and that her body is only left here in this state to reveal hypocritical self-righteousness such as yours?

[Guaranteed]

362. Why the hell are you bringing God into this?

Don't lump me in with the fundies. That's pure ignorance. What, you have to be a fundie Bible thumper to want to make sure that people aren't dying needlessly?

In any case, what the hell do you care? If she's already brain-dead, she's brain-dead. Let Michael divorce her, and let her parents do what they want to with her "shell." Don't bring YOUR self-righteousness into it by acting as if your opinion matters more than her parents.

Sorry, but when it comes to death, I play it safe. I don't just throw people on the garbage heap when it comes to this kind of thing.

[POAS]

367. Well, looks like I hit a nerve there ..

I bring God into it because of your obvious self-righteousness. You put your perspective ahead of the husband, patient, doctor, lawyers and courts becuase YOU believe your the protector of life when in fact you have no knowledge that there is any life there to save.

It is your hypocritical self-righteousness I call into question here, and I don't care what your political or religious beliefs are; left, right, atheist, Christian or any other belief system you ascribe to, your still a self-righteous hypocrite.

[Guaranteed]

375. LOL so, apparently you don't have an opinion on the subject?

Coulda fooled me. Talk about hypocrisy.

Calling Michael Schiavo Terri's "husband" in this case is ridiculous. That's the point. His interests are so far from Terri's, he should have absolutely no legal standing to be making those kinds of decisions for her.

If he made this decision when Terri was incapacitated, I don't know why his/her wishes weren't followed. But, now- I don't think so.

[mondo joe]

377. Funny - you have the parents ADMITTING they don't care what she

Funny - you have the parents ADMITTING they don't care what she requested, and testifying that they'd disregard her request ANYWAY, but you claim Michael is the one who doesn't have her interests at heart.

[bettyellen]

540. and you have BullGosse running off whenever anyone confronts him

with the parents testimony.
he said himself it's wrong to impose this decision on anyone else, but fully supports the parents for doing so. bullshit.
plus all he knows about pallitive care and dying with dignity, you could fit in a thimble.

[POAS]

511. Oh I do have an opinion

BUT
It isn't self-righteous or hypocritical.

My opinion is that the only people that have a right to intervene for Terri, under the law and under common sense standards, are her husband, doctors and the courts (to settle legal claims made by immediate family such as her parents). My opinion, unlike yours, is that outsiders have no business injecting themselves or their agenda into this sad case.

Now that the courts have heard the evidence, primarily the INFORMED evidence of the medical experts, and ruled that disconnecting Terri's body from it's support apparatus is appropriate all other parties should should butt-out and let the doctor's do there job.

Now your opinion on the other hand argues that you and others like you should have unfettered access to determine the fate of Terri and any other person similarly afflicted. You and the likes of Ralph Reed would inject yourselves into very personal and anquishing medical decisions that are made everyday across this country, indeed across the world. You would put your opinion above that of all those most intimately aware and caring in those situations because your view of righteousness is superior to those of others.

That, IS self-righteousness at its worst.

[mondo joe]

371. What does anyone CARE?

You're the one pretending you're on a bio-ethics crusade.

What do I care?

I care that the choices I make are honored. I care that the person I choose as my legal guardian is empowered to act on my behalf. I care that people I DIDN'T choose don't get to use my life or my body as a political pawn.

Because I care about those things for myself, I care about them for others, Terri included.

[Guaranteed]

391. I care too- mostly, I don't want someone

letting ME die just because some doctor gives his opinion that I'm "gone" when he can't even tell what's going on in my head.

[mondo joe]

394. Then choose your guardian wisely, and respect others' choices

You want YOUR choices respected.

Why are you so committed to disrespecting Terri's choice?

[Guaranteed]

396. 15 years ago. SERIOUS conflicts of interest.

According to HIM, this is her choice.

Use some critical thinking.

Goodnight.

[mondo joe]

406. His decision didn't come after 15 years.

But it's convenient for you to ignore that.

[Guaranteed]

408. WHEN did it come, and WHY wasn't it honored before? nt

[Guaranteed]

410. According to a post upthread, he first made his request

8 years afterward.

[mondo joe]

412. Why ask? You know the answer.

In 1998, 8 years after the initial incident.

And it was not honored because her psycho parents opposed it then.

[LisaL]

422. What, he didn't remember she told him she "didn't want to live

that way" for 8 years? And now I am supposed to believe that is what she wanted.

[mondo joe]

428. No, they tried aggressive therapy to see if she could heal

The first effort was to rehabilitate.

When it was clear that that wouldn't happen, and that atrophy of the cerebral cortex left no hope, he went to the ultimate option.

Got it?

[LisaL]

466. Nobody recovers from PVS. No? Post after post claims

nobody can recover from PVS. Why would he think she could be rehabilitated?

[mondo joe]

473. A diagnosis of persistent vegetative state takes time.

A diagnosis of persistent vegetative state takes time. During the period of initial assessment, it is appropriate to provide aggressive medical treatment.

[hippiechick]

39. Divorce him so the parents can take over as legal guardian

...and get another reversal on the decision.

:puke: These people are disgusting.

[daleo]

40. Well I want a divorce from Queen Elizabeth I

For some reason her parents "married" me to her even though I was over 400 years in the future. Now that she has been dead for an equal length of time, I think it is time to end the "marriage". I believe I will petition the court of Florida to that effect. With any luck, this latest twist in the Schiavo case will set the legal precedent I require.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

143. From what I hear,

Betty's not too nuts about you, either.

;)

[daleo]

166. I fear we have irreconcilable differences. n/t

[demodonkey]

43. She should NOT be STARVED to death.

If she is high functioning enough to digest food, breath independently, etc. IMHO refusing to provide food and water to her (even by tube) would be murder and torture. What is by some chance she DOES know what is going on, and can feel herself being starved and dying of thirst? That would be horrible beyond description. I'm sure her "last wishes" wouldn't include that.

On edit: If she must die, then it absolutely ought to be by swift, painless Euthanasia but try getting that past anybody these days!

[Lars39]

47. Her cerebral cortex has atrophied and been replaced

with spinal fluid. She is not "there".

[Dookus]

48. She has no cerebral cortex

so an awareness of her condition is not possible.

I agree, we should come out of the dark ages and allow euthanasia for people in such conditions; not so much for them, but for their loved ones.

[demodonkey]

62. "There" or not, I still wouldn't want to make that decision...

because there could still be some residual consciousness. We do not 100% understand the human mind. My own last wishes would NOT include death by dehydration and starvation.

[Walt Starr]

66. no cebral cortex = no residual consciousness

period. You exist within your cerebral cortex. When it's gone, that which truly is you is also gone.

[bettyellen]

71. they give you water to keep you comfortable.....

.maybe you should study up before making these statements. becasue it's really insulting to someone who has seen three loved ones go through this, when you take guesses as to what it's like.

[LisaL]

179. You should study up as well. Terri had absolutely nothing

last time her feeding tube was removed.

[bettyellen]

543. standard pallative care is to keep the mouth moist. every hospital

in the united states does it except for terry's? i don't think so. where did you get this nonsense, lemme guess- the parents pity us site?
you seem to know jack about the case including the fact that terry's parents say they don't care what terry would have wanted. it is self righteous crap, and you are spreading disinformation about pallitive care. they always give moisture through the mouth, go ask any nurse before spreading lies again.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

141. "residual consciousness"?

You invented this term, didn't you?

Is that like "residual intelligence"?

I like the concept - it's like an overlooked plate of cold cuts in the fridge, forgotten by everyone, doing nothing on its own, just sitting there until some brighteyes opens the door, the light goes on, and the cold cuts yell out, "WE'RE HERE!!!!!!!!!!"

That kind of "residual consciousness"?

Sort of "Terri's fine, she just forgot to wake up"?

Oy gevalt.

[Toucano]

152. No one is asking you to make that decision.

When it's your next of kin, you can defer the decision to some third party if you want to.

[fleabert]

171. a different perspective...

>snip< Some believe that removing Terri's feeding tube would cause her pain and is inhumane (I'm no doctor, but the medical information I've seen on this subject uniformly says the opposite.)

this is from the most non-biased site I have seen on the subject at hand, I suggest everyone (both sides) read it.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

[bettyellen]

65. my mom's living will includes refusal of a stomache tube.

but that's because she has seen what is was like for her husband to be tied to a bed choking on his own regurgitations and having vacums shoved up his nose and down his throat 7-8 times a day. and that's what happens when you don't have good swallowing reflexes, which is going to happen to her if she lives long enough.
any more thoughts on how nice tubes are?

and just so you know, i also have an asshole relative (her sister) vowing to fight the living will. somehow aunt p decided she knows better than my own mom and plans to fight it.
she didn't see my dad his last months either, so it's very simple for her, just like it is for you.

[demodonkey]

106. That's your mother's choice and she herself has clearly specified it.

Good for her. Her wishes absolutely should be followed.

That doesn't give anybody the right to speak for me. I wouldn't want to be kept alive on total life support, but if there was ANY chance that even a few of my brain cells were left enough to have any shred of consciousness, I wouldn't want to be left to die after days of dehydration and starvation. Maybe Terri would, but we don't know that do we?

And by the way my family once had to make a similar decision for my own father since he had a stroke with no living will to specify. He was on a stomach tube for awhile, he got well enough that it was able to be removed and he lived quite some time after that and died naturally. In that case, our decision was that we weren't about to condemn my father to starve to death when he could know what was happening.

It wasn't a "nice" treatment, and it wasn't a "simple" decision either, there were a lot of ramifications of which I was well aware, thank you.

[moobu2]

112. Yes we do know what Terri wanted

There was a full blown trial and appeal and another trial and another appeal ad nauseum....there is little doubt about anything.

The parents testified that they wouldn't honor their own daughters wishes even if they knew for a fact she said she wouldn't want life support. They said they would continue it against her wishes.

[LisaL]

139. I also heard Terri wanted to divorce him-she told it

to her brother and to her girlfriend. That's her wishes, right?
Why should they not be honored?

[FredScuttle]

190. I'll take a stab....

1) neither her girlfriend nor her brother are recognized as her legal guardian by the court
2) she didn't specify that if she was ever in a vegetative state, she wanted a divorce from her husband.

[moobu2]

242. Yeah, you hear a lot of things on the net that arent true.

They brought all that up in court and the claims were found to be baseless and the people not credible.

You have to remember the parents and their supporters are conducting a very vicious PR campaign because they didn't have the facts on their side in a court of law where it mattered.

Anyone can claim anything they want.

The parents and the others testified in court that Michael was a loving caring husband until these right to life people got involved, then they started with the accusations. That's why the parents and family aren't credible.

[LisaL]

246. And Michael testified during the malpractice trial

how he loves his wife and wants to take care of her for the rest of HIS life. Not a peep out of him that Terri did not want to live "that way".
Why is that? How can anyone believe him is beyond my understanding.

[moobu2]

298. Becuase, he loves her and he thought she could recover.

haven't you read anything other than what's posted on right to life propaganda websites? because all you do is repeat the false allegations and disinformation they do.

[DemBones DemBones]

184. No, we know what Michael says Terri wanted.

And I'm not convinced he's a reliable witness.

[Lars39]

187. He is her husband, and other people testified, too.

The court has already ruled that Terri did not want to be kept alive artificially.

[mondo joe]

212. And we KNOW he is the one person Terri chose to make medical choices...

...for he in her stead.

Regardless of whether YOU are convinced or not, the courts have consistently found him credible, and he is the one Terri chose.

[Andromeda]

457. Me neither.

.

[bettyellen]

537. you argued brilliantly against terry's parents........they want to be the

only ones to make this decision-- terry's own wishes be damned. that is their testimony. but since their values line up with your own, you all must demonize michael.
but you are right, the parents have no right to speak for terry.

your father was able to eat and you didn't say he had no conciousness, so i don't know why you think his example is relevant. strokes victims often learn to eat in rehab, this is not news and not germane to this arguement. unless you think in blanket terms-- no one. no matter the state, should be let go. this seems to be what you are getting at, much like that idiotic baby feeding arguement.

what you are also wrong about is the dehydration, you should learn more about what goes on in terms of pallitive care hospices when someone is allowed to die with dignity, if you are to argue against it. your misconceptions and presumptions about allowing a peaceful death are insulting and harmful. they seem designed to scare a person over to your side while ignoring the truth. quite rovian.

[LiberalinNC]

81. It's a NO win situation! IMHO

I can't imagine the pain the parents are experiencing, yet I can understand their feelings of not wanting to lose their daughter (even though she really is no longer here), yet I understand what the husband is trying to do, he's trying to fulfill a promise he made to his wife.

Whether or not he's moved on w/ another woman, and had children, (isn't that what most people would do especially after all these years?) I still think it's up to him to decide, he has a moral obligation to Terri.

The parents really have NO rights in the situation, yet I do feel for them, being a parent myself. They are grasping at whatever means possible to gain the rights to "save" their daughter. The sad part is that "their daughter" is gone, it's just her body that remains - that is what it comes down too, they don't wish to acknowledge the fact that Terri really is gone.

[moobu2]

86. That may be true however,

I cant forgive the parents for doing so many underhanded, dishonest and hateful things.

I once had a lot of sympathy for them until I learned the awfull truth.

[LiberalinNC]

91. I don't blame them completely...

they are being exploited. And at this point I think they are willing to "sell their souls" to save their child. Wouldn't any parent?

[moobu2]

109. They're willing to sell the husband, their daughter and anyone else

to get what they want. Their willing to make false accusations, lie, harass, exploit their daughter and any other thing.

Their willing to do anything to get what they want except respect their own daughters wishes.
How is that honorable? Save their daughter from what? she's already gone and has been for 15 years.

The parents said they would never honor their own daughters wishes even if they knew for a fact she said she would not want to be on life support.

[LiberalinNC]

290. It's not honorable...

I agree w/ you 100%, they are playing dirty and don't care about anything but having "their daughter" stay w/ them.
It's selfish, sick and sad!!! Terri has had NO dignity or quality of life.

I had no idea that the parents said that they would never honor their daughters wishes.

[slackmaster]

104. This is so pathetic

:argh:

[Selteri]

282. Almost as pathetic as how he 'woke her up'

in the videos. If you poke a starfish enough it'll react too, it has no brain.

[SoCalDem]

161. As long as there is money to be made from this poor woman's plight

it will continue:(

The hospital is being paid..
The lawyers are being paid
There's an insurance policy that "someone" will end up with
Part of every marriage ceremony should be the signing of a "living will", so that young people are protected and their exact wishes are known. (That would have solved the whole problem)

[DemBones DemBones]

192. How can anyone believe that this man who has taken up with another

woman is really, truly concerned with his wife's best interests here? When he first sought to starve her, I believe there was more money he'd have inherited than there is now. What's his motive now? I don't buy that it has anything to do with honoring Terri's wishes.

[mondo joe]

205. He took up w another woman AFTER Terri was essentially GONE.

I wouldn't expect my spouse to put his life on hold for 15 years if I were in Terri's state.

[Andromeda]

421. Right.

So why doesn't he make it legal and divorce her?

Since he waited until after Terri was 'gone' to have two children by another woman.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

[mondo joe]

423. Because he is seeing his obligation to Terri through

Her wish was to NOT be kept alive in this way. He is doing his utmost to honor that wish.

He has provide exemplary care for Terri throughout the ordeal. And yes, he has found love and happiness in his own life as well.

But I don't see why THAT means her wishes for her own disposition should be cast aside.

[anitar1]

275. Rest Assured

that if Terri had any money, the state would have long since taken it for the cost of her care. Even 10 yrs of care would have siphoned most,if not all of it away. Care is very expensive, even in the lowliest " home". So I hardly think he is doing this for money. If there happens to be any money, I would suspect her father might want it. After seeing him interviewed on Larry King the other night, I really have doubts about him.

[Bouncy Ball]

211. WHY for the love of PETE do they want to keep her alive

any longer?

Has she not suffered ENOUGH????? Do they want to artificially keep her alive until she's 88 years old???? Do they want to put her in some museum or something? "Step right up folks, the Alive but Not Alive Woman! Kept in suspended animation for 500 years!"

Sheesh. It makes me sick. Her HUSBAND is her spouse, HE is the one who should have the right here. Not her parents. I'm sorry for ALL of them, but damn. Let that poor woman GO.

[Bouncy Ball]

230. And another thing.

Were I to be in the same position, I would want my HUSBAND making these decisions, not my parents. I would hope my parents would agree, but the day I married my husband was the day I joined my life to HIS.

Did anyone hear ever read how he took care of her? How he cleaned her up each month when she had her period because he felt the nurses were too rough with her? Yeah, that's a guy who's just ready to bolt out of the door on her, right.

I'd also want my husband to move on, to be happy. But I have a living will because I wouldn't want to be kept artificially alive in the first place. I'd want to be allowed to be at peace.

[mondo joe]

238. Exactly~!

Especially as a gay man who has gone through lengths to APPROXIMATE the spousal rights, the thought that someone OTHER than my choice might butt in on this decision is very upsetting.

[LisaL]

244. How he promised during the malpractice trial he would take

care of her for the rest of HIS life. LOL. Why doesn't he want to keep this particular promise? For the rest of HIS life?

[Bouncy Ball]

251. He also wanted her to be able to go PEACEFULLY

once it was established by the medical community that she had no cerebral cortex!

And I'm SURE if he had to take care of her the rest of his life, he WOULD. What do you have against this guy? Are you transferring some personal feelings of yours onto this case or something?

You want to explain to me why you would want to keep this poor woman artificially breathing when she has no cerebral cortex? No way of knowing what is going on. No way of functioning whatsoever.

That's CRUEL. Just flat-out cruel. Hell, we treat animals better than that.

Damn.

[LisaL]

257. Nope, he said he loves his wife and wants to take care

of her for the rest of HIS life. Nothing was mentioned of having her go peacefully. He and his lawyer said she was going to live a very long life.
As for cruel-starving someone over a period of several weeks-that's as cruel as it gets.

[Bouncy Ball]

272. Ok then find another way.

And no, what's REALLY cruel is the courts saying, yes you can let her go, and the feeding tube is removed, AND THEN it's put back because of some OTHER court order. You want to talk about cruel, that's cruel!

And how is it cruel if she can't feel, can't tell what's going on, has no functioning so that she can even tell she's starving?

Huh?

Answer that for me.

[LisaL]

291. If she can't feel anything, how can you insist she is suffering right

now?
How can she suffer if she can't feel a thing?

[Bouncy Ball]

295. WHY do you want to artificially keep her alive?

Why? Seriously. And what makes ANYONE think they have any say in this besides her husband?

That is totally arrogant.

[LisaL]

307. Does a husband own his wife? Judging by some posts, one

can be led to believe that wife is a property of her husband.

[Bouncy Ball]

310. Where the HELL are you getting this stuff????

I am not the PROPERTY of my husband, but he damn well is responsible for all medical decisions about me in the case of my impairment!!! When I married him, I joined my life to his. He is responsible for me and I am responsible for him.

You are getting desperate, throwing out that kind of straw man.

It works the other way around, too. In the case of my husband's impairment (God forbid) I'D be responsible for his medical decisions.

It's a pretty simple concept. I thought more people grasped it.

[mondo joe]

316. Why are you opposed to honoring Terri's choice?

Spouses have the RIGHT - granted by each other - to make certain decisions when the other cannot.

Why are you SO opposed to honoring Terri's choice of a legal guardian?

[Liberal Veteran]

337. In the absence of of a signed medical directive, a spouse...

....is considered to be next of kin and responsible for any medical decisions in the event of incapacitation.

IF you don't like that, you'll have to change the law.

[moobu2]

259. He thought she could recover but she couldnt, once he realized that

He asked the court to decide.

[LisaL]

267. Well, excuse me, isn't she in PVS? Why would he think

she was going to recover? Post after post on how nobody can recover from PVS, yet he was thinking that she was going to recover?

[Bouncy Ball]

276. I believe that was before her cerebral cortex

had dissolved to the point that there is just spinal fluid there.

Tell you what, instead of just engaging in emotional rhetoric, why don't you go read up a bit more on this case and get a bit of background on it.

[LisaL]

294. I presume same goes for you. Why don't you read up a bit

more?
Like Michael's testimony during the malpractice trial?

[moobu2]

429. Michael Schiavo thought Terri could recover early on

like I said, that's why he tried every therapy known to mankind for years and years and yeeeaaaars.

He even decided to go to nursing school to learn to care for her. Yes, he knew the diagnosis was PVS, but he still held out hope, like many people do when something like this happened to loved ones. After he became educated and had some experience with nursing, he slowly came to the reality that Terri was beyond hope. Terri was gone and had been all those years.

He then asked the judge to decide what she would want.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[LisaL]

478. Because you have made up this nice story out of thin air, no?

What do you have to support this idea? That somehow he believed she was going to recover during the malpractice trial? His testimony wasn't that if she doesn't recover, he will remove her feeding tube. His testimony was that he loves his wife and will take care of her for the rest of HIS life. Did he say she wouldn't want to live on life support, so if she doesn't recover, he will remove her feeding tube? No. Did he mention her wishes not to live "that way". No. He and his lawyer had to estimate her life expectancy, they estimated it as decades, I believe. Her recovery was never a condition under which she would be allowed to live.
And another fact-the longer the patient lives, the more money is awarded for that patients care.

[mondo joe]

481. Yeah - the award was 1.3 million $

How much do you think is left after 15 years of round the clock hospital care and almost a decade of legal battle?

The idea that he's in it for money is a joke.

The court found she had stated she did not want to be kep alive this way. But her parents - and some posters - just don't care what she wanted.

[LisaL]

490. Well, excuse me, he asked for 20 millions.

The jury didn't award it because they felt Terri was partially responsible for her problems. When he testified, he was going for the biggest amount of money he could get, IMO.

[progressivebydesign]

233. WOMANS SPEAKS AFTER 20 YEARS.....

How about this? This woman was unresponsive for 20 years, is FED through an IV and always will be. Cannot walk, cannot take care of herself. Is considered brain damaged beyond hope.. for 20 years. I suppose a husband, if she had one back then when she was hit, would have had a case for stopping her IV feeding. But.. it's not REALLY feeding her, right? It's just chemicals, so it would have been okay to starve her, right??

Read this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/11/earlyshow/main673281.shtml

<<For years, she could only blink her eyes — one blink for "no," two blinks for "yes" — to respond to questions that no one knew for sure she understood. "I am astonished how primal communication is. It is a key element of humanity," Scantlin said, blinking back tears.

She still suffers constantly from the effects of the accident. She habitually crosses her arms across her chest, her fists clenched under her chin.

Her legs constantly spasm and thrash. Her right foot is so twisted it is almost reversed. Her neck muscles are so constricted she cannot swallow to eat. >> SNIP

[Lars39]

237. Not comparable.

Terri has no cerebral cortex.

[Bouncy Ball]

241. Exactly.

Short of Shiavo GROWING A NEW cerebral cortex (which is NOT going to happen) this will not be her ending.

No, if her parents have their way, she'll be kept artificially alive until her body dies of old age. And what for? What kind of life is that?

[SemperEadem]

361. her parents will be dead long before she will be

what happens then? Her 'brother' going to exhaust his finances keeping his sister alive? Her 'girlfriend' going to exhaust her finances taking care of her friend til she dies?

Folks talk a good game until they're asked to pick up an oar and row.

[LisaL]

554. Why are you worrying about her brother's finances.

He is willing to take care of Terri. So, what is it to you how he wants to spend his time and money?

[moobu2]

263. That women could communicate, she had a cerbral cortex,

she had some awareness and higher brain function. She just couldn't talk.

[LisaL]

271. She could do nothing but blink her eyes for 20 years.

Not much of a life, is it? She is lucky she wasn't married at the time of her accident.

[Bouncy Ball]

280. You are TOTALLY missing the point.

Are you doing that on purpose? I mean, you aren't REALLY this daft, are you?

Regardless of OUTER behavior, the girl who is now speaking ALWAYS HAD her cerebral cortex. It is a VITAL part of the brain. So they always KNEW there was a chance she would recover.

With Terry Shiavo, there is NO CHANCE whatsoever. None. Nill. Zero. Nada.

You have YET to explain to me why you would be so cruel as to keep someone like that artificially alive. For what?

The woman who is speaking now always still HAD the capability. Terry has LOST hers completely.

But go on engaging in your blind emotionalism, maybe it makes you feel better. :eyes:

[LisaL]

299. Show me a link with information about Sarah Scantlin's

cerebral cortex. I mean, did you just come up with it out of thin air or did you read it somewhere? I could not find any information on the state of her brain except it was severely damaged and Drs. are amazed that she can talk now.

[mondo joe]

301. Why do you think all brain damage or all comas are identical?

[LisaL]

311. Nope, but if someone claims Sarah Scantlin has an intact

cerebral cortex, they should provide some clue how they arrived to that conclusion, no?

[mondo joe]

313. The clue is that she can now communicate at all.

If she is doing that, she HAS an intact cerebral cortex.

[Bouncy Ball]

305. LOL

Ok here's the deal: if she DIDN'T have a cerebral cortex there is NO WAY she would be doing the things she is doing now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_cortex

Read up on the cerebral cortex. If Sarah Scantlin is talking and aware with no cerebral cortex, she is beyond being a case for the medical books: that would be the fricking miracle of miracles.

[LisaL]

314. Well, excuse me-if you are going to claim Sarah Scantlin has

an intact cerebral cortex-you better be able to back it up.

[mondo joe]

320. If she's communicating she has an intact cerebral cortex.

It's pretty damn simple.

[moobu2]

321. She communicated by blinking, you even know what a cerebral cortex is?

it doesnt look like it.

[Bouncy Ball]

323. Medical SCIENCE backs it up.

Why do you refuse to learn about this? Go read that article I posted from Wikipedia OR any number of informational articles on the cerebral cortex.

Here, here's what each lobe of the cerebral cortex is responsible for:

Frontal Lobe- associated with reasoning, planning, parts of speech, movement, emotions, and problem solving

Parietal Lobe- associated with movement, orientation, recognition, perception of stimuli

Occipital Lobe- associated with visual processing

Temporal Lobe- associated with perception and recognition of auditory stimuli, memory, and speech

Now you tell me how Sarah is talking, responding to people, fully aware with no cerebral cortex?

[phylny]

519. Since she was able to communicate by blinking,

she had cerebral cortex. You can't communicate without it.

[Nikia]

235. I suppose that we only care because this is publicized

This sort of thing does happen in many other cases, but usually one or both sides gives in as far as what to do with their severely disabled or comatose relative who would die without some form of treatment or life support.
Her parents want to take care of their daughter, regardless of her level of disability (whether it really is brain dead or any level of brain damge). Perhaps they knew before this incident that the marriage was unhappy and do expect some kind of abuse, which they feel continues in her lack of care and him wanting to remove the tube. Certainly if he really did cause harm to her or was neglectful in seeking treatment for her when she collapsed, he should not be responsible for making decisions regarding her care. Her parents might really believe this. Even if it didn't happen in this case, it probably has happened some time or somewhere that a spouse caused severe injury and wants to withdraw treatment because he or she wanted him or her dead in the first place.
She may or may not told him or anyone else her wishes. I have generally told people that I want to live because I am paranoid about being killed because my treatment is getting too expensive or if I were to be severely disabled. Maybe I wouldn't want to live brain dead for years though. If I am not specific and say seemingly conflicting things, what are they to make of things. Could my words be used either way?
What if Terri wasn't as bad off, what if she were like one of our friend's sisters? This girl was involved in a severe accident. She has a great deal of paralysis, is severely retarded, and has a number of other health issues. Her family had to get EMT training to take her home and employ a few nurses (who come in at different times) to help with her care. She has been this way for 10 years and her family acknowledges that she will never be able to do most things that people not in her condition can do, but they don't see her life as worthless. Would Michael Shiavo have agreed to this? Would he see other women? Would he divorce her? Would he be neglectful so that she would die of naturual causes? The friend's sister is incapable of moving very far on her and would probably die if no one fed her. What if our friend's sister needed a feeding tube as do some people who are less disabled in other ways? Is swallowing food on one's own a criteria for who amongst the disabled should be kept alive.
Legally partners are each other's guardians. Some people say this is natural and right. Some people, perhaps, would rather their parents, best friend, adult child, or other person close to them make such decisions.
I guess that the law is what is at issue here. Perhaps this is why the case is publicized and why so many people on both sides are upset about this. Should one's spouse always be one's guardian in every and any situation? What is "life support"? What is life? Should treatment be withdrawn from the severely disabled? How does one make one's medical treatment decisions known if one is in a state whereone is unable to answer those questions? What is evidence of one's wishes in these circumstances? These questions have legal answers that some people don't agree with. These issues do come up all the time though. Even though it is well publicized, we don't really know what is in the minds of Terri, her husband, or her parents. We don't know in the many other cases either, but these cases pass by unoticed.

[moobu2]

253. Nothing you posted is true though

It's almost as if you're talking about some other case really. There's so many inaccuracy's it's hard to know where to start.

The parents testified in court that Michael was a loving caring person.
Their story changed once the money came in.
The story became "he abused her" once the right to life people got involved. it's a lie.
The parents said they would never disconnect her life support even if they knew for a fact she said she wouldn't want it.
The parents have made many false accusations, knowing the accusations are untrue.

1. Terri has no cerebral cortex (higher brain was replaced with spinal fluid).
2. She said she wouldn't want life support under these circumstances.
3. Her husband is honoring her wishes.
4. there's about 20 other things I could list, all proven in court.

[Nikia]

302. But aren't these the things that we are all concerned about?

Many people, who are unable to communicate with doctors, are discountined from life support or other life saving treatments because of their family's decision. Are there sometimes disputes amongst family members for a variety of reasons over this? Even when it doesn't go to court, are some family members, close friends, and caregivers upset about what happened or is happening either way? This is one person's life that tugs at people from both sides of the issue. It is only important beyond the realm of those who know her because we consider the implications in the many other cases that we don't hear about and consider the possibilities of us being in this situation from the point of view of any of the people involved. In the end, Terri might die because her tube is removed or she might live decades as she is just like many others. Her situation is not unique. It doesn't make it less tragic for those involved, but for us, I suppose that it really is about the implications of all this.

[mondo joe]

306. There are other implications as well.

Namely the right to choose who will speak on your behalf when you cannot, and having your choice honored.

[William Bloode]

264. Something i have noticed...

It seems to me that those who seem to think Terri may have some bit of sentient being left, (which i doubt) are forgetting something. Do you people not understand what torture she must be in to be trapped inside her own mind? What kind of hell are the right to live people condemning this poor lady to? Are the lot of you so caught up in a fantasy you believe she just lays there in a heaven of her own creation? Can you imagine the feelings of helplessness, despair, agony, and a plethora of other negative emotions that must entail laying communicator, non functioning for life. It simply has to be hell. I hope and pray she is brain dead, it breaks my heart to think she might have had to live with 15yrs of internal hell. So basically what i'm saying is even if she is alive, whats the quality of that life? Does she not deserve peace? a chance to rest?

[mondo joe]

273. Precisely why I have asked to be taken off life support in such a state

My fear isn't that I won't be "present" but my body will be kept going.

My fear is that I WILL be present in a body that has to be artificially maintained.

[LisaL]

283. Well, and people who insist she is gone, at the same

time believe she is being tortured, or she is suffering. Yet, removal of her feeding tube is not going to cause her pain. If she can feel, how do you propose starving her to death? Think about that.

[moobu2]

289. Dont have to think about it other than

she said she would not want life support if she were ever to be in this condition.

The tragedy is disrespecting her known wishes which the husband has been attempting to honor all these years..

[Bouncy Ball]

297. Thank you

moobu2.

I shudder to think of my wishes being disregarded all these years. She never wanted to be kept like this. But oh I guess her wishes aren't important, huh?

People still cannot tell me why they'd want to artificially keep her alive all this time when she has NO chance of recovery. Wonder why they can't tell me why....

[William Bloode]

326. I don't think she feels personally, but

I feel starvation (as you phrase it) is much more humane than continuation of the present situation. I would prefer a nice quick shot of morphine, but even a slow certain death is preferable to the alternative of continued torture she faces now.

[Erika]

354. Good post

I think it's absolutely ghoulish that the parents are doing this to their daughter. They are keeping her shell alive, ignoring the sanctity of the marriage contract, and making Terri a poster child for the extreme right wing political purposes.

I want to thank OldLeftieLawyer for helping me get the proper forms in order.

[bettyellen]

541. you really need to read up on pallitive care for the terminally ill

because the ignorant assumptions expressed here are just apalling.

[moobu2]

286. She has no cerebral cortex

so awareness of her predicament is imposable, thank God for that.

Her cerebral cortex died and was replaced with spinal fluid yesr ago soon after her Bulimia induced heart failure. The doctors testified (even the Schindlers) that most of her cortex died imediately after her brain was deprived of oxygen, the rest died from atrophy over the next several years.

So the last thing she ever knew was 15 years ago.

[Bouncy Ball]

300. Well that's some sort of cold relief.

So the question remains: why would her parents (and other people, like people on this thread) want to artificially keep her alive even though she has no chance of recovery? And AGAINST her wishes? That's the worst part, to me. She expressed never wanting this and look what's happened.

:scared:

Which is why I have a living will. To make sure people like Terry's parents, lizzy on this thread, and the courts never butt their noses in and artifically keep me alive when there is no chance of recovery, not a single bit of awareness, no functioning, etc.

[moobu2]

315. Yeah, I have a living will also but

the thing is, these right to life fanatics who are backing the parents financially and with spreading all the disinformation, are hoping to change the laws which would prevent anyone from ever making these decisions for ourselves. That's the motivation for all this and why they've spent 100's of 1000's of dollars and time on this.

They are hoping to erode our privacy rights in making personal medical decisions and have found in the Schindlers a great opportunity and parents willing to let them use their daughter for political reasons etc...

I'm worried about this because there are ulterior motives behind this people aren't really aware of.

[Bouncy Ball]

327. Ay-yi-yi.

Yikes. :scared:

[bettyellen]

542. absolutely right, it's a scary legal precendent that will prevent people's

wishes from being fulfilled- just as this poor women's parents say they are willing to do.
i don't see anyone making any good legal arguement against michael that isn't filled with slander against him. and this is merely becasue they disagree, and will use any dishonest means to discredit him. they would be slandering the parents in a similar way if the parents were willing to let terry go. these people want, obviously their choice as the only choice, they just don't want to say it.

[Guaranteed]

333. That is an excellent point.

If that's the case, though, I don't think starving her is appropriate.

[Renew Deal]

486. Doesn't that assume that she is capable of thinking and is not brain dead

I thought she was brain dead and had no thoughts/emotion. If your assertion is correct, she probably should be allowed to live based on my understanding of the law.

[janx]

501. I don't think he's saying that. He's saying that the logic of those

who for some reason believe that she CAN feel is pretty flawed because it would be absolute hell for her to have to live like that--probably worse than it actually is, because since she has no cerebral cortex, she can't think or feel.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

318. "In sickness or in health, till death do you part..."

I guess the fundy fascist Schiavos are looking to change the covenant of traditional marriage? Oh, I see...gays marrying is bad, but ripping up the traditional covenant of marriage between a man and a woman is o.k. as long as it suits the needs of the right-to-lifers.

These idiots have my head swimming in circles.

JB

[moobu2]

324. Exactly, it's only sanctified if they approve. these people are disgusting

[LisaL]

430. And Mr. Shiavo is following it?

LOL. He got himself a girlfriend and two kids. Doesn't look like he is staying with Terri "in sickness and in health", does it?

[moobu2]

439. Yes it does

He's devoted to carrying out her wishes so he has maintained his legal relationship as her next of kin.

Remember , the parents said they would never honor her wishes even if Terri herself had told them she wouldn't want life support. He's protecting her from them.

Anyway, why would what he's doing have anything to do with what Terri herself would want? I mean, what's your point? he's an adulterer so force feed Terri's body against her wishes?

[LisaL]

452. She is not being force fed. She is being fed.

Her tube was removed twice already and still she didn't die.
As for her husband, I don't believe the guy. I think he is doing it to spite the parents, not because he gives a fig about Terri and her wishes.

[mondo joe]

456. To the contrary: she IS being force fed.

She's not chewing or swallowing.

It's plugged into her, and that's her nutrition.

That is by definition force feeding.

[moobu2]

338. Here's what the parents testified to in court.

This is written in a court appointed guardians report who summed up court testimony etc..

"Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive . . . at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open-heart surgery. Within the testimony, as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it."

They said they wouldnt remove the life support even if they knew for a fact she said she wouldnt have wanted it.

[Bouncy Ball]

346. Dear God.

I felt sick just reading that. I think I'll add a videotape to the living will that has me and my husband on it, with a date stamp, with both of us READING our living wills on camera.

[Liberal Veteran]

358. Which speaks volumes about them...they don't have her interests at heart.

Anyone who can say that they would do something against the known wishes of the person they say they want to make medical decisions for has no business making those decisions.

[Nikepallas]

352. Okay I might be extremely rude and not being a parent maybe I am wrong

BUT those parents are insane! This poor woman died some 15 years ago. They are just holding onto her shell and torturing that poor husband who probably loved the woman and was doing what he thought was best.

This is your child and I understand how hard it would be to let go that but if THEY are a christians I heard them claim to be and they finally passed away and believe in heaven and all what do you think she would say when they met in heaven?

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

365. the point is that the Husband is no longer her partner and has no say

The parents should be able to allow her to not be starved to death is they think she can communicate at all--even if it's their own imagination.
To watch their own child starve to death because some asshole who was once married to her wants her insurance money is sick.
The woman is not hurting nor hurting anyone else by remaining alive.
Who gets to decide that if someone can't eat on their own then they should die?
Florida Judges?
Bush appointees?

[mondo joe]

368. Incorrect. She chose her husband, not her parents, to have the say

Incorrect. She chose her husband, not her parents, to have the say in the event of her incapacitation.

Why are you opposed to honoring her choice?

[Liberal Veteran]

369. It doesn't work that way.

Let's just assume it was you.

You told your spouse while watching tv that you would never want to live like that. And like most people, you never got around to writing it down.

And sadly, you end up incapacitated with no chance of recovery.

Would you want your spouse to follow your wishes?

And if your parents came in and tried to said they didn't care about your wishes and wanted to keep you on life support regardless of what you may or may not have wanted....who would you want to make the decision for your health in your incapacitation.

[Nikepallas]

372. From what I understand the parents are going against their daughter's wish

by keeping her alive AND if the husband had no respect for her or love for her he would not be fighting in court like he is. I am almost positive he could have Divorced her years ago thru the courts and said to the parents she is your problem BUT he respected her or the life they once had together to try and keep her from suffering.

[moobu2]

436. also, They offered him $700,000. to walk away, and he turned them down

If he was such a scumbag and only interested in the money, he would have taken the money then.

He also offered to divest himself of any financial interest in her estate, if the parents would stop fighting against him caring out her wishes, they refused.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

477. he is getting MORE--the greedy bastard- move on- let the parents deal

no sweat for him- he could give a shit about her "well being"-

[moobu2]

484. You obviously know nothing about this

or either have gotten your information from rightwing, right to life disinformation websites.

This is from the gardian report, the gardian Jeb Bush himself appointed, this is just a small part of many, many documents that show it's clear that Michael did nothing but what was best for Terri:

"had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care . . . In late autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing and formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months."

"Michael was adoring of her. One nursing home complained he was hostile and abusive of the staff in championing her care. She was immaculately kept. In 13 years, she never had one bedsore."

The court records are full of praise for the way Michael cared for Terri all these years..Even the Schindlers themselves testified in court, before the right to life people got involved, that Michael was a loving caring husband.

[Bouncy Ball]

507. You mean to tell me in spite of what you just

read about him, you can sit there and call him a greedy bastard?

If he was a greedy bastard, he would have just taken the $700,000 her parents offered him, filed for divorce and cleared out of there years ago.

How dare you call him a greedy bastard????

[Bouncy Ball]

505. Uh he's still married to her.

So I guess you're just talking out your ass.

[candy331]

397. Can someone please do another search and find something anything that

this woman left to say what she wanted. Did she ever visit a doctor before sickness, a clinic, workmates, a friend, a minister, a dentist, a note in crack of house, anything, find something so this can come to an end one way or the other. How does anyone know exactly how long it will take for her to die after feeding tube is removed she may just die momentarily. Now that the no written directions has been challenged to hell and back expect the written to be challenged sooner/later too. Take nothing for granted with the creepy, crazy people in charge now.

[LisaL]

424. She is not going to die "momentarily". Last time the tube was removed

for 6 days, and she didn't die. A person does not die because a feeding tube is removed, the person dies of starvation/dehydration, so it takes a while.

[moobu2]

433. If they had decided that the feeding tube would not have helped

and never started it, which is a decision made all the time, the same thing would have happened.

In other words, deciding to remove the tube is no different than deciding not to start it in the first place, which is a desision made day in and day out all over the world.

It's common to remove feeding tubes, there's nothing unusual about that. It's even more common to make the desision not to sart one. the effect in both circumstances is the same.

There's no ethical destiction in the 2.

[LisaL]

437. There is nothing unusual about many things, but that doesn't make

them right. Some people think beheadings are appropriate method of death. We think it's barbaric.

[moobu2]

442. What does beheadings have to do with someone who had heart failure

which killed their cerebral cortex and they had said they wouldn't want to be kept alive as a vegetable?

[LisaL]

448. One might say beheadings are barbaric.

I happen to think that removing someones feeding tube so he/she starves to death over a long period of time is barbaric.

[mondo joe]

451. So you're opposed to removal of life support for the brain dead

So you're opposed to removal of life support for the brain dead or those in a persistent vegetative state, even if that's what they request.

Now THAT is barbaric.

[LisaL]

455. Actually, if you want them dead, then you should have

the guts to kill them by lethal injection, for instance. Not take away their feeding tube and watch them waste away over weeks.
It's a horrible death, their organs shut down slowly, and nobody really knows what they are feeling. And the end result is the same-death. So, why giving them a lethal injection is murder, but starving them to death is perfectly legal?

[mondo joe]

458. Thanks for admitting you're just opposed to personal choice

Thanks for admitting it - your ranting about Terri has nothing to do with the facts of the case.

You're just opposed to people's choice of refusing artificial life support.

That's a good first step.

[LisaL]

462. Actually, no. I do not consider a feeding tube an

"artificial life support".
But if someone was conscious and refused to have a feeding tube installed, I would support their decision since we don't have euthanasia in this country.

[mondo joe]

464. The feeding tube is as artificial as a ventilator or any other

The feeding tube is as artificial as a ventilator or any other tech that keeps the body alive even when the person is GONE.

You're just opposed to honoring Terri's own choice, and the choice of anyone who doesn't want their body kept alive by machines.

[moobu2]

476. Well then you should support Terri schiavo,

because she said she wouldnt want this.

[LisaL]

482. Her husband said she wouldn't want this.

Apparently, some 8 years later. I don't believe him.

[mondo joe]

483. And it was corroborated by others.

You don't care what she wanted - just admit it. You're opposed to this choice.

Shame on you.

[moobu2]

461. Where on earth do you get this information at?

Giving someone a lethal injection is illegal, last I checked.

Terri had heart failure as a result of her being bulimic and her entire cerebral cortex has died. Nothing can be don't to help her improve and she said she wouldn't want to be on life support in these exact conditions.

How could you even think about forcing this on someone against their wishes?

[LisaL]

468. Why should it be illegal? If you are going to kill someone,

at least have the guts to do it quickly so they don't suffer.

[moobu2]

474. No ones killing anyone, where did you get that?

Terri and anyone that is on life support has some underlying disease. when life support is removed, for whatever reason, it's the disease that kills them.

If you want to be able to kill people, then you'll have to change the laws.

[mondo joe]

469. Bad boundaries. Hard to understand why some people think THEY

Bad boundaries. Hard to understand why some people think THEY know what's best for YOU.

[moobu2]

475. Sometimes its hard enough for immediate family to decide.

these people didn't even know Terri Schiavo, how dare they.

[mondo joe]

479. These people should admit they don't CARE what Terri wanted

At least her parents admit they don't care what she wanted, they'd keep her body alive through any means available.

But the posters here demonizing Michael Schiavo should just admit they don't care either. They're just opposed to removing life support and saying ANYTHING in pursuit of that.

[moobu2]

454. It isnt at all, it's a perfectly natural way to die.

[LisaL]

460. Which one? Beheadings or starving to death?

[moobu2]

472. Losing interest in food is natural when you get old or

when you have some serious disease. Terri would have died within a few days anytime before 25 years ago because that type of feeding is fairly new.

People often die as a result of them just losing the desire to eat in the last few weeks of old age or some other disease. Doctors do not normally force a feeding tube on them because it can cause pain and discomfort when there isn't any purpose other than prolonging the inevitable.

It isn't painful as you say and people have been dying that way since the beginning of time. Everone has to die and part of that process includes the end of you eating and drinking.

There's plenty of information on the internet about all that if you cared enough to look.

[mondo joe]

443. No difference between execution and personal autonomy?

Right right.

There's no difference between capital punishment and someone actually deciding what should happen to them in an irreversible impaired state.

[LisaL]

446. She cant' decide what should happen to her.

She can not say if her feeding tube should be removed or if it should stay in.

[moobu2]

449. She already did. All we have to go on is what she said.

And she wont be making any new statements because she's basically already dead or, everything that made her a person is dead and gone forever..

[mondo joe]

453. She already said it, that's corroborated, and she chose a guardian

She already said it, that's corroborated, and she chose a guardian who could make medical decision FOR her if she's incapacitated.

But you've already established you don't care what her choice is. You want to choose for her.

[0007]

441. This is so insane! Everyone is right and no one will concede

that ignorance prevails.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

480. How bout we ALL butt out-including the courts- Who really needs us

to decide-
?

[moobu2]

487. To late,

the parents already sold their daughter off to the right for political reasons.

It's everyone's business now because if the anti-abortionists get their way, none of us will be able to make these medical decisions for ourselves or loved ones.

[LisaL]

489. I sincerely doubt it. Keeping someone alive like that is very expensive.

I doubt anyone would pass a decision forbidding to remove life support.

[LisaL]

488. We are not deciding anything. We are just discussing it.

Obviously, none of us would get to decide what actually happens to Terri.

[moobu2]

492. Well, that's not exactly true because

If not for the 1,000's of emails sent to Jeb Bush from the anti-abortionist and the election and everything, Terri would be at peace right now because if you remember, they passed that stupid law because of all the emails and public pressure.

I don't think people should be allowed to interferer in these personal decisions but they already have.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

506. hey, two identities is no fair!

anti abortionist want her to live?
WOW!
Trip on , trip out !
women's rights - this is one of them.
and by the way, answering your own posts is cheap.

[mondo joe]

494. None of us will decide. But only some of us think we SHOULD.

Some of us accept that this is a private matter and that the courts have repeatedly upheld Michael Schiavo's dedication and Terri's wishes on the matter.

Some of us don't care what Terri wanted and prefer to make the decision for her and her family.

[Pachamama]

502. Last I checked, isn't it the SPOUSES who decide to DIVORCE, not PARENTS?

What is it with the Schindlers (parents of Terry Schiavo)? They seem to not understand that their daughter became an adult, made a decision to marry, and in that marriage gave many of her rights LEGALLY over to her husband.

They just can't seem to get over that can they? It's a decision that is not theirs to make....and certainly now its pretty obvious that they are desperate and grasping for straws in desperation at the last minute...

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

504. then why doesn't the man with a new wife & kids get a divorce?

Too damn lazy?
Too damn greedy?
Or just into the "power" over two women?
If the woman knew her husband had a new partner with kid's she'd get a divorce.
Dohhh~!

Since the guy can't get it together he needs a little jump start.
Once he's out of the picture, those who actually "care" about the woman can make proper decisions.

[Bouncy Ball]

509. He doesn't have a new WIFE.

Damn go do some reading on this case before you go spouting off about it.

[LisaL]

514. Sure, he can't marry his girlfreind while Terri is still alive.

But he got two kids with her.

[moobu2]

553. So, Terri's body should be force fed forever to punish him?

because you disapprove of his living arrangement?
The truth is, Michael could have gotten a divorce years ago and been done with those creeps in the Schindler family. Michael chose not to abandon his wife, and keep his legal relationship in order to carry out her wishes.

[LisaL]

555. I think Michael is the creep.

Why does he insist to be married to someone in PVS? What about his girlfriend, the mother of his children?

[0007]

515. I think you need to get up to speed on this case and do some reading

cuz your not making good sense.

[mondo joe]

525. Because he is trying to honor Terri's request for her final disposition

[suigeneris]

508. I'm struck by the observation that some here appear not

to be capable of making the affirmative decision to let Terri's body die. They throw up impossible tests such as getting into her head and absolute certainty while denying the best evidence medical science can provide.

Could such a person make a life and death decision in a court case? One can never be sure beyond an imagined shadow of a doubt(are you positive the sun will come up in the morning or your house will not be hit by an airliner?)The test is being sure to a moral certainty, or beyond a reasonable doubt.

Personally, I'm very comfortable with my wife making this decision for me and she knows that I think there are some extreme situations such as Mrs. Schiavo's that are worse than death.

For my part I can make this decision as well. I feel bad for folks who cannot face death as the natural and necessary part of life it is. Though the technology being used to keep Terri Schiavo alive is basic, our forebears didn't have it available, and now and in the future we shall surely have miraculous means of keeping bodies running after the brain is reduced to handling the bare minimums of keeping the body alive.

Cultivating the ability to say goodbye to our loved ones when the time is right honors and respects their humanity. Keeping their bodies alive when there is no reasonable ground for believing their minds are intact says something about our own fears, our supersititions, our lack of faith and the weakness of our character in being unable to deal with loss.

It is the worst kind of playing god in my mind.

[Bouncy Ball]

510. Great post.

I wonder about the motivations of people who refuse to honor a person's wishes.

[biftonnorton]

513. Yes! It's All About Expressed Wishes And Our Honoring Them

as well as the right to refuse medical treatment in advance of a condition. Whether or not that lack of treatment leads to death is really out of anyone's hands. For me, the issue is do we believe Mr. Schiavo about Terri's expressing her wishes for no artificial feeding or not. If we believe him, then we believe Terri stated her wishes to refuse artificial feeding and we should honor that wish b/c it was made by a legally competent adult in advance of a situation that rendered her unable to speak for herself.

[bettyellen]

524. sad but true, they would start arguing against the parents if they were

the ones willing to let terry go.
the implications scare me when it's obvious everybody is willing to throw away the concept of who is your next of kin. and how ever legally wrong it is, they line up to the side of keeping her "alive" no matter what.
most of these people have no idea what pallitive care is (i see references to dehydration again and again that show their ignorance) , because they have shut their minds and decided it is always wrong to let someone go. in their minds anyone could make a better decision than michael.
even the parents who have admitted they would ignore terry's own wishes. they would take away mine or your right to make this decision too, becasue they believe the decision itself is wrong. and to prove it, they have to demonize her husband, as well as the sanctity of the marraige vow he made to her. he promised to care for her in sickness, and yes what he's doing is part of it. he is honoring their marraige, while the parents are wishing she was still a baby they could still control.

[mondo joe]

527. Indeed. It's not just Terri's choice they're opposed to - it's all choice

You'd better make sure your own living will is carefully written and iron clad.

We're all at risk for some freak life-at-any-cost types to try to steal YOUR autonomy over your own life.

[noonwitch]

516. She didn't leave a living will, and she can breathe on her own

I don't support starving her to death without a living will that specifies what should or shouldn't be done. If she couldn't breathe without a respirator, I'd agree with pulling the plug. Starving someone to death is just wrong without the written instructions.

[H3Dakota]

517. A question...

What if it were the HUSBAND trying to keep her on the feeding tube and the PARENTS wanting to remove it? I'm curious how many folks here would still argue that it is strictly her husband's choice even though Terri put nothing in writing as to what she really wanted. How many folks would then call the husband the monster & the parents the heros?

I'm not agreeing with either side, just for the record. My opinion is just that & in the end, doesn't matter a hill of beans. I just became curious about what some folks would say. :)

[mondo joe]

523. The feeding tube is no different from a respirator

It's artificial life support.

She expressed her desire to not be kept living by machines - this is corroborated by several witnesses.

[HockeyMom]

534. These parents

would be contesting it even if she HAD a Living Will. Can't you see that? The are overcome with grief, not thinking rationally, and being controlled (and FUNDED) by a group with their own agenda (Right to Lifers).

[noonwitch]

546. This is about the law, ultimately. She didn't leave a living will

I don't think that a feeding tube is the same thing as a respirator. People have feeding tubes inserted for many different conditions. Lots of elderly people in nursing homes have them-should we be starving them to death by removing feeding tubes, too? A line has to be drawn somewhere for legal reasons. She's not brain dead, she's brain damaged, which makes her a disabled person, not a comatose one. I've seen that video her family made and she is responding to her mother's presence-you can say what you want, but I can see the spark of life and personality in her expressions.

Nobody knows if Terri wants to live or die. I'd rather err on the side of the living. I support indidividual choice on this matter, but please leave a living will if you don't want a feeding tube.

[mondo joe]

547. She has NO CEREBRAL CORTEX

And she stated she didn't want to be kept alive by some machine, which she now is.

[moobu2]

548. Where on earth do you people get this stuff?

Ok, respirators supply oxygen to people who walk around all the time. Some people are on respirators continually, all day long, and live there lives just fine. Then there are the ones who you say it's ok to turn the respirator off, because? It becomes something that feeding tubes aren't when? what?

Feeding tubes are also used by some people who function well, but we aren't talking about those people. were talking about people who expressed the desire not to be kept on life support once they became permanently incompetent with no hope of any recovery. LIKE TERRI SCHIAVO!!

Feeding tubes are life support like anything else that artificially supports life...is it natural? no! it's artificial life support!

Why don't you people write in your living will, that you want your bodies to be kept warm forever, and leave everyone else alone to make their own choices.

[LostinVA]

552. A feeding tube is legally and medically considered life support

You don't have to think this is a good thing, but it IS the same as a vent under the law.

[Sapphire Blue]

532. What are they going to do when she finally dies.... sue God?

They seem to be acting out of absolute desperation and ignorance. If they're so 'Christian', why are they so afraid to let their daughter die? Don't they believe in the heaven of their religion? Isn't their faith strong enough to trust in God? Or is that just a convenient slogan to stamp on a coin?

[bspence]

536. Like Gannon, they're 'divorced from reality' n/t

[bluedog]

539. hey mods.........thread takes forever to load

like..start another one

[Name removed]

545. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.