A Right-to-Die Battle Enters Its Final Days

[janx]

PINELLAS PARK, Fla., Oct. 14 — Ever since Terri Schiavo's heart temporarily stopped beating one winter night in 1990, leaving her severely brain damaged, she has been a woman without a voice.

Mrs. Schiavo, now 39, can open her eyes and moan, her mouth sometimes forming a smile or grimace. She breathes on her own, but is fed through a gastric tube. Since she cannot speak for herself, those close to her — along with thousands of strangers who never heard of Mrs. Schiavo before her misfortune — have spoken and often shouted on her behalf.

Some, including her husband and legal guardian, Michael, say Mrs. Schiavo would choose death over the life she has now, although she left no living will or other instructions. Others — including her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and her siblings — contend that she fiercely wants to live — and that even if she did not, life in any form is worth holding onto.

The arguments, made in courtrooms, churches and newspaper columns, on talk radio and even in the governor's office, have been exhausted. A judge has ordered that Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube be removed on Wednesday as her husband has requested; without nourishment she would die within weeks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/15/national/15FEED.html?ex=1066795200&en=ef51b4ae27599095&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[janx]

1. I hope this isn't a duplicate thread.

This battle is really raging and has some serious political and ethical consequences.

Any Floridians DUers here?

[Jason600]

47. die in what way?

If she is brain dead, than they should allow her to die. I just disagree with starving her to death. What the hell's up with that. Find another way please

[janx]

104. I'm not sure there is any other legal way, Jason.

.

[deek]

106. Not brain-dead---Terri is brain damaged

extremely significant difference

[Loyal]

2. I don't think she should die.

I see the pro-lifers getting mad about it, but for a different reason. I'm pro-choice, and while this has nothing to do with abortion, and I do support a woman's right to choose, this is different. This woman is living, she is not in someone's womb, and she is incapacitated. We can't know for sure what this woman wants, and I think that it would be immoral to kill her. I do support euthanasia, definitely, but this woman is incapacitated. I don't think it would be right to kill her since she cannot make the decision for herself.

[janx]

3. Her husband said that she told him she never wanted to "live"

that way. She doesn't have a Living Will, unfortunately.

The way I look at it, she has been everything but dead for 13 years, so I would find such a thing the most humane thing to do. But others disagree.

[Loyal]

8. I don't believe it

And if she has no living will, I think it is murder to kill her.

[janx]

13. Why don't you believe it? Many people say the same thing

at one time or another.

[Loyal]

18. Without proof

We can't know for sure. Therefore this murder is wrong.

[DemBones DemBones]

20. Her husband stands to inherit some $700,000 from her estate --

money that was awarded for her care. He has a girlfriend, who is now pregnant, and they already have had one child together. Terri has to die in order for him to marry the girlfriend AND get the money; if he divorced Terri, he'd never get the money.

The parents have doctors who say Terri's prognosis is not as glum as the report you posted. In cases like this one, you get these differences of opinion.

Important points -- which everyone seems to agree upon -- are that Terri Schiavo is NOT terminally ill, NOT brain dead, NOT suffering, and did NOT have any advanced directives or living will

[jiacinto]

21. Again

I agree with you here.

[janx]

26. She is being kept alive artificially and is very close to brain dead.

Her brain stem and what is left of her cerebral cortex allow reflexive movement, and it appears to those with heart and hope that she is trying to react...but if you see these clips more than once, you begin to shudder.

And yes, you're right--the doctors her parents hired disagree with those appointed by her husband and the doc appointed by the court. Why wouldn't they?

Actually, one doc in one of the clips, which they filmed clandestinely, came out to say in court that she was nonresponsive.

All I know is, if I'm ever like that I hope someone shoots me in the head.

The "pro-lifers," including Randall Terry, are heavily involved in the anti-husband crusade. That in itself gives me pause.

[blondeatlast]

54. I've been in a coma, with the lack of response you cite, and

I wouldn't have wanted them to stop FEEDING me.

The parents aren't necessarily wanting to PROLONG her life, they just don't want to starve her. There is a huge difference between a ventilator and a stomach tube.

[janx]

75. She's NOT comatose. Many people come out of comas.

She will never regain anything and she will never be anything but a reflexive human body. Talk about hell. She's not there anymore, Blonde. She's GONE.

It's hard for people to understand this, because various reports have erroneously called her comatose or brain dead, when technically she is not. It's much worse than that--worse than comatose because she'll never come out of it, and worse than brain dead because the body still has reflexive movements, breathing etc. that tempt us into thinking that she's actually still in there. But she's not.

People have made a lot of assumptions and given me a lot of shit in this thread, but I'm only trying to point out that what you see in the media is not always what you get, especially in this case, and especially when there are so many humanitarian ramifications involved.

When emotions get high, science is often flung out the window. And when the tabloid media pimps get involved, it gets insufferable.

[deek]

109. janx...your personal experience, please?

Have you had personal experience with someone who has severe brain damage? Brain dead? Comatose?

Have you had experience with the medical profession and their "expert opinions"?

This is not about science. This is about a fellow human being whose only "crime" is having to be fed through the stomach instead of the mouth. Wait. I guess her real crime is to have fought to stay alive after her husband sued the hospital for all that money for her care and therapy (which he has blocked her from receiving).

This isn't about tabloid pimps. It's about people who have severe disabilities having the right to live. You might want to be shot, but you can not dictate that inability to accept yourself as anything other than "whole" onto someone else.

Besides, being shot and being starved to death are VASTLY DIFFERENT.

[janx]

135. I have indeed had personal experience with this sort of thing.

That's why I'm so adamant. Terri Schiavo is not comatose.

If you want to throw science out of the window, go ahead. I'm not willing to do that, and I'm not willing to compromise this woman's dignity because of some right-wing "pro-life" hysteria.

This isn't what she wanted.

And yes, the media ARE pimping this thing. Other than Michael Schiavo's recent statement, what else have we heard about his side of things?

It's not that I don't respect people who stand up and care for the disabled. But as far as I'm concerned, this is a different matter altogether.

[deek]

155. You are correct

Terri is not comatose. She is not brain dead either. The "throwing science out the window" line is getting very tired.

This is not a rightwing prolifer issue. It is a disability issue.

[deek]

108. HUGE difference n/t

.

[deek]

107. and the discussion boards posters believe liberals

are rooting for her tortuous starvation.

[Scairp]

10. I concur

If she were brain dead and on a vent that would be completely different. But if all that's required to keep her alive is basic nourishment then removing her feeding tube and letting her starve to death is cruel and inhumane. I think it's appalling that her scumbag of a husband, who stands to inherit the money he won from a lawsuit on her behalf, has been allowed to make this decision. You'd think that the courts would appoint a guardian ad litem, or give guardianship to her parents, because of his obvious conflict of interest. It's not right and I don't see this as a pro-life issue and I really wish that they had not gotten involved in this.

[blondeatlast]

53. Well spoken, my views exactly.

In this case, guardianship should be returned to her parents since it is clear that the hubby doesn't have her best interests at heart.

We let my dad die peacefully, but we sure as hell didn't dehydrate and starve him to death. That is just depraved.

[janx]

4. A column from the St. Petersburg Times...

Schiavo's cerebral cortex, he said, is mostly gone. It was destroyed by the loss of oxygen she suffered when she had a heart attack 13 years ago. Once gone, the cortex cannot grow back, Walker said. The space it once occupied in Schiavo's skull is now filled with spinal fluid.

"The cortex does all our thinking," he said. "Some people argue that it's responsible for personhood. Without a cortex, you can't think, feel, have consciousness."

Schiavo is "awake but not aware," Walker said. Parts of her brain that control reflexes and other basic bodily functions still work. So she can sleep, breathe, blink and make the other moves that fuel the faith of those who seek to save her.

(more) http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/21/Columns/Crusade_is_blind_to_h.shtml

[anti_shrub]

5. I don't get it

Why would anyone want to force someone to continue living like that? I wouldn't want to live like that, and neither does anyone else I know.

It's a shame that people like Jeb Bush turn cases like this into him showing his religious sugar daddies that he won't let anyone end their suffering.

note: I haven't been following that case, but if its in Florida and Jeb hasen't weighed in yet, I'm assured he will soon.

[janx]

9. Oh, he has. But he can't do anything because he can't overturn

the courts. Separation of powers, etc.

This case is very complicated. This woman's parents are fighting with her husband--and have been for quite some time. But take a look at this timeline and note when the fighting began:

Events in the legal battle between the husband and parents of Terri Schiavo after she collapsed of a heart attack on Feb. 25, 1990.

November 1992: Terri's husband, Michael, wins malpractice suit that accused doctors of misdiagnosing his wife; jury awards more than more than $700,000 for her care, Michael receives an additional $300,000.

Feb. 14, 1993: Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have a falling out with Michael over the money and Terri's care.

May 1998: Michael Schiavo files petition to remove Terri's feeding tube.

Feb. 11, 2000: Circuit Judge George W. Greer rules feeding tube can be removed.

April 20, 2001: U.S. District Judge Richard Lazzara grants the Schindlers a stay.

April 24, 2001: Feeding tube is removed from Terri Schiavo.

April 26, 2001: Circuit Judge Frank Quesada orders doctors to reinsert the tube.

April 30, 2001: Lawyers for Michael Schiavo file emergency motion with appellate court asking it to order removal of Terri's feeding tube.

Oct. 17, 2001: 2nd District Court of Appeal rules that five doctors can examine Terri to determine whether she has any hope of recovery. The Schindlers pick two doctors, Michael Schiavo picks two, and the court the fifth.

Feb. 13, 2002: Mediation fails; Michael Schiavo again seeks to be allowed to remove Terri's feeding tube.

October 2002: Three doctors, including the one appointed by the court, testify that Terri is in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The Schindlers' two doctors say she can recover.

Nov. 22, 2002: Judge Greer orders feeding tube removed.

April 4, 2003: Schindlers' attorneys ask Second District Court of Appeal panel to overturn Greer's ruling.

June 6, 2003: 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds Greer.

Aug. 22, 2003: Florida Supreme Court declines to hear case.

Sept. 2, 2003: Schindlers seek intervention by a federal court.

Oct. 13, 2003: Protesters and Schindlers begin vigil at hospice.

Oct. 14, 2003: 2nd District Court of Appeal again refuses to block tube removal.

Oct. 15, 2003: Tube removed.

- The Associated Press

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-fcomatime16oct16,0,7930197.story?coll=sfla-news-florida

[jiacinto]

12. This sounds complicated

IT sounds like there is much more to the story here. I really don't think the tube should be removed in light of what I've read.

[janx]

11. Also, it's tough for her parents. I can't imagine being in a

situation like that...but she has been messed up for a long time, and rehab didn't help because there is almost nothing left of her cerebral cortex. The heart attack happened in 1990.

[jiacinto]

14. I have concerns

Her wishes weren't in writing and it seems like her husband might have "questionable" motives.

[janx]

15. So her parents assert, yes.

But there is a lot of conflicting information. Her parents assert that, for instance, Terri never had any rehabilitative efforts on her behalf. This turned out not to be true; as far as I can figure out, she had either three or six years of it. Then there are the right wing accusations that the guy is "shacking up" with another woman who has already borne one of his kids and is about to have another--but hell, he waited six or seven years while his wife was in a vegetative state.

[jiacinto]

17. I think there are too many conflicting reports here

I have significant issues with removing her tube.

IF she has a written declaration, or if there weren't "questionable motives", or if the husband were not in position to get a finanicial windfall out of her death, then I would support taking it out.

But there is no written declaration. And I don't feel comfortable doing that.

[Scairp]

22. Yes, he has moved on

So why not divorce her? He started a family with another woman, does it make sense that he would stay legally married to Terri? This is not a "right-wing" accusation, merely a fact. I get the feeling some people on here side with the husband just because the right-to-lifers and Jeb Bush have gotten involved, but this is not about pro-choice or anti-choice or anything else. This is about letting this husband get away with court sanctioned murder so that he can have his new wonderful life and a shitload of money to enjoy it with. It's just plain wrong.

[jiacinto]

23. Yep

I agree with you.

[janx]

28. How can you divorce someone who lacks a cerebral cortex?

?

[Scairp]

37. It doesn't matter

He can get a legal divorce from her. He could have gotten one a long time ago and relieved himself of the responsibility. He has done nothing but live for himself and fight to let her die so he can get the money. He is no better than any other husband who kills his wife for the money, only in this case he has legal permission to kill her.

[DemBones DemBones]

38. The same way you get her starved to death -- you get a lawyer and

petition a court.

[Cheswick2.0]

97. in florida, he only has to pay a few hundred dollars and it is done

No fault divorce is quick and easy in florida. She does not need to be there or to agree.

[blondeatlast]

55. Exactly so.

[jiacinto]

6. This is something difficult

1) I think that people should be able to turn off the machines if that is what they want.

2) Ms. Schiavo never left a living will or a DNR order with her husband. Thus we don't truly have any indication of whether she would really want the tube removed.

3) She is not completely comatose and seems to have some sort of sentience.

I can't believe that I am saying this, but I really have concerns about removing her tube. She may not want to die.

Had she left instructions or if the husband had her wishes in writing then I would agree that he has the right to cut off life support.

But frankly I feel uncomfortable doing this without a written declaration. I think that there is too much uncertainty here.

[janx]

7. Here's a Beeb article link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3141058.stm

Unlike a patient in a coma, Dr Walker believes there is no hope for recovery for someone in Mrs Schiavo's condition - known as permanent vegetative state - because the cerebral cortex does not regrow once destroyed.

Despite the medical term, however, video of Terri Schiavo on a website run by her parents' supporters shows her more like a baby. But this is misleading as the movements are purely reflexes, Dr Walker says.

"The hard part of it is when you look at her, her eyes open, she blinks, she moves her head. If you do things that seem to be uncomfortable she will recoil from that but all of these things are known to be reflexive," he said.

"Terri Schiavo is very much alive, she is not in any sense dead, but she is severely brain damaged.

[blondeatlast]

56. I worked in a facility for the developmentally disabled as a nurse's

aide. We had at least three patients that had little more than their brain stems. What we call "response" may not really apply to them. There was definitely response to loving words and touches. They were just as OBVIOUSly uncomfortable as you or I would have been when they needed changed.

No way could I have straved these HUMANS to death. This isn't a pro-life issue, it goes to the heart of what it means to be human.

Check out this wonderful site and see if you don't question your thoughts even a little:

http://www.waiting.com/brainanatomy.html

[blondeatlast]

68. Patient V:

Had no more than a brain stem. Could move her arms and legs in a limited way. Couold vocalize. On a feeding tube. No urinary or bowel control.

When V was agitated, gentle talk and stroking her hair would make her wails turn into soft coos; soon after, she would fall asleep. Even though she could not eat, she liked the taste of jello placed on her tongue, she would signal with her eyes when she wanted more.

She died of a stroke (oddly enough) at the age of 42. I had to say goodbye to a friend.

No way could I have watched her starve. Good God, is this Auschwitz?

[janx]

72. A fetus sucks its thumb, laughs, and cries in the womb.

.

[deek]

110. True--she will never be "normal"

so what?

[janx]

136. It's not up to us to decide. It's about what she wanted.

And she didn't want to "live" like that.

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Bottom line: it's legal to starve the disabled to death in America.

Several times already I've posted an excerpt from a column by Rus Cooper-Dowda, a disabled rights activist who has been covering the Terri Schiavo story for Not Dead Yet, a disability rights group that opposes killing the disabled. If you read what happened to Rus, it may give you pause about such cases:

"There is my own struggle from when I was considered allegedly as good as dead. But I had a single nurse who believed I was still "in there" and able to communicate. With my inked finger and her paper on a clipboard, we proved I indeed had opinions about whether I should live or die.

There was controversy as to whether my recognizable writing was communication or seizure activity until the BIG meeting. The doctors and my husband, who were spending an ever lessening amount of time with me, were granting that gathering as a courtesy to my mother and the nurses who felt I did not deserve to be written off.

At the end of the meeting my then-husband held up a message board to prove I couldn't use it. When asked to communicate something, I laboriously said to my spouse who was not allowing the most basic of care, "D-I-V-O-R-C-E Y-O-U." The doctors all laughed and attributed my phrase to more seizure activity.

Then my mother took the board and asked me to repeat what I had just said. I did so with, "D-I-V-O-R-C-E H-I-M." There was never a question after that as to whether I could think or respond to my environment. The divorce allowed rehabilitative care, which brought me to being able to write the sentence that ends right now at this period. "

http://www.icanonline.net/news/fullpage.cfm?articleid=0AF62977-0792-494F-93F1226AEE3BA02A

[jiacinto]

19. I feel the same way about this case

Without the DNR paperwork I have problems with this.

[anti_shrub]

24. The cases are different

This woman's brain is severely damaged with no hope of returning. I see no sense in prolonging the obvious.

I think its sick that we can put suffering pets to sleep, but suffering people have to be prolonged to the nth degree.

[DemBones DemBones]

30. Opinions differ on whether she could improve but nobody has

claimed she's suffering.

[Scairp]

39. I'm sure she is now

Without food or water for three days I am quite sure she is suffering.

[janx]

31. I feel the same way. A dog wouldn't be treated this poorly.

.

[blondeatlast]

57. It isn't "obvious" and there are questions regarding the

quality of care she received. I've known people in the same position, 3 in fact, and as long as they were nourished, they had some quality of life.

Please see post 56.

[janx]

138. So you believe the right-wing nonsense that she never

received quality, rehabilitative care? That no one even brushed her teeth for ten years, and that there were never any tests done to ascertain whether or not she could swallow?

If you do, I think you'd better reassess the situation.

Read Michael Schiavo's statement again.

[deek]

112. "prolonging the obvious"

You, my fellow DUer, will obviously eventually die.

Why prolong your life?

Shall we sew your mouth shut too?

[DemBones DemBones]

27. It shouldn't be called a "right-to-die" case since there are no

advanced directives initiated by Terri Schiavo before her heart attack.

With the husband standing to inherit $700,000, I don't see him as a disinterested party. I don't blame him for moving on with his life and having children with his girlfriend but he could have sought a divorce instead of death for his wife. I saw him on television saying he didn't care about the money but if that were true, why not get a divorce and let her parents manage her money for her care? The money was awarded in a lawsuit and was to be used for her care. . . Her parents maintain that he has fought against her receiving any therapy. In court recently, they asked that she be given therapy to see if she could learn to swallow on her own again. His lawyer said that being able to lift a spoon to your own mouth was the "litmus test." Stephen Hawkings is one of many who fail that litmus test.

[janx]

32. He has spent a lot of that money on the lawsuits. I think there's

something like $200,000 to $300,000 left.

[jiacinto]

35. Still a good deal of money

nt

[janx]

45. Yes, it is, and I think there's more to this whole story than

we know about now.

[anti_shrub]

34. No doubt her husband has motivation

but isn't it sick to keep a brain damaged woman alive just to *prevent* him from getting the money too?

Steven Hawkings has shown he can still communicate, so there's no danger of anyone thinking he needs to be euthanized.

This woman has no functioning brain that I can tell. Why keep her alive?

[DemBones DemBones]

40. If she's not been given therapy to help her communicate, we don't

know if she can communicate or not. Did you read Rus Cooper-Dowda's story in my earlier post in this thread?

Terri Schiaco is NOT brain dead. Some doctors say she's in a persistent vegetative state and will never get better. Other doctors think there is hope. Who's correct? And why has her husband not wanted her to have therapy?

[janx]

42. She has been in therapy. It was either three or six years of

therapy, after her heart attack. (And no, I don't believe the stories that her husband caused her brain damage by beating her or strangling her either.)

The parents have said there was no therapy, but a nurse by the name of Ms. Sauer testified that she took care of Terri during therapy 7 years ago, before she went into hospice. That would mean that she had 6 years of therapy. It cost $4000 per month.

The various facts/rumors of this situation don't add up.

[jiacinto]

50. Good questions

I don't like this decision.

[Scairp]

41. Pray tell "DOCTOR"

When was it that you examined Terri to find out that she has no functioning brain? I had no idea you were an insider in this case. You must have lots of information. Could you share with us please?

[janx]

43. I did. Read the links I posted.

. If you are pro-life, I can respect that. But sarcasm won't serve your purpose very well.

[Scairp]

46. Does that mean you don't actually know jackshit...

...about this case? And this is not about me or pro-life of pro-choice. It's about a man who is being allowed to legally kill his disabled wife for money. And FYI, I have always found that sarcasm serves me VERY well.

[blondeatlast]

59. Would you starve the people I describe in post 56 to death?

If you knew them like I did, you wouldn't.

[janx]

76. See my post #75.

.

[janx]

73. There's something about the money that seems to be more

important to people than a woman vegetating for 13 years. Cheers to the media.

[janx]

44. Bones, while that is a heartwarming story about

Rus Cooper-Dowda, this woman is beyond disabled. I only wish she had put something in writing.

[DemBones DemBones]

48. Um, the POINT of the heartwarming story was that she could have

been put to death if one nurse hadn't believed she was still "in there" and helped her to communicate by inking her finger and giving her paper to write on. Even then, the doctors were willing to dismiss her writing as "seizure activity."

[blondeatlast]

62. Exactly--when you see them every day, as I did, you get

a heightened awareness of their responses.

This is legalized starvation, period. It needs to be stopped.

[blondeatlast]

60. No, she really isn't "beyond disabled."

[deek]

111. essential reading

dembones, your post should be proof enough that this situation is an atrocity

[Changenow]

143. The question is whether it is appropriate to withhold

medical treatment. If she were able to eat and food were withheld that would be another matter entirely. The way you can come to terms with this is to consider her a mentally aware adult who needs expensive asthma medicines to survive. If that individual were treated properly she could live functionally for many years, without the treatment she is doomed to what amounts to suffocation. The state and our society have no problem telling her that her breathing is not a priority; her life is not as valuable as the medicine. If a person who could enjoy a life of quality is denied life saving treatment because we chose not to help her, the continuation of treatment for someone with no quality of life cannot be justified. Either life matters is doesn’t. Continuing medical treatment when simply prolongs death in a person who has no real life is senseless.


*I posted this in LBN but it looks like the discussion is over here now.

[deek]

158. withholding food and water

So the deciding factor is if you can eat/drink using your mouth (oral nutrition), then you can be fed; but if you get nutrition in a different way, then you shouldn't? Why would it "be another matter entirely"?

Should IVs (paraenteral nutrition)-which is a "medical treatment" be pulled out? Gastric feeding (enteral nutrition) is NOT medical treatment.

[kenth]

25. It's not so much

a right-to-die case as it is a right-to-kill case.

The state, in effect, has reduced Terri Schiavo's status to that of mere property of her husband. It's not guardianship, but ownership. Her wishes to live or die are unknown. As presented to the court, they are hearsay.

[blondeatlast]

63. Well put!

Edit: Welcome to DU!

:toast:

Jumping into GDF with both feet already! Good on ya!

Edit 2: Are you a lawyer (if you care to share)?

[corarose]

29. My Mom was on life support and the HMO fought us

They pulled the plug on her and I miss her so much.

[janx]

33. The HMO did that?!

That is a different story!

The lesson for all of us is to get Living Wills in order as soon as possible.

[corarose]

36. They fought us and she could talk & move her eyes

They said that she was brain dead and she wasn't. The nurses knew that she was getting better. We tried to get her records and they vanished and I have put it behind me know.
I had to or I would have broken down.

[blondeatlast]

64. Good Lord, Cora, I am SO sorry.

:hug:

[Shakespeare]

98. They can't pull the plug without the family's permission

The only exception to this is if the incapacitated person has a signed Advance Directive on file (sometimes referred to as a living will).

I don't want to upset you, but either that is not what happened (I'm guessing some member of your family gave permission), or they broke the law and you have not just a good case, but a big fat open-and-shut case against them.

[Shakespeare]

99. This case is a stark reminder to ALL of us to sign an advance directive

This is sometimes referred to as a living will, and it's an approximately 5-page form where you fill out the details of what you want end-of-life or crisis care to be, especially regarding whether you want a DNR order on file ("do not resuscitate").

The AD tells specifically what you wish your care to be, and can help you and your family avoid a situation like the one this family is going through. It is a legally binding document, and one that must be followed by your family. Many families can't let go emotionally when a loved one is on life support, and an AD helps avoid the "should we pull the plug" confrontation that happens too often.

[janx]

130. My mother had one, thank God. She was able to die in comfort

and dignity.

The right doesn't care about Terri Shiavo's dignity. If only she had had a Living Will--but she was only 26.

[Heddi]

153. I'm 27, and my husband is 30

and we both have living wills and directives and such. Each of our parents have a copy, and we have a copy for ourselves in our home. My husband's doctor has one on file, but I don't have insurnace, so I don't have a doctor, so the ones at home, and at my mom's house are all that I have.

It's not a complicated legal procedure. You can get the forms free from most Dr's and hospitals. Sign them, date them, have a witness sign them, close them up in an envelope and mail them off, telling the recipient NOT to open the envelope under any circumstances. (that's what you should do if you can't find a notary).....

very simple.

[deek]

113. there is NO PLUG to pull!!!

We're talking about a feeding tube, ferchrissakes!!

It's a substitue for an esophagus!!

[Padraig18]

49. If this is not evil...

... then evil has no meaning! :grr:

[linazelle]

51. There are alternatives to yanking the tube...and imminent death

A report on the Today Show said they could wean her and somehow transition her so that she would not die. Her husband is pushing this and really wants to see her die. They showed video of her and she appeared to respond to her relatives by smiling, looking in their direction, etc. She was not totally out of it. To me brain dead means total vegetable and she is not in a vegative state.

[janx]

77. OY.

"They showed video of her and she appeared to respond to her relatives by smiling, looking in their direction, etc. She was not totally out of it. To me brain dead means total vegetable and she is not in a vegative state."


She still has brain stem activity that causes her body to move, contort, etc. The video clips you saw (they're all over the web) were those clandestinely shot and edited by her parents. They sneaked the video equipment into the hospice and are now in contempt of court.

So she is not fully brain dead, no. That's what is so awful. The brain stem works. But the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that provides us with cognizance, is gone.

[dsc]

52. I am astonished

I am literally astonished that some many here are so anti pro life that this doesn't at least give pause. This man, who has clearly moved on, stands to gain a 6 figure windfall from this decision. There is no written evidence at all for the idea this is her decision. I thought the whole idea of the pro choice movement was to avoid having women treated like their husband's property. If there were a written DNR or living will I wouldn't have a problem with this. If all of the relatives agreed, I wouldn't have a problem with this. But here you have one relative with a 6 figure motive as the only one saying end it and the rest fighting like hell to stop it. At the very least this should give people who supposedly believe women aren't their husband's property pause. It is sad it evidently doesn't.

[janx]

58. All two of us?

I can't stand seeing someone live like a vegetable, and the revelation that the woman had very little of her cerebral cortex left tipped the scales for me. You can't grow it back; that would be like hoping to grow back a leg or something. She CANNOT be rehabilitated.

Her brain stem activity and what little is left of the cortex enable her to move, to breath, to react reflexively or instinctually, but that is not cognizance.

To me, this has nothing to do with a woman as property and everything to do with the dignity of the woman involved.

In addition, what more people need to understand is that this whole terrible situation is being used by the pro-life movement to bolster their cause, leaning on the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Would you like Randall Terry calling the shots in the future?

[dsc]

61. Isn't pro choice supposed to be about the wishes of the person involved?

We have one, count it one, person saying she wanted this (and he has a 6 figure motive to lie). Every other close relative says the exact opposite. Now I don't want to live that way but not only do all my relatives know that I have a living will. Convince me this is her choice and you won't hear a peep out of me. Now it has all the hallmarks of being the choice of a man with a 6 figure motive. That should give you pause. That you hate Randall Terry enough that it doesn't is scary and I sure as Hell hope I don't fall in a coma around you.

[janx]

71. She is not in a coma, and too many people are believing the

whore tabloid media in this whole thing. How does anyone know how much of that money is left? There is a huge propaganda campaign going on about how evil this guy is and how all he wanted was the money (sounds like a bad novel or a soap opera), and how is is (gasp!) living with another woman after his wife lay a vegetable for--how many years?! There are rumors about how he locked her up in a hospice and wouldn't let anyone brush her teeth for 13 years.

Do you believe this?

I don't.

Sorry.

"That you hate Randall Terry enough that it doesn't is scary and I sure as Hell hope I don't fall in a coma around you."

That is ridiculous. First of all, she's not in a coma (something that it's possible to come out of), and secondly, Terry and everyone else are USING this situation for their own political ends.

[dsc]

74. I don't care if Hitler is using her for political benefit

that has no bearing one way or the other on the merits. I also don't know how much money is left but the 6 figures I have repeatedly sited includes the 100k to 200k that his side said is left (from an earlier post in this thread). What we have here is one person, with financial motive in the 6 figure range, saying she would want to die vs every single other relative saying directly the opposite. Living wills are not unknown. Telling more than one relative of your desires in this regard can only be called common. She chose, if you believe him, to tell only him and leave no living will. I don't think that the word of someone who will inherit 6 figures should be dispositive here.

[janx]

78. dsc, she was only 26 when she had the heart attack. Not too

many 26-year-olds have Living Wills. That is the drag of it. People should probably do this when they are 21 or so, I don't know. She was very young when it happened.

As for financial motive, I'm with anti-bush who questions the value of the money against the value of the dignity of the woman involved.

There are so many rumors about the money, and so many people are so interested in the money...and I've seen differing accounts of how it was spent and how much is left. I tend not to believe anyone since this is a trust, and it's probably not open to public record.

But I did notice also that (and I am ashamed to be suspicious) the parents got into a dispute with the husband less than three months after that settlement. I posted a timeline. Check it out.

I think there are many seamy sides to this whole thing, and I'd like to see this woman be able to finish her death and have some peace.

[dsc]

79. I can understand the lack of a living will

but I can't understand the lack of telling any other relative. Certainly this had to have come up sometime in her family's history. Some grandparent, aunt, uncle, etc must have at one time or another become sick etc. Yet, supposedly she gives this info to her husband but not to other relatives. I find that suspicious. When added to a 6 figure motive I find it even more suspicious.

[janx]

80. A 26-year-old? Probably not. I know that at 26, I wasn't exactly

aware of my own mortality. But it's more than possible that she mentioned it. The guy was her husband.

[janx]

81. Also, dsc, think about this:

This is a slightly altered (by me) post I found in another forum. I found it enlightening:


Other than the court decisions there is no evidence presented in the media (including and especially the internet) for the husband's side of the argument.

There has been a media war instituted by the parents and other political interests. Any evidence needed to justify the husband's position is being withheld due to legal privacy concerns and lawyers' advice. The fact is that the judge knows, the medical case workers know, yet all have made their decision and are silent in the matter, with the exception of a slew of people, polical and non, who have sided with the family yet have no direct connection to the case.

[dsc]

82. Legally the judge had little choice

Unless I am very much mistaken in this type of instance the husband has a pretty free hand. Unless states require living wills for this decision then I don't know whatelse the court could do.

[janx]

87. There are some links to court decisions in my posts 85 and 86.

They may shed some more light on the situation.

[deek]

114. if we can't depend upon our families

to stand up for us,there will be no one else

simple fact of life.

obviously underscored in this case

[blondeatlast]

65. Who are you to decide what her quality of life is?

I suggest you volunteer at a medical center for the developmentally disabled. You will come away from the experience a very changed person.

And I am 100% pro-choice. This isn't euthanasia (I support that), it's outright, "loving" husband and state-sponsored murder.

What is his new woman friend thinking? I'd be running like hell with my kid!

[janx]

69. Who are you to be so rude? Sheesh. I had no say in the decision.

But a woman who has no cerebral cortex cannot be compared to people who are developmentally disabled.

[blondeatlast]

124. You ignored my point about V completely.

She had no cerebral cortex, only a brain stem, but she could feel pleasure and pain, and responded to familiar voices and taste.

[janx]

132. If she really had no cerebral cortex, she could do none of those

things. It may have appeared that way though.

[Scairp]

84. Exactly

Once and for all, is NOT about pro- or anti-choice, it's about allowing this man to kill his wife for profit. They usually prosecute husbands for that kind of thing but this man has court approval to kill his wife for the money. I do not understand why, once he had moved on with his life with someone else, he didn't just step out of the picture and allow her parents to care for her. They clearly wanted to, after all they have been fighting for her all of these years. That and the money makes his motivation for wanting her dead highly suspicious to say the least.

[deek]

115. HERE HERE nt

.

[Padraig18]

66. "Would you like Randall Terry calling the shots in the future?"

Were I Terry Schiavo, yes.

[blondeatlast]

67. Randall Terry? Hell no. Janx? Hell no, too.

Keep YOUR hands off my body and feeding tube. You frighten me.

[janx]

70. What are you talking about? Randall Terry is spearheading

the vigil for this woman in Florida. You didn't know that? The gang's all there crusading for this woman; it seems everyone is using what's left of her for their own political agendas.

It's terrible.

[bratcatinok]

83. Randall Terry

isn't spearheading this. He only became involved in the last couple of months (if he's been involved even that long).

So far, I've read of only one doctor who states she has no cerebral cortex. I haven't been able to find out his connection to this particular case. Has he done any hands-on examination of Terri?

I find it highly suspicious as to why Michael Schiavo won't turn over guardianship to the parents when the parents have offered to allow him to keep any remaining monies from the settlement. Obviously, Michael has no great love for Terri as he has moved on and has started a new life for himself. I don't begrudge him moving on because it's hard to deal with a brain damaged person and some people just aren't cut out to deal with it. I do begrudge him not giving guardianship of Terri to her parents especially since the parents have made their offer.

Who would it hurt if guardianship was turned over to her parents?

[janx]

85. There is certainly more than one doctor. Here is an excerpt

from only one of the courts' opinions:

On remand, this court anticipated but did not require that Dr. Webber, who had claimed in his affidavit that he might be able to restore Mrs. Schiavo's speech andsome of her cognitive functioning, would testify for the parents and provide scientific
support for his claim. However, Dr. Webber, who was so critical in this court's decisionto remand the case, made no further appearance in these proceedings. Instead, the parents provided testimony from Dr. William Maxfield, aboard-certified physician in radiology and nuclear medicine, and Dr. WilliamHammesfahr, a board-certified neurologist. Michael Schiavo, Mrs. Schiavo's husbandand guardian, selected Dr. Ronald Cranford and Dr. Melvin Greer, both board-certifiedneurologists, to testify. The fifth physician, selected by the guardianship court when theparties could not agree, was Dr. Peter Bambakidis, a board-certified neurologistpracticing in the Department of Neurology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation inCleveland, Ohio. He is a clinical professor of neurology at Case Western ReserveUniversity. His credentials fulfilled the requirements of our prior opinion. Through the assistance of Mrs. Schiavo's treating physician, Dr. VictorGambone, the physicians obtained current medical information about Theresa Schiavoincluding high-quality brain scans. Each physician reviewed her medical records andpersonally conducted a neurological examination of Mrs. Schiavo. Lengthy videotapesof some of the medical examinations were created and introduced into evidence. Thus,the quality of the evidence presented to the guardianship court was very high, and eachside had ample opportunity to present detailed medical evidence, all of which was sub-jected to thorough cross-examination. It is likely that no guardianship court has everreceived as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding. On the issue that caused this court to reverse in our last decision, whethernew treatment exists which offers such promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs.Schiavo's cerebral cortex that she herself would elect to undergo this treatment andwould reverse the prior decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures, the parentspresented little testimony. Dr. William Hammesfahr claimed that vasodilation therapyand hyberbaric therapy "could help her improve." He could not testify that any "specificfunction" would improve. He did not claim that he could restore her cognitive functions. He admitted that vasodilation therapy and hyberbaric therapy were intended to increaseblood and oxygen supply to damaged brain tissue to facilitate repair of such tissue. These therapies cannot replace dead tissue. Although the physicians are not in com-plete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agreethat the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debatebetween the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in hercerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Il7CENonq2QJ:www.2dca.org/opinion/June%252006,%25202003/2D02-5394.pdf+schiavo+schindler+browning+florida+supreme+court&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[janx]

86. Here is some more information from another denial of appeal:

In order to minimize disputes between the parties, this court's last opinionalso provided guidance to the guardianship court concerning the nature of the hearingto be held on remand. We required an additional set of medical examinations ofTheresa Schiavo and the selection of no more than five physicians to provide experttestimony on the issue presented. We instructed that one of the five physicians must bea new, independent physician selected either by the agreement of the parties or, if theycould not agree, by the appointment of the guardianship court. We indicated that thisphysician should be board certified in neurology or neurosurgery, with expertise ifpossible "in the treatment of brain damage and in the diagnosis and treatment ofpersistent vegetative state." 800 So. 2d at 646. On remand, this court anticipated but did not require that Dr. Webber, whohad claimed in his affidavit that he might be able to restore Mrs. Schiavo's speech andsome of her cognitive functioning, would testify for the parents and provide scientific
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
-6-support for his claim. However, Dr. Webber, who was so critical in this court's decisionto remand the case, made no further appearance in these proceedings. Instead, the parents provided testimony from Dr. William Maxfield, aboard-certified physician in radiology and nuclear medicine, and Dr. WilliamHammesfahr, a board-certified neurologist. Michael Schiavo, Mrs. Schiavo's husbandand guardian, selected Dr. Ronald Cranford and Dr. Melvin Greer, both board-certifiedneurologists, to testify. The fifth physician, selected by the guardianship court when theparties could not agree, was Dr. Peter Bambakidis, a board-certified neurologistpracticing in the Department of Neurology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation inCleveland, Ohio. He is a clinical professor of neurology at Case Western ReserveUniversity. His credentials fulfilled the requirements of our prior opinion. Through the assistance of Mrs. Schiavo's treating physician, Dr. VictorGambone, the physicians obtained current medical information about Theresa Schiavoincluding high-quality brain scans. Each physician reviewed her medical records andpersonally conducted a neurological examination of Mrs. Schiavo. Lengthy videotapesof some of the medical examinations were created and introduced into evidence. Thus,the quality of the evidence presented to the guardianship court was very high, and eachside had ample opportunity to present detailed medical evidence, all of which was sub-jected to thorough cross-examination. It is likely that no guardianship court has everreceived as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding.



http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Il7CENonq2QJ:www.2dca.org/opinion/June%252006,%25202003/2D02-5394.pdf+schiavo+schindler+browning+florida+supreme+court&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[janx]

89. Here is one more excerpt:

http://www.jud10.org/2ndDCA/jan01/2D00-1269.htm

The evidence is overwhelming that Theresa is in a permanent or persistent vegetative state. It is important to understand that a persistent vegetative state is not simply a coma. She is not asleep. She has cycles of apparent wakefulness and apparent sleep without any cognition or awareness. As she breathes, she often makes moaning sounds. Theresa has severe contractures of her hands, elbows, knees, and feet.
Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid-1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs. She could remain in this
state for many years.

[blondeatlast]

125. Yes, of course I did. I am not so blindly pro-choice that I can't admit

that in this case, he's on the ethically/morally correct side. If I could, I would be there demonstrating with him. Next week, I would be escorting at the clinic to clean out my soul from the taint of him.

[janx]

133. Well I disagree. And I am not blindly pro-choice; I'm pro-choice

for many reasons.

This woman's husband has stated more than once that she told him she did not want to live in such a state.

That was her choice. Now it's time her choice is respected.

[SiobhanClancy]

140. I think you're missing the point...

I don't think anyone questions that the husband has made these statements,or that they have been backed up by his brother and sister-in-law. For many people,Michael Schiavo has a credibility problem. It is certainly not a clear-cut case of her "choice" as you state. You seem quite certain in your opinions,so don't be too suprised that others also are certain in their very opposite opinions.

[Deja Q]

88. By ONLY removing the feeding tube? Let alone the hypocrisy...

Cruel sadist bastards! Letting her suffer for WEEKS.

There are ways of humanely terminating life.

Also, we do this to pets all the time. How come we'll do it to ailing pets, but not people under any circumstances?! x( Isn't a pet's life also A LIFE?

Human duplicity disgusts me.

[janx]

90. Yes, but Kevorkian's in jail.

...

[Spider Jerusalem]

91. She won't suffer.

She can't suffer. She has no cerebral cortex and thus lacks the ability to process any of the neural signals we call "pain" or "discomfort".

[janx]

92. Thank God somebody else understands this.

I was beginning to think I was in freeperland.

[deek]

117. bullshit

.

[janx]

139. Deek, Spider's right. She can't.

Look it up.

[deek]

149. more bullocks! Remember when...

they used to not give anesthesia to infants because they believed their nervous systems were too undeveloped to feel pain?

[blondeatlast]

126. How do we KNOW that she has no cerebral cortex?

Can someone prove that? Besides, even if she doesn't, she may be able to respond. I worked with a woman who could respond; she only had a brain stem.

[janx]

128. See my posts 85, 86, and 89. No cerebral cortex. CAT scan.

.

Define "respond."

[DemLikr]

94. Actually I've read that starvation in its final stages is a humane death

the body slowly shuts down.

Though if this were my family member I hope I'd be a bit more assertive about the manner and speed of departure.

[janx]

95. Jebby has now called for an emergency legislative session

in Florida to introduce a bill known as Terri's Bill. Since he can't circumvent the courts, he will try and change the law.

[janx]

101. Correction!

This was probably an internet rumor. So much gossip and rumor is being passed around now; no one can tell.

[janx]

96. Also, a federal judge is to hear an appeal this afternoon.

They've exhausted the state courts.

[beyurslf]

93. I totally believe in the right to die

but removing a feeding tube? Would we remove the saline IV so she dehydrates? That would kill in her in just a few days instead of several weeks. Hell, why don't we just shoot her and get it over with? Sounds sick to me.

We removed the beathing machines from both of my grandmothers to let them die. Two differences: they weren't breathing on their own and both had it in writing that did not want herioc measures taken at the end of life. For one grandma, we had them suction the mucus build up from her lungs. She lived about 2-3 weeks that way. It was painful, you could see but the family (her children) thought it was best. My other grandma we didn't suction the mucus. She lived a little over one day. I opted for this in both cases. She went quickly just like she would have wanted.

I would never ever had wanted them to stop FEEDING her! What about the hypocratic oath?

[bratcatinok]

123. The feeding tube

was also used to hydrate her. They have removed the feeding tube so she's not getting any liquids or food. From what I've read, the lack of liquids will kill her before the lack of food does and the lack of water is a more painful death than the lack of food.

[janx]

100. MICHAEL SCHIVAO STATEMENT TODAY:

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGA9DXB31MD.html

Statement By Michael Schiavo

Published: Oct 20, 2003


Last Wednesday, my wife's feeding tube was removed.
For over 6 years, I have struggled with the Schindlers in court. On Wednesday, I joined them in grief. I understand what the Schindlers are going through at this time. I feel the same loss.

For years after this happened to Terri, I tried desperately to find a cure for her. I went from one doctor to another. Almost all of them told me there was no possibility she would recover. Any doctor that gave me a glimmer of hope that some new treatment or therapy would work was given free reign with Terri. I would do anything to make her well.

I took Terri to California. I stayed with her while doctors performed an experimental procedure to implant electrodes in her brain to stimulate its function. I spent months working with her - hopeful of a cure. Months later, the doctors told me the electrodes were not working.

I took Terri to Mediplex, in Bradenton, Florida, which is a residential rehabilitation facility that specializes in brain injuries. She spent months there in intensive physical, speech, and occupational therapy and testing.

Finally, the doctors and therapist told me and the Schindlers they could do nothing more for her. I hired a private duty aide 8 hours a day to take Terri on outings to parks and museums trying to stimulate her - looking for any sign of life, any flicker of hope. There was none - ever.

Over the years, I had three swallowing tests performed on Terri in the hope that some of the therapies would allow her to be weaned off the feeding tube. The test all showed no change, and I was advised she could not swallow food. Even now, the nursing home staff says that sometimes Terri gags and chokes on the moisture from the swabs they use to moisten her lips.

The reports you heard from nursing home aides that Terri was responsive years ago are not true. I would give anything if they were. Those aides cared for Terri during the time that I was desperately seeking a cure for her. I was so frustrated that I could not help Terri. I am sure that I was sometimes unkind to the aides - even shouted at them. This was not because I wanted Terri dead, but because I desperately wanted her alive. I blamed myself because I could not bring her back.

It seemed to me, during that time, that the aides never did enough for Terri. Some days they did not put her makeup on. I would storm into the nursing home insisting that they do so. I knew Terri always wanted to look her best. Sometimes, the aides did not get her dressed and sitting up until late in the morning. They did not always get her hair combed. They sometimes failed to give her vitamins and medications on time. At each of those failures, I became enraged and lashed out. I felt so helpless. Each small infraction reminded me how powerless I was to really help Terri. I admit that I yelled at the aides and I am now deeply sorry for that behavior. Much like the Schindlers now, I stubbornly resisted any suggestion that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and would never get better.

I never wanted Terri to die. I still don't. After more than seven years of desperately searching for a cure for Terri, the death of my own mother helped me realize that I was fooling myself. More important, I was hiding behind my hope, and selfishly ignoring Terri's wishes. I wanted my wife to be with me so much that I denied her true condition.

Terri told me on several occasions before this happened that she would not want to live in her current condition. If we had been older, I am sure she would have signed a living will making it clear that she did not to be kept alive on tubes and machines. She never had the chance.

That left me to carry out her wishes. It has been hard. In fact, it is the hardest thing I have ever done. In the end, I did what I believe Terri would have wanted me to do.

Some people do not agree with the decisions the court made to remove Terri's feeding tube. I struggle to accept it myself. But I know in my heart that it is right, and it is what Terri wants. There is no longer any realistic hope of Terri's recovery. Perhaps there never was, but I had to try - just as the Schindlers have tried. The reality is that Terri left us 13 years ago, and none of us can bring her back.

Terri's parents and family may visit with her as much as they choose in the days to come. I, and my friends and relatives, will be there as well to spend time with Terri, as we all grieve. Please pray for us all.

[Scairp]

102. Gee, that's not the least bit self-serving is it?

If he really loved Terri, he would have divorced her when he became involved with someone else and started having children with that woman. If he really loved her he would have stepped out of the picture and allowed her parents to care for her. Sorry, not buying it.

[janx]

103. Let's look at the view from Freeperland...it jives with yours:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004173/posts

[blondeatlast]

122. Maybe in this case, they are right--a broken clock is right twice a day.

She has the potential to live. That alone should force the courts to hook up that tube.

When you have this many people on both sides of the fence agreeing on something, that seems to me a fundamental ethical issue.

Terri Schiavo is a murder victim, and she isn't even dead yet.

Sic, sick, sick.

And I repeat, if I were her husband's new girlfriend, I would hit the highway and never look back.

[janx]

134. Terri Schiavo has been essentially dead for 13 years.

And her husband's girlfriend has nothing to do with this.

[deek]

118. sickening

sounds like my ex's lawyer...........

[blondeatlast]

127. Exactly.

No violins for the hubby from me.

[deek]

105. Not a "right to die battle"

It's a right to live battle.

[Phatfish]

116. i hear screams this way and that

Really, if you were in this "state"; and when I say state, I mean at most, a MINIMUM level of conciousnous; would you want to be left alive? I am sure if there were any feelings the suffering that she has gone through must be unbearable. Even though I believe she is only a shell, so-to-speak, unless they can show that there is a reasonable hope for improvement of her condition, that they should let her go and bring her peace. I don't care about the husband's motives or the family's tactics. Let's just focus on what is best for her. I feel that is what is being lost in this discussion.


I swear, people fear death like it is the plague. I personally don't belive in any God or afterlife but if there were such a thing, I feel that world would be much better than where she is in this one. If there isn't anything after this world, then she can stop the suffering and after that, nothing else matters.

[deek]

119. Not a fear of death

Being disabled can be ok...you can experience joy and love. Really. It's true.

Not a fear of death...how about checking in with your own fear of losing capabilities?

Macho pride?

If someone has to wipe your ass, life is not worth living?

I see little introspection on the message boards regarding that.

[janx]

141. Deek, Terri Schiavo can experience none of those things.

If she could, I'd agree with you. But she can't.

[zoe1]

120. She is not PVS

First of all - Terri is not in a PVS, a number of doctors have said that she has the potential to improve. The problem is, her husband has denied her any sort of therapy for 10 years.

Take a look at this video.

http://www.friendsofterri.org/Terri%20Big%20Eyes.rm

A person who is nothing but a brain dead "shell" as you say, would not be able to follow directions. She is asked to open her eyes. She opens them, slowly at first, and then opens them real wide. In fact it seems that she knows that her life depends on showing she is not a vegetable.

Here is another video of her.

http://www.tomeaker.com/ts/terri-cable.mov

You can see, she is responsive to her Mom. Nurses at her hospice have said that when her Mom shows up, she reacts happily, and when her "husband" shows up, it's another story. A person who's nothing but a "shell" would not be able to recognize people and show emotions like that, etc.

Another thing... Who are you (or anyone for that matter) to decide whether she should live or die? You're not God, what gives you that right? I think anyone who has survived what she has, illnesses (that her husband didn't let her have medication for), etc, and still lives, and smiles, laughs, etc... must have a will to live.

And now she's on Day 6 of this state sanctioned starvation/deydration (murder) and she is hanging on and fighting for her life. That shows a strong will to live.

[janx]

131. I don't see her living, laughing, OR smiling in those videos.

I've seen them before and find them very pathetic. I know her parents want to see that kind of thing, but without a cerebral cortex, she's toast.

At the rate people are throwing medical science out of the window in this case, we could all be flat-earthers again in no time.

[zoe1]

144. Did you look at them??

The first link was posted to show that she understands what's going on, she clearly follows the directions to open her eyes. That means she is "living".

Terri DOES laugh, smile, and show other emotions. In the second one I posted she does just that. And there are other videos of her, as well. I didn't post a link to them all.

But for crying out loud, you said "I don't see her living, laughing, OR smiling in those videos." What on earth does does she have to do so you think she is WORTHY of life??? Do some cartwheels, balance her checkbook, what?? She is still alive, and she obviously is not brain dead, just brain damaged, and many doctors have said she could improve with therapy. (You've chosen to ignore that and believe her adulterous husband with a financial motive over everyone else)

Sorry for getting bent out of shape, but I find your position on this to be unbelievable and nauseating.

[deek]

146. Your observation skills

need honing or a more open mind. You don't know what you are talking about.

[janx]

129. That has been my point all along, but not many see it that way.

And now what is left of this woman is being used as a political tool of the right. As we speak, the separation of powers in Florida is being compromised over this.


She has no consciousness. But at times, her reflexive movements fuel hope in the people who so desperately want her back.

[jobycom]

137. I don't know

The brain's too complex, who knows what she's feeling or wanting or aware of. There are stories of people anesthetized for surgery who swear that while their bodies were drugged and immobile, their minds were aware of the surgery and that they felt incredible pain, but could not respond.

I'd want to be left alive, for myself. If my brain is going at some level, let it go. But that's my opinion, I can fully understand others wanting the opposite.

But she's not the one making the choice. No matter how convenient her death might be, and how much people interpret the situation through their own fears and desires, the fact remains that she's legally alive, has expressed no will to die, and yet is being forced to die. I have a real problem with that. (And yes, I know it isn't that simple because she can't express her will, but I would still prefer to err on caution's side.)

[janx]

142. She did tell her husband that she didn't want to be in

such a state.

[zoe1]

154. That is what HE claims

but we don't just starve people to death because someone says "oh yeah. she mentioned once that she wouldn't want to live being kept alive like that" (she is not being kept alive artificially) Her family and friends are saying they never heard her say something like that. It isn't in writing, and in the opinion of her family and thousands of people, Terri has the will to live.

Again, is the word of a husband who has a number of motives for her to die trustworthy?

[Blitz]

157. "I swear, people fear death like it is the plague"

Um, why do you suppose people fear the plague? Think about it for a moment.

[jobycom]

121. Not right-to-die, but right-to-kill

She is not the one making the decision, those making the decision aren't the ones dying. This is a far cry from a right-to-die battle. I strongly support a sane person's right to end their own life. I don't agree that a husband has the right to end his wife's life. It seems that if she has stayed alive 13 years in this state, that she has at least some will to live.

[Changenow]

145. Hard for me to reconcile this argument with societies real priorities.

The priorities of this country are totally out of wack. If she were a cancer patient who could survive and enjoy a normal life with proper treatment Jeb would tell her how sorry he is that the state can’t provide chemotherapy. There wouldn’t be anyone campaigning for her “right to life.” If she were a senior citizen who needed prescription medicine to survive, Jeb would not rush to insure legislation to save her life. The list of people who Jeb and his cronies let die is so long that his pretend compassion here is just transparent pandering to people who don’t understand the real world.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent keeping this woman alive artificially when the quality of her life is very poor. Her brain has atrophied; hope for a fulfilling life is lost. Her family cannot accept that it is medical science and nothing more that maintains her as a living corpse.

The maintenance of her life in this way certainly is artificial since the natural way to consume nutrition and hydration is by eating it. It is generally accepted that mechanical respiration can be removed when someone can’t breathe on their own, so the distinction between that removal and the removal of artificial nutrition is simply an emotional one. If she were aware of time and place the money to maintain her would be well-spent, but as things stand now it is a ridiculous waste of money to artificially sustain her.

[deek]

148. cold

She is NOT a living corpse.

Should we not allow people to wear glassss? hearing aids? use wheelchairs? prosthetic limbs? insulin? pacemakers? etc etc

Should we not allow people to have surgery??

[Changenow]

151. What do you mean allow?

If I needed glasses in Florida today and couldn’t afford them I’m not "allowed" to have them

If I have cancer and will die without treatment but don’t have insurance, I’m not "allowed" to live.

If I have asthma in Florida and can’t afford to buy my treatment I’m not "allowed" breath.

The state of Florida allows people to suffer and there are no emergency legislative sessions to help them survive.

This lady’s plight is a distraction from the fact that people aren’t "allowed" to live because as a society they don’t matter, the cost of treating is higher than the value of their lives.

That’s cold.

[deek]

156. Agreed

"people aren’t "allowed" to live because as a society they don’t matter, the cost of treating is higher than the value of their lives"

But the analogies I presented would be more accurately portrayed by saying you do have the glasses, and they were taken from you (et al with the other examples).

[Desertrose]

147. Wow...lots of angles on this one....

Its hard to cut through all of it....too bad the media got hold of it.

Wonder if one can bottom line this and ask- would she be alive today if not for the intervention of doctors (feeding tube)? If after 13 years of being artificially sustained is there any hope of her condition reversing itself?

There should be no question of who gains what from her death- it should be about what is right for this woman- if others benefit directly or indirectly- it is their conscience and their karma, right?

Usually when people pass on there is a period of not eating. I know before my Mom died she stopped eating for about a week and that allowed the body to shut down. It did not appear to be a painful thing and I have heard it is not. When your entire body shuts down that is the natural way of death- one that we are not used to seeing and accepting as part of the process with hospitals and doctors and resuscitation methods so prevalent. Perhaps part of the reason -or because of the fact we (as a society) are so afraid to die...hell we are even afraid to grow old!

So my question is..is it so wrong to let nature take its natural course, that had no one intervened all those years ago, the woman would have been freed to move on....and conversely so would the family.

It should be about what is best for her...not anyone else.

I personally would not want to trap any of my loved ones in a shell of a body, unless I was specifically asked to keep them in body no matter what...even then it'd be so hard to do....talking is one thing...action another....

This is obviously not for us to resolve but perhaps it does help us find clarity in our own hearts & minds on this difficult subject....
Peace
DR

[deek]

150. apparently people are more frightened by the feeding tube

than they are of death.

What is this aversion to a stupid tube? It's an alternate esophagus. They are not that uncommon in some circles. It's really no big deal and is not considered "artificial life" nor "heroic measures".

[zoe1]

152. Let's clear some things up

Ok, a few of you have said things like "she has been suffering for 12 years" "she is being kept alive artificially", "we should let her die", etc.

None of those things are true. She has not been hooked up to machines, like a respirator or machines to keep her organs going. THAT is what people mean when they say "hooked up to machines" or "being kept alive artificially".

The only thing Terri has is a feeding tube. And that is because she needs to be re-taught to eat, speak, etc, but her husband has continually denied her any therapy for the last 10 years. She CAN swallow, that is obvious because he does not drool. Look at the videos. She could be taught to feed herself again, but even if she can't.... she is still a human being. It is not uncommon for people to live with feeding tubes. There are hundreds of thousands of people who live with a feeding tube, in hospitals or nursing homes. Should we kill them all? Rose Kennedy lived with a feeding tube, and no one said "she is being kept alive artifically, let's kill her".

You said: "So my question is..is it so wrong to let nature take its natural course, that had no one intervened all those years ago, the woman would have been freed to move on....and conversely so would the family"


Letting nature take it's course is NOT starving someone to death. She was not "dying", she has been living for the last 12 years, brain damaged but still laughing, smiling, showing emotions.... And all of that is without the therapy she needs to improve. That is just with minimal care. So to say "we should just let her die" is wrong, she was NOT dying. Not until last Wednesday when they started starving her to death!

You said: "I personally would not want to trap any of my loved ones in a shell of a body"

How do you know what you would want unless you yourself are in that situation? You can speculate, but there are thousands of people who get into accidents, become paralyzed, or brain damaged, and yet still want to live. And even if that IS what you'd want, who are you to say that Terri wants to die? Everyone is saying that she wants to live except her husband who has a clear conflict of interest. He will inhererit a few hundred thousand dollars if she dies. Also - there are some allegations that he was the one who put her in that condition in the first place. But there has never been an investigation. Many people are saying that it appears he doesn't want her to get better and be able to speak and tell what really happened to her. He has a number of motives, so is what he says trustworthy?

I think the fact that she has survived for the last 12 years and has gone through a lot, a few illnesses - which he refused to allow her antibiotics for (she got well on her own) shows that she has a will to live. And even now, she is on Day 6 of the court ordered starvation, and she is hanging on and fighting for her life - that shows a strong will to live.

[deek]

159. Very comprehensive and sane post

Thank you.

[sleipnir]

160. You raise some very interesting points

I'm honestly not sure where I am on this...

It's good to hear some discussion that isn't Freeped...

Personally, the whole thing is a major disaster, but then again, I'm very troubled that the Florida Legislature is getting involved. While I'm not an expert on law, especially in Florida, if she can't make conscience decisions on her own, who is legally the guardian, her husband? If so, I'm inclinded to favor his judgement, as he knew her best. Though, his motives do have a hint of self-motivation.


Personally, I wouldn't want to live like that, but that's just me.

[kaitykaity]

161. Locking.

This thread has gotten large and unwieldy. Please
continue discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=567077

Thanks,

kaitykaity
DU Moderator