Terri Schiavo

[mgb]

This case is insane.

I've heard both sides of it so far. The motives of the husband have been questionable at best. The parents won't let go, offering to take her off of her husbands hands. He says she wouldn't have wanted to spend the rest of her life this way (and has power of attorney).

What I don't get is what the US Government has to do with the whole thing. Where do their powers end? Are they going to start having "special motions" to override Judge Judy?

What do people here think. Should the government (or another government since the state already tried) be stepping in?

[Serotonin]

"Moral values". The government will always intervene if they think they can get political leverage.

No, they shouldn't intervene. Why should they have the power to override the courts? Shouldn't something like that be in the constitution? But the push for political leverage amongst the US government is so strong that they will ignore this. Is this anti-democratic? You bet.

But morally, my position is that she should live. Her parents want her kept alive. That in itself is enough.

Bad politics, good outcome. Kinda like Iraq. What a fucked up world.

[songbird36]

I think keeping her alive is nuts

[DevNull]

Not many people have enough information on the core truth of the matter. Shame on those who take a hard stance without that crucial information.

I am watching those who step too far away from aloof righteousness on the right.... and taking notes.

[Hypnos]

Can't we harvest her organs yet? <takes a swig of Maker's Mark>

[ppc]

This case is insane.

I've heard both sides of it so far. The motives of the husband have been questionable at best. The parents won't let go, offering to take her off of her husbands hands. He says she wouldn't have wanted to spend the rest of her life this way (and has power of attorney).

What I don't get is what the US Government has to do with the whole thing. Where do their powers end? Are they going to start having "special motions" to override Judge Judy?

What do people here think. Should the government (or another government since the state already tried) be stepping in?

What is so questionable about your spouse carrying out your final wishes?

[CapnEnnui]

It scares me that our Congress is planning on dropping everything to pass a law that overrules the Florida courts. Opportunistic bastards... why won't this case die? (and Terri, too... I mean, she's pretty much dead anyways.)

[songbird36]

Not many people have enough information on the core truth of the matter. Shame on those who take a hard stance without that crucial information.

I am watching those who step too far away from aloof righteousness on the right.... and taking notes.

Why don't you enlighten us on what we're missing here then? I doubt my view will change but what the hey - I'm open to it.

[garak]

I doubt my view will change but what the hey - I'm open to it.
:rofl:

[CapnEnnui]

Bill is passed and signed: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/20/schiavo/index.html

[Division56]

I think me and SB are ideal people to pull this dead bitch's plug.



*shakes a fluffy white smothering pillow and gives SB a come hither look*

[ppc]

I cannot believe a legal case was just tried and basically won in the legislature.

Well I guess we can all be happy we have the smaller government republicans running things! Oh wait smaller if you own a gun but that's about it.

[Serotonin]

*shakes a fluffy white smothering pillow and gives SB a come hither look*

Careful. That might be um.... misinterpreted. :whistle:

[Eileen]

I really don't know what I think about this. I don't trust the husband, as he has some $$$$$! to gain from all of this, but I don't know that her family isn't just delusional either. The woman had no living will, so both sides are trying to argue what she would want without KNOWING what she would want.

The fact that they each have doctors saying things to justify their own opinions doesn't help. IS she in a PVS or not? Her parents claim that she's responsive to them. If that's the case, I think that they should be granted caretaking rights. But again, it could just be pathological denial...



The other thing is that I don't think she's on a respirator--so it ISN'T as simple as "pulling the plug." The woman would have to starve to death, which is inhumane (but is keeping her alive like this humane?).



FEH! Stupid grey areas!

[CapnEnnui]

I really don't know what I think about this. I don't trust the husband, as he has some $$$$$! to gain from all of this, but I don't know that her family isn't just delusional either. The woman had no living will, so both sides are trying to argue what she would want without KNOWING what she would want.

The fact that they each have doctors saying things to justify their own opinions doesn't help. IS she in a PVS or not? Her parents claim that she's responsive to them. If that's the case, I think that they should be granted caretaking rights. But again, it could just be pathological denial...



The other thing is that I don't think she's on a respirator--so it ISN'T as simple as "pulling the plug." The woman would have to starve to death, which is inhumane (but is keeping her alive like this humane?).



FEH! Stupid grey areas!

She's responsive to "them," in the sense that she's responsive to stimuli in general. Her brain stem is the only active part of her brain now, so she basically moans and looks around constantly, not actually aware. Also, it's not inhumane (really) because she can't feel anything anymore... it'd be "humane" to let a brain-dead person die, imo. She's been in this coma for 15 years now, and her family needs to move on like everyone else who loses a family member. I also don't understand why people see her husband as a bad guy and unscruptulous... the only reason I've heard is "he had kids with another woman." If he does have money to gain from letting her die, I don't think that's his motive as he's been offered large amounts of money to keep her alive and turned them down. And yet, here our politicians go passing new laws quickly, because this is somehow their business.

[mgb]

What is so questionable about your spouse carrying out your final wishes?

Nothing at all. Never said there was. I did question why Congress/Senate was involved, which I still maintain is completely insane.

Also, when this was a hot button issue last year, I ended up getting the low down on the husband on the radio. Seems like he really hasn't been looking after his wife's best interests through the entire ordeal.

And I tend to agree with Eileen. Starving someone to death is brutal, whether we think they can feel it or not. I don't see why the courts won't let the parents take care of her, since they have offered to time and again. Which should also beg the question about the right to die and what are they hanging on to.

[indie]

What I dislike about the whole ordeal is that one family's tragedy has turned into a media circus. On the news this morning, the focus of the story was not about the family itself, but about what the Dems are saying (keep her alive) and that the Republicans are saying (let her die). It's sad that the poor woman has been like this for 15(!) years. However, I don't think she should be subjected to starvation just because some people don't have any hope for her. Also, it's really sad that her feeding tube keeps getting removed and put back in. That drawn-out torture "you're gonna die" . . . "you're not gonna die!" . . . oh, nevermind, "you're gonna die!" oh, wait, "maybe not" is very inhumane.

[MacGuffin]

However, I don't think she should be subjected to starvation just because some people don't have any hope for her. Also, it's really sad that her feeding tube keeps getting removed and put back in. That drawn-out torture "you're gonna die" . . . "you're not gonna die!" . . . oh, nevermind, "you're gonna die!" oh, wait, "maybe not" is very inhumane.
You'd normally be right, but at this point she's basically a plant.

[coffeezombie]

I cannot believe a legal case was just tried and basically won in the legislature.

Well I guess we can all be happy we have the smaller government republicans running things! Oh wait smaller if you own a gun but that's about it.

It wasn't "won" in the legislature. The parents still have to file the case in court after the law has passed. Of course this is how separation of powers has always worked. They are not really truly "separated." The legislative branch has almost all of the power while the judicial branch only sits there and judges. If the legislative branch could get a law passed saying that Nazi Day was an official holiday and get it past the president then the judicial branch could do nothing about it.

[SensEye]

I'd like to know who is paying the bills to keep her alive. If it's the family, fine, they can have her. If it's the taxpayer, pull the plug.

I do find it disturbing the goverment is involved. More and more insidious morality based meddling in other peoples lives.

[mgb]

I'd like to know who is paying the bills to keep her alive. If it's the family, fine, they can have her. If it's the taxpayer, pull the plug.

I do find it disturbing the goverment is involved. More and more insidious morality based meddling in other peoples lives.

I don't think the government is footing the bill, I don't think they would do that unless she was in a financial position at the time of the accident that wouldn't have allowed her to cover the costs (and if she was they should cover it, because that's how the system works). It may be the husband in a sense, I have a hunch that since her injuries were the result of an accident, insurance is footing the bill.

Her parents have said over and over they would pay to keep her alive though.

And indie...wasn't it the other way around, weren't the Dems trying to keep the tube out and the Republicans wanted her to live? I can't see Bush running to sign a bill the Democrats came up with...

[ppc]

Nothing at all. Never said there was. I did question why Congress/Senate was involved, which I still maintain is completely insane.

Also, when this was a hot button issue last year, I ended up getting the low down on the husband on the radio. Seems like he really hasn't been looking after his wife's best interests through the entire ordeal.

And I tend to agree with Eileen. Starving someone to death is brutal, whether we think they can feel it or not. I don't see why the courts won't let the parents take care of her, since they have offered to time and again. Which should also beg the question about the right to die and what are they hanging on to.

No you said that the husbands motives were questionable at best.

Also you have to understand this isn't starving someone to death - she will die of dehydration way before she will die of starvation. You also have to understand she doesn't have a sense of pain anymore if I understand this correctly. Her cerebral cortex has literally been turned into a fluid filled sack of nothing.

Now despite if it is inhumane or not it doesn't matter - this is the decision a court over the course of something like 9 years and many many appeals came to. That this is the way she wanted things. The family got to choose two doctors the husband got to choose two doctors and the judge got to choose one doctor and they all came back and said that she was in a persistant vegatative state. Now her family has gone through the courts and lost and had to resort to getting the country riled up in a frenzy and split us once again over political issues to further their own personal gain despite what doctors tell them and judges oh and by the way those doctors that said she could "respond" and what not only saw a video tape of her - they never even got to diagnose her and their testimony was ONLY anecdotal and disregarded as such.

I don't know who pays the bills but she is being taken care of by the hospice people.

[mgb]

Good ol' T-Shirt Hell.com

http://www.tshirthell.com/images/shirtofmonth_143.jpg

[file cabinet]

I don't know who pays the bills but she is being taken care of by the hospice people.



Who is paying for Terri's care?

The hospice and taxpayers are footing the bill.

The $700,000 that Michael Schiavo received as part of a medical-malpractice lawsuit in his wife's case has dwindled to about $50,000, said Deborah Bushnell, one of his attorneys. The rest went to pay for his wife's care and legal fees.

Medicaid, the state and federal program that pays medical costs for the poor and indigent, has been picking up the tab for Schiavo's medications for two years, Bushnell said, while the hospice provides care for free. The hospice would not talk about Terri Schiavo specifically but said the average cost of yearly care is about $80,000.

source: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-asecschqna20032005mar20,0,7211059.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

[ppc]

It wasn't "won" in the legislature. The parents still have to file the case in court after the law has passed. Of course this is how separation of powers has always worked. They are not really truly "separated." The legislative branch has almost all of the power while the judicial branch only sits there and judges. If the legislative branch could get a law passed saying that Nazi Day was an official holiday and get it past the president then the judicial branch could do nothing about it.

I think it was won - they get to fight another day and she lives longer. Now they get to basically retry the whole case over in a federal court and gee I wonder if the judge might find something different in this case I mean what would be the point of retrying the same exact case that lost on every appeal over the course of years and years in state court and the supreme court refused to even hear? If they win in federal court it was rigged.

And yes I understand how the checks and balances work - Of course the legislature has "most of the power" but when a judge/judges make rulings the point isn't to wake up congress in the middle of the night hold a special session and rally all your people to band together and ruin the country in the process.

What amazes me SO much in this case is that we have all these republicans who are against "bigger government'" and for "states rights" yet when they feel they can push an issue they forget all that do what serves them ultimately.

[ppc]

I really don't know what I think about this. I don't trust the husband, as he has some $$$$$! to gain from all of this, but I don't know that her family isn't just delusional either. The woman had no living will, so both sides are trying to argue what she would want without KNOWING what she would want.

The fact that they each have doctors saying things to justify their own opinions doesn't help. IS she in a PVS or not? Her parents claim that she's responsive to them. If that's the case, I think that they should be granted caretaking rights. But again, it could just be pathological denial...



The other thing is that I don't think she's on a respirator--so it ISN'T as simple as "pulling the plug." The woman would have to starve to death, which is inhumane (but is keeping her alive like this humane?).



FEH! Stupid grey areas!


It was ultimately her (terry's) family testimony that the judge cited as being the major reason he sided with michael schiavo. Not her mom and dad obviously but someone/people in her family was the main reason the judge did what he did.

I didn't read the ruling but that is what I heard a senator from florida say about it. So in the end it wasn't the person who might possibly have money to gain that even convinced him - it was her own family who gave honest testimony in court.

Also he was offered a million dollars by someone to drop it and let the family take over and he rejected the offer and it has been rumored he was recently offered 10 million dollars and still didn't do it.

There is no doubt about it she is in a persistant vegatative state that is what 5 independant doctors all said and the only ones who said anything to the contrary only saw a video tape of her. Not exactly the best way or even correct way to diagnose someone.

[DevNull]

Why don't you enlighten us on what we're missing here then? I doubt my view will change but what the hey - I'm open to it.

Not too many people here are missing much. That is why I chose the words "shame on those". Even the father spoke of shame today:

"Have they ever met her?" Schiavo said. "What color are her eyes? What's her middle name? What's her favorite color? They don't have any clue who Terri is. They should all be ashamed of themselves." - Michael Schiavo

If I had anything to enlighten anyone with, I would share it. Plus I am not out to change anyone's mind. I engage in discussion to either convince myself of things, or learn something.

[ppc]

Not too many people here are missing much. That is why I chose the words "shame on those". Even the father spoke of shame today:

"Have they ever met her?" Schiavo said. "What color are her eyes? What's her middle name? What's her favorite color? They don't have any clue who Terri is. They should all be ashamed of themselves." - Michael Schiavo

If I had anything to enlighten anyone with, I would share it. Plus I am not out to change anyone's mind. I engage in discussion to either convince myself of things, or learn something.

Michael is the husband. She married into the Schiavo family. So her dad would not be Schiavo.

["InsertNameHere"]

And yes I understand how the checks and balances work - Of course the legislature has "most of the power" but when a judge/judges make rulings the point isn't to wake up congress in the middle of the night hold a special session and rally all your people to band together and ruin the country in the process.
What amazes me SO much in this case is that we have all these republicans who are against "bigger government'" and for "states rights" yet when they feel they can push an issue they forget all that do what serves them ultimately.

Actually I was discussing this topic in my legal ethics class today and the judicial branch has the most power BECAUSE of judicial review!
I believe the reason why the case is so big is because it has a lot to do with the abortion cases. Technically, baby fetus at 20 weeks have more brain functions than Terri Schiavo and yet they can be aborted. So why can't she? IF the case went to the supreme court and it was decided that she had the right to live (even with tubes) then later the conservatives (mostly the republicans) would go after child abortion again, using this case as precedence.

[Dman]

Doesn’t the congress of the most powerful country in the world have more important issues to attend to, such as steroid abuse by baseball players?

PS it doesn't have anything to do with abortion, this is a woman who has already been born and alive for many years, not a cluster of cells that has the same characteristics as a goldfish. It would never set any abortion precedent in any respectable court of law

[ppc]

I suppose you could argue round and round about who has more because of what.

The supreme court already refused to hear the case.

[DevNull]

Michael is the husband. She married into the Schiavo family. So her dad would not be Schiavo.

That was a real odd mistake on my part. I have no idea why I typed "the father". Thank you for correcting it. (Maybe it is because I am going to be a father in two months).

[Thermo]

I'd like to know who is paying the bills to keep her alive. If it's the family, fine, they can have her. If it's the taxpayer, pull the plug.

I agree with this in sentiment, but I think the husband's wishes should take priority over the rest of the family. I told my wife to give me a week to pull out of a coma and then pull the plug.

I am guessing the millions of tax dollars we are spending are a token kick back to the religious right for backing the republicans in the elections. I am sure the republicans and 1% richest people in America are laughing themselves all the way to the bank as they plunder pentagon spending, high oil prices and a weak dollar. Its pretty silly that people are so easily manipulated with this sideshow and neglect the real power of economics.

[Albino Sartan]

While my attitude toward euthanasia as an idea is skeptical at its most friendly, what irritates me most about the Schiavo case is that 1. the husband is protesting a little too loudly for what he claims is his wife's right to have her life terminated for me to be convinced that he's truly operating at her bidding or for unselfish reasons and 2. he's not ponying up for anything that would make her death at all humane. If Mikey really cares one whit about Terri, he'll cough up the dough for a lethal injection or some other mode of expediting the death. Instead, he's starving her to death. Starvation is a very slow, painful way to die. For demonstrating that profound a lack of human decency, he and the judge(s) that cooperated with him deserve to be locked up in a rubber room and starved to death themselves. It would be only fitting.

I am against most government spending, but in the case of protecting someone from the intentional infliction of what could easily be considered cruel and unusual punishment, I think it's justified.

[ppc]

You have a very poor understand of how things actually work.

1. Too loudly? What exactly is too loudly? Her family brought suit against him and he is responding - if no one had done that he would not have to respond loudly or otherwise. He is her husband and in these matters he has power of attorney and he says she said she wanted things to be this way - her family is saying we don't care we want things our way not her way.

2. Contrary to what you have heard on the news this is a humane way to die. First you have to understand that this person has no concept of pain and she isn't starving to death she will die from dehydration/electrolyte imbalances. This is how people who are about to die from cancer often die when their family lets them pass.

3. He can't pony up any cash to have her put to death in such a manner because there is only one state in the union that allows such things in the first place. And it wouldn't make sense - it would be utterly useless on a person in her condition.

This just goes to show you how good of a job all these people do on tv skewing the facts. My favorite is the spokesperson for the family Randall Terry who is driven by such an obvious agenda it makes me sick to see someone who is so driven by politics.

[SensEye]

If Mikey really cares one whit about Terri, he'll cough up the dough for a lethal injection or some other mode of expediting the death.I'm not sure assisted suicide is legal in the United States. Google results show it seems to be the subject of ongoing legal wrangling. He could possibly get in trouble if he helps her along.

As, PPC mentions, she is a brain dead vegetable so it won't make any difference to her. She is just wasting medical resources that would be better spent on other patients.

[Trolsk]

I can almost hear my neighbours say "those americans" :p

[ppc]

I'm not sure assisted suicide is legal in the United States. Google results show it seems to be the subject of ongoing legal wrangling. He could possibly get in trouble if he helps her along.

As, PPC mentions, she is a brain dead vegetable so it won't make any difference to her. She is just wasting medical resources that would be better spent on other patients.

Only in oregon is it legal.

[Helios]

am I the only one who doesn't care?

[ppc]

Well if you live in the US you should care that congress violates state adjudications by holding special sessions to run legislation through so that they can further their political agendas by ruining privacy rights and states rights.

[Helios]

...they can further their political agendas...


I used to be very into politics, but once I realized that what you just said was the driving force behind ALL of it, it seemed like a boring waste. None of those people give a damn about any of this, it is all a big game. They do the bidding of those who paid (or will pay) to put them in to office. We should just sell the title Emperor like the Romans did and be done with it.



All Hail Caeser Gates!

[ppc]

Well the first federal court refused to hear the appeal and even the court above that refused to hear it - the only one left I think is the supreme court which refused to hear it already.

They couldn't even pass a bill that worked correctly - these guys could fuck up a bag of potato chips.

[songbird36]

Nothing at all. Never said there was. I did question why Congress/Senate was involved, which I still maintain is completely insane.

Also, when this was a hot button issue last year, I ended up getting the low down on the husband on the radio. Seems like he really hasn't been looking after his wife's best interests through the entire ordeal.

And I tend to agree with Eileen. Starving someone to death is brutal, whether we think they can feel it or not. I don't see why the courts won't let the parents take care of her, since they have offered to time and again. Which should also beg the question about the right to die and what are they hanging on to.

There has been increasing media coverage of this here over the past few days and I have to admit I find the case very distressing on lots of different levels (personal, moral, legal, and so on).

It seems to me that there is considerable disagreement amongst the "experts" on whether Terri is in fact in a coma, or PVS, and what her level of cognition/communication might actually be.

The hours of video footage that has been taken in relatively old, and tends to create confusion rather than clarity, as some interpretations are that she is responsive to stimulii, and others, that her reactions are simply instinctual and inconsistent (pointing to a PVS).

In the end, I believe the appropriate body to arbitrate on the conflicting evidence is a court. A court is capable of hearing in full, and sifting through, all the conflicting evidence and views of the parties, and making a decision based on the weight of all that.

And my question for those who believe she should be kept alive is this:

If her husband as her attorney believes in his heart that she would not have wanted to live in this state (whether it is a PVS or not), why on earth should his views not prevail? She trusted him enough to make him her attorney, and to exercise these judgments on her behalf if the time ever came. And that is precisely what he is now doing.

[ppc]

No there isn't any disagreement amongst the actual experts. The only people who disagree are the people the family chose to look at video tape and that is it. Everyone who saw her in person said she is in a PVS. These people might be "experts" but they also have an agenda to sell, I wonder why all the court ordered doctors even the ones the family got to choose agree she is in a PVS but the ones they found in their own spare time agree with them?

There is no way in hell that you can diagnose someone from a home made video that wasn't even made for the reason of diagnosing someone in the first place.

A court already had a hearing and something like 19 appeals

[songbird36]

Yes but my point was rather that whether or not she is *actually* in a PVS is somewhat irrelevant, given that she does not have the ability to communicate her wishes as to whether she wants to be kept artificially alive.

Her inability to do so triggers the effect of the power of attorney, which has been exercised in favour of the hospital withdrawing support.

Case closed (or so I would have thought).

[ppc]

No it isn't irrelevant because if she had a chance of coming back then she would not have the feeding tube removed.

Earlier she had many different experimental therapies to try to "bring her back" but they didn't work. Which is why the big deal about if she is or isn't in a PVS.

[songbird36]

A decision has to be made at a point in time.

It is like someone who has dementia, and a decision must be made whether to institutionalise them. There's always a chance their dementia may worsen, or get better, but at some point the person with an attorney over them must actually make that determination.

She has required a feeding tube and hospitalisation for 15 years. She therefore cannot support herself or live independently in any sense.

I don't see why there's a big fuss.

[ppc]

Political agendas gotta get served!

[Albino Sartan]

You have a very poor understand of how things actually work.

1. Too loudly? What exactly is too loudly? Her family brought suit against him and he is responding - if no one had done that he would not have to respond loudly or otherwise. He is her husband and in these matters he has power of attorney and he says she said she wanted things to be this way - her family is saying we don't care we want things our way not her way.

2. Contrary to what you have heard on the news this is a humane way to die. First you have to understand that this person has no concept of pain and she isn't starving to death she will die from dehydration/electrolyte imbalances. This is how people who are about to die from cancer often die when their family lets them pass.

3. He can't pony up any cash to have her put to death in such a manner because there is only one state in the union that allows such things in the first place. And it wouldn't make sense - it would be utterly useless on a person in her condition.

This just goes to show you how good of a job all these people do on tv skewing the facts. My favorite is the spokesperson for the family Randall Terry who is driven by such an obvious agenda it makes me sick to see someone who is so driven by politics.

1. If it makes you feel better, fine, but hurling personal insults at the poster is not going to strengthen your case. It indicates a poverty of logic and mental age of roughly 4. That said, he started the whole thing by opting to kill his wife. By "too loudly" I'm referring to his grandstanding about how his "Constitutional rights" are being "trampled" and for what reason? He's being told he can't kill his wife. That's not liberty that's being stepped on, that's license. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing whether Terri wanted to die or not. To indicate otherwise is to propagandize the issue. We have only Michael's word against that of Terri's parents. To my knowledge, there is no written will to indicate one way or the other. "Life" is one of those "certain inalienable rights" and if you ask me the right to life trumps the "right" of putting your wife to death in a case like Terri's where there is no conviction of a capital offense. It's awfully convenient to say you speak for someone when she can't talk. In short, he's making too much noise about his right to make a grisly choice that should disturb him and is not disturbing him, judging by the tone. People talk in the adamant fashion he does about a "right" only if they're positively itching to exercise it. That implies murderous intent.

2. You don't know whether she's feeling pain or not. You haven't been in that position.

3. Legality is not an issue here. Either by expediting the death or simply pulling the plug, the action is basically the same. "Assisted suicide" is the best possible wording for what's going on right now. I don't think it even earns that positive a description. Euthanasia is a quick, easy death. Starvation's merits for either of those adjectives are highly debatable. It's "euthanasia" minus the "eu". It'd make more sense to call a "consensual" guillotine-style beheading euthanasia. At least that's quick. Utterly useless eh? So now that she's near death, she's immune to poison? That's news.

[ppc]

1. If it makes you feel better, fine, but hurling personal insults at the poster is not going to strengthen your case. It indicates a poverty of logic and mental age of roughly 4. That said, he started the whole thing by opting to kill his wife. By "too loudly" I'm referring to his grandstanding about how his "Constitutional rights" are being "trampled" and for what reason? He's being told he can't kill his wife. That's not liberty that's being stepped on, that's license. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing whether Terri wanted to die or not. To indicate otherwise is to propagandize the issue. We have only Michael's word against that of Terri's parents. To my knowledge, there is no written will to indicate one way or the other. "Life" is one of those "certain inalienable rights" and if you ask me the right to life trumps the "right" of putting your wife to death in a case like Terri's where there is no conviction of a capital offense. It's awfully convenient to say you speak for someone when she can't talk. In short, he's making too much noise about his right to make a grisly choice that should disturb him and is not disturbing him, judging by the tone. People talk in the adamant fashion he does about a "right" only if they're positively itching to exercise it. That implies murderous intent.

2. You don't know whether she's feeling pain or not. You haven't been in that position.

3. Legality is not an issue here. Either by expediting the death or simply pulling the plug, the action is basically the same. "Assisted suicide" is the best possible wording for what's going on right now. I don't think it even earns that positive a description. Euthanasia is a quick, easy death. Starvation's merits for either of those adjectives are highly debatable. It's "euthanasia" minus the "eu". It'd make more sense to call a "consensual" guillotine-style beheading euthanasia. At least that's quick. Utterly useless eh? So now that she's near death, she's immune to poison? That's news.


Where to start ...

First I was not insulting anyone. I was stating a fact. The fact is if anyone said those things they would be false, and they are, which demonstrates a poor understanding of what is actually going on.

Now lets move on to the "meat" of your argument. He did NOT start this whole thing by opting to "kill his wife." She had over 5 years of all kinds of therapies one including having implants into her thalamus - part of the reason she can't have an MRI - none of which gave any improverment. So you are wrong about that.

Next you say his rights are being trampled on because you think he is trying to kill his wife. Well first you would have to understand that he is doing what he thinks she wanted him to do, regardless of what you might think there are people in this country who do not want any type of assisted living such as hers, and you have a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment if you so choose to. Now because he has power of attorney since after all - he is her husband like it or not and in this country when you get married your parents are no longer your next of kin your husband/wife is, so when an outside party - yes including her parents - tries to intervene in something that has always gone on in this country just because they simply do not like the outcome then yes they are trampling on both their rights to privacy, his right to exercise power of attorney and her right to refuse medical treatment and since she can't speak the only person who is legally able to do so has.

I wonder if you would be saying the same things that you are had her family petitioned the court to have her put to death even though it isn't written down but just because they say so. I doubt it.

So let me get this right if your husband/wife told you that you would not under any circumstances want to be on any kind of life support if you were in her condition and you just happen to never write it down - less than 15% of Americans do write it down by the way - and your family did the same exact thing you would think that your husband/wife had murderous intent because he/she was carrying out your wishes? I doubt that too.

Next - "I don't know if she is feeling pain" - What part of she is not able to feel pain do you not understand? The part of her brain that understands pain and what it is is gone - it literally turned to spinal fluid - it is absolutely GONE - she has no capacity of any sort to be able to undertand or appreciate pain on any level - she is essentially dead in that sense. I don't need to be in her position to know what is going on - I have never stood right next to the sun but I am pretty sure it's kinda hot. So you are wrong about that too.

Now this is interesting - you say they should have just pulled the plug or expedited this some how - well had her family not intervened with her husband exercising what he says are her final wishes then we wouldn't be having this conversation and she would have died almost 10 years ago. If you like it or not it doesn't matter - in this country if you do not want medical treatment you can refuse it - it is your right to do so. I said already she isn't going to starve to death but you refuse to understand that and keep using the phrase which again shows you have a basic fault in the understandings of how things actually work. I already explained that there is no reason for her to have these drugs administered since once again I already explained she can't feel pain because the part of her brain that interperts/understands what pain is has literally been turned into fluid and no longer exists. Yes the drugs would work but they would make no sense to use them on a person in her condition NOR are they even able to since ONCE AGAIN I already explained only one state in the union - Oregon - does assisted suicide in the first place so the only option is for her to refuse medical care and to die like she wanted.

I encourage you to look at the facts and not get so emotional over this - if you do that then you should have a good understanding of what is going on.

[songbird36]

They are starving her to death because any other method would be "killing" rather than withdrawing support.

There is a legal distinction.

[ppc]

That is true but they aren't starving her to death - that would imply she is getting water but no food - she is going to die from dehydration.

[songbird36]

I see that yet another federal appeal has been rejected.

I think this whole Congress thing is being driven by religious fundamentalists (Jeb Bush et al). It's sad, pathetic and undignified.

Let her go.

[ppc]

They even tried to have the florida legislature get involved again.

[C.J.Woolf]

Cases like this bring out the economic libertarian in me.

Some say you can't put a dollar value on human life. In fact, we can and do all the time. If we thought human life was truly worth any expense we'd all find a way to afford a Mercedes-Benz instead of the cheaper, less safe cars we own, and maybe the government would give us a tax credit for it. If we thought human life was truly worth any expense the government would have moved heaven and earth to get more body armor and Humvee armor to Iraq for troops who are are unquestionably alive with all their brain functions and everything. Instead, Congress and the President meddle with the supposedly sacred marriage of Terri and Michael Schiavo for the sake of a no-longer-sentient being. But I digress.

The dollar value of Terri Schiavo's life is $80,000 per year for hospice care plus the legal fees, I know not how much. I wouldn't be surprised if they were more than the hospice care.

All this is a luxury. What if the Schiavos had kids and the opportunity cost of prolonging Mom's existence was their college education? Would Terri's parents be so keen on fighting for her "life" then, knowing they were depriving their grandkids of their quality of life?

[songbird36]

Good point.

[mgb]

Scenario:

Some fanatical lunatic goes and tries to kill Michael Shiavo, since he is killing his wife (whatever). The lunatic fails but puts Michael Shiavo into a vegetative state where he is legally brain dead but doesn't need a ventilator.

Do they fight to keep the feeding tube in?

[ppc]

You wouldn't need to worry about that because he has a living will.

[Biff_Loman]

Some say you can't put a dollar value on human life. In fact, we can and do all the time.

Finally, a post that makes some fucking sense. Fuck, I can't get over the fact that our culture allows such an enormous expenditure of financial resources simply to preserve a souvenir of a human being - and one that will eventually die anyway. For that kind of money, her family could have commissioned a life-sized marble statue of Terri. It'd last forever, be a lot less mess, and be a whole lot prettier.

I work with brain injured individuals every day. I can't express what I want to say properly, so I'll pare it down to two words:

DEATH FIRST

Good night, Terri Schiavo, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.

[Julia]

No matter what she stated earlier, starvation is no way for ANYBODY to die. Just that this could happen here is unbelievable. I'm truly grieved.

[PonderBee]

No matter what she stated earlier, starvation is no way for ANYBODY to die. Just that this could happen here is unbelievable. I'm truly grieved.
The decision to discontinue life sustaining care is not unusual - it is unfortunately something that thousands of families have to wrestle with across the US. In Schiavo's case the life sustaining care consisted of delivering nutrition to her via a feeding tube. Many families instruct doctors to remove the feeding tube to allow their loved ones a merciful and dignified death. The only difference here is that this woman's parents placed themselves in direct opposition to Terri's huband. In an article I read the struggle was traced back to a monetary award given to Mr. S that the parents felt was rightfully theirs.
What is unbelievable and disgusting is that this case was opened to political opportunists to use for the betterment of their careers and political agendas.

[Biff_Loman]

I admire your compassion, Julia. However, if only Terri's brain stem is intact (being otherwise brain dead), it is my understanding that she will not perceive hunger or pain.

That being said, an overdose of barbituates followed by potassium chloride would be a more logical procedure, in my opinion.

[Star Cannon]

MEh. I don't have any stance on this except:

why are courts intervening? What business is it of theirs?

[SensEye]

MEh. I don't have any stance on this except:

why are courts intervening? What business is it of theirs?There is disagreement between her parents and her husband as to a) would she want to be terminated if in this state? and b) is she really in a vegatative state beyond all hope of recovery? So where else can it be decided but in the courts? And they decided, repeatedly, the answer is Yes to both questions.

Some better questions might be:

What business is it of the religious right?

What business is it of politicians?

[xenose]

I also don't see what business it is of her parents to challenge the decision of her husband who holds a Power of Attorney.

His right to exercise that POA should be unimpeachable (short of any questions around his state of mind). The courts should not challenge his right to exercise it on her behalf, given that she trusted him enough to confer one on him to begin with.

[ppc]

I admire your compassion, Julia. However, if only Terri's brain stem is intact (being otherwise brain dead), it is my understanding that she will not perceive hunger or pain.

That being said, an overdose of barbituates followed by potassium chloride would be a more logical procedure, in my opinion.

That would be a waste of barbituates and potassium chloride.

[CapnEnnui]

It's odd that so many bored, sensitive Ameircans feel the need to emotionally invest themselves in saving Terri and caring about Terri when she's a vegetable who costs $80,000 per year to sustain. Aren't there starving children who could be fed with a dollar a day in some Christian indoctrination camp? For every American vegetable these people want to keep alive, they could be sustaining over 200 starving children who actually realize they're hungry, and force their precious value system on them - at the SAME TIME!

That being said, it's been over ten days now, so she's dried fruit. But when she dies, I don't think the media's gonna be quite through with this story yet...

[Biff_Loman]

Aren't there starving children who could be fed with a dollar a day in some Christian indoctrination camp?

In the Rwandan genocide, the leader of the UN forces, Romeo Dallaire, was told that the Americans would not intervene to prevent genocide unless Rwandan deaths exceeded 80 000 per projected American death (in the event of intervention).* Over 800 000 Rwandans died, but the Americans estimated that more than ten U.S. soldiers would likely die if they intervened. Ultimately, Americans did show up in Rwanda, but only after the genocide was effectively over and the danger past.

This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon; please don't accuse me of American-bashing. The president of Uruguay almost lost the next election because one Uruguayan soldier was killed - actively trying to prevent genocide, no less.

Simply put: those who live outside the global economic order do not, and will not, have access to resources at the expense of the life of a first-world citizen, even if that citizen is a hollow shell of a human being. Terri Schiavo was born to a life of privilege (from a global perspective), and even her living remains are worth more to this world than a whole city of starving children.

*Shake Hands with the Devil, by Romeo Dallaire

[Thermo]

http://durrrrr.blogspot.com/

hahaha

[Thermo]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/schiavo/index.html

The fact that she will die even if they do reinsert the tube and people are still lobbying to have it reinserted shows they don't give a damn about Terri.

[SensEye]

I find it interesting that media reports always refer to Terri's brain damage as a result of a heart attack she had in 1990. They almost never mention that it is suspected that her heart attack was brought on by bulimia (26 year old women don't have that many heart attacks as a rule). There is a delicious irony there don't you think?

Oh, I should mention in fairness the religious right dispute she ever had a heart attack. They claim her husband strangled her. *rolls eyes*

[Jacque]

Bad politics, good outcome. Kinda like Iraq. What a fucked up world.

http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/graphics/fullsize/rcft_lg.gif (http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=rcft&Category_Code=news)

[CoHo]

...26 year old woman...
That's the fucked up part to me. Even if they fixed her up all nice she would still be a 41 year old woman! Not that that is entirely bad, but she loses 15 fucking years!

I'd want a bullet in the head... after playing the PS2.

[ppc]

I find it interesting that media reports always refer to Terri's brain damage as a result of a heart attack she had in 1990. They almost never mention that it is suspected that her heart attack was brought on by bulimia (26 year old women don't have that many heart attacks as a rule). There is a delicious irony there don't you think?

Oh, I should mention in fairness the religious right dispute she ever had a heart attack. They claim her husband strangled her. *rolls eyes*

Yeah I had thought about that myself. The irony is thick.

[xenose]

Her heart attack was caused by a bad reaction to a fertility drug she was taking to allow her and her husband to conceive.

[mgb]

I also don't see what business it is of her parents to challenge the decision of her husband who holds a Power of Attorney.

His right to exercise that POA should be unimpeachable (short of any questions around his state of mind). The courts should not challenge his right to exercise it on her behalf, given that she trusted him enough to confer one on him to begin with.

Spoken like a lawyer.

I don't think the issue is the court's involvement, the have continually sided with the husband. The real problem has been the politicians continuing involvement in the proceedings.

As for the parents, you really can't fault them for doing everything they can, even getting the politicians involved. Selfish or not, they want to see their daughter alive, at any cost.

[SensEye]

As for the parents, you really can't fault them for doing everything they can, even getting the politicians involved. Selfish or not, they want to see their daughter alive, at any cost.I'm not so sure about that. From all medical evidence the chance of any sort of a recovery is nil. And besides, she's had 15 years already to work on it. I don't see how having this noncommunicative shell of a body around is enriching their lives any. They should just let go (they should have let go a long time back) and move on. And on the off chance there is a gleam of awareness trapped inside that supremely damaged brain, that awareness may be quite miserable, in which case her parents are being rather selfish.

[meshou]

I'm not so sure about that. From all medical evidence the chance of any sort of a recovery is nil. And besides, she's had 15 years already to work on it. I don't see how having this noncommunicative shell of a body around is enriching their lives any. They should just let go (they should have let go a long time back) and move on. And on the off chance there is a gleam of awareness trapped inside that supremely damaged brain, that awareness may be quite miserable, in which case her parents are being rather selfish.Well, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with selfish by itself. A lot of things about death and dying are done for the survivors, not the dead/ dying person.

Personally, I think her husband is doing something morally viable for about the same reasons you state. If he wanted to keep her alive, I'd be OK with that too.

I hate the media saturation on this.

[xenose]

The point is that it doesn't actually matter whether she is in a PVS or not. Her husband has made the assessment (on her behalf) that she would not have wanted to live in the state she's in.

So it shouldn't be necessary for anyone to prove she is in a PVS.

[ppc]

Her heart attack was caused by a bad reaction to a fertility drug she was taking to allow her and her husband to conceive.

Where did you get this information from? I have never heard this.

[ppc]

The point is that it doesn't actually matter whether she is in a PVS or not. Her husband has made the assessment (on her behalf) that she would not have wanted to live in the state she's in.

So it shouldn't be necessary for anyone to prove she is in a PVS.

I don't think that is true - what if she was a paraplegic and needed a feeding tube and stated she didn't want to live in that state. You wouldn't be able to just remove the feeding tube and let a cognitive person starve to death.

[C.J.Woolf]

As for the parents, you really can't fault them for doing everything they can, even getting the politicians involved. Selfish or not, they want to see their daughter alive, at any cost.
Whatever their motives, they're the in-laws from Hell.

One blogger suggested that many Americans are horrified by this case because (coercive government power + in-laws) is much too close to home.

[meshou]

Her heart attack was caused by a bad reaction to a fertility drug she was taking to allow her and her husband to conceive.Even if this is true (no clue), I'm not sure what this is supposed to show. She made a choice, and it put her where she is?

No choice guarantees good consequences. That some choices lead to unpleasant consequences doesn't mean it was a bad choice. It means life is risky.

How would this change the situation?

[Miss Anthropic]

What is so questionable about your spouse carrying out your final wishes?
There is no question legally. The order power in that situation (and the courts have backed it again and again and again) is 1) spouse 2) parent 3) adult child and if none of those exist, then it starts branching out to distant relatives....same order of who decides what to do with your remains after you die. The woman had an eating disorder to begin with---often indicates the need to control something in your life because others control other aspect of it. It appears her parents were and still are extremely controlling. She probably would have wanted to die about 15 years ago just to get away from them!

It takes a situation like this to remind us of how many idiots there are in the world.

[Miss Anthropic]

Nothing at all. Never said there was. I did question why Congress/Senate was involved, which I still maintain is completely insane.

Also, when this was a hot button issue last year, I ended up getting the low down on the husband on the radio. Seems like he really hasn't been looking after his wife's best interests through the entire ordeal.

And I tend to agree with Eileen. Starving someone to death is brutal, whether we think they can feel it or not. I don't see why the courts won't let the parents take care of her, since they have offered to time and again. Which should also beg the question about the right to die and what are they hanging on to.
They didn't have to put the feeding tube in to begin with. It is a rather invasive surgery to set the whole deal up. Taking out the food tube is just the same as taking her off a respirator. It is artificial means to keep someone alive. She isn't laying there feeling hungry and thirsty like a healthy person would. It is like when advanced cancer patients lose their appetite and no longer want to eat and drink. As the body shuts down in the process of dying it isn't felt like people are imagining. That part of her brain isn't functioning....I mean really, the woman hasn't been capable of taking fluids or food through her mouth since before she went brain dead in the first place. She will die because one or more organs shuts down, not from malnutrition.

[Miss Anthropic]

Only in oregon is it legal.
And it is assisted suicide, not euthenasia (sp?) Even if she were in Oregon, they couldn't give her a lethal dose of anything. She would have to be coherent enough to communicate her wishes.

[mgb]

They didn't have to put the feeding tube in to begin with. It is a rather invasive surgery to set the whole deal up. Taking out the food tube is just the same as taking her off a respirator. It is artificial means to keep someone alive. She isn't laying there feeling hungry and thirsty like a healthy person would. It is like when advanced cancer patients lose their appetite and no longer want to eat and drink. As the body shuts down in the process of dying it isn't felt like people are imagining. That part of her brain isn't functioning....I mean really, the woman hasn't been capable of taking fluids or food through her mouth since before she went brain dead in the first place. She will die because one or more organs shuts down, not from malnutrition.

I guess it's too late for her to change her mind?

[Birdsnest]

Interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/politics/29donate.html?ex=1269752400&en=f1312f1b5ae170ad&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

[coffeezombie]

She's dead. Thread's over, folks.

[crule81]

She's dead. Thread's over, folks.

Hopefully, the media and the politicians will abandon it soon too. But that's very doubtful.

[C.J.Woolf]

She's dead. Thread's over, folks.
Maybe here, but not in the big world. The "Culture of Life" people will do their damnedest to keep it alive. (That sounds like a cruel joke, no?) They'll try to claim Terri as a martyr. I'd hate to be Michael Schiavo at her funeral. Remember the in-laws from Hell?

At least Terri herself isn't a political football anymore. Or a political meatball. Or whatever. Rest in peace.

[songbird36]

RIP Terri.

Your struggle is over finally.

[mgb]

RIP Terri.

Your struggle is over finally.

What struggle? All she had to do was sit there and die.

[songbird36]

I suppose I'm quite interested in this power-of-attorney issue, as my father has granted me one over his affairs.

He has been diagnosed with mild dementia now and it's possible that in future I'll have to make decisions about his personal or property affairs. I hope I can do this responsibly and as he would have wanted.

[Pierce]

The issue all along has been over the conflict of those who value "quality of life" and those who view the "sanctity of life" as the basis for determining the worth of an individual. It's the same issuse at the core of the controversey surrounding abortion and euthanasia. The issues are both priciple-based and personal on both sides and neither side is stupid.

This is a skirmish in a culture war raging in the United States, and it will not end with Terri's death.

[Eileen]

The issue all along has been over the conflict of those who value "quality of life" and those who view the "sanctity of life" as the basis for determining the worth of an individual. It's the same issuse at the core of the controversey surrounding abortion and euthanasia. The issues are both priciple-based and personal on both sides and neither side is stupid.

This is a skirmish in a culture war raging in the United States, and it will not end with Terri's death.

Well put, Pierce.

[songbird36]

That is not the issue at all.

The issue is whether POA's are worth the paper they're written on, and whether they have any legal basis whatsoever. And the courts have consistently upheld the POA in this case - it's the fundie religious right that seemed to think it knew better.

[Jacque]

She's dead. Thread's over, folks.
Rather, she will be reunited with her body in the afterlife. Did her vegative state not mean she was consciously dead?

[songbird36]

Hopefully the autopsy results will lay some of these questions to rest.

Although experts seem to be divided on whether it will.

[Jacque]

The issue all along has been over the conflict of those who value "quality of life" and those who view the "sanctity of life" as the basis for determining the worth of an individual.
I hear them discussing that in the media. The best thing to do is to write a living will if you're the person to be alarmed. To me, life's not worth living if it can't be lived.

But, I've another thought. If there was hope for Terri and that science could some day revive her consciousness, shouldn't they cryogenically freeze her. After all, it's the same faith in science.

[ohnoaninfp]

Why do they need an autopsy? They took the feeding tube out of her and she starved to death. That poor woman. It should have never gone to the courts.

[mgb]

That is not the issue at all.

The issue is whether POA's are worth the paper they're written on, and whether they have any legal basis whatsoever. And the courts have consistently upheld the POA in this case - it's the fundie religious right that seemed to think it knew better.

That's the issue of the legal case. It's not why hundreds of people were protesting outside of her hospice or why state and federal politicians got involved.

[mgb]

Why do they need an autopsy? They took the feeding tube out of her and she starved to death. That poor woman. It should have never gone to the courts.

They are doing the autopsy to see if she was actually as brain damaged as her husband claimed she was. If she wasn't capable of thought, just running on impulse, she was legally brain dead and no one can blame the husband (is his thought).

[ohnoaninfp]

Oh.

[Biff_Loman]

I think it's ironic that the religious right, who profess such strong beliefs in salvation and redemption, should fear their own deaths to such a degree.

The act of keeping a brain-dead person alive is nothing more than a ploy to help our psyches deal with the pain of our own mortality. It's merely a trick of smoke and mirrors; if we use technology to simulate life where there is none, perhaps we ourselves will not die.

I'm well aware that Terri Schiavo was not kept alive via life support. Her heart and lungs still functioned, and it only the feeding tube stood between her and death. That being said, let's face it: she was heavily brain damaged. Real life was over for Terri fifteen years ago.

Terri's parents look at her and see their daughter. I'm convinced that the "right-to-life" protesters look at her and see their own mortality. The idea that a human being can be allowed to die contradicts the hope that, perhaps, we have the power to cheat death.

We don't.

Terri Schiavo, 1963-1990

[INTerloPer]

Time for a little irreverance: fuck terry, stop feeding kirstie allie