Why am I the only one in DU to support TS being re-feed ?

I know i am clearly in the minority here and nationwide but this case is ugly and i really feel for her parents,whom i believe truely love their daughter.

MAKE NO MISTAKE...IF I WAS CLEAR ABOUT HER WISHES I WOULD PULL THE TUBE MYSELF

BUT i dont like deciding what is the quality of life worth saving.

And courts when it comes to death penality, have been wrong before.

And this case is different from a terminally ill patient who its just a mattter of time....TS is NOT terminally ill.

The fundies have their wrong reasons for wanting her to be re-feed.

MAYBE I'M JUST A BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL.


I suspect as soon as i post this there will be too many posts for me to reply to each one, since i will be the only person supporting my position. I apologize in advance.

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

Hehe Teena, you got me with that one! Coffee spray!
:hi:

Seeing as how she has no brain and all, I would suspect most DUers would be on the rational side of this thing.

She has zero chance of "waking up" from this shit.

If they had received some of the money her hubby got they would have let her die.

absolutely incandescent Americans, who, understandably enough, are extremely jealous that a woman should receive hospital treatment to keep her alive in a very incapacitated state, while they are denied the equally fundamental right to the kind of health-care safety net that is available to everyone throughout the more or less civilised world, when they, themselves, are otherwise able-bodied and often currently paying the piper, to boot.

To add insult to injury, the chief representative of that section of American society constituted of extremely wealthy sociopaths and psychopaths, who are also mega welfare panhandlers, had the gall to exploit the girl's right not to be murdered by deliberate neglect, as a cudgel with which to beat those same illegally dispossessed and embittered people.

"He can care for someone with a severely damaged brain, and make an issue of it, while denying the rest of us the national health care we are entitled to; preferring to spend our ill-afforded tax dollars on anachronistic imperial adventures" - seems to be the message I hear from them, reading between the lines.

an insult to every soldier in our armed service..johns hopkins doctors have complained * has cut funding for the 60% of soldiers who are coming home with brain injuries...alive soldiers not brain dead soldiers..he has cut their funding by huge numbers..what a filthy pig...and anyone who has sypathy for a woman who has been brain dead for over 15 years..and can not see the hypocracy by the religious right..well i wonder who of them are also brain dead!!

terri is dead..her brain has no function at all!!


from a clearwater fla resident who has watched this crap for way too long!!

follow the money her parents declared bancruptsy years ago...its all about the money folks stop being used for these lying fools!

fly

looked like the husband who was hoping to be left a tidy sum by curtailing the treatment.

But, you know, it doesn't have to be "either", "or". Everyone in our societies is entitled to full medical care, free at the point of delivery.

Our forefathers fought, sometimes at the cost of life or limb(s), for their family and their country. It was not so that the ultimate beneficiaries would be an ever smaller band of ultra rich villains, who are content to see the children and descendants of the former living and dying on the streets, or from untreated illnesses.

It is a fundamental axiom of Christianity that God made the world and its bounty for *all* his children. And it is a fundamental axiom of the Roman Catholic Church's "best-kept secret", its Social Doctrine, that capital was made to serve man, not man to serve capital. There can be no excuse for anything less than full employment with adequate remuneration, so that everyone can live in security and dignity. We don't all need to be rich; but we do all need the means for security and dignity appropriate for a child of God.

The logic of this "euthanasing" is its extension to badly injured servicemen and women, once peace reigns again and recruitment is no longer a problem. Maybe some would welcome it, but I suspect there would be others who wouldn't. We know from the body-armour and the "DU shells" scandals in both our countries, if it was ever in doubt that the lives of the ordinary serviceman and servicewoman aren't worth a cracker in their eyes. For that reason, I wouldn't allow *any* politician, even a veteran, to come within a ten-mile radios of the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. A war hero like Kerry would understand it, I'm sure.

And you're right, she's not terminally ill. She's functionally dead.

I believe that a couple of her friends have testified that she expressed the same sentiment to them - that should wouldn't want to be kept "alive" like this.

So I guess according to some of those on the right would call them all murders too. :eyes: And it's also in the records that the parents said they would deny Terri's wishes even if she said so. I think it's about money too. Here's what I think. The husband asked the parents permission to start dating again after he knew there'd be no hope for her to return to him. They said yes and met some of the women he was with and gave him their blessing. From watching the situation they probably thought that Schavio will fall in love with someone and move on and divorce his wife and then the parents could get all this money from hospitals etc. They were hoping he would "forget" about her and leave her to them. They are obsessed I think. But instead he surprised them and has stayed married to her so he can help take care of her and honor her wishes and let her die in peace.

of the family. She made the statement in front of her brother-in-law and her sister-in-law. These witnesses were deemed to be credible.

her best friend and others have testified to the same thing!

follow the money..clearwater is now filled with scientology which is tied to the hip of * es...the parents declared bankruptsy several years ago..the parents were right there with the husband until the money came in..this fight has been about them wanting the money the husband got...for the trust of terri..this fight is about the trust money...what little is left now...and ypu all have been paying to keep her body alive as she is dead..when the brain is dead you are dead...and teri has been dead for 15 years..

from a clearwater fla resident who is sick and tired of this crap!

fly

his brother and sister-in-law. That was 7 years after the collapse.

sister in-law.

I think it's hard for people who've never been through this to understand what it is like.

However, the courts have adjudicated over and over that Terri told Michael that she wanted to be freed from a state like this if she were ever in one.

It killed me last night hearing Scarborough say they heard "hearsay testimony from a very interested witness."

So much for how marriage between one man and one woman should be protected, and all that. Seems like they forgot all about DOMA.

since Schavio has moved on with this other woman and has a child and another one coming he has destroyed his marriage and is no longer married to Terri in the eyes of God. Never mind what the law says.

so i guess when newdt ginrich was schtuppting a young gal when his wife was in the hospital dying from cnacer he was no longer married either right??

i am so sick and tired of the hypocracy of the so called religous right!! what filthy pigs!!
and how about when * senior was doing little boys?? i guess that he wasn't married to babs either right??

what a joke!!

fly

just a matter of convenience, Brian Schiavo said Mr. Schlinder told him once that Michael should "go out and get laid" when Terri first got injured.

Perhaps he should be charged! How can anyone say he has her best interests at heart when he's married another woman and fathered her children? If this is how he feels about another woman then why not just divorce Terri?
Also the bone scan which shows multiple fractures in various states of healing would implicate MS in abuse. Finally its being investigated.
If he is suspected of abuse the whole premise of Terri's condition goes out the window. Her condition then could have been caused by her husband--which would explain his never ending presence at the bedside.
In fact statistics regarding violence against women show her condition is many more times likely due to abuse from her husband than an electrolyte imbalance d/t bulemia. (Google it yourselves!)
Furthermore--bone scans do not lie and are not subject to interpretation other than reading by a neuclear medicine radiologist.

There are many women's issues related to this case and I don't see many on this forum interested at all. In fact the disabled and I think women in general have a sense of being abandoned by the Dems. Before report yesterday a group of nurses where I work were discussing this and all agreed that there are so many unanswered questions and so many uneducated judgements going down yet the Dems remain silent. Women are and will be sensitive to the Dems "null and void" stance in htis and other women's issues.

I hope you understand that with all the disinformation going around, I'm not going to take anyone's word for something that I never heard of before this.

Any credible news source (which does NOT include Fox News) or medical journal citation will do.

Thank you,
sw

It would be much more useful to know what the result of this 2003 investigation turned out to be.

It's hard not to assume that nothing was found to substantiate these allegations, since a year and half seems like plenty of time to have marshalled the evidence if there were any.

sw

An autopsy will lay to rest many of the issues revolving around the Schiavo case.

1. He's not married to his current significant other. Thus, he's not a polygamist.

2. He's not divorcing Terri b/c it's the only way he can have her wishes carried out.

3. The same people touting the bone scans were alleging that she was talking last week.

4. How in the world are they going to determine the source of the fractures. Many people are abused in hospitals/hospices - even assuming such a bone scan was done, and the scan indicated breaks - where's ANY evidence that ANY of the breaks were caused by M.S.?

5. Re: "In fact statistics regarding violence against women show her condition is many more times likely due to abuse from her husband than an electrolyte imbalance d/t bulemia. (Google it yourselves!)"

Even IF, god forbid, M.S. abused her, her (alleged) eating disorder which purportedly led to the chemical imbalance, cannot be blamed on him. A person canNOT "cause" another person's disorder or psychological issues. A person can affect them, but can't cause them.

Thus, even assuming that there was some abuse, her condition wasn't "caused" by her husband. IF he abused her, he's a horrible man. But she stayed there and let it happen. She was cognizent and an adult at that time. An abusive man only abuses women who let him. (And I say this from experience, so don't give me ANY sh*t about what I know and don't know, k?)

6. There *ARE* real serious issues directly relevant to the disabled in this case and I, for one, am deeply troubled by some sentiments expressed by some people here. The "quality-of-life" (QoL) debate is the most dangerous of debates for people with disabilities. And it is unfortunate, in my opinion, that so many people buy into the "soundbites" about "QoL" without considering the consequences. (For a really good - scary - book about the dangers of the OoL Ethic to the disabled - and how it's playing out today, see "By Trust Betrayed," by Hugh Gregory Gallagher.

ALL that being said, not one, not two, not three, and not 10, but going on twenty now, different reviews have been done in this case, and the conclusion has consistently been that T.S.'s wishes should be upheld and that her wishes would be to decline long-term artificial nutrition/hydration.

I understand your points.
We know MS is not legally MARRIED to the woman he lives with now, but fundie Mormons aren't legally married to their wives either, yet they can be arrested & jailed. MS has a "common law" wife now.

He's not divorcing Terri cause he's having his wishes or hers carried out. If he did abuse her his testimony that she communicated that she didn't want to live in this state is not truly credible--nor would I think his brother's testimony would be (that's 2 out of the 3 witnesses that claimed they heard her say that).

It is a fact that she had a bone scan in Sept of 1991. I have not read the report of the result. I am just saying that it has been reported that the result showed multiple bone fractures. What would be the most common cause of those fractures?

No one, especially me, is blaming MS for her eating disorder. People with eating disorders do have electrolyte disorders--that is true. Yet Terri was said to have drank 11 to 12 glasses of tea per day and her heart problem was caused by low potassium. A low potassium can cause a fatal heart arrhythmia. Well tea is loaded with potassium. A very high potassium can cause arrhythmia too. Well, purging ones self looses potassium. People here say she had a heart attack. In truth she had a fatal heart arrhythmia--quite different from a heart attack. But we can not be certain if her hypoxia was caused by an arrhythmia due to an electrolyte imbalance or some trauma which caused her hypoxia. She was without oxygen for about 7 to 8 minutes and the event happened at home. Unless someone actually sees the EKG tracing on a monitor while its happening or witnesses the event one can only assume the true cause of the arrhythmia. (This is well known where I work--in a coronary ICU--I'm an RN) So if MS was the only witness and the MDs trusted his account yet he may have suffocated her...well.
I do wonder, if her heart was so vulnerable to electrolyte imbalance how come she isn't having an arrhythmia now after 6 days of no intake???

I wouldn't give you any sh*t about what you know and don't know.
We all know that too many women stay in abusive relationships only too long. My father was a violent alcoholic. I grew up in that kind of environment.

I'm putting these points forward because I think there are many unanswered questions. At least now there is an investigation going on.

1. Michael is not married a second time so he is not a polygamist.

2. Bones scans do not implicate ANYONE in abuse - multiple radiologists reviewed Terri's XRays and not ONE said they indicated abuse.

It's embarassing for you to try to turn your patronizing patriarchal attitude and paint it as some sort of mock women's issues stance.

When the husband basically is living with another family? Are you saying that marriage should be protected no matter what? Even if one partner moved on and is living with another woman?

That is why it is left to her next of kin, her husband to make
this decision.

her brain is liquid except for the brain stem which controls involuntary functions. She will never recover and keeping her body alive indefinitely is inhumane IMHO.

Do you think anyone would want to survive in a vegetative state? I don't.

The courts found that it would be Terri's wish that her life not be extended in the manner it has been.

That was the whole basis for the decision, not that her life wasn't worth saving. There was no value judgement on her life.

and they ALL agree, every one that it's what she would want. The case was presented and every decision was unanimous. There's a reason why every single fucking court came to the same decision, even Repubs; because they're not fucking idiots.

Also SHE DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING BRAIN! Duh.

there have been people sentenced to death who later the courts reversed themselves or after the fact were later found to be innocent.

Two entirely different cases.

Look at the CT Scan. She has no brain. CT Scans are incapable of lying.

and approx 80% of her brain is gone...20% remains and is probably not functioning properly.

How much functioning brain would you find acceptable?

Maybe, just maybe, about 5% is still there.

And that CT Scan is years old while her brain's condition has continued to deterioriate.

Why do you hate Terri Shiavo so much that you want to force her to live against he expressed wishes? Why are you so anti-marriage that you want to strip a husband of guardianship?

I think a CT scan only shows what brain is functioning, not what is structually there. For that you need an structural MRI. And the point of therapy, like HBOT, is to bring the nonfunctioning (but structurally there) brain tissue back into function.

So 5%, 20% doesn't mean as much as you think. Unless it was a structural MRI. When people use a CT scan to say most of the brain is fluid I don't think they are correct. You can not draw conclusions about tissue damage from CT scans, only how much of the brain is functioning.

As for the brain deteriorating, again it sounds like function is deteriorating. Not tissue damage. I think it would require another event to actually cause more tissue damage, wouldn't it? So functional deterioration could be just a symptom of poor or reduced therapy.

A ct scan shows anatomy....She needs a PET SCAN TO DETERMINE FUNCTION.

damage.

isn't very precise though, is it? Seems to me it is the most common because it is the cheapest. But I don't know how much difference it would make in this case.

20 percent left and is damaged.

MRI is no good b/o a procedure done early on.

A pet scan was recommeded but...surprise...MS didnt allow it.

inserted when her husband was busy exhausting means to help her recover. He made MORE than a reasonable attempt to save her prior to this entire debacle.

Not hard at all I would imagine.

but MS didnt allow it.

Pet scan taken 1-2 hours total.

Her cerebral cortex is gone. Completely.

there is no cure for a dead brain!! period...her brain is dead !! period!!her brain is atrophied..period!! her brain is filled with spinal fluid ..period!!

While there is speculation that Michael Schiavo is a wife beating monster, there has been *NO* such evidence presented to the courts.

There is no new evidence.

There is no proof that the courts have not considered all the evidence, or that they relied on faulty testimony, etc.

The courts have ruled that this is what TS would have wanted.

So again, unless MS is a liar, this is what Terri wanted. It's not a death sentence, it's carrying out her OWN wishes.

...and read up on the functions of the cerebral cortex.

Your analogy does not work.

Her life was terminated when her brain deteriorated. Am I to believe you will now change YOUR views about the death penalty?

being respected.

There has not been ONE legitimate challenge to this.

It went back to court and they corrected themselves.

This went to TWENTY FUCKING COURTS W/ NO REVERSAL. What does that tell you? It tells you they all agree and for good reason; They're not irrational idiots.

is not the issue. The courts rarely reverse decisions even when they should. That argument is NOT the be all/ end all argument concerning this case.

The MAIN issue is that a preponderance of ALL the evidence indicated that this is what she wanted.

In the case of Jeronimo Pratt, a preponderance of all the evidence would have released him from jail many years prior.

If anything, this case demonstrates a white person's life gets much closer judicial review and caution than a black person's life.

.

because I will...I AM BOOKMARKING THIS THREAD

in what way?

So I was responding to HIS point. This is now the second time in as many days that you've challenged a post of mine out of context, I would appreciate a more careful review of my actual point on your part. Thanks.

that the Supreme court has denied seeing the case three/four times now.

you must have really celebrated the bush v. gore decision.

you seem to be deflecting the facts all the time throughout this thread..why?? are you trying to justify your lack of facts in this case..first you change to death penalty stuff now the supreme court in deflection...me smells something rotten in your debate..or lack there of...just wondering here..hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
fly

she's gone and her guardian and the courts have ruled.

no grey area here.

alive. Why these folks want to play god and keep her alive is beyond me. How the parents can be so selfish is beyond me. You may be a bleeding heart liberal, but that is not why you have taken your stance. Could it be fear of death or fear of the unknown (what awaits us)?

and has been for 15 years. Her soul deserves better than that. Not only is that my opinion and the opinion of millions of Americans, but that was Schaivo's wishes, not only relayed to her husband, but several other people.

Too many talking points on the media are bold lies.

are severely brain damaged. The argument "Her soul deserves better than that" would be okay if she had a written document stating her wishes and/or all parties agreeing this is what she would have wanted. All one has in this case is a husband who changed his tune right after he got an insurance settlement, who couldn't keep his story straight on TV this past week and her family who violently denies Ms. Schiavo ever would say this.

The question of "what is the quality of life worth saving" is not at issue. The question is what kind of treatment would Mrs. Schiavo want. That is what the courts have decided, over and over. And they have all agreed that there is ample evidence to prove that she would not want to have been kept alive in a persistent vegetative state, and said as much to her husband and others.

I understand the feelings of her parents. I feel for them, and to be honest I think that they are also victims, because they are not being allowed to grieve for their daughter.

But this is not about them or their feelings or their wishes. This is, and has always been, about her wishes.

and i would also hope if i was in the same condition that if my folks wouldnt let me go..my husband would fight for my wishes..no matter how long and how hard the fight..i would pray my husband would care enough about my wishes to fight for my wishes to be upheld..and not just walk away and give up on my wishes!!

my sons best friend's brother a couple years ago was brain dead from a stupid college spring break accident...he was 18 yrs old...the parents had to fly to ft lauderdale and let their son go..it was horrible..and gut wrenching...he was brain dead ..but his body was still alive..there was no brian waves..same as teri..

by his parents unselfishness..today 9 people are alive because of his organs..in their horrible loss..of their only son ( my sons best friend was his sister)..he lives on today in the lives of others...a small child , an man in his 30's , another young lady 27 got his heart..someone sees today because of his eyes..someone , they do not know who, got his liver...and his kidneys...

we all lost Mikey...his parents lost the love of their life...the loss never stops hurting...
but the people alive because of the unselfishness of this wonderful family are the lucky ones...they have the parts of a wonderful young man who we will never forget, and who lives on in all of the peoples lives he touched so dearly!

we miss you dearest Mikey!!

fly

...over her own husband's wishes. What kind of precedent does that set? Maybe we should allow the government to determine when everyone dies. Maybe we should allow the government to determine which babies are born as well.

This lady is already dead. Let them bury her body, for christ's sake.

have found out that the child she was carrying was doomed with the type of dwarfism he had, and they probably would have aborted -- oh wait, abortion not condoned.... but yet *'s bill allowed the doctors to overrule the mother's wishes to pull his vent...

Any government who is involved in reproductive issues / death issues can change the rules as necessary. Shades of A Handmaid's Tale (Margaret Atwood) (women (in a post-war society) forced to reproduce because many more are sterile), and China's 1 child/male only policy come to mind....


edit:font

Is that what you're saying?

but by now you know why the rest are keeping quiet.

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

i doubt it.

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

People have been free to post their opinions and I can name several that have...however, I would be breaking the calling out rule.

there are people here who support the pro-life position (:puke:) and are not rwers.

How do you explain that Tom Harken, jesse jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus support re-feeding?

and they are welcome to continue to make their thoughts be known.

People can disagree. I simply find your position curious since you often advocate for death under the most questionable circumstances such as painting all Palestinians with a broad brush and mocking the death of Rachel Corrie.

If your positions on justice were consistent, I would take your position on this more seriously.

Is it consistent enough...

My post wasn't really meant to question your dialogue with drdon, only to let my global view of this issue be known...


I embrace a culture of life which begins at conception and ends with our last breath...


This compels me to oppose abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and wars that don't meet the criteria set down in the just war doctrine...

Since we live in a pluralistic society I would not employ the awesome power of the state to compel a woman to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy nor would I call on the state to compel a person that decided they wanted to end their life to continue it but I would would pray that God gave me the persuasive power to move them to choose life...

edited for grammar

and debate it with you but I concede that you are free to express it.

I would also note your position is morally consistent and non-obstructing to others. Good on you :thumbsup:

In my case I'm concerned largely with who gets considered to be a person and who doesn't. I don't think it's for anyone to decide that certain classes of people can be killed -- that's a gateway to genocide -- and I don't think ableist prejudice should shape any part of policy. Including the kind of ableism that says that the only real disabled people are the 'able disabled' and that people who've lost some or all cortical function don't really count. I also oppose the eugenic abortion of disabled people the same way many feminists oppose the selective abortion of female fetuses, but I'm not anti-abortion-as-a-whole (I haven't formed a full opinion on abortion in general yet -- don't know if that's possible because it seems like several separate issues -- but I believe that selective abortion is wrong but abortion to save the mother's life is regrettable but necessary).

whether she's a person...but whether she's a person who wanted to live like this and the testimony was that she didn't want to.

:scared:

because they realize there is no evidence or reason to back up their position? That it's a kneejerk/absolutist position and that it therefore should not even be argued seriously?

We are tired of being called RW religious nuts who have no clue...as you are being called.

We are tired of being screamed at and ridiculed.

We are tired of trying to defend Terri's civil rights to people we thought cared about human rights.

We are tired of being disgusted.

Check out the Disability Forum.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=250

TG

a number of us. I have been taking your poeition for since the beginning. What really bothers me is the cruelty shown to the parents. They slime them in every way imaginable. When they say 20 courts have agreed with them that is misleading. one court agreed and 19 said there were no procedural errors. You are right she is not terminally ill. It is sad that this group of zealots are no different than freepers.

are no different than freepers". Precisely!

People in Western democracies who start as Communists, or even trade-union leaders (that most indispensable of offices) have a habit of becoming wing-nuts. Recent UK history is awash with them. And you have your Reagan. Me, me, me. That's what it's all about.

The parents and rest of Terri's family are suffering horribly.

If you can't stand up to scrutiny, you may wish to remain silent.

for the tom delay tactic?? its deflection deflection deflection...,and you dont seem to be able to see it do you???

why are you not screaming about this admin lying and killing hundred thousand iraqis who were not brain dead?? why aren't you screaming for the heads of those responsbile for lying us into war and making 60 % of our returning soldiers with brain injuries and now * has cut the funding for their long term care?? they are not brain dead but have brain injuries..where is your damned anger for that??
why aren't you posting about holding those repsonsible for 1,500 dead soldiers all based on lies??

why aren't you posting about us using naplam on the people of falujah and women and children having their dead carcasses in the streets being eaten by dogs??

come on where is your concern and anger for that..and you only seem to be upset about a lady who has been brain dead for 15 years...i dont get some of you..i guess to some of you this story is new..its not to those of us from clearwater fla , and we also know that this young lady has been used as a pawn by politicians for far too long...and by the so baptists and scientologists..the same scientologists who let 2 young people die from the flu becuase they wouldnt take them to the hospital a block away because the parents wanted to get their kids out of the cult..

the hypocracy here is disgusting..
teri si brain dead..nothing in 15 years has brought her brain back..what make you think another 15 years will??

democrat IMHO. I have put some of them on ignore the last few days. For some reason, there are a lot of people who cannot have a logical discussion on this extremely important topic. The sneering starts oozing out, then the snottiness, then the invective, then they start flinging charges, then the name-calling, etc. I finally just put them on ignore. Why waste my time on that kind of crap?

It's not particularly enjoyable to be accused of everything under the sun just cause you don't think a severely disabled woman shouldn't be dehydrated to death over something her husband says were her wishes.

there are others. The fact that her *husband* and HIS family are conveniently the only ones who happened to hear her wishes raises huge red flags for me. This is being decided on that and that alone. She's not dying...she has a life to live even if it's not what you are I are living. She has a family ready and willing to care for her. She's family.

objections.

the bullying..........

attempt to explain why you quietly ignored the curious rejection by MS of the test that would establish the extent of her brain damage? Wouldn't want to offend the peer group would we? Much easier to go with the flow, eh? That's why so many of the most vociferous hippies became middle-management business types. It's not enough to put flowers in your hair. Christ was a sign of contradiction, not a peer group coward.

undermined his challenge against the constitutionality of Jeb's law. He would have been guilty of legal malpractice since to adhere to Jeb's law would have been to assert it's validity. The Doctrine of Laches is the failure to exercise a known right. They had a right not to comply with any portion of a law they were challenging the constitutionality of.

It's like refusing to disclose a person's criminal record to a jury; the only sphere of human reason, in which knowledge of the past is regarded as a positive liability! Previous form? Statistics? Bah!

Imagine a bookmaker or a stockbroker trying to function on that basis. Or poiticians for that matter. Though come to think of it that sounds uncommonly like the Bushco.

What both our countries need is an inquisitorial system instead of this medieval jousting on a putatively level playing field. Though it's by no means perfect, of course, it would be a lot more difficult for the rich to buy it.

This is about the rule of law, drdon. Period. We have laws. Several courts have reached the same conclusion, over and over. This is NOT up to you and me or Tom DeLay or even Mr. & Mrs. Schindler. This is about a law which protect the sanctity of marriage, a term we hear quite a bit about from the right wing, but which has been tossed aside out of convenience.

It is a horrible tragedy that the Schindlers have forced their daughter to go out without a shred of dignity left. And it is also a horrible tragedy that so many people cannot simply cut throught the bullshit and see what this is SUPPOSED to be about...one of the greatest governing documents in the history of mankind being systematically shredded by ignorance, fear and opportunism.

You can be clear about her wishes, drdon...read the twenty other court decisions and stop watching cable news.

it is not up to any of us to decide her condition , whether to continue feeding what remains of the person who once was TS or not.

Its ALL about LEGAL RIGHTS...the sanctity of legal marriage (that the right was just having hissy fits about not too long ago). So if a spouse does not have the final say does it mean the State should???

Drdon,you & so many others, have bought into the emotional ploy the right has spun this into. It has nothing to do with any of the rest of us and everything to do with Terri's wishes and her husband's legal rights.

None of us should have a "say" in what happens in this family...we can have our opinions but again, as my dear ex always said "opinions are like a**holes, everybodies got one".

This is a very emotional issue that is really not up to any of us to decide what is right or wrong. In fact, its just none of our business and yet here we seem to all be, right in the middle of it. :shrug:

guardian..the court did not rule for the husband..what part of that are none of you getting...if the court put a new guardian in right now..it would matter not at all..it is about teri's wishes , not just what her husband said in court but what several others said under oath what teir's wishes were...this is about teris wishes not anyone elses!!
if a new guardian was put in place not one thing would change..the law would still have to be followed!

I don't have a feeling about whether the tube should be inserted. Unlike many, I cannot gauge her medical condition by watching many years old videos.

I do have a feeling about who gets to make that decision, and it is her husband.

I can't fault the parents for wanting to keep her alive, but someone has to decide and the law has said over 20 times they cannot. They have said that even if those were her wishes, they would want her alive--so it's not even like they're fighting for Terri. They're fighting for themselves. Which I understand, but geez.

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

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

I don't agree with OP either, but please don't drag us all down to the "with us or against us" level. He has a right to his opinion.

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

there sure is a lot of annoyance going around these days...

the sworn statements of third-party individuals (including Terri's best friend, uncle and brother-in-law) was that if she was in this sort of situation, then she would prefer to be let go.

I don't really believe this to be a partisan issue. My take is simple, I have absolutely no reason to believe that Michael Schiavo would invest so much time and energy if he was not trying to fulfill his wife's desire. There is no apparent upside. Additionally others heard her opinion on being kept alive under artificial means.

I have no reason to disbelieve the doctors who have actually diagnosed her. Experts in their fields, I assume there have been a few and all have reached the same conclusion. There is no reason for them to wish Terri Schiavo dead, it is against their Hippocratic oath. They have no real vested interest except to see the best needs of their patient.

However, the Republican Congress and many in the Religious Right who are grandstanding on this poor family's disagreement do have an agenda, they have an obvious vested interest. They do not really care about this woman, they certainly do not care about her family but they do care about pushing their own agendas, filling the Judiciary with like minded theocrats and reversing Roe V Wade.

Logic will out.

And it's his goddamn decision.

He has a huge conflict of interest ( his girlfriend, the settlement money), he contradicted his statement about Terri's "wishes" on nationwide TV about a week ago, etc. If that judge had any brains and ethics he would have appointed a permanent guardian after Michael switched off his "loving husband" routine right after he got the settlement money. After he got the money, then he ordered "do not rescusitate" on Terri.
This man is BAD, BAD NEWS

But neither you nor anyone else has.

And as you should know because it's been pointed out to you several times, Michael did not make the decision - the court, acting as Terri's guardian did.

I agree with everything you said. :hug:

N/T

She is irrelevant to what I feel the real problem is here.

The courts have ruled and ruled and ruled on this issue. We have courts to settle the difficult legal issues - made difficult, often, by the emotional issues they involve. Conflicting emotions and opinions are always present. So courts exist to rule objectively and without subjective emotion on issues where no matter who wins, one side will be upset.

The old TV show The People's Court used to start with "These people have agreed to allow this case to be tried in the People's Court," a disclaimer that they had decided not to send it to legal trial. Similarly, when people go into a courtroom, they are agreeing to abide by the outcome. They have the ability to appeal, of course, but the idea is that you go to court when you can't work it out among yourselves and you LET THEM DECIDE.

But now the emotions are running so high that people are saying the ruling of the courts should be invalidated. If this happens, then can any dissatisfied plaintiff or defendent appeal to Congress or the court of public opinion? Will the people demand, and will Congress pass, a law that if a court's ruling is "a serious error of judgment" or "morally reprehensible" or any other such language, it is invalid? Which branches of our government will become more powerful at the expense of which others?

It's a very slippery slope that these folks are standing on the edge of. Anarchy and totalitarianism lurk somewhere at the bottom, and there is more than a little possibility that the rocks are jagged on the way down. One of these days there is going to be violence. If it's not this issue, it'll be another. I'm terrified of that and I'm terrified at the abuses of power that seem to lead to it.

My asbestos suit is on. Flame away.

I, too, have deep concerns about that which underlies the situation.

WELCOME TO DU!! :hi:

Nothing I've read on the subject states it better. Thank you.

Thanks for the ego boost!

Nice thread you started there! B-) And a belated Welcome to DU!:bounce:

with it.

Myself, my initial, gut reaction to this case was to "err on the side of life." The more information I saw on it, though, the more clear it became that this is really a pretty hopeless situation, and to be taken off the feeding tube is what Terri wanted.

On edit: Rather, she wouldn't want to go on like this. I don't think that taking her off the feeding tube is the best way they could go about this.

She has no cerebrum,no feelings no thinking no personality no emotion.Is this alive?The only reason to keep her shell alive is for the parents sake,I know it's hard to let go,but she's already gone.They've had 15 years to say goodbye.If they are good Christians like they say they would want her to go to a better place.

I happen to agree with you. Her husband ceased being able to decide what was best for her when he began living with another woman and fathering children with her. That is a real conflict of interest as far as I'm concerned. There is no reason at all not to sign her care over to her parents. It's very telling that he suddenly "remembered" her wish not be kept alive in that state only AFTER the malpractice case was over with, since the whole point of the case was to get money for her continued care and therapy.

This is not a matter of pulling the plug on a comatose person. This is starving and dehydrating a person to death over a period of days, just because her so-called "husband" demands it. She's still a person whether she can think or communicate just like us or not, and it's inhuman to do this.

That being said, it makes me equally sick how the repugs are using this for their own advantage and trying to interfere in a private family matter. Their hypocrisy is sickening, since they're usually the first ones to cut medical funding and they're always talking about "hard choices" and "we can't save everyone", etc., etc.

Your feelings on her husband are irrelevant. The facts are that her brain is gone and she will die from dehydration (NOT starvation) and it's not painful.

I can't understand why ANYONE wouldn't want this poor unfortunate woman to go on to a better place. She isn't alive in her current state.

For the sake of discussion, would you propose the same deal for them as Ms. Schiavo is getting. Just let them all die from dehydration and anyway, it won't be painful... they won't feel a thing...they will be in a better place. Such A DEAL.

What I am clearly saying here is I don't think we should be talking about the "benefits" of letting this woman die of thirst or starvation like we a doing some big favor for her. This truly is a dangerous thing we as a society are doing to Ms. Schiavo.

that those 30,000 in a PVS get the same deal as TS. I propose that congress interneve in each and every one of those cases and write a law specifically for each one. I propose that each and every one of them be allowed to have their case heard by no less than 20 different judges on the local, state as well as federal level. And when all those cases are done being heard, I propose that everyone in this country that has had to be in court for whatever reason that is not happy with the outcome be allowed to have no less than 20 local, state and federal judges review their case. Then, when all that judicial reviewing and congressional intervention is done, we can get back to the business of the county and the trials of the murders, terrorists, the kidnappers etc. That is, if those criminals haven't all died of old age and the country hasn't fallen to a hostile take over waiting for an available day in court.

So yes. I believe I do agree with you on this one. Question is, do you still agree?

to find out for yourself how that feels?

So the comparison would be completely useless and uninformative....:eyes:

Have you walked in his shoes?? How do you know what he & Terri discussed while they were BOTH in the marriage...perhaps something like "I hope you find love & happiness again if anything ever happens to me"?

How do you know what it would be like to say goodbye to someone over 15 years time? To watch her fade away never to come back?

How in the world can you say he ceased to care for her when he was living with another woman? Are you seeing that as humans we are unable to love more than one person at a time??

How do you know its only about money??

Who set you up as his judge??

IMHO, its this kind of judgemental thinking that has f**ked up this world.


BTW...if this happened years ago, she'd never have survived. Oh, and while you are judging everyone, don't forget to take into consideration that she was risking her health with her starvation type dieting and that is what began all this.

Tend to project.

obviously I wasn't taking that into account.....

:thumbsup:

I am a woman and I would think Michael Shiavo was a freak if he had remained celibate all this time. Suppose he hadn't cohabited and gone on to have children, but f****d prostitutes so no one would know. Michael became a widower in 1990. No one is claiming he started dating immediately.

And it's really appalling to see on DU.

There was another post or news report where the Schindlers allegedly encouraged Michael Schiavo who was living with them at the time after Terri's misfortune, to get on with his life, and encouraged him to date. And that he even brought introduced his inlaws to the women he dated....

just correct me if I am wrong...

early on. Smearing Michael Schiavo is all about the Schindlers getting their way. Now maybe they are really naive people who truly do not understand anatomically what happened during 11 minutes of no heart beat and they have totally bought into hyperbaric oxygen treatment or vasodilators or experimental Alzheimer's drugs. Or they are just cynically floating those perceptions that Terri can get better because they will literally say and do anything to get their way. I suspect the latter. I notice they have not mentioned stem cell therapy.

"How do you know what it would be like to say goodbye to someone over 15 years time? To watch her fade away never to come back?"

It must be hard, but it is not, and should not be about the fact that Terri's condition must be hard for a husband to experience, it should be about what Terri wants, which we don't really know in reality.

"How in the world can you say he ceased to care for her when he was living with another woman? Are you seeing that as humans we are unable to love more than one person at a time??"

Well yes, I WOULD say that in terms of romantic love, people can only really truly love one person at a time. I don't believe in "polyamory."

I don't mean really to criticise you, I understand what you're saying. But I think the problem a lot of people have with this situation is that it feels as though perhaps the Florida law, that I guess must be and wil be enforced, is an unwise law. For a husband to be able to remove support and have his wife die because he claims she verbally told him that's what she would want, without any written documentation, seems to be to be almost a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

(The problem would also be there if it was a wife withholding aid from a husband.)

People marry other people for human companionship, for sex, for someone to live with, often also to be able to live on two incomes rather than one. When one spouse becomes permanently incapacitated, it is really in the INTEREST of the healthy spouse to have them die. All the things they were getting out of the marriage disappear. Yes, the courts have ruled, what must be must be. As others have said, perhaps the main lesson from all this is that people need to document their wishes with living wills. I think a lot of the discomfort with having Terri go is a feeling that perhaps the Florida law, as it exists, is not right.

that his trying to do what she wishes is a conflict of interest.

"Well yes, I WOULD say that in terms of romantic love, people can only really truly love one person at a time. I don't believe in "polyamory."

Hmmm...I did not mention"romantic" love at all...I disagree with your statement above. I think it is more than possible to love two people romantically at teh same time- in fact, I'd say it happens frequently. To say that because he is with another he does not still have a different or deeper love or connection - or that he does , is a moot point. We don't know. Only her husband knows his true motives...which are NOT the point.

The point is that he is her legal next of kin and as such he should have the final say - if the doctors and courts agree...which they have repeatedly. Where do we draw the line to say the govt can interfere??

"People marry other people for human companionship, for sex, for someone to live with, often also to be able to live on two incomes rather than one. When one spouse becomes permanently incapacitated, it is really in the INTEREST of the healthy spouse to have them die."

It may possible be in the FINANCIAL interest of the one spouse, but who can say the rest?? BTW- how interesting you didn't mention LOVE in your reasons that people marry...yet above you condemn him for possibly loving two women at the same time.

Its all just circular arguing since we don't know the truth and it is really none of our business anyway. :)

Edited to add that I don't mean to be harsh to you....its just such a sad situation and thr's not much we can do to help.:hug:
DR

I guess my basic point is that the reason many of us have Issues with this may simply be the feeling that the Florida Law as exists is not a good law.

Again, we don't really know what Terri would have wanted.

It sees that under Florida law, Michael, as her husband, and thus as guardian, can opt on the side of death by claiming Terri orally told him that that is what she would want. No written documentation involved.

The Florida law is correct, as we would all agree, in that it attempts to make the life-or-death decision be the decision of the actual person who will live or die: in this case, Terri's decision.
But there feels like a Conflict of Interest, especially in this case, which must be a rather common situation in fact: 1)A marriage between two youngish people (this is not an old couple at the end of their lives) 2)One marriage partner becomes debilitated - but not terminal, so this also isn't a question of "when" the plug will be pulled, but "if." In this type of situation, a spouse as guardian SHOULD NOT be able to "prove" a desire for death simply by claiming it was such, without anything written. It is a conflict of interest, or to use another term, a "moral hazard" that good laws should avoid.

I re-insist, in a marriage, people seek: human companionship, sex, someone to live with / share the upkeep of a dwelling with, and maybe be able to enjoy two incomes. And yes, of course Desertrose, for love too!

But when one spouse becomes incapacitated as Terri has, but not terminal, the healthy spouse loses ALL of those things the marriage gave them, INCLUDING love from the incapacitated person. It is IN THEIR INTEREST to have the other person die. Yes, this is a cold way of looking at it. But there is real truth to it too, and this is why perhaps the law needs to be fixed.

(Again, I DO think the law should be enforced as exists, and I DO realize that "Terri" is in a virtually "dead" state already with her PVS.)

Michael petitioned the court to determine Terri's wishes.

Based on all the evidence the court, not Michael, decided this.

If Michael was found to have a conflict of interest that would have been part of the court's case.

that some are so pissed at Michael Schiavo that that is what's driving their efforts to "save" Terri. Not saying that you feel this way; but I've heard and read enough to come to this conclusion. And most of the things being said are allegations and rumors, some of which border on slander, in my opinion.

I could care less what he does; his private life is irrelevant here. But I do care that he is the only one who has the legal right to make decisions about his wife's medical treatments. That is how it should be if the legal responsibilities of marriage are to be upheld.

I FEAR YOU WILL BE CALLED OUT BY SOME.

And this plays into why your position is in the minority on DU - most of us have the facts.

In fact Michael Sciavo did not SUDDENLY remember anything. After 5 years of aggressive therapy, only after consultation with physicians did MS arrive at the reasoned conclusion that there was no more hope of recovery.

This is well documented in the court records.

In addition, he did not demand she die - he asked the court to assume the guardian role to determine Terri's wishes. After all the evidence was gathered this is what the COURT concluded. It wasn't MS's choice - it was the court's.

As to whether it's "human" or not, in the US we have an established right to terminate life support if it's not what we want. That is an important human right.

in sickness and in health.

ultra-good care of her in the years before he got the insurance settlement? Possibly so that she would stay alive so he could build up the insurance settlement amount as a live disabled person is worth way more than a dead person? As soon as he got the settlement, he did the "do not resusitate" orders, refused having her treated for an infection, wouldn't let her get dental care, etc. Such a coincidence in timing.

Can you imagine having a person like this speaking for you, portraying himself as representing your wishes. Oh my God.


And I also agree with your other comments about the GOP hypocrisy on cutting benefits.

MS has the right to go on with his life, no question, but he does NOT have the right to determine life or death for anyone else, including his PVS wife. He ceased being her husband years ago; why he can't simply just sign her care over to her parents and be done with it is beyond me. That is what makes me so suspicious of his motives. And you're right, right after the settlement was reached he suddenly did a 180-degree turn.

And the attitude here that she's "just" a PVS and therefore is no longer worthy as a person is truly disturbing. The first step to getting rid of an entire group of people is to dehumanize them and make them seem less "worthy" because they can't do the things a "normal" human is able to do.

It wasn't an insurance settlement. It was an award from a malpractice law suit. Also, do you have a life insurance policy on yourself or your spouse? If so, then by your own standards you nor your spouse are qualified to make medical decisions for the other should anything happen to either one of you because there is a conflict of interest. Because after all, there is monetary gain to be had so either one of you stand to benefit if the other is dead.

It absolutely amazes me at how quick people are to rush to judgement on others without even once thinking it through and applying their own standards to themselves should a similar situation land in their own lap. Is everyone who is making these moral judgements on strangers prepared to apply the same standards to themselves? Me thinks not.

Rely on the professionals who have spent the most time evaluating her.

She's gone. End it. Let her go.

that was my answer. You have every right to be wrong but you are wrong nonetheless.

You said "MAKE NO MISTAKE...IF I WAS CLEAR ABOUT HER WISHES I WOULD PULL THE TUBE MYSELF

BUT i dont like deciding what is the quality of life worth saving."

In other words, you don't know enough to decide, and yet you decide anyway and advocate re-connecting.

I'm with you on the first part. I don't feel like I could possibly know enough to have an opinion, and I'm glad I don't have to.

Having said that, we have a process to determine these things, and I believe that process is being followed. One may disagree with the PROCESS, but that's not the same as you or I personally deciding what should be done with her.

As a Christian, I believe her soul is no longer with her either, and I think it is best to leave her in His loving hands.

I sympathize with your position--I've worked with people in Mrs. Schiavo's condition and I would have found it very hard to let go of them. It's not that hard, when around them, to believe there is a human inside, but it just isn't so. They cannot think, feel, or have any free will.

As a Christian, I want her to go to God.

Still, the President, the Congress, and the whole nation should not have a dog in this fight. I find the spectacle making it even more tragic.

Without the feeding tube she will die.
She has been artificially kept on auto-pilot all these years.

here is a paper on ethics written by a professor at a religious institution that evaluates both sides of the argument:

THE PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE AND THE WITHDRAWAL OF NUTRITION AND HYDRATION
JETS 35/3 (September 1992) 389-405
Robert V. Rakestraw

(after discussing the biological aspects, the writer reaches this conclusion)

V. CONCLUSION

The human body must always be respected—in death and dying as well as in life—because the person who was, while on earth, the image of God functioned as God's representative through that body. But the prolongation of biological life in the apparent absence of personal life is not mandated by the Christian principle of respect for life.{55} Because equipment is available to feed a body does not mean that it should always be used. Some who oppose withdrawal of artificial feeding tubes are unwilling to have such devices connected to themselves or their loved ones in the first place, if their prognosis should be for a prolonged and permanent vegetative state. This unwillingness to connect feeding devices reveals that such persons actually agree that whatever may be used to prolong bodily existence is not always morally obligatory. If it were obligatory, no upright person should ever hesitate to connect artificial feeding equipment to a loved one who would by this means be enabled to live possibly many more years, if only in a vegetative state.{56}

In Christian ethics one's intention is always a key factor in determining the morality of a given action. To disconnect the feeding tube from a PVS individual must never be done with the intention to kill—to take a person's life. Our attitude and intention should be that of turning the individual over to God's providence, allowing the condition to take its course. Yet—as with many conditions judged "hopeless" by human standards—we may hope beyond all reason for hope that God will yet quicken the loved one if that would honor him and be best for the patient. Even though we may be quite reasonably assured that the individual's personal life is over, we may hope otherwise.

F. Edward Payne, a member of the Ethics Commission of the Christian Medical and Dental Society, agrees with the decision to pull Nancy Cruzan's feeding tube. He adds, however: "I do not agree with the decision not to feed her by mouth after the feeding tube was pulled." Payne admits that the difference between these positions may seem small, but he considers it to be morally significant. He sees the continuance of mouth feeding as necessary "warm, personal care," whereas artificial feeding is medical treatment and is not required when it no longer benefits the patient.{57} In a few PVS cases, individuals actually swallow oral feedings.{58} To disconnect the artificial feeding, while still attempting to feed the patient by mouth (even if such is unsuccessful), is to balance the desire for the patient's miraculous recovery with the desire for the body to be in as natural a condition as possible while physiological death approaches. One can "play God" by technologically prolonging death as much as by hastening death. The position presented here is not euthanasia, which is best defined as any action or omission which by intention causes the death of a supposedly hopeless person in order to end the person's suffering.{59}

We cannot deny that there is some risk of error in bioethical decision-making. The lines are not as sharply drawn as we would like.{60} Our admittedly difficult but not (by God's grace) impossible task is to steer a right course on the one hand between an excessive devotion to biological existence as the highest of all values and on the other hand the disrespect for human life that discards anyone—in the womb, newly born, or elderly—who does not measure up to an arbitrarily established level of intelligence or value to society. It is of course always best to be on the safe side. Wisdom calls us to err on the side of keeping someone physically alive when the spirit may be gone rather than risk killing a person. But consider the magnitude of the problem. As indicated above, there are thousands of PVS individuals in our medical institutions. Every elderly person who does not succumb to a quick death faces the prospect of having his or her life artificially prolonged. As Schemmer states: "The potential of our technological nightmare has got to end somewhere, and the only way to end it lies in courageously making some decisions concerning it."{61}

This is not to say that as Christians we are compelled to make morally wrong choices at times in order to avoid greater difficulties in the future. Sin is never necessary for the Christian. Decision-making, however, is necessary. If the PVS condition can be shown to be total and irreversible, and if the loss of personhood can be considered death in a theological sense, there appears to be strong support for disconnecting artificial feeding. Those who intend to keep their PVS loved ones sustained by mechanical means are making one choice, and it should be respected.{62} Similarly those who, after prayerful and careful reflection upon the issues in the light of Scripture, in keeping with the law, decide to withdraw nutrition and hydration are making another choice. This, too, should be respected.{63}

http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/PVS.html

it is a very good analysis of the moral complexities of this question.
These complexities may point to why this is such a contentious issue.

I feel sorry for her parents, too, but I feel sorrier for Terri and her husband. I find it appalling that a woman in her condition is being exploited by politicians and fundamentalists. I find it appalling that numerous court decisions based on scientific testimony and careful study of all points of view and allegations are being characterized as "activism" and justification of killing. I think Terri's parents, though likely acting out of their attachment to Terri, are robbing her of the dignity she deserves when they maintain this circus. And I feel that a feeding tube is an artificial means of maintaining the body that may be desirable when there is hope of recovery but is cruel when there is not.

Many parents faced with a situation in which there is no hope of recovery actually pray for their loved ones' deaths because they wish that person's suffering to end or because they know that the "person" they love no longer inhabits his body. I know people who have been in this position and am not speculating.

Respectfully, no one is asking you to decide. That's the point.

we are forcing her to live, 60 years ago she would have died.

you could say the same thing about anti-biotics for pneumonia.

sucessful and in which people usually recover with no lasting effect.

Find me a case of a person recovering from a persistent vegetative state after 15 years.

People can recover from pneumonia. Mrs. Schiavo will never recover.

seeing her parents plead on TV and hearing that the poor woman is being starved to death makes it hard. It is more comfortable to think, "what's the harm in keeping her alive?" BUT...

1) she IS in a persistent vegetative state and she IS being kept alive artificially (if she could swallow or was on an IV, I might feel differently, but a tube surgically implanted in the body is artificial means). If she is NOT in a PVS, that would mean that all the court appointed doctors who have looked at her are wrong and only the charlatan who falsely claims to have nominated for a Nobel prize and never actually examined her is right.

2) This IS what she wanted. It isn't only her husband who says that and all the court decisions have found that. If it is NOT what she wanted, that would mean that her husband, her best friend, the judge who initially made that ruling and all those that agreed with him are wrong and only her parents, who are not objective are right.

3) This IS a personal, family decision. Given that she is in a PVS and is being kept alive artificially, it is her next of kin that needs to make this decision. The courts have a say only because her parents disagreed with her husband and an arbitrator was needed. Congress should have no say.

...none. For what or for whom are we keeping her alive?

She will not recover. Functioning in a vegetative state with a liquified cerebral cortex is NOT life as it is defined by anyone with any compassion or common sense. Believe me, if I were convinced that she did have any kind of chance, I'd be right there with you. But she doesn't.

Sometimes the most compassionate thing to do is to just let go.

Brain dead and like a piece of fucking dead meat? Perhaps you could play a little "Weekend At Bernie's" with them on occasion?

Don

simply curled up and shrivelled away to almost a skeleton, and it was surely understandably considered right not to keep them alive artificially. This does not seem to be anything like the case with Terri Schiavo.

For the sake of argument lets just assume for a moment that Mrs. Schiavo had a brain that was perfectly capable of rational thought. But she was still unable to communicate, scratch an itch, eat a dinner, use the bathroom on her own, hug a child, pet a dog, go for a walk, or carry on anything near a normal life, the way any other human being can do for 15 years straight.

Now imagine yourself in that situation for a moment. Would you still want to be kept alive under those conditions? Before you give an answer please give what I am suggesting here some sincere thought for a while.

Don

there have been people who have recovered from a PVS and say they saw everything and heard every word that was said, and were glad they didn't have the plug pulled them.

They may even have said they feared being terminated by deliberate neglect, but I'm not sure now if I remember that being said or not.

As for me, no. Most Christians get an inner peace and a glimpse of a blissful after-life in Heaven, so death is not the great no-no it is for some. Not least, I suspect, the more rabid, euthanasing- veterinarian wannabes, who have such contempt for the life of other human beings.

cortex.

love and joy on their faces, they don't have to, Joe.

position.

And you can imagine love and joy on any face you like. The lights may be on, but no one is home.

your point exactly. IF (and this is an impossible if) Terri could be cognizant of her situation for a fleeting few seconds and IF she could utter 3 words....they'd be "let me go". It's because she cannot communicate that this living death is allowed to continue.

And I find it odd that any conscious supporter of Terri has not answered this simple question....would you want to have a quality of life like Terri for 15 years? I know what my answer would be...hell, no.

We treat our pets better than we are treating the remains of Terri Schiavo.

And if I were in that position I can't think of anything worse that I would want to happen to me. And its not only the good things in life that I discussed in my post that a person needs to have a full life either. Living through the most painful and trying times that we all experience is needed just as much as the nice things. I think living though tragedy and painful times are just as important to our human psyches as the good things in life are. Makes us appreciate life. As someone who is a lot smarter than me once said, "if it doesn't kill you, it will make you stronger". I also believe it makes someone a better person in the long run too. Whether one realizes it or not, it does. Hey, take care and see you later.

Don

firstly know lots of misinformation to exactly play on emotion

secondly. the court decided. 19 judges, 7 years. they decided. and last 5-6 days they have decided again. that is what we do. that is how the country resolves.

we do not want fundementalist to make our choices for us. i want to die if i have tubes. i dont want that right taken from me. my husband wants me to fight for always to have tubes in. i want to be able to

look at this in facts, it is not the story being told by media and fundamentalists. i will not fall into their tories they create, to take away my power not to live by their rules

it is that big of a deal

in front of hospice. look at how they are using jesus........jesus on cross. feel that picture. are you feeling the lite of jesus, or the degrading adn parading jesus all over again..........as he walks carrying his cross with all the jeers. they are so angry, so afraid, have so little faith

We're robots now?

Liberals are supposed to have feeling for their fellow human beings.

out of your eyes. you would have an issue with dehydration as death. you feel the horror of the death. ergo you want government to interfer, not out of fact, but out of your personal horror. it is not my horror. i dont want government to interfer in my choice because of your horror.

if this is how a country is run, out of peoples emotion, the world would be in chaos. we would be in wars we shouldnt be. people would be dieing that shouldnt be dieing.

that is what emotion gives us. this is an individual, and she went thru court. those closest adn with the most factsw made a disicion. how.......could we presume we know more about the situation than the family and courts and doctors that are a part of this

It is the emotionless psychopaths who have caused the most harm in the world. Certainly in terms of despots, world-wide.

Why do you think Einstein said that the criterion he used for selecting his hypotheses was aesthetic? And taking his lead, scientists frequently talk about the elegance of certain theories.
Do you think the arch-psychopath, Mengele was smarter, than Albie, because his reasoning would have been emotionlessly clinical?

FBI arrests North Carolina man who contracted for murder ...


over the internet. The potential victims of the assassination? Michael Shiavo and Judge Greer.

Breaking on CNN.

The religiously insane are backed into a corner and are fighting like cornered rats now.

Proud Blueneck

because they would comprise such a small minority in that category that they make the news. You want to murder that innocent young woman, and you have the gall to point the finger at someone else!

Your position, as one of the earlier posters indicated, is absolutely indistinguishable from the pure Nazi, utilitarian mass murder of the handicapped of the Third Reich. And as someone else pointed out (much more politely), you're too dumb to see where it's leading.

Sounds like emotion is a dirty word to you. Are you sure you're not neocon vandal? For unemotional people, you sound uncommonly hysterical. Really unbalanced.

But it's your self-righteous pharisaic dishonesty that grips me. By refusing to allow Terri's meal-times to be recorded on video, or for her to undergo a definitive brain scan, you're no better than Kenneth Blackwell. If that doesn't proclaim the utmost bad faith of you truculent "terminators with extreme prejudice", I don't know what could... The Democrats' own Ken Blackwells!

off that high horse much?

and self determination.

Period. End of story (I wish). It really should not matter what any of us think.

"Fighting for Terri" is now a way of life for her parents and has been for at least 7 years. It has, for all intents and purposes, become their life. They are wrestling with grief that has been on hold for years and they don't know how to let go. The religious leaders that are on the front lines with them right now should be leading them to a place of enlightenment and peace rather than assisting in this public wringing of hands. Terri hasn't been there for 15 years, just her body has. If they really believed in the things that they are saying (with the whole dammed soul issue) they would realize that they have also damned her soul to a hell right here on earth.

This is selfish on their part. The nature of grief is selfish because we don't necessarily mourn the loss of the persons life as much as we grieve the loss of that person in OUR lives. They need intense grief therapy to come to the peace that will allow them to break this habit and move on to the next challenge for them personally, whatever that may be.

I wrestled with this as well. Looking at it from a mother's point of view. I would be devastated to have to make this choice for one of my children. But, I have come to the conclusion that I would have to get past the selfishness and allow them to go peacefully. I stayed with my father-in-law through this process for him for the 7 days that it took for him to pass. He had a living will and his wishes were carried out. He was removed from all life supporting efforts, including food and water. He was medicated so there was no pain. My ex and I read to him, played his favorite classical music station, talked to him, stroked his hand and comforted him as it was happening ... all 7 days of it. We had a cot brought into the room and took turns. He was never alone nor without compassionate care. He passed quietly.

Assisting them to let go would be more humane for all concerned, rather than assisting them to "fight on" when there is no hope of changing the quality of life for Terri.

Have you EVER been in this position? Have you watched a loved one deteriorate into oblivion before your very eyes?

Schiavo's parents are selfish, and have NO faith!

This woman is living the worst nightmare you will EVER lay your eyes on.

I've been through this SEVERAL times!

Removing a feeding tube and stopping IV fluids is NOT torture. It is done in a VERY humane way. Terri will be REGULARLY given medication to keep her comfortable as I'm sure she has been for the past 15 years, PLUS she will be given "fluids" with a sponge as she ALSO has been getting for the last 15 years, because she CAN NOT swallow on her own, inside her mouth and on her lips to keep them from becoming dry and chapped and uncomfortable.

Terri Schiavo will NOT drown in her own lung fluids and die SUFFOCATING the way MOST people in this state EVENTUALLY DIE. I am amazed she has survived THIS long in this state!

I believe if her parents would EVER tell Terri they know she wants to go and they are prepared to live without her in their lives so she can continue HER journey, she would go peacefully!

Don't think I believe Terri is capable of "thinking" by that statement either. I believe the "spirit" in Terri, at the single cell level, has "memory", "voice recognition", and "consciousness", but Terri is NO LONGER THERE. Her spirit has been begging for release for 15 years.

She is MY age. I have lived a lot in 15 years! I have raised 2 children and lost MANY loved ones. I have grown "spiritually" and learned to accept life AND death with grace and a sense of knowing that it is JUST another passage in our life journey.

Terri's parents can't go with her so they are afraid of her death. The reality is they have taken this WAY TOO FAR!

BELIEVE ME Terri has been in pain! Feeding tubes cause spasms and they have to be removed and re-inserted after being cleaned when someone has been connected to them as long as Terri has!

I believe Terri DID have this conversation with her husband! I have had it with my husband MANY times. He knows my wishes and so does every other member of my family. When you have a family that has your best interests at heart, they DON'T do this to you!

Everyone had a chance to have their say and the court said this was Terri's wish. It's not about you.

I really think this TS is being used to sidetrack us and we are falling for it - AGAIN!

So in fairness I have not followed TS and all the nuance. People say she is flatlined, which surprised me because I thought that meant you didn't have any functionality and obviously she does (breathing, heart beat, possibly some hearing/seeing/touching). I don't understand why her parents want her to hang on, but if they do I really don't understand why the husband cares. If he gets nothing out of it, isn't hiding anything then why doesn't he just walk away? To him, she's dead. She isn't suffering. The ones suffering are the survivors. So if the parents want to hang on, I say let them. I hate the idea of saying she should be killed because taxpayers money is being used to keep her alive.

As for judges, one wouldn't let them do HBOT. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy is the alternative "experimental" therapy that I've heard over and over again helps the severely brain injured. About the only thing (there are other therapies for moderate to mild, but for severe HBOT is the best). This should be tried, though chances are even this won't help. Compared to how much has been spent on her over 15 years the 6-10k it would cost for an initial 40 sessions is worth it. Do a brain scan for another 2k and see if it did anything. If there is anything positive, keep doing more sessions.

As for the husband, I don't know if she's been scanned to see if she had possible past abuse. Maybe thats why he wants to cremate her. If she hasn't been scanned she should be. Like I said, I don't get why he cares. Who is paying his lawyers fees? Why waste the time and money on a woman who, in his mind, is dead? Why not leave the parents to grieve over the shell that is left of their daughter?

Something just isn't right about this whole case. So yes, I agree with you.


Meanwhile what is happening in the UK with the BBC getting massively axed and the recent law that got passed? Are they becoming like us? And what about that bogus voters rights group that was allowed to testify in congress on Ohio voter irregularities - and the only thing they mentioned was not Mr. Conyers wonderful list of problems but the relatively innocuous Democratic registration of Dick Tracy and Mary Poppins (wasn't that the one where the woman who paid the man to do this with drugs conveniently offed herself?) And what about: Military recruiters at high school campuses; the lack of investigation of Guckert, Cheney and his energy policy; almost 9 billion dollars that went missing in Iraq; the prisoners who have been sequestered away through renditions or the ghost ones in Iraq; the poor man who supposedly shown an astronomy light in an airplane and got charged with Homeland security infraction (as in he's a terrorist?!); the slow stealthy plot to stifle free speech and diverse opinion on college campuses; the inability to get decent election reform legislation in congress; the fact that the MSM is not covering any of this.

These are the real issues. The ones we should be focusing on.

Against the doctors who had been treating her at the time she had the heart attack. He won. If there had been ANY proof of abuse, don't you think that would have been brought up at the trial?

Her parents asked him how much of the settlement they would give & he said it was all devoted to her upkeep. That's when they turned against him.

If you're going to state your opinion on the case, please refer to some of the NUMEROUS threads here to get the facts.

New information can be grounds for an appeal and a bone scan is solid information.

MAKE NO MISTAKE...IF I WAS CLEAR ABOUT HER WISHES I WOULD PULL THE TUBE MYSELF

That is Michael Schiavo's claim which the courts have validated.

..."terminally ill"?

The poor woman's body cannot be kept alive by any other means than a feeding tube. If not for the artificiality of the feeding tube, she would have passed on fifteen years ago.

She is nothing but a living corpse...to what "quality of life" are you referring?

Check out "No; it's not about Terri Schiavo anymore (Mary Johnson)"

at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=250x826

The feeding tube ALONE does not constitute a terminal illness. The fact that she has been in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery does.

Please read the ethics paper I posted above as well as my comments on that thread.

She made her thoughts on the matter known when she was perfectly healthy.

I respect your opinion, but mine is different.

Terminally Ill is having an illness or sickness that can reasonably be expected to result in death in twenty-four (24) months or less.

Chronically Ill means (1) being unable to perform at least two activities of daily living (i.e., eating, toileting, transferring, bathing, dressing or continence), or (2) requiring substantial supervision to protect the individual from threats to health and safety due to severe cognitive impairment, or (3) having a level of disability similar to that described in (1) as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
from http://www.canadasettlements.com/glossary.htm

...and he was told that his condition was TERMINAL and that he had six months to live. That, by the way, was six months to the day before he actually died.

And my father-in-law was told that his condition was TERMINAL about six months before he died. He died on December 1, 2004, from cancer and additional complications brought on by a stroke. He died about nine months after his six-month prognostication...but he was one tough hombre and he is missed by his family.

Here's a word of advice, deek...don't pretend to lecture people on this board about medical terms as defined in freaking Canada. We all know what the word TERMINAL means in the US.

TS's brain damage is not considered a terminal illness in any medical context.
Another example would be end stage heart failure--this is diagnosed as a terminal disease and death is the direct result of the disease.

Do we like to play fast and loose with medical definitions?

"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind. "


-John Stuart Mill

n/t

We should be civil to one another...


My global view. From that you could probably infer where I stand on this and other "life" questions...


I embrace a culture of life which begins at conception and ends with our last breath...


This compels me to oppose abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and wars that don't meet the criteria set down in the just war doctrine...

Since we live in a pluralistic society I would not employ the awesome power of the state to compel a woman to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy nor would I call on the state to compel a person that decided they wanted to end their life to continue it but I would would pray that God gave me the persuasive power to move them to choose life...

her husband.

That's why I don't support the re-feed effotr.

Whether we support it or not, I think it is complete hubris for any of us to claim to know one way or the other. What we have in place, in this country, to make these types of decisions is a legal court, not a court of public opinion.

100% of the people might decide that they don't think gravity exists, but that won't change the fact that it does.

Because we are not privvy to all the details of the case over the past 15 years, we rely upon the court system. The courts have decided that Terri's wishes were not to be kept alive artificially. And this wasn't just the decision of one court, but several.

Whether you trust the courts or not, they are the only system we have in place to adjudicate complicated matters like this. The courts listen to the experts and professionals who have examined Terri Schiavo. The courts do not arrive at these decisions without careful consideration. I am certain that everyone who played a role in that decision did so with a heavy heart, because it is always hard to let someone go.

...but even though Terri is not terminally ill, she is for all intents and purposes, dead. If she were a body with no head being kept alive with machines, nobody would want to prolong this. Because they see a face, they want to keep the body alive. But her brain is gone - mostly fluid. "She" feels, hears, sees NOTHING, because SHE is no longer there.

The body cannot survive without mechanical assistance. If that girl's soul is still bound to that body, it's time to set it free.

I support the tube as long as there is no living will requesting otherwise.

as a result of not feeding herself--many years of lack of nutrients to to the body leading to a bulemia induced heart attack. Now she will die 15 years later for the second time because of lack of food/nutrients. And her husband says it was what she wants. So be it.

put your asbestos suit on .....now!!

statements which betray their position.

I thought I was the only (or very few) who felt that way.

thx.

individual would be required to be kept on life support for as many decades as it takes for them to die, regardless of the request of their chosen guardian or any amount of evidence indicating their wishes?

My position is that if there's any question as to a person's wishes, go with the way that will cause the least irreversible damage. Death is more irreversible than life is.

a person's wishes"?

If anyone challenges a claim, is that a Question?

What if there's a living will and a cousin says "I think she was pressured to sign it" - is that a Question?

And how does this play into the role of the court, which is supposed to decide in legal conflicts between two or more parties?

..should still be hooked up!

The parents of Mrs. Schiavo need to just stop. But no, they're on their way (AGAIN) to the FL Supreme Court. The only reason they haven't been painted with the "frivolous" brush is because this is a hotbutton issue, but they are abusing the process, and whipping up the religous far right in the process. Dozens of rulings, dozens of judges, from both political parties, have swatted them away because they aren't meeting any legal criteria. They DON'T have a case!

This whole sick situation is all about CONTROL--they want to take the decision away from Mrs. Schiavo, as expressed by her legally affirmed representative, and give it to her parents, whose home she left many, many years ago (the same parents who had no clue that she was seeing a fertility specialist--makes me think they weren't as close as they would like to suggest...).