Terri Schiavo

[janice]

I came very close to jumping on a plane today and going to Florida to protest!!  I am absolutely appalled that we can let this happen to another human being!  Of course, none of us would want to "live like her".  But that's beside the point.  ALL life is sacred and beautiful, no matter what the abilities or disabilities might be.  I feel that Terri is serving a purpose.  So this whole battle isn't "about" Terri, it is "about" a much bigger thing--the sanctity of human life.  I also believe that this whole thing is a "test" for us humans.  What happens from this point on will be a result of what we allow to happen with Terri.  It is very obvious that Michael (her husband) has a different "reason" or "agenda".  I mean, he has been living with another woman and has 2 kids with her.  That's quite the "loving husband"!  Also, she got a 1-point-something million dollar settlement after her collapse.  He promised to use the money for her care.  Almost immediately, he began discontinuing her therapy, dental treatment, treatment for infections, etc.  Now, there is only $25 or $50 (I forgot which one thousand dollars left.  Hmmmmm.  He won't even allow her to have ice chips now.  So we watch helplessly as this poor woman is being starved and dehydrated.  This is not "right to die", this is "a command for you to die".  I fear for myself, my loved ones, and for every other American.  I'm gonna go live in a cave and grow my own vegetables.  Anyone want to go with me?

[mikeyg]

The way I look at it is that she Is taking up space and the time of doctors that could be used on someone who had a chance of coming out of a vegitative state.

[mikeyg]

The only problem I have with it is the way they do it.  It would be much more  "humane" to give her a drug than starving her to death, I would think.

[dinosaurtales]

and another thing.  She's not in a vegetative state.  She also did not give permission to do this, so the way I see it we are all witnesses to a murder that is legal and being covered by all the national television channels so we get to watch it on tv.  It makes me want to puke, then go see a lawyer to see how I can protect myself!

[BoliverAllmon]

it is sad. It is too bad that the appellate or the Supreme Court CAN"T do anything about it. it just isn't in their jurisdiction. I feel that her husband should really pay for being such a dip.

boliver

[dinosaurtales]

it is sad. It is too bad that the appellate or the Supreme Court CAN"T do anything about it. it just isn't in their jurisdiction. I feel that her husband should really pay for being such a dip.

boliver

I agree Boliver - but he's more than a "dip" - He deliberately spent the money that was supposed to be used to take care of her on lawyer's fees to get her killed!  AND IT WORKED!

[BoliverAllmon]

I agree Boliver - but he's more than a "dip" - He deliberately spent the money that was supposed to be used to take care of her on lawyer's fees to get her killed!  AND IT WORKED!

unfortunately so.

[dinosaurtales]

Hm.  Somehow my first post didn't come through. 

What I said, Janice, is that I cannot go with you, but I am WITH YOU all the way on this one!  This whole thing doesn't pass my smell test.  And there's something about it that is totally missing from all the discussion:

Let's say as an example, that Terri had said over and over that she would want the plug pulled in this kind of situation.  (she didn't)

Let's say as an example that she really had her act together (like some folks actually do) and had an attorney draw up a will that specified that she would want the plug pulled (she didn't).

Let's say she did all of the above, and now she is in the condition she is in.  WHAT IF SHE CHANGED HER MIND AND COULDN"T CONVEY THAT TO ANYONE!!!!!!  People change their minds all the time once their situation really changes - happens all the time.   She wakes up and realizes what happened and thinks, hm I can still think, and listen to music, and gee, this really sucks, but maybe there will be a miracle.  So even wih signatures, and testimony, and lawyers and forms, I still couldn't pull that tube!

So if you think you'd want the tube pulled on you, you'd best not assign that task to me, 'cause it won't get done!

[mikeyg]

I'm not sure if she is capable of shanging her mind.  The most unfortunate thing about this is that illnesses like this still happen.  Perhaps her husband should have donated all the money from the lawsuit to research, where it would have had the most widespread effect.

[TheHammer]

Of course, none of us would want to "live like her". But that's beside the point.

no, I think exactly that is the point. I want to commit suicide whenever I choose to do, whenever I think that this life su**s and that I don't want to stand it any longer. I doubt that this will happen anytime, but I want my right to decide on my own. And when I will not be able to do it myself, I wish that my friends or the doctors help me with this one. That is my right to decide for myself and I think noone should be forced to live because there are some passages in a book I don't believe in. Christianity should not have any influence on how a free democratic society acts, and if I choose not to live along the Bible, then I feel the nation I am living in should at least not hinder me.

That said, I am of course aware, that Terri Schiavo not really has made such a command (because she can't in her current state). So her husband has taken responsibility for her, and so, decides for her after what he thinks are the wishes of Terri. Now, two issues:
Legal issue: He is her guardian, so he decides for her. He claims she has stated that in a situation similar to hers now, she wants to die rather than to live on. Courts believed him, therefore it's a completely lawful action after the US Code. You can protest as you want, you live in a country where such things are allowed, and I am very content with (although I live in another country, but same conditions here).

Moral issue: You claimed that her husband has "another agenda", that he is not acting after best intentions for Terr Schiavo. Now, I cannot judge that, nor can you, you can only assume and have an opinion. Anyway, I admit in such a doubtful case, especially after 15 years (in which Terri COULD have adapted to her state) I would vote for life. But that is not my decision. She has made her decision years ago, and she was aware that it could come to the point where she isn't able to communicate with her environment, so I think she has thought well through all of this (assumptions, mere assumptions).

Noone, except Terri Schiavos husband is allowed to decide over her. So why quarreling about it? Because there is one thing really bothering me, namely:
Christian groups and the parents urging Governor Bush to ignore all the courts decision and to order to restart nuritrition. If that comes through good night America. I have found it a medium scandal that politicians were involving at all, but if he does that, then the whole constitution of the US will be damaged and undermined forever, with consequences noone of us may foresee. If you want to pray, pray for living in a free country, whatever that means.

[BoliverAllmon]

GEEZ.... pipe down. what is up with all the christianity bashing? secondly, her husband and rejected treatment for her since he got the settlement. So you can't say that after 15 years you would get an idea of how she would recover. that just isn't so.

boliver

[Bob]

I'll stick my neck out...

The only solid thing I have heard is that she didn't leave a living will.  No one knows for sure (or legally, like a legal will) what her intentions were.  If she didn't have an official living will, I doubt she sat down and pondered about what she would like if she were ever in a vegetative state.  How many people do?  And then how many make it official with a document and witnesses?

After that, if she has a chance of recovering or a chance that she's conscious on some level, she should live.  If they are uncertain, they should let her live to be on the safe side.  All the experts in the media I've heard have had conflicting ideas about whether she's still there or can recover, so I don't know what to think.

They can't purposefully cause her to die.  I can understand making things painless with drugs.  I can understand not doing anything "assistive" to help her survive if that's her wish or that's the process.  I have heard there's a process of removing assistance if someone has no hope for any kind of recovery. 

I can also understand a harsh practically about it.  I'm thinking in terms of insurance and money.  When the money runs out, I imagine they're out of luck.  There must be a point that it would cost too much to keep someone alive, even if fully conscious and aware.  At some point, like a previous poster mentioned, the amount of money spent might be more beneficial to someone else, or many someone elses.  I can understand the the hospital would have a policy for stopping assistance once there is no chance for recovery.  Even if someone were fully conscious, how much money should society spend to keep that person alive?  There has to be a certain amount.  What if it were billions of dollars a day?  Is that worth it?  I'm going off on a tangent here now...

I think the situation is caught up in a lot of other issues now.  That blurs things and makes it more confusing than ever.

[Daevren]

Everybody outside the US is shocked by this.

Its totally absurd. There are some religious fundamentalists that believe that only god can decide over life and death.

This woman called Terri Schiavo had some genetic defict, gets a heart attack and goes in coma. If it wasn't for humans godless technology she would have died. God would have 'taken' her.

But the humans keep her alive, hoping for a recovery, which makes some sense.

Now her brain is about 70% percent liquefied, all real doctors say she is in a vegetable state and there is absolutely no chance for any thind of improvement.

Then there is a conflict between the husband and the parents about what to do. Law dictates the husband is allowed to decide what is going to happen. The family protests and several judges decide their protest is unfounded.

OK until here its not that strange. But what happens then? All politicians jump on it, they make special laws, people call it murder.

Why doesn't Bush stop the war in Iraq, Sudan or Afghanistan? Why doesn't he get Osama?

This isn't murder? And even if you call it killing people, killing people is allowed if you follow the bible(luckely for the US, otherwise it would be one godless state considering its body count and arms laws/murder rates).

She is already dead!

Stop the religious crusade!

The rest of the civilised world is shocked too. How can this happen in a civilised state? This is family business about something very sensitive and complex.

She is just being abused by christian zealous ideas. Look at Janice's post. 'Test', 'all life is sacred', 'sactity of humankind',  'some kind of purpose'. This is nonsense. These are your own personal beliefs. There is no proof for any of this. How can you decide she should be on a feeding probe for the next 60 years based on those things while like 19 judges have already reviewed the case?

Let 'God' have his way, he has been trying to take her into heaven for the last fiftheen years. It would have worked if it wasn't for those stupid humans. Its gods will!

The only problem I have with it is the way they do it.  It would be much more  "humane" to give her a drug than starving her to death, I would think.

That happens in alot of more civilised countries. Terminal patients are given some drugs so the patient dies while asleep. The death will be more quicker, but also humane and painless. This is absolutely not done in the US.

no, I think exactly that is the point. I want to commit suicide whenever I choose to do, whenever I think that this life su**s and that I don't want to stand it any longer.

Didn't Janice say Terri is a pawn in the battle between God and Lucifer? Like, if Terri dies the rapture will start and only the people that protested against her death will fight at the side of Jesus. What Terri wants is totally irrelevant. If we don't 'support' Terri by making sure she stays alive for the next 60 years God will destroy humankind. Proof? The bible!

There is no reasoning with fundamentalists.

[mikeyg]

Well, bullseye Daevren
It is pretty hyprcritical to say "Oh, god has a plan", and then say "we must stop this act of god"

[TheHammer]

Exactly, Daevren! Thanks for this.

 

Let 'God' have his way, he has been trying to take her into heaven for the last fiftheen years. It would have worked if it wasn't for those stupid humans. Its gods will!

My very opinion on so called "destiny" and "God's will". Isn't it puzzling that the pope receives all the medical support to hold his poor "soul" on earth just some weeks longer, but when someone decides to die then they all cry: "No, only God can take life. Let "Him" have his will." Hypocrites.

Anyway, I think that only a minority of Christians really share that belief (or at least I hope so), so we should not generalise too much (i.e. "that's typical Christian blableh").

[Daevren]

I am sorry it was a bit harsh. I have some respect for religion, not too much I must admit. But some people take it way to far.

Also the whole 'pro-life' movement has gotten out of hand. It started a life for its own, detached even from religion.

And its strange that the people that are 'pro-life' are generally also pro death sentence. Don't those people believe God says through the bible murder is wrong? And don't they also believe God will judge people before they start the after life? Have some faith in God then.

[dinosaurtales]

and ANOTHER thing.......

Nobody is mentioning this either.  We are always talking about how bad Michael Schiavo is, but what role is his "new wife" playing in this?  After all, they've been living together for several years, with 2 kids I understand.  I can definitely imagine that she is putting some pressure to "get this over with" so she can move on  with their new "happy family".  I wouldn't be surprised to find she's wholeheartedly disappointed that the money's been spent on attorneys and she won't get that new fur coat!  After all, I think it would take a special personality to live with that guy - have you guys seen interview with him?  he DRIPS SLIME.

[TheHammer]

and ANOTHER thing.......

Nobody is mentioning this either. We are always talking about how bad Michael Schiavo is, but what role is his "new wife" playing in this? After all, they've been living together for several years, with 2 kids I understand. I can definitely imagine that she is putting some pressure to "get this over with" so she can move on with their new "happy family". I wouldn't be surprised to find she's wholeheartedly disappointed that the money's been spent on attorneys and she won't get that new fur coat! After all, I think it would take a special personality to live with that guy - have you guys seen interview with him? he DRIPS SLIME.

DinosaurTales, is your post based on facts and information or just (as I deem it is) on mere assumptions, prejudices and half-true stories spread by the media? Just interested...

[benji]

I agree with the courts' decisions, but I think they should have used a more humane way to let her die. 

[Bob]

What about all the other people in similar situations?  I can't imagine this type of thing hasn't happened before?  Why is this situation more exposed in the media than the rest?  Is it just the court involvement that separates this one from others?

[janice]

Didn't Janice say Terri is a pawn in the battle between God and Lucifer?

No, I did not.  I said "  I also believe that this whole thing is a "test" for us humans.  What happens from this point on will be a result of what we allow to happen with Terri."  I made no reference between a battle between God and Lucifer.  Rather, I am saying that I believe (i.e. in my opinion) that the direction that the country is headed in the near future, will be a direct consequence of rather we view human life as sacred or not.

  Like, if Terri dies the rapture will start and only the people that protested against her death will fight at the side of Jesus.  

Oh please!  Surely you don't believe that I think that.  I think more highly of you than that, so I will assume that you are joking here.

 What Terri wants is totally irrelevant.

Terri tried to verbalize the phrase "I want to live" a week ago.  So what that she cannot verbalize like you and me.  So, yes, God's heart is grieved by this whole thing.  God is sovreign and he knows all the details and the "what ifs".  So actually, I DO NOT KNOW WHY this happened to her and why this all is going on.  I'm not going to try to figure it out either.  You know why?  Because I'm not God and I'm not qualified and I am ok with that, and always have been.  (Not ALL the time.  There are things that have tested my faith.)

 If we don't 'support' Terri by making sure she stays alive for the next 60 years God will destroy humankind. Proof? The bible!

  

Is it that you are bitter with conservative Christians or do you have a chapter and verse you would like to share with us?

[janice]

I agree with the courts' decisions, but I think they should have used a more humane way to let her die. 

While I agree with you that this is NOT humane, umm.....what would you rather see--death by lethal injection?  She committed NO crime and she is not an animal to be "put down".  So...you are saying that she should be given something to "hasten" her death? perhaps a gun shot blow to the head?

[Siberian Husky]

i really hope that those of you who fight for her right to live...also fight for an animal curelty victim's life to also be preserved...i find it so hypocritical that many voice how Terri should have the right to live because she is self functional to a degree that allows her to interact with her environment, thus making her more than just "alive,"...BUT think its okay for mass euthanasia to occur to "control" the population of unwanted pets...there is nothing to be controlled aside from ridding ignorant pet owners for allowing their cat to breed..or pit bull get loose because of a poorly fenced yard...resulting in LIVE..most of the time HEALTHY..pets to be put down...i really hope people take this Terri episode as a reflection of  how stupid mankind is...we only dig ourselves deeper in the hole by the day...

[Ludwig Van Rachabji]

The truth is that nobody truly knows what Terri wants. Someone said that she attempted to say "I want to live." but I have not heard this yet... Truthfully, I'll believe it when I see it.

As for the religious side of things... I am Agnostic, so I do not follow a specific religion, however I do not exclude the possibility that there may be a God. However, I know that most Christian religions are against keeping people alive through extraordinary means. I have not been following this to closely, but I am curious as to what exactly they have her on? Do they keep her on tons of different machines to keep here alive? If they do, then this is against Christianity.

I personally think that it was a good idea to pull the plug on her. True, she is not an animal that can be "put down", but she is no longer a true human being anymore either.

[dinosaurtales]

DinosaurTales, is your post based on facts and information or just (as I deem it is) on mere assumptions, prejudices and half-true stories spread by the media? Just interested...

Well, the facts are (at least what is printed these days - grain of salt I s'pect) : Michael got together with another woman some years ago after all this happened to Terri - I even think her parents encouraged it.  He's had a couple of kids with her - exact number not in my memory. 

I am just talking as a person with a ton of human experience, knowing human nature as I do - maybe or maybe not the best - but I seem to be right a lot of the time!  And I can guarantee that a woman who is together with a guy, living with him, supposedly in love, with two kids, would be quite annoyed wsith the notion that he is really married to someone else, and would want "our" family to be as regular as possible.  It would never seem that way as long as he was technically maried to someone else, who is stil living, and distracting him.

By the way, as long as we're on this, why wouldn't he divorce her, you suppose?  Her parents offered it up.  Seems if you really wanted to move on, that would be the simplest solution to the problem.  You don't think he wanted the money, do you?

[janice]

I have not been following this to closely, but I am curious as to what exactly they have her on? Do they keep her on tons of different machines to keep here alive?

No!!!  The ONLY thing that she is "on" is a feeding tube!!  She can breath on her own, and can swallow.  And the thing is, thousands of "normal" people have feeding tubes, for whatever medical reason.

Do they keep her on tons of different machines to keep here alive?   

No!!!  She isn't even on ONE!!!

but she is no longer a true human being anymore either.
   

Of course she is! Why wouldn't she be?

[wintervind]

I find it interesting that the ones who are fighting for Terri Schiavo's life are also pro killing (war)
What is the killing of an innocent? If its not thrown in your face by the media you could give a s**t about it.
If the media made a stink about the thousands of innocents killed in war then those who are building this story up would be laughed at.
And I'm not just talking about the war in Iraq, I am talking of all wars. The innocents are the ones ignored by the history books (and don't bring up the holocost, I'm talking about the millions that are forgotten because of the holocost)and we are lead to believe those who died chose to die by joining the army.
Sorry Terry, but its obvious that, once again, it is those who are "in charge" who are deciding who gets to live or die.
 

[Daevren]

No, I did not. 

You suggest the whole thing. Who other than God would test humankind.

Oh please!  Surely you don't believe that I think that.  I think more highly of you than that, so I will assume that you are joking here.

I am not sure about if you realise why you think what you think. But this has to be it.

Terri tried to verbalize the phrase "I want to live" a week ago.

Uuh, come one. She tried to.... Sure. Look at the picture of her brain. Its gone, her brain is gone. How could she think anything? How would you know she tried to say this? Remember, all doctors say the has no concious or thought.
Let me guess, her parents thought they saw her try to say it.
 

So, yes, God's heart is grieved by this whole thing.  God is sovreign and he knows all the details and the "what ifs".  So actually, I DO NOT KNOW WHY this happened to her and why this all is going on.

So it is a test? It must be, right? It doesn't make any sense otherwise?

Because I'm not God and I'm not qualified and I am ok with that, and always have been.

Then why do so many people know it better than the judges about what should happen. And they use/abuse Gods name for it?

 

Is it that you are bitter with conservative Christians or do you have a chapter and verse you would like to share with us?

Honestly, no. I do not know many conservative christians. Maybe its because I feel I understand their reasoning a bit.

This is a family matter, sadly they have a conflict but the court decides what should happen.

The politics should prevent this by making laws for active euthanasia.

FOX recently made a documentry about out country and about, after 60-something years, 'nazi-like' things happening again in Europe. What have we learned, bla bla. The deal was that terminal babies were actively put to death by lethal injection if the parents and the doctors agreed about this. It was decided that their life wasn't worth it by the docters and parents(thanks god, not by christians that have nothing to do with it or politicians). Yes, sad thing. But then these peoplet that stop at nothing come in and abuse both the parents and the holocaust victims(not only the jews, like Wintervind points out, even in the holocaust people are ignored) for a stupid story on FOX. Yes, its hard to show you are actively 'pro-life'. Thats why the politicians jumped on this case.

[BoliverAllmon]

Well, the facts are (at least what is printed these days - grain of salt I s'pect) : Michael got together with another woman some years ago after all this happened to Terri - I even think her parents encouraged it.  He's had a couple of kids with her - exact number not in my memory. 

I am just talking as a person with a ton of human experience, knowing human nature as I do - maybe or maybe not the best - but I seem to be right a lot of the time!  And I can guarantee that a woman who is together with a guy, living with him, supposedly in love, with two kids, would be quite annoyed wsith the notion that he is really married to someone else, and would want "our" family to be as regular as possible.  It would never seem that way as long as he was technically maried to someone else, who is stil living, and distracting him.

By the way, as long as we're on this, why wouldn't he divorce her, you suppose?  Her parents offered it up.  Seems if you really wanted to move on, that would be the simplest solution to the problem.  You don't think he wanted the money, do you?

money? It is only a couple of million right? 

[Daevren]

Conservative millionairs already offered him money if he let her be feeded again. If its all about money then why didn't he take those offers?

Divorce? Moving on? Uuh, first of all, how do you divorce from someone that isn't officially dead yet, just brain dead? She has no way of agreeing with the divorce. Is it even technically possible?

Moving on? He doesn't want to move on. He wants to make sure that she gets what he thinks she wants, peaceful death. The parents somehow believe she wil recover. If he divorced her wouldn't her parents get the right to decide over her life? And wouldn't they keep here the way she is now for who knows how many years? Maybe 60? Assuming he believes that she wants it differently, how can he move on?

This is just a family conflict. We shouldn't even be discussing this.

[nose]

This is such a difficult issue to come to any sort of agreement about. I personally am not what you would call an out and out christian however I am very interested in the christian faith and I do believe strongly in the existence of God. People have argued that she should be kept alive and about the sanctity of all human life etc. however the way I would see it is that if you are religious then surely everthing that happens is God's will, therefore if she is allowed to die then this must be God's will and we must take from it what we choose. That might be that we think that it is a test to our faith or that we believe the right thing to have happened. As for whether she should be allowed to die or not, that really depends on exactly what state she is in. The problem with cases like this is that things tend to get distorted with the media etc. and you end up not knowing what to believe. She is alive but how alive is she? Is she aware that she is alive? is she capable of concious thought? She may be able to breath and swallow but these are part of the involuntry part of the brain, we don't conciously think about breathing. Is she able to think that she doesn't want to die? The problem is we don;t know what she wants, there is no way of knowing. Therefore as her survival is totally dependent on others then maybe it is up to them to decide. The question has also been raised as to wether people should have the right to decide whether others live or die, it is difficult to say and depends on the circumstances. Consider this hypothetical situation, this does not relate directly to this case but it is something to consider. A man attempts suicide, he leaves a note, and jumps in front of a bus. He survives but with severe injuries and brain damage, he is unconcious to begin with. Doctors have the ability to save him and to bring him back to conciousness but his quality of life would be much lower than before. Do they have the right to decide whether he lives or not, he wanted to die so therefore should he be allowed to? Of course we have no way of knowing what Terri wants but this is the question it raises.

[Daevren]

Thats not really the question it raises.

The only question we can answer is: Who will decide what happens to a severly handicapped patient with below average life quality that cannot make that decision him or herself anymore.

Is it the parents? And what if they disagree? The partner? The children? What if they disagree? The doctors? What is they disagree? The Governer? The President? The senate/congress? What if they disagree? The friends? What if they disagree?

To me it would be simple. Set up a few rules that are as non-ambigious as possible about when a decision about ending all treatment or passive or active euthanasia can be made. Then first, the partner, then the parents, then the children, then the friends(hard to do), then any related family member or the doctors. If the docter disagrees then it is not possible. Of course a second opinion is possible. Only the doctors opinion about improvement and treatment should matter. If someone disagrees court will look at the case and see if the procedure has been followed correctly. If not then he or she can make a decision. Otherwise nothing changes.

Of course then the family will have to make the hard decisions.

And if you feel very sensitive about this you could make it so that politicians who talk about an individual case should get a punishment or something. A fine, getting fired, jail, etc.

People like Janice, who feel this sensitive about this, should make a case for the Bush brothers being fired.

If I get an accident tomorrow then I except my family to decide about what happens if I am not able to do this myself, not the mayor, or the prime minister or the queen, or some judge, or some priest or even the pope. Actually not even God(if I would believe in God).

Does anyone feel any different? Because this is the thing we should talk about. Who decides what happens when you cannot?

Anyone who claims that he or she knows what should happen to her is stupid. I am just claiming that I would prefer a partner to decide what should happen. Of course you can look at their motives. There are things that speak for the husband(brain gone, docters opinion) and against him (his other wife and children, some money things). But that is all irrelevant.

[timothy42b]

Did you look at that brain scan? 

How can there be any doubt about what to do?

How can anyone claim she is trying to talk?  It just isn't possible.  This isn't subtle damage, that might take a neurologist to detect.  That brain is gone.  She is gone, and not coming back. 

I think God's test for us is whether we have the integrity to look at the evidence, or if we're going to make judgements based on our beliefs.

This is not about "quality of life" for the "handicapped."  This is about keeping a corpse alive indefinitely for political reasons. 

I think that if you oppose letting this body die, then you are also opposed to all living wills and Do Not Resuscitate orders. 

[pianoboi666]

I personally am sick of all this bull sh!*  I live in Florida and I'm ashamed to say so.  I think that they should just get it over with and let her die peacefully.  She made the mistake of not having a living will, but ultimately it's her husbands right to choose.  like I said I'm just sick of hearing about her I know it's bad and everything but I wake up every day hoping that Terry shiavo is dead  no one should have to live like that

[Ludwig Van Rachabji]

I personally am sick of all this bull sh!*  I live in Florida and I'm ashamed to say so.  I think that they should just get it over with and let her die peacefully.  She made the mistake of not having a living will, but ultimately it's her husbands right to choose.  like I said I'm just sick of hearing about her I know it's bad and everything but I wake up every day hoping that Terry shiavo is dead  no one should have to live like that

Thank you! This is what I wanted to say, but I didn't in fear that the others on this forum would attack me.

[dinosaurtales]

The problem is we dont KNOW for sure what she is thinking.  And since we DON'T KNOW, I think it' s at the very least presumptuous to assume what she "wants" and just decide.   

[mikeyg]

Did you look at the brain scan?  Now, I am no doctor, but I can plainly see that an overwhelming amount of her brain is missing.  So, the prognosis of Dr. MikeyG is that she doesn't know whether she wants to live or if she wants to die, all she knows is the simple body functions to keep her alive, i.e. breathing, heart beat, etc.  That is why she is braindead.  She has no cognative ability.  It is unfortunate but true.  The only thing that would be accomplished is to prolong her and others pain and suffering (if she could think, I'm sure she would be emotionally distraught)  That is why so many cancer patients kill themselves, because they know there is no hope and they need to end the suffering.

[Floristan]

Her brain scan says definitively that she is not thinking.  The part of her brain that could think is gone.  It's not there.  She is incapable of thought.  She cannot understand what is happening.  The few reactions she has left are all reflexive, from the brain stem.  The brain stem does not think, it just reacts on some really basic levels.  It permits breathing to continue.  It permits swallowing of one's own saliva (but not of anything else put into the mouth like food, as swallowing food is a conscious act, and she is not conscious).  Her random responses to stimuli are all produced by the brain stem.   Despite her parents' wishful thinking, they are not purposeful.  There is no Terri in there.  She's been gone for years.  She's just a body kept barely alive by her brain stem.

Of course it is a moral dilemma since we don't have in writing what Terri wanted.  Do we keep her alive, when actually she didn't want that, or do we let her die, when actually she didn't want that.  We'll never know.  The best the courts can do in these cases is determine the facts in the case and make a decision from that.  The facts are that her brain is so damaged that she will never have conscious thought again -- and that her husband (regardless of his motives or his character) has legal guardianship of her.  This is not a criminal case where a court is called upon to determine guilt; it is a viscious family dispute in which the courts have been asked to intervene.  All the courts can do is decide on the facts as they know them.

Society has an overwhelming interest in determining the facts of the case in a "clear and convincing" and efficient manner, so that we may come to the best resolution possible in our imperfect world, given that there is no living will to settle the matter, and a vicious dispute among the family members that must be resolved by legal means.  

[Hmoll]

The most poignant message in this whole sad 15 year old case is we should make sure in writing what our wishes are should we be in Terri's "shoes."

If she had said she wanted to live in a PVS,  I would be in favor of that decision despite the wishes of her family. It so happens, though, that the courts have determined her expressed wishes were that she would not like to live in that state. Her husband, who's been demonized by Frist, DeLay, some Christian groups, etc. is merely trying to follow through with those wishes. To those of you who want to judge Michael Schiallo, I would say if you are without sin, be my guest, and cast the first stone.  One of the people who has cast stones in this is Rep. Tom DeLay, who is one of the people behind the congressional act that was passed a week ago. He seems to conveniently forgot that his own father was in a similar - not identical, but similar - condition resulting from an accident in 1988, and he along with his family decided to take him off life support. DeLay's family (DeLay, btw, is also one of the orchestrators of the tort reform movement) then sued the company responsible for the accident, and were awarded a settlement.

This entire episode will ultimately hurt the Republicans, who trampled on states rights, not to mention a private family matter, more than the Democrats.

Last week, with very little news coverage, a little boy in Texas was taken off life support against the will of his mother as a result of a Texas law former governor George W. Bush signed that stipulates if you are on life support, and cannot pay for medical treatment, depite the wishes of you or your family, you will be taken off life support, and allowed to die.

Does the hypocracy of this resound with anyone?

 

[BoliverAllmon]

The most poignant message in this whole sad 15 year old case is we should make sure in writing what our wishes are should we be in Terri's "shoes."

If she had said she wanted to live in a PVS,  I would be in favor of that decision despite the wishes of her family. It so happens, though, that the courts have determined her expressed wishes were that she would not like to live in that state. Her husband, who's been demonized by Frist, DeLay, some Christian groups, etc. is merely trying to follow through with those wishes. To those of you who want to judge Michael Schiallo, I would say if you are without sin, be my guest, and cast the first stone.  One of the people who has cast stones in this is Rep. Tom DeLay, who is one of the people behind the congressional act that was passed a week ago. He seems to conveniently forgot that his own father was in a similar - not identical, but similar - condition resulting from an accident in 1988, and he along with his family decided to take him off life support. DeLay's family (DeLay, btw, is also one of the orchestrators of the tort reform movement) then sued the company responsible for the accident, and were awarded a settlement.

This entire episode will ultimately hurt the Republicans, who trampled on states rights, not to mention a private family matter, more than the Democrats.

Last week, with very little news coverage, a little boy in Texas was taken off life support against the will of his mother as a result of a Texas law former governor George W. Bush signed that stipulates if you are on life support, and cannot pay for medical treatment, depite the wishes of you or your family, you will be taken off life support, and allowed to die.

Does the hypocracy of this resound with anyone?

 

of course hypocracy abounds. That is why I simply say that it is sad that Terri is going to die. I personally feel that michael has some behind the scenes motives, but he is still in the legal right to do what he is doing. That is the end of it all. people overreact all the time. My motto is either you go for it all the way, or you don't go at all. Same should go for this situation. Either you shut up about this (send your remorses of course but all this protesting and name calling is insane) or fight for every single misjustice that you see.

boliver

[dinosaurtales]

The most poignant message in this whole sad 15 year old case is we should make sure in writing what our wishes are should we be in Terri's "shoes."

I'll say it again.  What if she had taken care of all of that?  I know lots of people who constantly say "just pull the plug I wouldn't want to live like that!"  Some even write it into their wills with great conviction.  BUT WHAT IF THEY CHANGE THEIR MINDS!!??  Since we don't KNOW what Terri is thinking, I would never pull that tube if there was even a chance that she really decided she wanted to live and couldn't tell us.  I saw some of this when my dad had cancer.  When I saw how easily he could be "manipulated" (ok I don't have the nice mom some people have), I realized that he could sign the paperwork right there in front of me and I still wouldn't pull the tube!

[dinosaurtales]

AND ANOTHER THING...... How come THIS guy gets a feeding tube?  He's having trouble swallowing.

(anybody with a pace maker should be quaking in their boots!)

Report: Pope May Get Feeding Tube
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
 
   
   
VATICAN CITY  — Pope John Paul II (search) may have to return to the hospital to have a feeding tube inserted, an Italian news agency reported Tuesday. It stressed that no decision had been made.

The APcom news agency, citing an unidentified source, said the 84-year-old pope might have to have the tube inserted to improve his nutrition since he is having difficulty swallowing with the breathing tube that was inserted Feb. 24.

APcom said the idea of inserting a feeding tube was a hypothesis that was being considered. The procedure involves inserting a tube into the stomach to allow for artificial feeding.

Earlier Tuesday, the Italian daily Corriere della Sera reported that the pope's doctors were considering a new hospitalization next week both to perform tests on the breathing tube and to adjust his diet because of problems swallowing.

There was no comment from the Vatican. Nicola Cerbino, a spokesman at Polyclinic Gemelli (search) hospital where John Paul was rushed twice last month, called it media speculation.

Another newspaper, La Repubblica, quoted the pope's Vatican physician, Dr. Renato Buzzonetti, as saying doctors are "reasonably calm" about the frail pope's condition.
 

[mikeyg]

Because he is alive.

[mikeyg]

And we do know what she is thinking:  Breathe, heart beat, swollow saliva, repeat ad mortum.

[PianoMan7753]

The only thing I don't understand is how the "pro-life" people who want the government to intervene are the same who support these wars. The bible says point blank that killing is wrong, there's no grey area. The government is not suppose to involve itself in the personal affairs of others. Even with congress intervening signals a decline in the checks and balances.

Everyone is talking about how evil Michael Schiavo is but the media neglects to inform us that he spent a number of years (not sure exactly how many, I want to say eight) going to different doctors trying to see if there is hope that she will recover. Now people are threatening him, his family and Judge Greer! Absolute chaos!

[Skeptopotamus]

The way I look at it is that she Is taking up space and the time of doctors that could be used on someone who had a chance of coming out of a vegitative state.

holy shista.  talk about mean.  damn dude.

[mikeyg]

No, not mean, blunt.  I'm not going to sugar coat the truth to preserve political correctness.

[Skeptopotamus]

just because you are being blunt doesnt mean it wasnt a nasty thing to say.  maybe try to be a little less harsh.  And excuse me and my lowly self for even talking to you, Mr. I'm above being politically correct.  Look at you and your badass self (sarcasm)

[mikeyg]

You should be sorry for talking to me without adressing me as Lord first, Mr. slave-to-society.  What do you think we should have done with Terry (note the past tense because her body it already shutting down)?  And excuse me for bringing economics into it. If I had a choice between a doctor spending his time with someone who has been in a persistent vegitative state for 15 years, and someone who has been in it for a motnh, I would opt for choice 2.  And, bringing up economics, her parents should be sued for all the thousands they caused the government to waste in legal fees.

[Skeptopotamus]

i like you.


but they probably cost alot more than just thousands of dollars.  But couldnt the doctor do both?  I'm not a slave to society, but im a slave to not being evil.  usually.  sometimes....  only right now to prove a point ><