Court upholds brain-damaged woman's case (Schiavo)

[rainbow4321]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRAIN_DAMAGED_WOMAN?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- An appeals court Wednesday denied a request from the parents of a severely brain-damaged woman for a new trial in the long-running right-to-die case, according to the court clerk's office.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal issued the denial without a written opinion; the decision upheld a ruling by a lower court judge. Attorney George Felos said once the court issues a formal decision in 15 days, Michael Schiavo may again be able to order the removal of the feeding tube that helps keep his 41-year-old wife alive.

Michael Schiavo's former in-laws, Bob and Mary Schindler, argued for a new trial, saying if their daughter did not want to be kept alive artificially - as her husband contends - she would have changed her mind, given recent statements by Pope John Paul II. The pope has said a person in a persistent vegetative state has the right to nutrition and hydration and to withhold them would be a sin.

Meanwhile, other lawyers for the Schindlers filed a friend of the court brief Wednesday in support of Gov. Jeb Bush's request that the U.S. Supreme Court intervene in the case.

[MADem]

1. Anyone think the Supremes will touch this?

I'm guessing they'll decline to hear it, but I could be wrong.

That way, the weecowboy administration can sorta claim the Supremes are an independent entity, and not in the BushCo pocket, while not having to actually PRESERVE the sanctity of life. Could get messy otherwise, as they aren't known for doing that offshore....

[Gnaeus]

2. No.

But they will make it clear how they feel on it.

[barb162]

188. How can they tell us how they feel about it if they don't rule on it?

[depakid]

210. They do it all the time

What they choose to hear- and not hear- is one of the clearest indications of federal law.

[barb162]

216. but we don't know the reasoning behind these decisions to take

the cases. Sometimes, I think, they only take cases that they think are of "national" or otherwise great interest.

[janx]

305. Really?

This is Jebby's turf, after all...
It's a BUSH thang.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

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

[Just Me]

3. Talk about perpetuating suffering,...geez. n/t

[Kimber Scott]

5. I can think of easier ways to die than starving to death.

The death penalty is administered more humanely on criminals.

[Catchawave]

9. Exactly ! n/t

[bettyellen]

186. starving actually happens alot to those who have alzheimers, my mom's

doc says that the patients do not want to eat because it is so difficult and just take less and less as their body slows down. he said it appears to be pretty peaceful. if you try to force food on people when their internal reflexes aren't working the food can go into the lung and cause bouts of pnemonia or it can come back up the espophagous and throat and it has to be suctioned out, which sounded pretty painful when I saw it done to my Dad.
I had two dear ones on stomach tubes and saw what it did to them. One didn't want it but her nephew insisted. She was clear minded to the end and was very angry about him doing it. She never spoke to him for the last six months duing which she suffered a great deal.
My father was the one with the suction, even though he has a stomach tube, the food wouldn't stay there, it would back up and choke him. Of course for the whole time both my dear ones were on stomach tubes, they also had their hands ties down so they couldn't rip the tube out. Don't assume a stomach tube is more "humane" in any way than allowing an incurable condition to take it's course. We discusse this with my Mom and knew her wishes and I am relieved we got it in writing before she lost her mind. I, too have plenty of realatives who would claim that I couldn't know my mother's feeling on the subject and would think nothing of going against her wishes even if they knew them. Thay think they know better than my mom and her three children, because they believe what thay believe.

[TexasBushwhacker]

214. Endstage cancer patients as well

When my mother was in her last days of life, she ate less and less. She was on heavy doses of morphine because the cancer was in her bones, so she just slept most of the time. I asked if I should be waking her up and forcing her to eat and drink and the hospice nurses said that would just prolong the process.

[Isere]

4. The lesson to be learned from this

is for everyone to have an Advance Directive!
Make your needs and desires known to others and write it down!

[katinmn]

6. This is insane. She's brain dead. Never coming back.

[traco]

41. She is not brain dead

She has a heartbeat, maintains her own bloodpressure, breathes on her own. The only support she has is a feeding tube.

[Walt Starr]

147. Okay, she's cerebrum dead

not cerebellum dead.

:eyes:

[barb162]

191. I think the definition of brain dead refers to more than brain stem

activity

[barb162]

192. would you say she is irreversibly unconscious? Because that's

a definition of brain dead.

[traco]

231. She has moments of consciousness

She smiles at her mom, she fights against kisses from her dad. She was once told that she was going to be killed if she didn't show her desire to live. (that was over the phone with a counselor) She threw herself forward, and almost fell to the floor.

[janx]

257. What kind of counselor was this?

?

[traco]

262. It was a therapist,

the family was having the therapist work with Terri over the phone since Michael wouldn't allow anyone he didn't approve to be in her room.

[janx]

264. Yes?

A therapist. I see. ;-)

Please, see post #247.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. No, they upheld the disabled woman's husband's case.

He wants her -- and her name is Terri -- to die so he can marry his fiancee, who has already had two children by him. No one knows what Terri wants.

You left out this paragraph from the article:

"Terri Schiavo collapsed from a chemical imbalance due to an eating disorder 14 years ago and left no written end-of-life directive."

Only her husband and members of his family "remember" Terri saying she wouldn't want to be kept alive in such a situation. Convenient, no?


This is another blow to the rights of disabled people. Why don't all liberals see this?

[Liberal In Texas]

11. She's not disabled

She's brain dead . Even though the article says brain damaged, this woman is dead.

[traco]

44. She is not brain dead

She has a heartbeat, maintains her own bloodpressure, breathes on her own. The only support she has is a feeding tube.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

52. That's ALL?

ONLY a feeding tube?

Well, that's an inventine insight. I guess God invented feeding tubes so that people with no functioning brain - you know, the kind of brain that makes us human and alive - can hang around long enough to die from - what would YOU call it? - natural causes.

Get real. There's no one home inside Terri Schiavo's head, and if you don't think her parents have a huge role in her death - eating disorders are always symptomatic of a dysfunctional nuclear family - you're overlooking the obvious.

Pull the damn tube. She's got not a clue, and the sideshow that she's become, what with her parents illegally videotaping this poor vegetable that used to be a woman and making her a poster child for a bunch of whacked-out right-to-lifers who wouldn't have to lift a finger to have to take care of anyone in Terri's condition, must come to an end, for the simple humanity of it all.

Her husband put himself through nursing school after she suffered her brain damage so that he could take care of her. Anyone who would dare to question his devotion and loyalty to her doesn't understand love and compassion.

[420inTN]

211. re: "Anyone who would dare to question his devotion and loyalty ... "

Let's see...

"Her husband put himself through nursing school after she suffered her brain damage so that he could take care of her.

The nursing school was paid for by a $1.2 million malpractice lawsuit. The award was to go towards Terri's care and rehabilitation. However, about a third of it has gone to Michael Schiavo's lawyer, and supposedly only about $50,000 remains.

Since he left nursing school, Michael Schiavo has not cared for his wife. Since he moved her into the nursing home where she currently resides, he has limited her family's access to her, and all rehabilitation and care. She gets the feeding tube, and that's it.

Michael Schiavo has a live-in girlfriend/lover. With whom he has two children. However, he has kept up the premiums on Terri's life insurance policy (for which he is the sole benificiary).

No, sir/ma'am, I don't question his devotion and loyalty to his wife. Not at all.

[alarimer]

217. this has what has always bothered me

If I thought he had her best interests at heart, I would side with him but I think the case is much more complicated than just allowing someone who has no quality of life to die. I don't think she has much quality of life but I wonder if that is because the husband allowed no rehabilitation attempts at all. It is possible that it might have done some good. Or maybe not which is why I am conflicted. I am not in favor generally of extreme measures to keep someone alive at all costs, even if their quality of life is non-existent. But I think this case is somewhat different, given the husband's obvious conflicts of interest.

[420inTN]

218. Yup, I agree. n/t

[msanthrope]

228. Husband took her to California to have electrodes implanted in

her brain--an experimental method of stimulation. There were years and years of rehab attemps--and not a damn thing worked.

[rainbow4321]

232. Yet one year after the $$ settlement he refused...

the recommended physical therapy for her in Florida???

I've read here that he "took her to California", "he took her to Europe for special treatment". He testified in court <in 1993> that he had earlier refused her treatment for sepsis <from a UTI>. Even though he said it had been explained to him at that time that she could die from it...not until the state forced him to treat it did he allow treatment. The California trip was in Dec 1990...not years after she collapsed <Jan 1990>.

So the "years and years" you refer to was over in less than 2.5 yrs
post-collapse..he had written her off by no later than Nov 1993 when he testified about the potentially fatal sepsis that had occured before Nov 1993.

[shrike]

266. And not a damned thing will

I hate to sound callous, but the family will not have "won" anything if they succeed in keeping Terri alive and even winning guardianship of her. I feel sorry for them in a way, because it sounds like they are being fed snake oil by some expert salesmen. A person in Terri's condition is not going to improve. Period.

I know of a family whose daughter suffered a severe brain injury. After 20 years there was NO improvement. None. Beforehand she was a bright, beautiful 26-year-old. Afterwards she was a grown woman with the mind of a 5-year-old. Still is.

Her family continues, heroically, to take care of her, but it is an incredible strain. They have practically given up their lives for her sake. Although she can feed herself, move about and watch television, in a way it is worse because she can't be left alone. They never know what she's going to do, and she's gotten larger and stronger as the years go by. Tragic.

[janx]

268. That is tragic, yes. And Terri doesn't even have the mind of

a five-year-old. She has no conscious mind at all. That's what so many people don't understand. To think that Jeb Bush would intervene in a case like this...

[Erika]

12. She is not disabled

she is brain dead. There is no hope, there is no chance.

The easy route her husband could have taken was to divorce her. He chose not to and see her wishes through instead.

I also think she would have wished her husband to resume life as I she think she would have wished for him.

Why is big brother/bush government sticking their nose into this?

[LisaL]

22. Her "husband" has two children by another woman.

If your husband was living with another woman and had two children by her, would you still consider him "your husband"?
Why is this man considered Terri's husband?
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
If Terri "wished for her husband to resume his life", don't you think she would wish he would divorce her before "resuming his life"?
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

56. Believe it or not

there are some of us who don't think marriage is an especially significant institution.

Your values are good, and they're good for you, but please don't be so rigid as to think that everyone would do things in the precise order that would make you happy.

[bones_7672]

260. The scumbag husband made a vow to his wife, and when it got

"hard" he hopped in the sack and shot his jollies off. Now he wants to kill his wife and get her insurance money. yeah, good poster boy for "your values are good, and they're good for you".

[DemBones DemBones]

312. It's not the institution of marriage that concerns me, not

his adultery that concerns me, not his fathering children out of wedlock that concerns me, not his plan to marry this other woman after his wife's does that concerns me, it's his desire to starve his wife to death in order to able to marry his girlfriend that is of concern to me and to society as a whole.

His adultery and fathering kids out of wedlock is none of my business and of interest only because it leads me to suspect his motives for wanting his wife to die. Social stigma against adultery and out of wedlock births is almost nonexistent now, but society still has a concern about anyone causing the death of another person whether by murder, manslaughter, or mercy killing. Euthanasia is still against the law.

As I've said several times in this thread, I support a person's refusal of medical treatment for herself/himself, and I support living wills, advanced directives, powers of attorney, etc., to speak for a person who can't speak for himself/herself.

The evidence I've seen about this case is just not sufficient for me to think that Michael Schiavo is being honest in his claim to know what his disabled wife Terri would want in her current situation.

I would like to read your book about right to die cases. Would you please tell me the title? PM me if you don't want to post it in the forum.

[jab105]

303. Being abobut the same age that Terry was when she lost her brain...

and being someone whose major beef with the democratic party is the right to life issue (don't start with me on that now)...I'm anti-death penalty, against abortion, and vegetarian...I'm pretty damn consistent...

I can say, almost anyone, ANYONE with sane mind would say that they would rather die...at this point, she is no longer remembered for being the PERSON that she was, she is remembered for being a vegetable...would anyone want that? She isn't "alive" because your brain is what really makes you alive...it is what makes you uou...

As far as my husband go...are you crazy!! Demand that he stay with me when I am not "alive" (as I described above) any more...I would want my husband to move on with his life...14 years...if I loved my husband, I wouldn't want him to be miserable with a shell of a person, I'd want him to find love...

There are reflexes that a person has even when they're brain isn't working...that is what you see in Terry Schiavo...you may be moved by the way she "responds" when her father says hi to her, or when they tell her a joke...but how many other times does she not move at all when they do the same thing...its not a "response" at all...it is a reflex...she does those movements all the time...

I just cant imagine that anyone would want to be remembered in this way...and no, starvation in her condition is not painful at all, its one of the most humane ways to go...

[DemBones DemBones]

33. That's your opinion. People have recovered from conditions like hers

and I think her parents have her best interests at heart.

Michael Schiavo can't divorce Terri because then he wouldn't be able to marry his fiancee in a Catholic wedding. She's had two kids by him out of wedlock but she wants the Catholic wedding, mockery though it will be, IMO.

There is NO evidence that Terri ever said she wanted to be starved to death.

[tnliberaldemocrat]

38. You're kidding, right?

Her cerebral cortex is gone. Completely. It doesn't exist. Brain fluid has filled the cavity that remains.

Without your cerebral cortex, you don't think. You don't feel. You have no sense of self. You have no consciousness. Period.

YOU DO NOT RECOVER FROM THIS KIND OF INJURY EVER. I say again, EVER. Brain tissue does not spontaneously regenerate, which is the only way she could recover. It's impossible.

What her parents are trying to do by keeping her artificially alive is disgusting. This poor woman died years ago in every sense of the word. Letting her go would be the most merciful thing that can be done.

Existing like that is worse, to me, than being dead.

[DemBones DemBones]

53. There are differences of medical opinion about her condition. nt

[OldLeftieLawyer]

57. No, there are not

Please don't try to pass off the Right To Lifers' propaganda as "medical opinion."

She's a vegetable, and she'd die without the feeding tube. Her husband is her next of kin, and it's been shameful how his rights - and the rights of his wife - have been bulldozered by others who have no legal standing in the matter.

Her parents are total headcases. No wonder she spent her adolescence and young womanhood throwing up.

[traco]

67. So have her tested to see if she can be trained to eat

If she chokes on it, then she dies. Not a bad thing according to her husband. That's all he really wants anyway. As for him going to school to be a nurse, there has been times when the nurses who care for Terri have suspected that he may have been injecting her with insulin to put her into insulin shock and kill her.

It takes a brain to remind your body to breath, if she was brain dead, then she would need to be put on life support that breathes for her.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

69. "trained to eat"???

She can't hear, she can't see, she can't talk, she can't move voluntarily, and you're going to have her "trained to eat"???

That's the goddamn funniest thing I've read on this whole thread. Thanks very much.

[traco]

73. Do you live there?

Do you treat Terri? Do you have first hand knowledge of her and the condition she is in? If not, then what makes you so sure you are right and not me?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

159. Because I am open to the possibilities

And you obviously have made up your mind about the situation.

You're not treating this poor woman, either, are you?

I've represented people in cases like this, and, in fact, wrote a book about the right-to-die. It's one of the books cited by people in situations precisely like this one.

[traco]

175. You are not open to possibilities

You are convinced that she should be allowed to starve to death because she is "brain dead", that is not being open to possibilities. I believe as long as there is a chance that she can be helped, she should have the chance!

You accuse me of Having my mind made up! You are the one who doesn't want to give this poor woman the benefit of the doubt!

[KinkyDem]

196. My mind IS made up

I say she's dead, has been for a long time.

From everything I've seen, she didn't want to exist like that. I wouldn't want to exist like that. Anyone who would choose to exist like that is a damn fool.

You're concerned about her starving to death, put a bullet in her head and be done with it.

Cold hearted? Unfeeling? Inhuman? Whatever. When it's my mothers time, I'll lead her out to the forest and leave her for the bears ... I just hope when my time comes someone who can think is there to end it if I am unable to do so myself.

One more thing, just because I'm a calouse, cold hearted bastard ... why the hell shouldn't he collect her life insurance? He has presumably paid the premiums, it's his. Why must we condemn a man for wanting what is his.

Let her die.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

199. The benefit of the doubt ?

It's been how many years?

Exactly how much improvement has she shown, even with the excellent care she's gotten, thanks to her husband?

Please. Lay down your burden of fear, and open yourself to the reality that God is waiting for her, and rabblerousers are holding her back.

Happy New Year. I wish you peace, love, and understanding - but, more than that, I wish you true compassion for your fellow man and woman.

[janx]

252. Hoping that this woman can be "cured" is like waiting for

an amputee to regrow a limb.

It *doesn't happen*.

[shrike]

267. The possibility that she can be helped is remote indeed

See my earlier post.

If her parents want to take her home and accept her as is, well, I suppose there's something to be said for that. But this idea she can improve should be taken off the table.

[janx]

276. The possibility is nonexistent.

The cortex can't regenerate itself, unfortunately.

[shrike]

278. True

But I was trying to couch my response gently.

You can't grow a new brain.

[janx]

285. Understood--

"couch my response gently," etc.

[phylny]

242. No one in their right mind would ever try feeding her by mouth.

I work with patients all the time who are NPO (nothing by mouth) for a reason - they'll aspirate if they eat or drink by mouth.

I will not ever put my license at risk by "seeing" if someone can eat when they're not alert and participatory enough. No way.

[LisaL]

78. She is not on life support except for a feeding tube.

Maybe you find it funny, but I don't. She is not on any machines, and if she can eat on her own, no one will have a right to starve her to death. So, why not see if she can eat on her own? Hah?

[Walt Starr]

148. Her cerebellum is functioning just fine!

Of course, all that means is autonomic responses are functioning.

There is not a cerebrum within her skull which means she is DEAD.

Want to see something similar in nature? Pith a frog and watch how long it "lives".

[OldLeftieLawyer]

158. Please

A feeding tube, whether you like it or not, is "life support." Since she can't chew, can't swallow, the tube is her only means of sustenance - that's why it's called "life support."

Don't you think, if she could feed herself, that she'd be doing it by now?

Hmmmmm?

[traco]

176. If she had been getting the therapy she needed

instead of being shut in a room, she may have regained the use of her arms.

She doesn't slobber, or drool. So she must be swallowing the saliva that her body manufactures.

All this information is available at her parents web site. But you don't want to know the truth.

[KinkyDem]

197. You couldn't handle the truth

The truth is she's dead.

Get over it.

People die all the time.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

200. Her body doesn't manufacture saliva

Her autonomic nervous system was so severely damaged when she was deprived of oxygen during the seizure that left her braindead that she doesn't manufacture saliva or tears, she doesn't sweat, and all of that has to be handled mechanically.

You didn't know that, did you?

Told you I wrote a book about it.

Peace to you and yours. Go study and learn. You'll get a much better understanding of what the situation is.

[janx]

258. I'm interested in your book!

Will you send me a PM and tell me more about it?

[phylny]

244. See above. No way you feed someone who isn't

alert and participatory by mouth.

I worked in a hospital and I remember a case where the son of a woman was begging us to "see if she can eat" by mouth. The woman was brain dead, but the son wanted his mother alive and was "sure" that once she started eating, she'd be fine.

A doctor sent down an order for a swallow study, and I tracked him down and told him that unless the patient is alert and can follow directions, we'd basically be pouring food and barium into her lungs. Not only wouldn't I do that, but the radilogist wouldn't do it either. If we had, we'd both be sued for malpractice, and rightfully so.

[bettyellen]

284. so you would let her choke to death!! oh my how nice you are!!

trained to eat? where did you get that idea!

[DemBones DemBones]

313. Can you substantiate the claim that

Terri "spent her adolescence and young womanhood throwing up"?

If so, can you document the claim that this occurred because "Her parents are total headcases?"

I'm not a lawyer, but my education in logic and analytical thinking leads me toI think you'd need to prove that:

1) Terri "spent her adolescence and young womanhood throwing up"

2) "Her parents are total headcases"

and, after documenting and proving each statement, then prove

3) That #1 was caused by #2.

You'd need psychiatrists to testify about that, I suspect, and I don't think you could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, since young girls who have eating disorders are heavily influenced by advertising and by their peers about what is desirable in terms of appearance.

By the way, have you got documentation that Terri had an eating disorder? Beyond a newspaper report, I mean.

[davis_islander]

135. Link please

I would like to see where you got the information about Terri's cerebral cortex being gone and replaced by fluid. I haven't heard that one before. Just curious, can a brain dead individual move their head and smile in response to stimuli? How does someone who is brain dead, without a cerebral cortex even, breath on their own?

[Runcible Spoon]

167. "liquid" cortex.....

"Wolfson noted that she has no intellectual capacity. Neurological tests and brain scans, he said, ``indicate that Terri's cerebral cortex is principally liquid, having shrunk due to the severe anoxic trauma experienced 13 years ago.''

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:uOXDUx4Tv4UJ:www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/fred_grimm/9540080.htm+schiavo+%22cerebral+cortex%22+liquid&hl=en

For a good discussion on brain death and the ethical concerns surrounding it, I suggest Margaret Lock's book "Twice Dead: Organ Transplants and the Reinvention of Death"...she also talks about what can happen to the brain in PVS (persistent vegetative state) patients...

[bleedingheart]

145. Actually I think the Catholic Church would grant him an annullment

very easily. In fact, if this is the only reason he is holding out, I think they would have given him the annullment signed by John Paul himself in order to have him bow out of this case.

[tblue37]

166. Didn't he get

a $300,000 settlement from the hospital or the insurance company or something like that? I seem to remember his making some serious change from her condition.

[truebrit71]

171. Please provide a link to back this up....I have heard of NO-ONE that has

..."recovered" from this state...

[420inTN]

209. He can not divorce Terri because Florida law does not allow it.

I don't remember the exact particulars, but since she is in a vegatative state, she can not give consent to the divorce, therefore, under florida law, they can not get divorced.

[phylny]

241. Patently untrue.

People do NOT "recover" from this condition, because the vast majority of her brain is mush.

She is NOT in a coma.

[traco]

45. She is not brain dead

She has a heartbeat, maintains her own bloodpressure, breathes on her own. The only support she has is a feeding tube.

[BlueEyedSon]

124. You keep repeating this inane mantra, and obviously have no clue

what "brain dead" means.

definition:adj having irreversible loss of brain function as indicated by a persistent flat electroencephalogram

The symptoms you describe would be an indication that the patient is not "body-dead" (to coin a phrase). That's why there is another, different medical expression for "brain dead."

[Walt Starr]

149. She has a functioning cerebellum, but no functioning cerebrum!

She's dead, Jim!

[truebrit71]

172. You repeat the same thing over and over again...

..doesn't make you right...which you aren't...her breathing is not an indication of cognitive brain function, but of an involuntary natural reaction....You can be functionally brain-dead and still breath, and your heart can still be pumping blood...your body doesn't need your brain to keep going at the most minimal of levels....she can feed herself, she cannot take care of herself HER BRAIN IS DEAD....let her go and be done with it...

[spotbird]

273. A feeding tube is an artificial method of life support.

If she can eat give her a Big Mac, or whatever else she wants.

[barb162]

189. umm, her parents think she is not brain dead, whether they are

right or wrong.

[Pithlet]

14. Why don't people see it your way?

Because not everyone is going to always look at things the same way you do. It's as simple as that. Liberals can indeed have opinions that are different from yours and still be very liberal and progressive.

This isn't about rights of disabled people. That is an issue that I feel strongly about. Schiavo is not disabled. This isn't about euthanizing. And I'm as liberal as they come. I do believe that when a spouse follows their spouse's wishes, and a court case backs them up, then that should be it. It was no one else's business. I'll say it again: This was NOT about the rights of the disabled. It's about dying with dignity, and allowing our loved ones to follow up on our decisions about what we want. This should have been in writing, but there was no evidence that Schiavo was lying about his wife's wishes. It's all conjecture by people outside of that relationship. He didn't meet the woman he wants to marry until well after Terry lapsed into her vegetative state. But, it's all irrelevant anyway, because it was no one else's business. Not Jebby. Not the media. Not anyone outside of Terry, her husband, her family, and the courts.

[SW FL Dem]

17. Well Put

This is between Terri and her husband and should have been over years ago. Thankfully, this case has educated many people of the need to have advance directives. My husband and I have signed our papers and made our wishes known to our families.

[DemBones DemBones]

46. Let me put it another way. Most disability rights activists are very

unhappy about this case because too many people, and the courts, are too willing to see Terri die, with NO evidence that she would have wanted this.

I agree with them and am sorry so few DUers see why. IMO, it shows how little they care about the lives of people with disabilities.

It's NOT a "right to die" or "death with dignity" case. If she'd put her wishes in writing, I would say they should be honored. But she didn't put her wishes in writing and her husband's motives are highly questionable.

[Pithlet]

50. Most?

I don't know about that. I know a lot of disability rights activists who would disagree with you.

The courts AREN'T willing to see Terri die. Like it or not, a spouse is the next of kin. A spouse is the one who gets to make the decision in matters like these. These things often are not in writing. When they aren't, the court has to settle the dispute. In this case, they initially found for the husband, because there was no evidence that Terri's wishes were opposite of what her husband contends they were. There was no evidence that Terri's husband was lying. Her family felt otherwise, and fought it in court, and lost. The court wasn't deciding if Terri should die. They were deciding if Terri's husband wasn't sincere in following his wife's wishes.

[libertad]

137. I agree with you about his motives being questionable.

She had signs of abuse when she was first admitted to the hospital according to a show I saw not long ago. She had fractured bones, bruises, etc. I think it was in his best interest at the time of the incident to keep her alive and it is now in his best interest, in his opinion, to have her die.

[Hillary08]

237. It is irreversible, you know.

Once she dies, she's not coming back. If someone thinks of something later, it's too bad.

I don't have the wisdom required for this decision, and I'm glad it's not mine to make.

[deek]

160. I agree

Brain is damaged, not dead. Feeding tube is no big deal. Not recovering from brain damage is no big deal either.

It's about valuing people regardless of their abilities.

It is not a prolife issue. It is not a right to die issue. It is a right to live issue.

It's about people with disabilities having value and the right to live a meaningful life (don't even go there re how it wouldn't be meaningful for YOU).

I too am surprised more liberals do not "get it". I cancelled my aclu subscription over this.

[bettyellen]

288. if she were at all concious she'd be ripping out that feeding tube with

most of the tubed patients in the chronic ward... oh, but their hands are tied down, so they can't rip out the tubes.
betwen you saying feeding tubes are "no big deal" and the idea that she is going to have a "meaningful life" i can see you are not in touch with the medical reality f her situation. so, you are saying there is no such thing as a right to die issue, becasue if this isn't one, i don't know what is.
disabilities? you have got to be kidding me, she is waaay beyond disabled. that's just not even close to reality.

[RuleofLaw]

163. That is just horseshit!

The case has taken place in the courts for years, in front of one of the best judges in Florida Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Douglas Baird.

This is not a question of evidence. The courts have decided, based upon expert testimony, testimony from all parties involved and legal reasoning, that Terri Schiavo wanted to die. End of discussion.

To say that there is no evidence shows how little you really know about this case.

If there really was no evidence, how come every court that has heard this case before it has decided the same way?

[420inTN]

212. re: "The courts have decided, based upon expert testimony..."

"This is not a question of evidence. The courts have decided, based upon expert testimony, testimony from all parties involved and legal reasoning... End of discussion."

The same could be said of many of the innocents sent to Death Row. Both sides have experts who testify.

Btw, freepers would use your argument to support SCOTUS's selection of *.

[rainbow4321]

21. I don't do the kool-aid, one opinion fits all thing.....

You want a "one opinion only" political party, go be a repuke, I'll stick with the libs and enjoy the freedom of being allowed to have my OWN opinion..kool-aid is not my drug of choice, thanks.

BTW

a) The phrase "disabled woman's husband's.." was used because I was going by LBN's "use the article title as the subject" rule.


b) I "left out" that sentence: That is what the link is for...

c) Advanced directives/living wills don't always mean you get what you want in the end. I've taken care of an unresponsive, do-no-resusitate <per his advanced directive> patient who ended up being on 3 different cardiac/blood pressure drips when he should have been on a morphine drip cranked as high as the IV pump would allow...families sometimes have a hard time letting go..even if it is in black and white/legal mumbo jumbo that the patient is ready to be let go.

[DemBones DemBones]

182. Nor do I. . . but this case is very troubling and the courts

have shown themselves not to care about Terri Schiavo.

I hope you will rethink your belief that any patient "should" be "on a morphine drip, cranked as high as the IV pump would allow" because that is flat out causing a person's death.

Right to die is about allowing patients to die naturally, not about mercy killing.

[rainbow4321]

219. If it keeps a patient out of pain....

then, yes, the pump needs to be set high if the lower settings are not doing the trick. Am I going to let a patient lay there in pain during their last moments just so they can die "naturally"?? NOPE. The phrase "natural death" sounds nice in print but it is not always very nice at all. When they can longer breath naturally and they are gasping do we need to withhold the oxygen so they can die "naturally" or do we give them some oxygen via a mask or cannula to make them more comfortable? As a nurse who has taken care of hospice and people living w/ AIDS/HIV, I believe in comfort measures for the dying and if that comfort can ONLY be gotten thru high doses of narcotics, then so be it.
In Terri's case, the so-called husband is not allowing her to die naturally...he is wanting her to starve to death. She has a better chance of dying a natural death under her parents care.

BTW, we worked our asses off to keep that patient alive that night...I came back the next day to hear that all docs finally got on the same page and stopped the dopamine and other IV drip drugs..and then they started the morphine drip. He passed away within a day with comfort measures.

[DemBones DemBones]

310. I agree completely with you about pain relief.

All patients should be kept as comfortable as possible. If a patient is terminally ill and requires a high enough level of pain meds that his/her death is hastened, that is certainly acceptable, morally and ethically. I'm sorry that I misunderstood your previous post on this.

I also agree with you that Terri Schiavo's only chance for a natural death is if a higher court overturns this decision and Terri's parents are allowed to take over her care.

That alone is a good reason to support Terri's parents fight to keep her from being starved to death. If the physicians who have told them Terri might be helped by therapy turned out to be wrong --if therapy didn't help -- I think they would allow her to die but manage it better than it will be if her husband is in control of events.

Previously, when the feeding tube was removed, Terri's priest came to give her the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church but her husband would not allow that because it would have included Holy Communion. The priest said he could put just a tiny particle of the consecrated wafer in her mouth but the husband insisted that couldn't be done since she was not to be fed anything. I thought that was a cruel way for him to treat his wife's dying and just another way to hurt her parents.

It is an awful thing for any parents to lose a child, but to be powerless while she is being starved to death, and denied the last rites of her faith, would compound the pain and grief horribly.

[Maat]

I agree with you, DemBones, in that ..

while I believe in a right-to-die (decline medical treatment, etc.), this is not a true right-to-die case. It is the case of a likely abusive husband chomping at the bit to collect the publicly-mentioned insurance policy.


It he were a decent man, he would divorce her and let her parents enjoy her company as she is. But he wants the $. She 'smiles' at her parents, and gives them joy. She is not in physical pain. It has sure made me take care of my paperwork.


Truth is, if my daughter were in this condition, and was not suffering, I probably would want to hold on to her too.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

62. There's no $$$$

Sorry, but your theory fails. There was a settlement, but that's long gone, spent by her husband for his wife's care.

If your daughter is married, and this tragedy should befall her, her husband decides, not you. Parents are obligated to let go of their kids at a certain point, and that's when the kid marries.

[rainbow4321]

97. Spent on attorney fees??

From http://www.terrisfight.org/

Under "Myths about Terri"


MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer. Yet, for 4 years, Schiavo has repeatedly implied to the media that he was willing to donate


Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50


Atty Gwyneth Stanley $10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell $65,607.00

Atty Steve Nilson $7,404.95
Atty Pacarek $1,500.00
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) $4,511.95
Atty George Felos $397,249.99

[traco]

102. More wonderful facts

that will be overlooked by those who support the husband.

[bleedingheart]

146. The State of Florida is now picking up the tab through Medicaid

sadly the type of care she needs (someone to bathe her, diaper her, feed her through that tube...all cost a lot of money.)

The settlement he received did go for her care...but our medical system is not cheap.

[KinkyDem]

201. Show me the facts

as verified by some OTHER source, please.

Not parroted, but verified.

Let her die.

[rainbow4321]

223. A source besides the husband's OWN words??

What source is better than that? Yes, the webpage is maintained by her family or those who know them..BUT much of what has been shared from that webpage in this thread comes from transcripts of the "husband" in court...HIM, not the parents...those transcripts have not been invented by her family. Him telling the jury that he will take care of his wife til the end of her life, and he believes in the sanctity of their marriage vows. Has anyone asked him recently if moving in with and getting another woman preggo is his definition of those vows?? And why he feels that while he is living with his "babies' mama" that he should still be allowed to call the shots in Terri S's care and be called her husband? If he wants to move on, then move on..let her parent's assume her medical care.

http://www.terrisfight.org/

Q. You're a young man. Your life is ahead of you. When you look up the road, what do you see for yourself?
MS. I see myself hopefully finishing school and taking care of my wife.

Q. Where do you want to take care of your wife?
MS. I want to bring her home.

Q. If you had the resources available to you, if you had the equipment and the people, would you do that?
MS. Yes, I would, in a heartbeat.

Q. How do you feel about being married to Terri now.
MS. I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows.

[janx]

224. This web site was put together by Terri's parents and

the "right-to-lifers" who have supported this hideous effort.

I know the site well. It's pure propaganda, not fact.

[spotbird]

274. In 11 years it would be simple to fly through $1mil.

Do you have more recent accounting?

[libertad]

138. The television reports say there is still money.

but that he's gone through most of it. I guess it is o.k. to starve someone to death if your money is about to run out???

[bettyellen]

193. Not tubing a person is more humane. When you've spent months and months

in a hospital visiting a person who's been tubed to prolong the inevitable, get back to me.
I didn't have a clue either how horrific it is till i experienced. it. They are tied up so they can't pull or scratch at the tubes whcih is constantly itching them,, they regurgitate and have to have suction hoses up their nostrils and down the throat, repeated infections and and all to keep them as a rail thin bag of bones a week a way from starvation.
My aunt would agree with you, but then again she never visited my Dad or anyone who has been tubed in her life. I remember she said i had no idea what my dad's quality of life was, when i went to the hospital everytime he was crying and moaning from pain. The suction had him holwing. Still my aunt has a strong enough opinion that she would interfere in my mom's care becasue she believes she is right. Thank god we have a living will. I could not bear allowing my mom to endure that.

[puddycat]

233. Good points. I would NEVER want to be tubed. It is horrendous

I have personally witnessed this tubing and its effects in a relative. And it sucks in more ways than one.

[bettyellen]

292. notice how many people say the tube is "no big deal" - they assume it's

an improvement in care. dumb assumption. i want to tie those people to a bed for a few days. and not in a fun way!! LOL!!

[janx]

295. I am so disappointed now, bettyellen.

I spent about an hour writing a brief but positive story to DU about the death of a friend of mine--for New Year's Eve--and the system flipped out, and I lost it!

I should have copied it or something; I think it was just after midnight eastern time...

[bettyellen]

308. you will have another chance, you'll write it when you are moved to.

and i hope i catch it when you do.
happy new years, janx!

[phylny]

245. I have three daughters, and I love them all so much, BUT

I think it's the height of selfishness to "hold on to" someone for your own benefit.

JMO, YMMV.

[janx]

293. It sure is. I have daughters too, and I love them dearly--

but I also respect them dearly.

[phylny]

246. self-deleted, duplicate n/t

[traco]

43. and he didn't remember this until

AFTER he had been awarded money for her therapy. Then he used the money awarded for therapy to hire a right to die attorney to have her killed, instead of using it for her therapy.

[rainbow4321]

113. And wasn't going to tell her parents he was withholding treatments

http://www.terrisfight.org/

November 1993
Michael Schiavo Deposition, Guardianship Hearing

Q. When you made the decision that you were not going to treat Terri's infection and you were going to, in effect, allow her to die, did you think that you had any obligations to tell her parents?

MS. To answer that question, I probably would have let them know sooner or later.


Q. You never did let them know, though, did you?
MS. No.


Q. When you say you would probably have let them know sooner or later, were you contemplating a certain time frame when you would let them know?
MS. I don't know what my thoughts were right then

[traco]

115. And, he used his girlfriend against the parents

She sat in and monitored the parents visits with Terri. That is totally cruel to dangle your new girl in the faces of your wives parents and make them have to fear her control over their visits.

And, he took away the parents visits for up to 6 months at a time!

[Walt Starr]

153. Sorry, but under the law, her parents have no rights in the matter

Don't like it, change the law, but it will be too late to affect this specific case.

[Birthmark]

81. I agree with you.

I think that this quote is vitally important: "...left no written end-of-life directive."

[RPM]

133. can't he just divorce her and be done with it?

Or does she have to be non-vegitative for that to happen?

[KinkyDem]

203. He could divorce her

but from everything I can tell he won't because he still maintians the right to dictate her care and he wants to see her wishes followed thru and to see her put out of her misery.

Remaining married to her is an act of devotion that I admire. Yup, he could have simply walked away but I propose that he loves her, that he understands her wishes and wants to see them carried out. If he walks away, he cannot see her wishes carried thru.

If I should die before I wake, I hope my wife finds someone new to love. Just because there is a corpse with a beating heart doesn't mean she's not dead.

[spotbird]

272. Visualize Terri as an African American prostitute

who fell into a coma after a drug overdose. Assume further there is no money for her care.

How many of the "pro life" community would fight for her survival?

Now try this one, assume she is a 53 year old grandmother. She is a cashier at a discount store without health insurance. She has a treatable form of cancer which will prove fatal without chemo, the chemo would cost what Teri's care does for a month. The grandmother desperately wants to live. This scenario isn't considered a "pro-life" issue, it is considered the Grandma's bad luck.

Teri's bad luck (or good luck depending on your view)is that the courts, not her parents will decide to remove the feeding tube. She has sympathy because she was white and pretty, but the priorities that keep her alive betray a twisted value system in this country

[whistle]

8. What a total political sham this is....

...numerous doctors have come forward and declared this poor woman brain damaged beyond any rehabilitation. The politicians and now the Pope are encouraging the family to keep this woman alive, but are offering no financial assistance for the around the clock medical and personal care that she needs to remain alive. There are thousands of sick and dying patients who need organ transplants, chemo-therapy, stem cell research, flu shots and thousands of other medical needs, but the politicians and religious zealots play on the public emotions and guilt that the suffering of this family and the victim are experiencing.

[aikido15]

42. Oh, I so agree...

I am so sick of the political theatrics of the neocons and the evangelicals! It is just pathetic. They just all seem WAY too in need of fucking attention or something...I don't know, and frankly don't care.:eyes:

[traco]

48. and other doctors have come forward and said

she is not brain dead, or PVS.

[Erika]

10. Yes!!!

Terry's parents never had a dime to spare until the right-wing extremists decided to make Terry a poster child for their extremism and tried to violate the marital contract between a husband and a wife.

Her husband could have sold out and divorced her but he stuck by her wishes and is seeing this through.

[DemBones DemBones]

34. There is NO evidence that he is telling the truth about

Terri's wishes.

[BlueEyedSon]

125. I suppose there is also no evidence that he ISN'T.

[DemBones DemBones]

309. The court is allowing a man to starve his wife to death because

he claims this is what she would want.

He didn't make this claim about her having told him to "pull the plug" if something happened to her until years later, after a successful malpractice lawsuit got a large settlement for her continued care.

He has been involved for years with another woman and has fathered two children with her, wants to marry her when his current wife dies.

It's obvious he has a conflict of interest here.

We know that husbands kill wives often enough that no one is really surprised to hear of it happening.

Why would a court take his word for it when the consequence will be the death of someone?

[Erika]

13. She is brain dead. She will not feel the pain

of starvation. That is not a theory but is a medical fact upheld by the experts of her condition.

[LisaL]

24. You have no clue what she feels or doesn't feel.

If you starved your dog to death over period of several weeks, you would be charged with animal cruelty. But it's o'key to do this to a person?
It's a very strange world.

[pschoeb]

184. Not if your dog had brain problems and was not moving or responsive

You would take her to the vet and they would put the dog to sleep. I doubt any dog owners could justify the cost of tube feeding a totally unresponsive dog. Dogs are put to sleep all the time that have no owners, and are fully functioning. Dogs who are severly or terminally ill are put to sleep all the time.

[420inTN]

213. But it's legal to give a dog a lethal injection, why not Terri?

If it's okay to put down a sick dog, why not Terri? If it's okay for her to be starved to death by removing her feeding tube and letting her body waste away as it burns itself for fuel until she has massive organ failure, then why not be humane and put her down?

[moobu2]

15. She's already dead , has been for years and years.

[libertad]

139. Have you seen her?

nt

[genieroze]

16. I'm against this because there is no will. The parents already said they

would assume responsibility for her and then there is this article.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0347/hentoff.php

and this

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bottcher200311130832.asp

he doesn't seem like a concerned loving husband to me. This is what bothers me. If she had a will or there were other wittinesses to her wishes then I would say let her die if that was her wish. Before you slam me please read these two articles. I really don't have a problem with euthanasia. If doctors feel it would be best to end her life at least do it humanely and quickly

[Pithlet]

18. No

Spouses are the next of kin. A family, if they feel that the spouse does not have their loved one's best interest at heart can challenge in court. But, if the court rules in favor of the spouse, then that should be it. There is no evidence that her husband lied about her wishes, or that he didn't have her best wishes or intentions at heart, and the court ruled in his (and Terry's) favor. That should have been the end of it. It was no one else's business outside of the family, and the courts. What it seems like to you, or to anyone else, is irrelevant. The media jumped on it because, well, they're the media. Jeb took it up to appease his conservative, pro-life base. That was wrong.

[genieroze]

169. What this shows, and should be a lesson for everyone is to have

a living will. Legally there could be NO argument not to carry out the wishes of a person who can no longer speak for themselves. Problem is most people don't start thinking about this until their forties.

[Erika]

19. When two people marry they enter into

a legal contract with the state where one will speak for the other. That simple. As adults entering into that contract, we assume responsibility and accountablity for the other when entering into that contract.

I think he is acting as a very loving husband choosing to honor his wife's words and intent. He could have easily divorced/abandoned her. He chose not to.

[LisaL]

20. Oh my dear god.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
Loving husband, my a$$.
He sued her Drs. on her behalf and was awarded money. During the trial, this "loving husband" promised he would take care of her for as long as she should live.
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
I guess he forgot to tell the jury he didn't plan she should live long.
He now is living with another woman and has two children by this woman.
In what kind of strange reality this man should still be considered Terry's "loving husband"?
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Erika]

23. Reign in your histrionics, please

The court has already determined the husband made no profit from the monies of the rewards. It was spent to a cent on his wife.

As I stated earlier, Terry has been dead for a long time. His wife would have probably wished him a life with happiness and children. As most would hope if they died before their spouse.

That aside, why would anyone allow government to interfere between a wife and husband and a contract made legally with the state?

[melnjones]

26. Proof

where is your proof that he has really spent the money accordingly?

[reprobate]

290. The judge said so. That should settle it. Except in Jesusistan.

[LisaL]

27. Would you wish your husband a life of happiness and children

while he was still married to you?
Is he married to Terri? Why?
He has two children and is living with their mother.
I would presume this woman is his "wife", not Terri.

[Erika]

30. Why do you presume as you do?

I know that Terri entered into a contract where her husband spoke for her legally. She trusted him. The state accepted that contract.

[LisaL]

31. They were married. It was years ago.

Since then, he has moved on. He is living with another woman. He has two children with that woman.
I am sorry, but I fail to see how this man should still be considered Terri's husband and make decisions for her to this day. He is so obviously moved on.

[Erika]

35. Terri's legal decision stays

She chose him to speak for her. Nor do I buy your histrionics that he chose to have children by another woman as a betrayal to her. This other woman helped him take care of her.

Very few of us would be so petty as to wish our spouse, a life without another mate or children if we were dead. Terri's been dead for a long time.

He could have "obviously moved on" by divorcing her and allowing her to be exploited as a right to life poster child. He chose not to abandon/divorce her. He chose to fight for her beliefs.

[Pithlet]

68. Exaclty. That shouldn't change

just because she became a vegetable. Everything about this case is other people butting their noses where it DOESN'T belong. I would be fighting just as hard as Michael is if people were butting in. I would not abdicate that and let others decide.

[traco]

55. It was not spent on her

unless you consider- paying the husbands right to die advocate to sue to have her starved- spending the money on her.

The courts allowed Michael to spend the money on Felos.

[LisaL]

75. I am sorry, but that's crap.

He got money personally awarded to him.
He also got money awarded for her care, but he spend most of it on lawyers that tried to have her starved to death. Why didn't he tell the jury about his plans to have Terri starved to death? Why did he tell the jury he wants to be a nurse so he can take care of Terri for as long as she lives?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

64. $$$$

It's gone, and I'm sorry to burst your bubble. It was spent on Terri's care.

You really are odd, with this misinformation and the punitive attitude. The husband's been loyal to his wife and he's lived his own life. He put himself through nursing school so that he could take care of his wife.

I think he's done a hell of a job, against the rightwingnuts' ugly and ill-advised efforts.

[genieroze]

170. Well the judge ruled, the woman will be starved and I doubt it will go

any farther. I'm sorry for her parents but there is nothing else to do but to allow their daughters husband to do what he wishes.
:shrug:

[spotbird]

275. Is it right for a cancer patient to die for want of chemo?

How about a heart patient for surgery?

These are both painful alternatives but perfectly acceptable by most Americans.

The feeding tube is a medical treatment, without that medical treatment this woman will die. Why is that different from all the others we let die every day?

Someone explain why there is particular outrage about this situation and not the millions of others?

[DemBones DemBones]

314. Good question! Those who support letting her die

are saying she must be allowed to die to end her suffering. . . but also insisting that she's brain dead and feels absolutely nothing.

:shrug:

[KinkyDem]

204. in one where

a wodower still loves his deceased wife and moves on with his life, learning to live and love another.

[puddycat]

234. He evidently loves her more than her parents, who just torture her

Her parents selfishly continue the torture of her death, not allowing her to finish the process. They are selfish people as far as I'm concerned. How can they truly love her yet not let her go when she so clearly is a "living dead".

For shame on her parents, for shame!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LisaL]

239. One might say we all are in the process of dying.

What exactly is life if not a process of dying?
:eyes:

[janx]

254. Yes, and one might also say

that some are much farther along than others in that process. When one's cerebral cortex is gone, for instance.

[melnjones]

25. Thank you

for the extra information...I hope that others choose to read those links as well, as they definitely do cast doubt on the husband's motives. Perhaps there are some skeletons in the closet here that no one wants to face, which is unfortunate for this poor woman.

[Erika]

29. Husbands motives?

Oh, please. If a man and a woman join into a marital contract with the state, they acknowledge one speaks for the other under state law.

If motives are to be questioned, it would be Terry's parents who gained sudden wealth by permitting their child to be exploited as a right wing cause by extremists.

[DemBones DemBones]

37. Yes, the husband who wants Terri to die so he doesn't have

to get a divorce.

If he gets a divorce, his "fiancee" can't have the Catholic wedding she wants, so Terri must die.

[traco]

58. Also if he divorces her

he has to give her, her share of the marital assets. Including half of everything he has obtained since her "accident"

[OldLeftieLawyer]

66. Please, spare me

You're practicing law without a license, and you don't have any idea of how wrong you've got it.

[DemBones DemBones]

311. OK, OL Lawyer, tell us why he doesn't divorce her.

You say there's no money left, and if you're right, there's no financial motive in staying married to her. . . Why doesn't he divorce Terri, marry the mother of his two kids, and get on with his life?

Please don't tell me he just loves her so much he has to make sure she dies, because she allegedly told him she'd want to do in such a case, because that sounds like so much bullshit to me.

Some of what the parents say about Terri's responsiveness and about possible treatment sounds like it may be bullshit, too.

But if her parents take control of her care and then discover that she really can't improve, that the promised treatments won't work, I think they'd let her die. I think they'd manage her death better than her husband, so where's the harm in letting them? If they're really unable to accept reality, as many claim, and they choose to keep her alive for years, where's the harm in that? If she's really brain dead and can't feel anything, how does it hurt her to be fed and hydrated with a tube?

[Pithlet]

60. Says you

You are the one who is making that assumption, based on things you've heard from the media. Unless you personally knew any of these people, you really can't know for sure if that is the case. You are speculating. Speculation shouldn't override a spouse's legal rights. The court found no reason to believe that Terri's husband was abusing those rights. Politicians and the media, and anyone who has followed this case is only speculating.

No one outside of the two people involved in a relationship truly knows exactly what is going on in that relationship. It is ALL speculation. Anyone who has or has ever had a family member or friend who disapproves of the person they are involved with can probably understand all too well what I'm talking about.

[KinkyDem]

205. I don't know them and I will say that I KNOW

that woman is brain dead and should be put out of her misery if she can experience that at this point ... which I doubt.

Enough is enough. Let her die, figure out the life insurance and medical bills after she's in the ground.

[melnjones]

Ok,

And when a man and a woman join into a marital contract with the state, there are also never any problems with domestic violence, murder, or anything else illegal...? It sounds to me like an awful lot needs to be investigated, and this woman obviously can't speak her mind or give her version of what's going on.

[LisaL]

28. The problem is we don't allow euthanasia.

Thus, she will be starved to death over several weeks. They already did it to her twice. How hypocritical is that? The end result is death, but she can not be euthanized according to our laws, but it's o'key to starve her to death? That is not a humane death by any means. You couldn't do it to a dog, but it's legal to do it to people.

[Erika]

32. Repeat. Check your histrionics.

She will be in no pain. Not theory, fact.

I have been touched deeply by her. I, in no way, would like to suffer the invasion of her body and her life as she has. To be examined, expoited for politics, and put to media scrutiny is the biggest invasion of privacy I can think of.

She left those decisions to her husband when she married him. Let us trust her decision and the sanctity of the marriage contract.

[LisaL]

36. Sorry, you contradict yourself.

You say she feels nothing, yet you say she suffers. Well, which one is that? Make you choice, like I said, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Erika]

39. I don't think so

I think if she were truly alive today she would be appalled at the sensitization and politicism of her condition. I'm also curious as to why some seem to treat the marriage contract as frivolous.

[LisaL]

40. Does marriage contract allows a husband to live with

another woman and have children with her? Didn't he break his marriage contract by doing that? After all, it's "in sickness and and in health, until death do us part"? Where does it say "if wife is sick, it's fine if a husband gets another woman pregnant twice"? Shouldn't their marriage contract be null and void because of Terri's husband's infidelity/ adultery?

[Erika]

47. The marriage contract

is between two consenting adults and the state. That legal contract still exists. She and her husband chose, under law, to speak for the other.

I truly believe from what I've read about her life is that she would have wished her spouse a happy life upon her death. She is dead and has been for a decade.

[LisaL]

51. If she is dead, how can he be her husband?

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[rainbow4321]

61. Here is her family's webpage...

http://www.terrisfight.org/

It has info about her medical trust fund $$ going towards the husband's attorney fees, timeline of the case, and court documents.

[rainbow4321]

71. Marriage vows now include knocking up/shacking up another woman?

From his court testimony listed under "Timeline"--you have to go to the Timeline option, scroll down to 1993 and click on the "Aug 1993" link to get to the court info listed below.

http://www.terrisfight.org/




Q. Why did you want to learn to be a nurse?
MS. Because I enjoy it and I want to learn more how to take care of Terri.

Q. You're a young man. Your life is ahead of you. When you look up the road, what do you see for yourself?
MS. I see myself hopefully finishing school and taking care of my wife.

Q. Where do you want to take care of your wife?
MS. I want to bring her home.

Q. If you had the resources available to you, if you had the equipment and the people, would you do that?
MS. Yes, I would, in a heartbeat.

Q. How do you feel about being married to Terri now.
MS. I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows.

<snip>

Q. What did you do with your wife's jewelry?
MS. My wife's jewelry?

Q. Yeah.
MS. Um, I think I took her engagement ring and her...what do they call it...diamond wedding band and made a ring for myself.

Q. What did you do with her cats?
MS. Her cats were put to sleep n the advice of my mother-in-law.
(Note: The veterinarian who performed the euthanasia of Terri's pets came forward to say there was never any suggestion from Terri's mother that this be done and only Mr. Schiavo's insistence.)

[traco]

82. Wonderful information

Thank you for posting it. Though I doubt it will do any good. Those who want her to die will never read that. It may make them have to rethink their ideas.

[Pithlet]

84. Why?

Nothing in that transcript points to him lying about Terri's wishes. He, as her spouse, maintains that she did not want to live that way. Everyone else outside of that relationship is just speculating, and butting in a relationship they had no part of. It is very possible that, in the beginning, he didn't think her case was hopeless, and he wanted to help her. That, to me, is what that transcript shows. But, again, it is irrelevant, because what YOU or I think is moot.

[Vektor]

126. I have been following this thread and reading both sides...

...and I am really torn about how I feel about Terri's case. On one hand, I am a pretty liberal person, and even wrote a term paper for my Ethics class advocating physician assisted suicide, so I would not be the first to jump on the right to life bandwagon concerning the gravely ill. I also work in an ICU and deal with terminal cases everyday - I believe in the right to die with dignity. I would never be inclined to force "heroic measures" on a gravely ill person who wished to die.


HOWEVER:

"Note: The veterinarian who performed the euthanasia of Terri's pets came forward to say there was never any suggestion from Terri's mother that this be done and only Mr. Schiavo's insistence."

This is a red flag.

There was no reason to do this. He could have found homes for them. But he should have cared for them. My husband and I, though young, have a written contract that if one of us dies, the other will care for our pets to the standards we do now, until the day those pets die - euthanasia is only an option if they are gravely ill or at the end of their lifespan and are suffering from the ravages of old age. No animal shelter, EVER. CERTAINLY no "euthanasia of convenience."
I don't trust any man that has healthy animals killed, then lies about it. I'm sure Terri loved her cats, and the fact that he turned around and put them down after she was incapacitated shows a genuine, callous mean streak. Killing those cats was sadistic and hateful, and in my eyes, this man is not the "caring husband" he trieds to portray himself as. How one treats animals is a pretty good indication of how they treat any living thing.

It seems to me he just wants to get any and all "inconveniences" out of the way to pursue his new life with his mistress. Wife and cats included.

Again, I support Terri's right to die, but I do not trust Michael.

[rppper]

152. did it mention the age of the cats?

my room mates mother put her cats to sleep...one aged 12 the other 14...when she discovered her mother was allergic to the cats and it was causing her frequent bouts of pneumonia. it wasn't a pleasant decision for her and there was certainly no ill will. just playing devils advocate here....

i am off the thought that this poor woman has been "dead" for years...it is still a huge story here in Florida. there has been a lot of ill will directed at both sides by both sides. she will never recover from her current state...never...is that a life? you will never see any other pictures of Terri smiling and looking alive because there are no others. they...jeb and Terri's parents, have been using that film to tug strings. she has no control over any of her actions.

i have a unique outlook on this case...let me explain...

i have a good friend who's husband lapsed into a coma 2 years ago due to a diabetes induced stroke. he blinks on occasion...even lifts his fingers and moves his feet, but his brain function is nil....flat line. has been for two years since the day of the stroke, but yet his heart beats and he can breathe unaided. his wife has moved on but can't find it in her to pull the very same tube that he and Terri share. the man is gone...no hope. she has meet someone else who she loves dearly, but isn't ready to marry him yet. she has talked to me about the parallels of the two. she is scared brad's parents will pull the same stunt Terri's parents have. she also stands to gain a small fortune when he finally passes away...but again, she is scared to death about his parents. they were also fighting prior to his stroke, and now because of all of this she feels she is in a no win situation. i should also include that they have 2 daughters together, unlike the schiavos.

what exactly constitutes death? neither my friend nor Terri will ever get up from the bed they are in and do anything more than stare blankly. is that really life? Terri is dead...there is nothing of substance..nothing that constitutes life other than food digestion. they are both little more than shells keeping organs warm and alive...that is callous i realize, but it is closer to the truth than calling what they are living a life...IMHO anyhow.

jeb bush has been a parasite on this poor woman and her family...sucking them dry for all the attention it would get him with the zealots in Florida and around the country. i believe a lot of people on the left have bought into his propaganda. let her rest in peace...she has nothing left to do on earth.

[Vektor]

180. I'm not sure...

It didn't say. If it turns out they were old and sickly, so be it. If not, it indicates, IMHO, that he may have just "wanted them out of the way" and didn't want to take the initiative to place them properly. I'm one of those people to whom animal rights are just as important as human rights. Both, very important.

I too advocate the right to die, staunchly, as I work with the terminally ill, and see the needless suffering they often endure at the whims of the family. My only concern in this case is the lack of legal documentation, and the possibility of selfish motives from both sides. I really feel for this poor woman. See my reply #155 for more on this.

Basically, I agree with some points from both sides - I'd have to know more about the woman's unique case before deciding, though I am NOT inclined to prolong the suffering of those with no quality of life. If there is any chance that this lady would feel physical pain from a starvation death, that would bother me. But, active euthanasia is not legal, so (???)

This is a tough one.

[LisaL]

215. And your friend doesn't want to divorce her husband?

Why precisely? Could it be because of a small fortune she will inherit upon his passing?
In a situation such as this, where money is involved, do you truly think your friend has her husband's best interest in heart?
Or does she want to move one with a new man in her life?
It's her right, of course, if only her husband wasn't in a way.

[rppper]

269. she's jewish, he's catholic....there could be a reason in that, but.....

.....part of it is that she doesn't want to look greedy or like she is trying to get him out of the way. it was no secret they were at odds when his stroke happened. she later revealed to us she had been physicly and mentally abused for most of the marraige. both sides of the family were aware of this, and to be honest, i always had my suspicions. she would like to pull the plug, but his parents do not want him to die. they seem to think he might be miracled into waking up again. like terri's parents, they have found a doctor that says he might come alive again, but nearly all of the doctors in constant contact with him say he will be this way untill who knows when.

do i think she has his best interests in mind..yes, i do. for all of their troubles, they were pretty free spirited(even if he was insanely jealous as well...)and pretty spontaneous prior to all of this. they went camping, rode motorcycles, went boating, etc, etc...i am quite sure he would not consider what he is living today as "life". she is of the same thought. she is smart enough to realize that any new man is equal to a rebound at this point...that isn't the issue. his parents have become emboldened by this whole terri issue...that is what scares her. she has to think of her two daughters as well. that money would go for them, but she does'nt want this to become the three ring circus terri's case has become...and we do live in florida

i wouldn't want to be in her shoes, although i would lean towards pulling the plug. i don't consider what either my friend or terri is living right now to be a quality life by any definition. i doubt they would either. their hope for a recovery is nearly nothing. they are both brain dead. i truely believe they have both passed on, but the body refuses to let go.

[LisaL]

227. Well, even in that case, some cats can live 20 years or more.

What does their age has to do with anything, if their health is good?
It's like saying we should put everybody over 60 to sleep. Obviously, your roommates mother didn't put them to sleep because they were old, but because they were making her sick. If she had younger cats, wouldn't she do the same?
:eyes:

[rppper]

270. she had both of them since they were kittens.....

i think she would have given them away had they been young, but really, who wants an old pair of cats? her other choice was to give them to the humane society...that would buy them, what, 2 weeks worth of chances? thats not very good odds when you have 100 wide eyed kittens to choose from in the pen next to them.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

155. minor point but...

Did the husband ever claim that the in-laws discussed putting the cats down with the vet directly? When I read that he did it on the advice of the mother-in-law, my first thought is that he discussed it with the in-laws himself and then went to the vet, not that he had a three-way conversation with the vet and the in-laws.

If this is all the parents have, it's a pretty weak case, isn't it? I see a lot of arguments that the husband is not a nice person, and that may or may not be true, but has there been any real evidence presented that the wife's wishes were not what the husband claimed they were? If so, I haven't seen any on this thread.

[Vektor]

178. No...

I wasn't saying that. I was separating her right to die from the husband's motives..that's why I was torn. I believe she should have a right to die, AND I don't trust the husband. Since there was no written documentation of her wishes, it's really hard to say. I work in an ICU, and see this battle played out daily - family members fighting over what to do when a person is gravely ill. When there is no documentation, it gets pretty ugly - if the family is at an impasse, ultimately the courts have to decide. This is tricky because nothing is in writing.

I don't mean that the situation with the cats was a "strong case" as far as the right to die issue, just a strong case that he's not a nice person. IMHO.

I am having trouble with this one because with no documentation, it's his word against theirs, and there are some indicators he may have selfish motives, and truth be known, the parents may too.

I have no evidence to provide you, either. I didn't post with the intention of proving a point, just to discuss. I don't have a hard-line opinion on this one. I don't know enough about it.

[dansolo]

185. I read it the same way

The quote never mentions the parents speaking to the vet.

[LisaL]

226. What a sick twisted person he is, IMO.

Putting her cats to sleep? How sick is that?
What, he couldn't take care of them? Or give them away to someone? Sorry, that is not behavior of a loving husband by any means.
He is selfish, mean and spiteful person, in my opinion!

[DemBones DemBones]

49. Michael Schiavo is the one who's treated the marriage contract

as frivolous. He fooled around with one woman for a few years before getting involved with the current "fiancee"/ mother of two children by him. They probably deserve each other but should leave Terri alone.

[LisaL]

54. Exactly.

He should leave Terri alone and in care of her parents, marry his mistress and raise his new family. But I guess his dream is to be a grieving widower.

[Erika]

65. Terry's Parents Never Had a Dime

Until right wingers offerred to support them in return for their exploitation of Terry as a pro-life cause. They are now swimming in bucks.

Terry's husband is hanging in there to fulfill his duty to see her wants and intent is met. It would have been the easy route for him to sell out to the right wing extremists. He said no.

[janx]

300. I have to agree with you about this as I look at the timeline--

but I also know that it is this, combined with their refusal to believe that their CHILD Teresa is dead--it is the combination that must fuel them. That would be tough for anybody. This woman is now 41 years old. She was a young, married adult when she collapsed.

The emphasis is on very childlike things--stuffed animals, child birthday parties...She was a young, grown woman when she collapsed. Now she is 41 years old--if you count the intervening years as life, which I don't...

Does this not strike anyone else as strange?

In a large way, it's admitting that some parents want to hold onto the memories of their young daughter--and God bless them for it. But to treat her that way now in order to appeal to other religious people who will send money--YECH.

[truebrit71]

173. Keep her alive to serve what purpose?

SHE IS BRAIN DEAD!!!!

[Erika]

59. Ah, What does this have to do with Terry?

I will repeat, Terry, by marital contract with the state gave her husband the right to speak for her in every legal sense.
Do you wish to negate the legality of the marital contract?

Do you prefer government/bigbrother to replace the accountability of the marital parties? Or your particular interpretation of what you believe morality is?

You have limited options.

[Pithlet]

63. Again. Speculation.

I certainly don't want other people's opinions of the relationship between my husband and me to come between any decisions we have made for ourselves, both while we are alive and conscious, and afterwords. Terri's husband had the right to assert that her wishes were met. He had the right not to just leave her alone. If something happens to my husband, and outsiders tell me to just leave it alone, and let others decide because they think they know what's better is going to get a hell of a fight from me. The same kind of fight that Michael is giving.

[LisaL]

70. Yea, he is fighting with all he got.

After he went to court and got money because of Terri's unfourtunate situation. And has his mistress and two kids at the same time. Life sure is sweet.
:eyes:

[Pithlet]

76. Speculation!

Do you know these people? Were you personally involved in that relationship, and were there during all their conversations?

[Erika]

77. Every cent he got was returned in her care

that is documented and certified by the courts.

[LisaL]

79. Do you have any links for that?

Cause I say it's crap. He spend that money on lawyers to have her life terminated. I don't consider it spending on her care.

[Pithlet]

80. Don't let cold hard facts get in the way

of good old fashioned gossip, innuendo, and media sensationalism! The guy had the nerve to fall in love with someone else years after he'd been fighting for his wife and cared for her. The cad!

[rainbow4321]

108. Til I screw another woman, uh... I mean, death... do us part....

He cannot have it both ways...he wants to be called her husband and call the shot$, yet he knocked up his live in not once but twice??

[Pithlet]

112. Oh, come on.

If you want to be sanctimonious, and say that a person cannot fall in love with another person years after their spouse became a vegetable, then that's fine. But, the law should not be based on holier-than-thou principles that most people could not be reasonably be expected to live up to. He fought for years maintaining that Terri did not want to live that way. Because he had the audacity to fall in love with someone else, he should just give that cause up? Let others override Terri's decision?

[rainbow4321]

116. He started denying her treatment in 1993, 1 yr after he got $$ for her

http://www.terrisfight.org/


Timeline section

1992

Aug - Terri awarded $250,000 in malpractice settlement.

Nov - Terri awarded $1.4 million in malpractice trial.

Nov - Michael Schiavo awarded $600,000 in malpractice trial


1993
Feb - Michael Schiavo denies recommended rehabilitation treatment.

Feb - Schiavo and Terri's parents have falling out regarding lack of therapy for Terri.

Feb - Schiavo withholds medical information from Terri's parents.

Feb - Schiavo posts Do not Resuscitate order in Terri's medical chart

[Pithlet]

118. Michael Schiavo had that right

to deny "recommended rehabilitation treatment". That is what Terri's fight dot org calls it. He didn't see it that way. That "recommended rehabilitation treatment" was code word for "keeping Terri alive in a vegetative state against the wishes expressed to her husband". Just because they call it that doesn't make it so.

All the other "facts" stated from that biased website are irrelevant. Michael maintains, as he always has, that she did not wish to be kept alive artificially in a vegetative state.

[rainbow4321]

179. The 'biased" website has his OWN court testimony.....

Instead he traded her for his mistress and their 2 kids. Yet he still expects everyone to accept him as Terri's husband??


http://www.terrisfight.org/

November 1992
Testimony of Michael Schiavo, Medical Malpractice Trial

Q. How do you feel about being married to Terri now.
MS. I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows.

Q. You believe in your wedding vows, what do you mean by that?
MS. I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.

[janx]

225. Again, you are using the site put together by the right wing and

by Terri's parents.

Michael Schiavo did finally give up on rehabilitative treatment.

Why?

Because it had then been determined that Terri's cerebral cortex was liquid.

It doesn't grow back again. It's gone. So all he could do at that point was pay for basic care, and ultimately hospice care (and his lawyers).

That's not cheap. The money would have vanished very quickly.

Rainbow, you must realize that some of us here are more horrified at what has been done with this woman's body, in the name of right-wing religious politics, than if she had been in fact consciously starved to death (which she won't be--because although her eyes are open, she isn't conscious).

[phylny]

247. With regard to therapy,

as someone who provides therapy, it would be against my code of ethics to continue to take money from a patient or a patient's family when there is no hope of improvement. It's simply unethical.

Any therapist who would tell the family that they might see improvement when the cerebral cortex is gone would be lying.

[Vektor]

128. This is a really difficult decision...

I can see the merit in both sides, but I admit, I have a few reservations about her husband's motives.

[bettyellen]

282. hey maybe he's a humanist, and not a papist, okay? perhaps neither of them

was so cowed by rome to have your keen sense of righteousness about either divorce or what constitutes extroidinary means. most people are pro birth control and most people eventually get divorced in this country, so please, get real. this is not a moral conumdrum for a lot of people. just becasue her parents want to make this poor girl the be all and end all focus of their lives -- it will not bring her back from the brain dead. just becasue they want someone to blame and cannot maturely accept reality does not mean he didn't love his wife very much. just because they are taken in by charlatan "phone therapists" does not mean the husband needs to go along for the ride with them.

[janx]

286. The phone therapist and the Dancing Mouse...

It could not possibly get more twisted and bizarre.

[rainbow4321]

101. Not.....here is a link w/ actual amounts

http://www.terrisfight.org/


Under "Myths about Terri"


MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer. Yet, for 4 years, Schiavo has repeatedly implied to the media that he was willing to donate


Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50


Atty Gwyneth Stanley $10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell $65,607.00

Atty Steve Nilson $7,404.95
Atty Pacarek $1,500.00
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) $4,511.95
Atty George Felos $397,249.99

[Pithlet]

105. So

All that tells us is, if Terri's parents agreed to butt out and let her spouse see that her wishes were met, he would donate the left over money to charity. How, exactly, does that change anything? How does that make it okay for anyone to override that decision? It looks to me like he was trying very hard to see that his wife's wishes were met, and he was trying to get her parents, who were meddling, off of his back.

But, again, it's all irrelevant. He, as her spouse, maintains that her wishes were not to live in a vegetative state. It was his right to see that those wishes were met. Unless there was hard, visible evidence that it was not her wishes, then that should have been upheld.

[Erika]

72. That is what the marital contract is about

Two adults enter into a legal contract with the state to speak for the other. I guess the Biblical ties are there also as two bodies will merge into one flesh upon marriage.

[Pithlet]

74. I wonder if

those who are so outraged about this case would react differently if something similar ever happened to them.

Imagine that your spouse made it known that he/she would not want to continue living in a vegetable state, and made you promise that you'd never let that happen. Neither of you bothered to get it in writing, which is VERY common, but you still made your wishes explicitly known to each other. Then, the unthinkable happens. You step forward as the spouse and declare that he/she did not want to live like this, and you want to see their wishes are met. A family member squawks and says "Oh, no! I know my son/daughter/brother/sister/mother/father better than that! They would have wanted to live!" and try to override your decision. The courts find in your favor, but there is a big media brouhaha, and the right-to-lifers get involved, and influence a politician to have the decision changed. People in the media start speculating about your relationship, and slander you, and point out the fact that, years later, you met and fell in love with someone else must mean that you just want your ex to die and get out of the way! Others with their own agendas distort your position to fit their own, and use it to trumpet their own causes {like right to life, disabled rights, etc...). Would they take this lying down?

[traco]

83. Problem is he didn't remember that she didn't want to live this way

until AFTER he won the monetary award. Why didn't he bring up in court that she didn't want to live in that condition? because he wouldn't have been awarded over a million for her care if he had!

[Pithlet]

85. Spec U Lation.

How do you know he didn't remember that? How do you know that conversation never took place?

Honestly, are you comfortable with others being able to second guess your own relationship, if you are in one, or ever plan to be?

[LisaL]

88. He never told it to the jury, did he?

He said he will take care of Terri for as long as she lives. Then it would have been a good time to say she isn't going to live long is it's up to him.
:spank:

[Pithlet]

91. That means nothing.

The courts found in his favor! They decided that he, as her spouse, was following through on her wishes. It wasn't until her family got pet causes on their side to pressure a politician to overturn the decision that this blew up into the huge media sensation it has become.

So, you'd be okay with other people butting in if you were seeing that the wishes of your spouse were met? You've never answered that question.

[rainbow4321]

177. This is what he told the jury.....

This is from the website..I know it is the parents' website BUT they have provided links to the husband's court testimony, so these are his own words. Sharp contrast to him shacking up with some other female and having 2 kids with her...


http://www.terrisfight.org/



Q. How do you feel about being married to Terri now.
MS. I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows.

Q. You believe in your wedding vows, what do you mean by that?
MS. I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.

[LisaL]

86. He was such a devoted husband during the trial.

He even said he is in training to be a nurse so he can take care of her.
Such a loving, devoted husband-no wonder jury awarded all that money.
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
And you are exactly right-why didn't he mention Terri's wishes to die then?

[Pithlet]

89. So

I take that to mean that you would be perfectly fine with others butting into decisions that you and your spouse make? That you would be okay with others overturning a decision that you and your spouse made, because they've made judgments about you and your feelings and your relationship, and they feel they know better?

[traco]

93. I would be totally content to have my parents

interfere with my spouses decision to have me killed by starvation...especially if he got into another relationship and had children with another woman while he was making these decisions for me.

[Pithlet]

94. Didn't answer my question.

If your wishes were not to die, and your spouse lied about that, then that would be different now, wouldn't it?

But, see, that wasn't my question. My question was, if YOU were the one left to make the decision, and you KNEW what your spouse wanted, and others butted in to change that, would you be okay with that?

[traco]

98. And you have neglected to answer the question

How do you know that she said that in the first place? The only people who claim to have heard it was a cheating husband, and his brother and sister in law. Nobody knows her true wishes because it was not put on paper. One fact- She was/is a Catholic, and her faith does not advocate death by starvation/dehydration.

[Pithlet]

100. I don't!

I don't know that she said that in the first place. That is why I don't get to decide what happens to her. That is my whole point! Because YOU don't know either. You want to see the wishes of a spouse overridden because of stuff you heard in the media. You don't seem to see a problem with people butting into the marriage contract between two people because THEY think they know better than the people who were actually involved personally.

[Pithlet]

103. So, again.

You would have no problem with others butting in and overriding decisions that you and your spouse made?

[traco]

106. No, not my parents, because I have told them

exactly what I want done with me if I were to be in this condition! I also have it in a book that is in my file cabinet.

I expect my parents to have my best interest at heart over a spouse. Spouses may have changed their opinion of how much they care about me, my parents never will!

[Pithlet]

107. Then, in that case, there would be evidence

wouldn't there? If Terri made it known, in writing, what her wishes were, then this whole thing never would have happened.

If you want to decide that the bond with your parents is more binding that that with your spouse, then that is your decision. But, the law says otherwise. All other evidence lacking, if a spouse maintains that their partner wished not to be kept alive artificially, then that spouse has the right to see that those wishes are carried out.

[Pithlet]

109. And you still avoid the question.

If you don't want to answer it, that's fine. But, don't pretend you're addressing it if you're not. You never did say if you'd be okay with others overriding a decision between you and your spouse.

[traco]

110. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE PARENTS

ARE OVERRIDING TERRI'S WISHES.

I would want someone-preferable my parents- to step in and challenge my spouse's decision if he proved himself to be unreliable by having an affair while married to me!

With that in mind, I have answered your question.

[Pithlet]

111. There is no proof that Michael is, either!

And he is her husband. Therefore, since it's he says/they say, he wins, because a spouse takes precedence over everyone else. The reason for that is most people, when they marry, join with another in a bond that encompasses legal and emotional bonds beyond anything they share with any other person.

If there was evidence that Terri DID want to live in a persistent vegetative state, and Michael is lying about that, then I'd be the first to say that his rights to make decisions for her should be terminated. But there is no evidence, because Terri never made it known in writing.

You did not answer my question. I asked you if you tried to see your spouses wishes met, and others butted in to change it, how you would feel about it. You did not answer that.

[traco]

117. Sorry, I misunderstood the original question

I would be happy to have the help of my spouses parents in making the end of life decisions for my spouse. They would have known him longer and understood his feelings and wishes better.

Plus, I try to maintain a good relationship with my in-laws, this is their child, not mine. I would never treat them with the disrespect that Michael has shown to the Schindlers!

[Pithlet]

119. That's all well and good.

But, not everyone has that kind of relationship with their parents and parents-in-law. I don't know that my family would know better than my own husband. I do believe that my husband knows me in a way that no one else, including my family, knows me. I've confided things to him that I wouldn't to anyone else. And the law says that it is the spouse that gets to decide. Unless there is evidence in writing to the contrary, in a case of spouse says/family says, the spouse wins out, legally. And, for good reason.

[Erika]

99. So you join into a marital contract

where you still say "Mommy, Daddy", I may have made the wrong decision. (You know I was 45 and my chances were dwindling") Please take care of me if I yet screwed up another decision. What a hoot.

[Erika]

87. I think that is why the sanctity of marriage will win out

Two people go together to declare themselves as one with the state (government). This contract states one has the right to speak for the other, The state recognizes this contract and honors the contract.

To have this simple contract politicicized for political religious beliefs by the ruling party to fit the beliefs of a current administration, cuts deep into the sanctity of the marriage vows.

[LisaL]

90. And having a mistress and two children by her doesn't?

[Pithlet]

92. Nope!

It doesn't. Speculation about his actions by others does not override his rights as a spouse, nor anyone elses.

[Erika]

95. Huh?

Reread the thread. If you want to make this guy out as the Marquis DE Sade, feel free. Don't let reality upset you.

Most of us believe in trusting those we marry to speak for us and are comforted by that knowledge. I think Terry was the same. I think her husband is doing a darn good job.

[Pithlet]

96. It's exasperating.

Apparently the opinions of those who know nothing except what they've seen on tv about you carry more weight than a marriage contract. Gah!!!!

[Erika]

104. They are waiting for "Who's my Daddy"

to advise them on current legal matters concerning "family".

[juajen]

121. Her mother and father and siblings have agreed to care for her for the

rest of her life, and bear the expense. If, as you say, she has been dead for all these years, what's the harm. They brought her into this world and should certainly have the right to care for her if her husband no longer wishes to. Obviously, he said one thing in court, but meant another. You are the one who is stubbornly refusing to face facts. This man was in it for the money, or he would have spent it on therapy for Terri. You are just wrong.

Why do you think the parents want to keep her alive? They certainly will not make money on her. If right wing extremists have paid for their legal bills, they certainly will not pay for her care for the rest of her life. Her parents and sister have said they will do so willingly.

I have been married to the same dear man for 40 years now. My parents are dead, but I would certainly expect him to consult my parents, if alive and my siblings, if a situation like this arose, and I would do the same for him. I certainly didn't even imagine that when I married, I would be giving my husband all rights to me, or vice versa. That's a trifle archaic. His intent is so obvious. I disagreed with this ruling in so many ways. My husband was on life support for over a month at one time. I was told there was no hope for him, and I didn't give up and would not now. He had many tubes in his body, not just a feeding tube. This was in 1984. It's amazing what the human body can do.

[Pithlet]

122. The harm is

that people outside of a marriage do not get to override decisions that that couples make. They may have the best intentions, but they don't get to, for good reason. The legal bond of marriage is seriously weakened when others outside of that bond get to make decisions because they think they know better.

In other words, if my husband told me "Please, Pithlet, don't ever let them keep me alive like that", and then he becomes a vegetable, I will not let his family, or anyone else, come get in the way. I know that they love him too, and they have his interests at heart, and they grieve for his loss, but it is up to me, as his spouse, to stick up for him in his wishes. To abdicate that, and let his family decide, would be turning my back on a sacred bond between us. I can't even fathom it.

[libertad]

140. I find it questionable that these newly weds had that discussion.

nt

[haele]

181. I don't...

Months before my marriage with my husband, we discussed that very issue. I don't care if a situation similar to this case happens to me, even if my family decides that "well, we'll take care of her if you don't want to..." - I don't want to end up that way once it's determined that there's no hope of any sort of conscious quality of life. Period.

That's one of the things a lot of people who are thinking of getting married talk about. Making sure that our beliefs on how the quality of our lives should be, and how our future should go if anything should happen to us was compatible was one of the most important issues, along with finances and opinions on children, was an important factor in deciding to get married.

Anyone who plans on getting married without planning for contingencies might want to think over the whole process.

My parents might also know my wishes, but unless something happened to my husband, once we get married, they have no real say in what our decisions are. They can't sue for us to divorce because they feel he's no good for me - even if he might be a potential abuser. They can't sue for custody of our kids if they don't think we're raising them in "the proper manner".

However you want to twist the case into "what would I do in this situation" - unless you're absolutely aware of the facts - not just innuendo and spin - but actual facts; how can you judge what is best for the 14-year brain-dead patient, her husband, and her family. The courts looked into it and made their judgments as to what is legal and whether or not there was any possible malicious intent in the situation. What you and I might think is irreverent.

Haele

[bettyellen]

195. why is that? i know how three of my closest friends feel, let alone my

ex. And they know my feeling on the subject too. There have been a lot of cases in the news every year, and people discuss them!
Not a stretch at all, if you ask me...

[phylny]

248. It's possible that

her parents want to see her kept alive because they are less concerned with her, and more concerned with themselves. They want her alive because they can't bear to "lose" her. "With a little more therapy...!"

When I worked in a hospital, I'd see it with family members all the time. I don't blame them, but they cannot bear to lose their loved one, and sometimes that clouds their thinking and better judgment.

[rainbow4321]

114. "cuts deep into the sanctity of the marriage vows"????????

As does adultery and having two kids out of wedlock with another woman while still claiming to be married to Terri.....he cannot have it both ways and neither can you...his "simple" contract of marriage was made null and void once he pulled his pecker out for the other woman...

[Pithlet]

120. No, it was not.

That's not how it works. Sorry. Legally, he was still her husband. They both decided to wed each other. That did not change when she became a vegetable. And, he "pulled his pecker out" as you so vulgarly put it, well after she went into that state. It isn't as if he were cheating on a spouse that was conscious and medically able to make her decisions for herself. You're the one who is making prurient judgments about his intentions based solely on stuff you've heard from media stories. And you think that his rights as her spouse should be overridden because of the. That isn't how it works, and I'm damn glad it's not. I don't want people like you making my decisions for me and my spouse, thank you very much.

[NickiWitch]

198. I hate to butt in...

but I just went to the website and watched the videos of Terri they have posted there. After viewing them, I can't say this woman is a catatonic vegetable. She reacts to her mother and understands what's being said to her. I, for one, could not see watching her starve to death.

I don't want to start in on this fight, but I think *everyone* here should read the website carefully and definitely watch the videos.

Peace everyone.

Nicki

[phylny]

249. What you saw was an edited videotape.

The reality is different.

I don't know why people don't want to believe doctors and experts who say that she's in a persistent vegetative state. I don't know why people won't believe therapists who say nothing more can be done.

[janx]

253. I've seen them. They are hideous.

Terri still retains that part of her brain that governs reflexes, breathing, etc.

The parents clipped parts of videotapes that showed those reflexes. It's a smoke-and-mirrors, vegetable side show, and her parents are in contempt of court at the moment for producing it and making it public.

It makes me sick.

[seasat]

123. A couple of seconds made a difference for her.

If she had been revived a few seconds earlier, she may have recovered, if her brain had been deprived of oxygen for a few seconds more, her body would have failed. Terry is dead because her cerebral cortex is gone. That is the part of the brain that makes us who we are. The only part left is that which maintains the autonomic functions Personally I don't think she is suffering in her current condition because she is already dead. When you lose your cerebral cortex, you lose all that that makes you human.

The whole case sounds to me like the husband wants what he thinks Terry would want. Maybe he had a selfish motives in the beginning. I don't know the fellow and what his true motives are. However, he doesn't have anything to gain by keeping her alive further. The newspaper reports here in FL show that the money is gone. The parents seem to be hoping for some sort of miracle. However, people don't recover when their brain has turned to spinal goo. The real villains in this saga are Jebbie and the right to life groups that have interfered. I mainly hope that the courts allow her feeding tube to be removed so that it'll finally end this crazy saga and take away this political issue from opportunist idiots milking it for political advantage like Jebbie. I believe in the sanctity of life, but this woman is dead.

[BlueEyedSon]

127. Hear, hear. nt

[Disturbed]

129. Legal Matters

I am not an attorney so my view is limited. I am interested in this case because it could set a legalty about the situation. The peronal angle is not one I am interested in although I do see how many are emotional about the specific case. In no way would I argue one way or the other about the specific case because as I said I am not an attorney. I read this entire thread and although interesing in the way people have debated the matter, the legality of the issue will probably not be resolved for a few more years. Many feel the the SC won't take on this case but I feel that they may because the Right Wing will not back down. They have an agenda about this case.

[janx]

302. Yes, they do.

But it has been going on in Florida for so very many years...it will be interesting to see if the USSC is willing to take it.

[LisaL]

168. It is my opinion that he now is doing it out of spite.

Yes, I believe Terri's husband is a mean and spiteful person. He is doing it out of spite to her parents, IMO. Yes, he wasted the money awarded to her care on the lawyers, the money is gone, thanks to him.
Instead of going to improve Terri's situation, they went on lawyers who wanted to starve her to death. The jury did not award the money for that.
He had not told the jury what he plans to do with the money, he had told the jury he plans to take care of Terri. He had not mentioned then that Terri wanted to die. I do not believe, therefore, he is telling the truth when he claims Terri ever told him she wants to die if she was in that situation. If he was an honest person, he would have said what her wishes were when it mattered, during the malpractice trial.
It's absurd to talk about marriage contract when he has a mistress and two children with that mistress. His marriage to Terri should be null and void, IMO, as he broke his marriage vows a long time ago.
Any woman would be able to divorce a man living with another woman, but not Terri. This man is still considered her husband, why?

[janx]

222. Thank you!

I've tried to explain this to people in the Schiavo threads many times before, but some of them still don't understand and have been brainwashed by the politics and internet gossip.

Parents with disabled children still insist that this woman is "disabled." People are horrified that she will be "starved to death."

The religious rightwing propaganda is very strong in this case. I've never seen anything like it.

And it makes me SO angry!

[countryjake]

130. What those parents are doing is disgusting!

The very reason this woman is in the state she's in stems from an eating disorder...she once had a hang-up over HOW SHE APPEARED to others. The fact that these fiendish people now display their shell of a daughter on the Internet, tv, in court, or anywhere else, gives me the chills. For those of you who believe in souls, what exactly do you think the soul of this poor woman is going thru, everytime she is propped up as the virtual plaything of supposedly loving parents? And if, as you all insist, there is any consciousness left in her at all, she must die a thousand spiritual deaths a day, as she is displayed in her condition to the world. Her parents have a twisted idea of what actual mercy is & evidently take pleasure in torturing their own flesh & blood!

Terminal patients turn down feeding tubes daily in this country & then die in as much comfort & peace as their caregivers can provide. That is the choice of humanity. May these religious fools & bigots burn in their own hell, covered with FIERY BED SORES, for the spectacle they have made of this sad woman!

[katinmn]

161. 14 years without oxygen to the brain = brain death

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~gedann/bioethics_doc_vegetative_minimallyconscious.doc
In Feeding-Tube Case, Many Neurologists Back Courts
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
New York Times
Published: October 26, 2003

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schiavo case is the kind of family fight that doctors treating brain-damaged patients say they dread. "In a case like this, you're between a rock and a hard place," said Dr. McQuillen of the University of Rochester.

He added that keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive artificially could be a burden on her.

For many terminally ill patients, he pointed out, "food is an absolute burden — it increases secretions and makes them uncomfortable."

[Cruzin]

229. I am sorta outraged at your idiocy

Eating disorders are not an issue stemming from parents solely, or even parents at all. To sit there and insist this is THEIR issue, it just wrong. You really need to research before you just start blaming people for ailments you know nothing of.

[countryjake]

240. What are you talking about?

Nowhere in my post did I insinuate that anyone's parents could be blamed for their eating disorders or any other ailments. You must have me confused with another poster or else, perhaps, you're a tad short on reading comprehension. Please point out where I insist this is THEIR issue.

What I did say is that this once young, beautiful woman had a hang-up with HOW SHE APPEARED. She developed an eating-disorder due to that & she is in the state she's in now because of that eating-disorder.

You obviously aren't acquainted with many victims of such mental problems. For them, even when their appearance is perfectly normal, it becomes very hard for them to see their own reflected image in a mirror without spotting invisible imperfections. Many commit what could be described as a sort of mental suicide, allowing their own minds to starve their physical selves to death.

That was the path this woman was on, when she fell into her present state. Denying her own self the proper nutrition (ie. starving herself to death) because of dissatisfaction with her looks!

Anyone who now is trying to float the idea that she'd actually want to be kept alive in her present state or EVER filmed & made a spectacle of, the way these uncaring parents have done, are the ones with an intelligence problem. And I suggest you do some investigation yourself... show someone who suffers from anorexia or bulemia a clip of Teri & then ask THEM if they'd rather be dead than be in that state!

[Cruzin]

304. You Dumb ass

I suffered from it. I think I understand completely your IMPLICATIONS of the family. Do not tell me I need to research something I went through. OK?

[Malva Zebrina]

131. golee

He could have divorced her long ago, but apparently stuck with it. His training as a nurse, I am sure, exposed him to more than one in the same state as she and perhaps allowed him, eventually, to see the reality of the vegetative state for what it is. I don't believe, from what I read, he got rich from it or wanted to do anything more than be able to somehow pay for the enormous costs of this whole situation, which must be astronomical. To me, the man sounds more grounded in reality than in greed.


I suppose(with tongue in cheek) those who condemn him for having normal and healthy desires, would have expected him, citing the "sanctity of the marriage" vows, to sleep with Teri, and only Teri,eh? She would, after all, not refuse him and could have even carried a child, eh? Problem solved? I wonder if her parents would have objected to that? Or those "pro-life" people who seem to have stuck their noses into it.

Further,I wonder if that would have been considered rape? or spousal abuse?

[marew]

132. I live in the same county...

as this poor woman. I heard from someone who knows, not related to either the husband or parents, that her husband tried for years to help her recover, even taking her to Europe years ago for a new "treatment." He is not the monster her parents portray him to be. I worked with the handicapped in a professional capacity for many years and I believe that sometimes you have to love someone enough to let them go. To keep someone alive by unnatural methods who is in a persistent vegetative state or who is suffering is unbelievably cruel. Let's not even get into the reasons why someone would even want to keep anyone alive in that state. I would wonder about their motivation and also question who's needs are they really meeting.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

134. No one has addressed what I feel is the oddest part of all this:

"Michael Schiavo's former in-laws, Bob and Mary Schindler, argued for a new trial, saying if their daughter did not want to be kept alive artificially - as her husband contends - she would have changed her mind, given recent statements by Pope John Paul II. The pope has said a person in a persistent vegetative state has the right to nutrition and hydration and to withhold them would be a sin."

Aren't the woman's parents acknowledging in this statement that they DON'T know what their daughter wanted before she entered into her vegetative state? What does it matter whether or not the daughter would have changed her mind today? Isn't the important thing what wishes she conveyed to her husband when she was conscious? Many on this thread seem to be arguing that the husband's claim about what the woman wanted cannot be trusted. But that doesn't even seem to be what the parents are claiming in this new legal action.

It seems to me to be a pretty radical legal concept to allow a person to "change her mind" after she is brain-dead (or even unconscious). Will we start having wills contested because the person who died "would have changed his/her mind" about the division of the estate if they were aware of circumstances occurring after they died?

[libertad]

141. Think about it---is it EVER right to STARVE someone to DEATH?

nt

[chimpy the poopthrower]

150. Are you saying you believe all "living wills" should be ignored?

Forget about the alleged uncertainties in this case. Suppose I made a "living will" that was very specific, went over it with my spouse, parents, etc., did everything I could so that there would be no doubt about my wishes. Through some kind of medical tragedy, I enter into the same vegetative case as Schiavo. Are you saying that my clear wish to have the feeding tube removed in that situation should not be honored?

[FlaGranny]

151. Well, yes, it is.

Take my mother, as an example. She died 2-1/2 yaars ago of multiple myeloma (bone cancer). Toward the end, her bone marrow stopped making red blood cells. She became so weak she could not swallow and choked on and aspirated everything, even a drop of water on a sponge. I suppose we could have demanded a feeding tube, which may have kept her alive a little longer. We, instead chose hospice care. We allowed her as much omfort as possible, through morphine, until she died from lack of food, lack of water, and lack of blood cells. She was 94 years old. It was heartbreaking, but the right thing to do.

I always wondered why a religious person would feel it was okay to keep someone alive long after they would have died, if not for modern marvels of medicine. Supposedly, a religious person believes that it is a person's "time" and God wants them in heaven. I always felt they were defying God's will with feeding tubes and respirators.

[kskiska]

156. My mother chose to starve herself

and not even for good reason. She'd had lymphoma, but it was in remission for several years. She came down with shingles but didn't see a doctor immediately, fearing it was a return of the lymphoma. She was hospitalized and released to a nursing home temporarily (she lived alone and it was felt a cautionary transition would help) before her planned return home. While at the nursing home, she stopped eating voluntarily, not wanting to live any longer. She had a living will. She died, her death eased by morphine.

[FlaGranny]

220. It's a shame you mother gave up.

I believe the only reason my mother survived so long - almost 10 years - was that she never gave up. Multiple myeloma usually kills much younger people much more quickly. Even at the very end, she wanted to live. She just couldn't any more. Her body would just no longer support life. Her doctor told me he continued her treatment much longer than he would have in other cases, because of her attitude. The only thing that could have kept her alive was very frequent blood transfusions, but it would have bought her only a week or two.

[marew]

256. Did the same thing with my dad..

whom I love dearly. He was suffering and declining rapidly, had lost the ability to swallow, and had fallen and broken bones. He was suffering, had a living will, and had been refusing to eat even before he could not swallow. I'd even suggested a feeding tube to him and he made it very clear he wanted nothing to do with anything like that. With the doctor, it was decided to stop all fluids and nourishment but he was given morphine at regular short intervals. He lived for 4 days and I was with him when he died. I wished it didn't have to be like that but I could not bear to see him in pain. I'm an only child and, although it was a terrible decision to make, I believe it was the right one.

[bettyellen]

190. don't have to think, i know from experience it is more humane to ...

allow a patient to slowly starve.
I had two dear ones on stomach tubes and saw what it did to them. One didn't want it but her nephew insisted. She was clear minded to the end and was very angry about him doing it. She never spoke to him for the last six months duing which she suffered a great deal.
My father was the one with the suction down his throat and shoved up his nostrils 5-6 times a day. even though he has a stomach tube, the food wouldn't stay there, it would back up and choke him. Of course for the whole time both my dear ones were on stomach tubes, they also had their hands ties down so they couldn't rip the tube out.
Don't assume a stomach tube is more "humane" in any way than allowing an incurable condition to take it's course. We discussed this with my Mom and knew her wishes and I am relieved we got it in writing before she lost her mind. I, too have plenty of realatives who would claim that I couldn't know my mother's feeling on the subject and would think nothing of going against her wishes even if they knew them. Thay think they know better than my mom and her three children, because they believe what thay believe. I know better.

[Wilber_Stool]

206. I think you may be associating the term starve with the last time

you missed supper and your little tummy hurt. This woman hasn't had solid food in her stomach for 14 years. She will not suffer. Her body will just turn off.

[LisaL]

238. Well, excuse me, she was starved two times prior to that, and

her body didn't just turn off.
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
It went on for days and days and she did not die.
I would suggest you try not to eat or drink for a week and then report to us how your little tummy hurt.
:spank: :spank: :spank:

[HockeyMom]

142. INDIVIDUAL

All this is why people should have a Living Will, Health Proxy, Power of Attorney, etc., NO MATTER HOW OLD THEY ARE. Because when it comes right down to it, it should the INDIVIDUAL PERSON, who should decide whether they want to live or die - NOT THE SPOUSE, NOT THE PARENTS, AND CERTAINLY NOT THE GOVERNMENT. My Mom did all this LONG before she went into the hospital. She saw an attorney and dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. All the paper work was posted over her hospital bed.

As far as a spouse, same thing. YOU decide, NOT YOUR SPOUSE. See a lawyer and get the documents. Forget the SANCTITY of marriage, bla, bla, bla.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

154. that, of course, would be the ideal situation

However, the reality is that some people neglect to make wills - whether the "regular" kind of will or a living will. In those cases, an effort must be made to determine what the person's wishes were. There's nothing uncommon about such a situation. However, when someone tries to argue what the person's wishes would be if that person were aware of all present circumstances TODAY instead of arguing what the person's wishes were at the time they died (or became brain-dead), that seems to me to be a very dangerous and radical concept.

[janx]

255. They're desperate.

And the courts are finally sick of it.

[hyphenate]

136. I used to work extensively in geriatric

cases, and I can tell you, from experience, that Terry Schiavo no longer "inhabits" her body. Not even to the extent of senile dementia, because there is no upper brain function at all.

Even a cat or dog, or any other animal life form is better off than she is right now. While she might be able to do most autonomic functions, a paramecium is about the same level as her independent brain function.

Her parents are clinging to an impossible dream. They still likely see her as she was before the brain trauma, and have a lot of trouble trying to cope with their own feelings and empathy in denying that she is no longer a thinking person.

In addition, I've seen it with my own family. My brother was 17 when he was involved in a car accident which gave him significant brain trauma and put him into a wheelchair for life. In addition, his mental level is that of a 10 year old--while he maintains the ability to read, watch TV and think on a basic level, his emotional age is very low. He can not do much thinking on an assertive level--most of his thought processes are about basic needs and wants--going to the bathroom, wanting something to eat, wanting a cigarette. You can stir memories from before the accident, which, BTW, was 25 years ago, but he doesn't have any short-term memory retention at all.

My mom continues to take care of him as she has for his whole life. In the car accident, in which there were 5 boys in the car, one died, while the others all suffered varying degrees of injury. The one who got off the easiest had a broken collarbone. The driver died. The owner of the car, who was sitting in the passenger's seat, had let the boy, only 16 years old, drive the car, after allowing him to ingest nearly a whole bottle of vodka. He was decapitated in the accident. My mom told his mother that she was lucky her son died in one way, because she was not going to have the burden my mom had now, taking care of a son who was going to be an invalid for the remainder of his years.

This poor woman shouldn't be treated like this at all. And yes, starvation, even for a paramecium, is a hard way to die. If our nation were progressive enough, we could let her go peacefully, quietly and without pain, but no--as someone already said, we treat our criminals better in giving them quicker ways to die.

While some might think allowing her to live is best because she appears to have some normal functions, it is mostly sad to try and see the right perspective. If you were in such a situation, what would you want?

My mom always told me that if she was ever in such a state, to let her go, not to keep her alive through artificial means. In fact, in the case of a dear friend who died last year, she was savvy enough to have a DNR on her chart. (Do Not Resuscitate) I think most of us have had the forethought to think about such a move, and I think there are very few of us who would want to be kept "alive" in that kind of scenario.

[bleedingheart]

143. I am so sorry for your mom and brother

I also think that your mom has the best perspective on this issue.

Personally I would not want to be kept alive like this but unfortunately I think that her case is being used for political purposes.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

202. I salute your mother

That's far more than she should ever have to bear, but this is what life dealt her, and I am sorry.

You stated the situation so knowingly and articulately, I'm sitting here with tears in my eyes.

When our old family dog got so sick that she wasn't going to improve, she was put to sleep humanely, in the arms of the people who loved her, and with no pain.

We don't treat our broken citizens as well as we treat our pets. What does that say about America?

Thank you, hyphenate.

[bleedingheart]

144. From what I saw on a TV news show, the State of Florida now pays for her

the money ran out of the initial settlement taking care of her needs. I believe that to be true. She needs such intensive care that it probably costs a fortune to keep her alive.

I wonder if people were to choose between using that money to keep her in her vegetative state and perhaps using that money to treat other people who are "aware" at least of their surroundings...what would they choose? Quite an ethical dilemna.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

157. Ha, Ha. This is GREAT. Fuck you, you cruel closeminded fundies!

Once again, it is shown that people have a PERSONAL decision for their life...not some mythical god and unbending worship of stupid "culture of life" philosophies.

Being human is contained in the higher workings of the brain (i.e., cortical activity), not the rest of the body. And, this woman is nothing but a brain stem (i.e., no viable cortical activity).

JB

[deek]

162. check out your own humaness eom

.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

164. Oh, I see. We should keep her alive to MAKE US FEEL BETTER.

This isn't about this poor woman's wishes not to be a burden and continued vegetable. It's about making some people around her feel better and prolonging their eventual heartbreak over her death...isn't it.

The "human" thing to do in this case is to LET THIS WOMAN GO AND GRANT HER WISH TO DIE.

JB

[RuleofLaw]

165. I find it interesting

that the same people who wants to overturn the court decision (Jeb Bush)in this case of life and death, are generally the same people who said that they have no power to overturn a death penalty case, because the court has made a decision.

So what is it? Do we only allow the courts to let people die when we agree with the courts?

[truebrit71]

174. What a great point...

..this has nothing to do with Terri, or her husband ..it has EVERYTHING to do with right-wing Xtian fundamentalists getting their fetid claws into the "Sanctity of Life" argument at someone else's expense....

Again.

[bettyellen]

194. You got it, especially since now they are saying their daughter would have

changed her mind to listen to the pope's edict.
That sounds like really wishful thinking- they are trying to "save" their daughter whether she would want to be or not. Next they'll be attacking those with living wills if they get away with that arguement!

[DemBones DemBones]

183. Mark my words, we'll hear of Michael Schiavo again,

years after Terri's death, and it won't be good news.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

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

[janx]

230. It wasn't an issue for my mother either, and I can without

hesitance say that she died with the utmost dignity.

[traco]

236. He did this same thing to his own parents!

An of course, he inherited!

[bettyellen]

261. As someone who's Mom has been A DNR and has signed her own living will

can I tell you I have an Aunt who is still willing to spew this bullshit and blame me when the time comes? Screw that, I only wish I could have spared my father the last two incredibly painful months of his life. Such pointless pain and suffering for no reason at all is not christian, it's playing god and denying a person a natural peaceful death.
by your reckoning no one should ever die of natural causes. what the hell, the technology is there right?

[DemBones DemBones]

271. Having a living will and acting on it is entirely different from

ending nutrition and hydration and deliberately putting someone to death after years of denying them treatment that might have helped them regain some of their faculties.

My parents and in-laws all had living wills and I'd have never interfered with THEIR wishes. No one knows what Terri Schiavo's wishes were.

[bettyellen]

279. Mom's living will says "no extreme measures including feeding via a ...

stomach tube" . We do not consdier the fact that in denying a tube that we are "putting someone to death". It is not artificially prolonging the painful endstage of a life.
Because the feeding tube would force them to keep her hands tied up every minute of the day and they'd be sticking a vacum up her nose 5 or 6 times a day to clear out the food regurgitaing up into her throat, lungs and nostrils. We made that mistake once.
And there are people here who would call me a murderer for it, not you, I was replying to this person who claims the husband "did it" - that would be "putting someone to death" i believe to his own parents!! Hysterical nonsense from a judgemental papist, who would call me a murderer too.

[janx]

283. bettyellen, I'm so sorry for what happened

with your father.

My mother left us in 2000. She had a living will, a DNR, etc., and she lived in Oregon--the best possible state when it comes to those choices.

I promise you that when your mom finally makes her exit, you will feel so relieved with her living will decision. My father had a pretty gruesome death too. When my mother died, I felt certain that she did so comfortably and with the final knowledge that she was in charge of her own body--to the extent that any dying person can be, that is. She died in her own home, in her own bed, with her own family around. She hadn't eaten for days but wasn't hungry. The only water she wanted was enough to keep her mouth moist enough to be able to talk.

[bettyellen]

287. Thanks, yeah i was too young and stupid when my dad was sick...

and to tell the truth, my aunt, who i have referred to in this thread, made all te decisions.
so he was in a shittier hospital than need be, and they tubed him, and she never went and saw the horror that i did every day.
w/ my mom, she has tried to interfere, tried to get the lawyer to change parts of the health proxies and living will to suit her tastes ! basically, she is a control freak, and would rather make these decisons than have us kids do it (we are all over 40 now- not kids)
my brother actually lost the living will and i had to go sign a dnr with just my name on it. i was braced for a shit storm if my aunt showed up. she would have been able to have them resusitate and tube her if she had asked becasue of the lack of a living will. no matter what me and my brothers said, the hospital would have listened to her, it's policy.
i totally freaked at being put in that position. my brother finally understands how important it is to have it. she bounced back and is at home again. we have vowed to keep her home until the last if we can. i'm proud of you for doing right by your mom, it is not the easy way out, for sure. tubing someone can be "easier" becasue they'll stay in the hospital and not impose on your lifestyle. i think it's b.s. to look at that as being heroic or what 's best for the patient.
thanks for your kind words. a lot of what i read here was very black and white, their mind made up and very callous and not informed by experience.

[janx]

289. Your situation sounds very similar to mine, though my father

was never tubed (we knew he never wanted to be).

I have a dear friend, my sister-in-law's brother, who was engaged to be married when his father died. His father wasn't ill long, but he was a guy who despised hospitals anyway. He had a fairly advanced stage of pneumonia along with some other complications, and he had a living will and DNR order.

After he died, my friend's fiance called him a murderer. She actually called him and his whole family murderers.

Needless to say, the wedding was called off...

[bettyellen]

291. whew, he dodged a bullet, give him a hug from me! and one for you too!

jeeeze it's always the people who haven't walked in your shoes who find it sooo easy to judge. in the aftermath of his daddy'd death, how awful! bleh!! he was spared a painful marriage that i think a lot of these posters would condemn him to endure! but not i!
c'est la vie, lucky for him her true nature emerged before they sealed the deal!

:hug: :hug:
happy new years to you and yours !

[janx]

297. Oh, my father died--in a quasi-hospice, under circumstances

that did not fit him at all. He wasn't tubed, but his lungs were suctioned,etc.--he hadn't made a living will because this was in the early eighties...but damn, he should have, since he was a doctor himself. That made it all the worse. When he became comatose we lobbied for the DNR--then called a "code orange" or something. I was in my twenties with two very young babies; my brothers were out of state, and my mother was divorced from him. It was horrible.

In any case, I will try and rewrite the story about my friend's husband; his death was one of the richest and the most profound. I tried to post it here, but I got an error message and was taken to some strange, empty post. It probably had something to do with the traffic on the east coast around midnight there (I'm on Mountain time).

There can be an ultimate sense of victory in death sometimes, a real culmination of someone's life. That is what happened in the case of my friend's husband. It was magnificent.

Happy New Year!

[bettyellen]

301. i know what you mean about the victory in death

although my mom is still with us, the stages i have been through were like a journey and celebration of who she is. i had my best few years with her shortly after the diagnosis. it's hard to explain to people. most of my friends aren't aware yet of how precious the time left is.
would love to see the post you are referrring to-- i'd appreciate if you could send me a link or copy!
good night!

[janx]

298. Yeah--it's just media and right-wing gossip about Michael Schiavo.

I've never paid attention to any of these media cases--and by the way, given the seriousness and human rights potential of this one, where's the emphasis?--

But this one landed me. The abuse of civil liberties in this one goes beyond anything I could imagine, and the possible abuse that could follow is immeasurable.

Like you, I've seen and had to deal with decisions about the life or death of loved ones. To think that a right-wing motivated few in the legislature and governorship in any state could override state law regarding life/death rights...

[murray hill farm]

307. but we do know that living in that condition would be no ones wish

in my living will, i have stated that no longer than 48 hrs will i be kept alive artificially...if in such a condition! I cannot think of a worse life situation...to be trapped in such a situation as is terri...and to have people around me who would fight to keep me living in such a state which must be a hell beyond comprehension. Please have some compassion and let that woman go..let her be free from that body.

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

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

[janx]

221. Finally--someone said NO.

This legal football crap has been going on, non-stop, for six or seven years. The woman has been in a persistent vegetative state for at least ten; before that, for four years or so, her husband did everything he could to try and rehabilitate her--until the docs found that her cerebral cortex was gone.

Not damaged. Not resting. GONE.

I've participated in these threads at DU before, and people just don't seem to realize the seriousness of this situation, and they don't realize what the absence of a cerebral cortex means.

Please trust me. This poor, lovely woman should be allowed to finish dying in peace.

[puddycat]

235. hear, hear! Its about time someone with sense & power said NO

That poor woman should be allowed to finish dying. The hideous cruelty of some people knows no bounds.

[frustrated_lefty]

243. What it wrong with these bastards? (n/t)

[biftonnorton]

250. Oh, If We Only Had A Theocracy

then the taliban-like catholics could rule! Then the pope could just say how we all should live, or die, or linger in between forever. "If she could just hear the pope talk about nutrition and hydration she'd change her mind", give me a break! I doubt that these people have a telepathic connection to the patient. Thank God we have a legal system that is still keeping its chin above theocratic waters.

[janx]

251. They're trying to. It's getting closer to a theocracy

(especially in Jebland) every day.

[janx]

259. Interesting, local article about the case:

A judge has ruled -- and appeals courts have upheld -- it was Terri Schiavo's wish not to be kept alive artificially. Whomever serves as guardian is now legally obligated to carry out the tube removal. Only a new trial -- which is what the Schindlers are seeking -- could create a new final judgment, Felos said.

"Terri is not chattel. She is not merchandise or goods that can be transferred from one person to another," Felos said. "She retains her dignity as a human being and she retains her constitutional rights."

http://cbs4.com/newslocal/topstoriesmia_story_364165938.html

[MADem]

263. Karl Rove knows what he is doing, I think!

Just by looking at the many viewpoints on this thread, and the raw emotion bordering on horror or rage behind some of them, tells me that Karl Rove knows what he is doing. Get people upset about issues like this, and he can loot the treasury while everyone is arguing!

That's why I was wondering what others thought about whether or not the Supremes will take the case. I'm thinking, from a Rovian point of view, that it's BETTER FOR THE GOP to leave this issue on the table--anytime a bunch of soldiers get killed in Iraq, have the media focus on these issues instead. It's a canard of sorts. The administration can take a position, but not have it codified into law. You never know when a law can work against you, so better to not have it at all.

Personally, I can't say with authority how I feel about this particular case. I'm not interested enough to read everything about it, from start to finish, so any comment I make is based on incomplete information.

[janx]

265. Karl Rove?

You sure give that guy a lot of credit.

Jeb Bush doesn't need Karl Rove to tell him what to do in this situation, I promise you. Messing around with medicine comes very naturally to Jeb when he's pressed by the radical right wing. Thumbing his nose at his state's constitution is a walk in the park to him--and all of the other reactionary legislators that rushed to push through an unconstitutional law in a matter of six days.

Many of the right wingers pressuring them weren't even from Florida.

[MADem]

306. He runs the country; he directs the right wing

He's the man behind the curtain. If this thing goes to the Supremes, Jeb is no longer at the center of the storm, and is just an enabler for the "All white life is precious" campaign (unless it's heading for the chair or lethal injection, that is). See, if we're talking about this one issue, we aren't talking about other issues, like death, destruction, greed, waste of resources, and war.

Karl deserves the "credit" (or blame, more correctly). It's disturbing, but he knows what hot-button issues will excite the unwashed masses, and he plays them like a master violinist sawing away on a Stradivarius. And the media spreads the word like manure, and the unthinking masses leap and react, just as he hoped.

I'm thinking the Supremes will decline to hear the case, that they will, for once in their lives, say this is a state issue, and that will be that. The right wingers can then say the Supremes are not their tool, and keep a bitching about liberal courts and activist judges. After all, how would it look if the same clowns who sat weecowboy in the White House went and pulled the plug on this gal? By declining to hear the case, they don't have to decide either way.

[proudbluestater]

277. Jeb should butt the fuck OUT of this case. It's not his deal.

His brother used to grin when putting mentally ill people to death, yet he wants to preserve a "life" that is no longer being lived.

[janx]

280. ...and *against her wishes*. Jeb Bush and the FL state legislature

have effectively told this woman (although there's no way she could know it) that her wishes for her own body didn't matter.

The state owns her body now.

[janx]

281. DANCING MOUSE

Here is a perfect example of the right-wing propaganda that works daily to spread false information about this case (This particular quote is from an online Southern Baptist newsletter):

Calling the court’s action “unbelievable,” Schindler said it appeared there is “collusion” between the judges in the case, resulting in what he calls “summary judgments” which don’t allow for oral arguments, opinions, or further appeals.

The court’s decision to play out the appeals process during the holiday means that despite a pleasant Christmas visit with Terri at the Woodside Hospice where she lives, Schindler will spend the New Year’s holiday working “to expose what is happening in this case.”

On Christmas Day Bob Schindler and his wife, Mary, and son, Bobby Jr., tried to brighten Terri’s day with a stuffed dancing mouse replete with bright Christmas lights.

Terri smiled in “approval” and made efforts to speak at the sight of the comical gift, Bob Schindler said, while he tried not to get angry at a nurse who told a hospice Santa and carolers that a stop in Terri’s room would be forbidden.

More at link:
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=19815

[jim3775]

294. Look at the brain scan. Image attached.

Image from the University of Miami ethisc dept.
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/Schiavo_links.htm

See that blank area, that is where her brain used to be, that bright thing is an electrode. Her cerebellum is gone for good, no thought, no feelings of pain, no emotion. The brainstem is operating automatically. There is a way to test weather or not a coma victim is brain dead by hooking the person up to a EEG (electroencephalogram) and seeing weather the language-reconigition neurons fire whe someone speaks. On Terri THAT PART OF HER BRAIN DOESN'T EXIST. BRAIN MATTER DOES NOT GROW BACK. She is brain dead and there is no possible recovery.

[Frangible]

296. Actually...

Brain matter does grow back. But no regrowth of that scale has ever been documented in humans before. And even if it was regrown, "she" (and I use that term loosely) would have almost none of her former memories. The person she was, is gone. And even if the brain could be repaired, and it can't, that would not bring her back, because the structure of the brain is dynamic and the best that could be regrown would be a baseline genetic structure. Whether or not that would even be the same person is another debate entirely. But that technology isn't even close to existing so it's a moot point.

The husband is a greedy scumbag. But she's still gone. And the husband being a scumbag won't bring her back.

Sad, but then, it would be productive to have the money spent on lawyers and feeding used for regeneration research.

[janx]

299. ..........

:tinfoilhat: