Terri Schiavo

Remove all ads!

We have an alternative and this is to consider her rights as a human person.

Quite the contrary. He claims she said something and bases his claims on that. He should be able to offer proof, but he can't. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the opposition.

Terri's own rights to choose death would be debatable if she did make such a choice, let alone her husband's. At any rate, even if she had expressed a wish not to be artificially kept alive by medicine, providing food and water is not medicine, so such a wish wouldn't apply. Feeding people is not medical care. Guardianship never includes the right to terminate the entrusted person's life. Should parents be allowed to demand an injection for sickly infants, for example?

It's not to "prolong existence". It's to prevent termination of existence. Any human would die without food and drink. Withholding food and drink is not leaving someone to die, it's directly killing that person.

Untrue. See Laches's post and links in it, along with videos.

Her brain is damaged but not destroyed. She smiles, laughs and responds to simple commands. She has at least some mental and intellectual faculty which manifests externally. We aren't inside her head and we can't determine how much more happens in there.

She is a human like you or I.

 

I reluctantly agree with Chev. In this particular case the removal of the feeding tube would cause her death. If she can breathe on her own then removing the tube would be to starve her to death.

I repeat myself: Having a Living Will is important as it means that what you want is clearly stated. Mine was drawn up by a lawyer. I do not have DNR. I do have that I am not to be kept alive by artificial means if there is no reasonable hope of recovery. My doctors know this. The local hospital has a copy and my next of kin has a copy.

 

I just have to add that I believe those videos are a false hope. Who knows how much video they had to shoot to find something that even remotely makes it look like she is cognizant. Even a plant will bend its leaves to the sun, it doesn't mean that it is aware. Fifteen years is a long time to be like that.

 

All I can say is that I am bloody glad that it is not me that has to make the decision on this one. I don't believe it is as black or white as you guys are making out. I think it's just a really really tough situation that does not have a right or wrong answer. Whatever decision is made has negative implications.

 

I received a pm that this had been resurrected from the dead. A lot has happened since the initial post.

Here is what strikes me as a pretty good link if anyone is interested:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

The author focuses on the legal part of it and, from my point of view, does a pretty good job of maintaining his neutrality.

Chevalier pointed to my initial post and the videos as evidence of improvement or potential recovery. Those tapes are fairly old, and they've been addressed by the courts considering the case. The link has this to say with respect to the videos:

and

That may be more than anyone is interested. But I thought I'd just provide the link if anyone is interested.

 

I have an idea. Make sure that the husband will get no money whatsoever in any way shape or form then we'll see if he still wants her to die , if he still believes that she deserves to die with dignity. Dignity is pretty easy to picture when you're picturing lounging on the beach in the Dominican Republic.

 

Give her enough morphine to stop her heart. Don't starve her to death. Don't give the first CENT to the husband. Give all the money to a charity that concentrates on neurological problems or Lou Gerighs (sp?) disease. Start doing research on stem cells. Execute any of those friggin' arch conservative christians that argue about the sanctity of life. You know the kind I'm talking about, the ones that go to the funerals of homosexuals that were beaten to death and wave signs like "God Bless AIDS" and "Burn in HELL Fag!" And the ones who agree with them. And don't talk to me about the right to freedom of speech. That's bullsh*t in this case. Ack. Sorry for the rant. My opinion. One more thing, let the parents be there when they stop her heart. Screw the husband if he doesn't like it. Period.

edit: P.S.- I apologize if I offended any Christians or anyone else for that matter. I believe in a God that would cringe at some of the stuff some of His most rabid supporters do. Like argue and protest and rant about the sanctity of life in cases like this where it is pretty obvious that the poor woman will never live a full and happy life, even if by some miracle she wakes up. Just send her soul to God, and let her and her family be at peace.

 

Good ploy, Ravynn...execute those we don't agree with to demonstrate your humanity. Make sure you don't forget to line up the handicapped, mentally retarded and elderly for your gas chamber spree.

Look folks...it's all pretty simple. Mike Schiavo is a scumbag. He wants his wife to die so he can collect the insurance and be a widower and then marry the woman he's already with. What a prince.

The only people who truly care about Terry are her parents and her siblings...they want to keep her alive and are willing to bear the burden of doing so. They should have the legal right given to them to make decisions for her welfare in light of Mike's abdication and Terry's lack of a living will.

Congress hasn't over stepped it's bounds either. Any State Capital case is automatically reviewed by Federal Court. When the State granted removal of her feeding tube...this became a Capital case.

Oh yeah...she isn't "brain dead"...all her doctors agree that her medical condition is "brain damaged"...heck...that definition could apply to most Liberals

 

Turns out the "Mike Shiavo is a scumbag" crowd were WAY off. Multiple sources are now reporting a few interesting tidbits:

1)Mike has been offered as much as one million dollars to keep his wife ON life support(and BTW there is no money for him to claim in the event of her death. This was largely inuendo and "internet legend") and he turned them down.

2)Terri's father offered Mike $700,000, to keep Terri on life support as well and guess where the father got that money? The "Right to Life" foundation. Again, Mike turned down the money.


3)TWICE during previous trials, friends of TERRI's have substantiated Mike's story that while watching a TV program on the subject of euthenasia or assisted suicide, Terri stated that if anything ever happened to her she would not want to live on life support.

4)As DMC already pointed out, the video that is constnatly being shown that almost appears to indicate Teri is not vegetative, is not only from 1994(and no more video showing such has been made since) but it is 2-3 minutes out of several HOURS, taken out of context where Terri's reflective movements could be construed as responses to external stimuli.


For sources you can go to any news site from CNN to FOX NEWS but will edit later with links.

 

Even better go to the site Laches posted. One of the more interesting tidbits (and there are plenty) are that it is no longer Michael's decision. When this first started he went to the Florida courts for them to make the decision. He had to do this because there wasn't a living will. If you look at all the subsequent legal moves, the Florida judge is the one being sued and Michael is listed as an interested party. Even if Michael said she should have her tubes reinserted, he has no authority to do so.

 

Surely there are 1000s of similar people on life support all over the USA and the world and there always has been.

Why is this one particular case (tragic though it is) such big news, resulting in the sort of emergency law making that only usually happens in times of national crisis (e.g. during a war)?

 

Because in the wake of all of Bush's admin' being repeatedly caught with their pants down at every turn, this case represents a chance to a)appeal to their hardcore constituents in the religious right and b)it is a distraction from the war/rising fatalities, gas prices, economy, etc.

 

The greatest dilemma in this, IMO, is that Schiavo is not fully vegetative, nor is she on life support. She can't eat or drink, and will never leave care, but her life is not directly threatened by anything except removal from feeding tubes at this point. Since there is no hard evidence of her wish to be allowed to die, it's hard to justify the decision to remove the feeder tube - harder still, given the nature of her imminent demise. Terry can't make the decision now, and it falls to a consideration of hearsay versus dogma. Well, I'm not about to support either of them without knowing more; however, I would (somewhat reluctantly) agree to release Schiavo into the care of her family.

/me takes deep breath to stave off rant against religious conservatism

Well, barring a miracle, she'll never leave intensive care. People tend to see what they want to see; I have no doubt that Terry Schiavo can respond to external stimuli, but so does any living creature - the issue (for me, at least) is not whether she is alive, but what the quality of life and prospects for recovery are. From what I can tell, that's around zero on both counts.

Oh please. Don't play that card. This is one of the reasons why the religious right attracts so much hatred - they presume to sit in divine judgement on a matter of personal principles. Yes, I have a problem with the manner of Schiavo's probable demise - I think it's cruel and unusual. Do I think she should be starved to death? No. Does she have any prospects for recovery? Short of a miracle, no. I wouldn't wish this situation on anybody, but I wonder what some of these sanctimonious people would do in that situation - especially if it was costing them money.

What I find most galling are the legions of pro-lifers who hold her up as a sacrifice to their beliefs. It's hardly as though she's only been near-vegetative for a couple of weeks or in an induced coma. She will never have quality of life again, never have the ability to function normally. What is crueller - starving someone to death or forcing them to live in a body that cannot sustain itself? Maybe she is unaware of her suffering, maybe not - I simply do not know. What I am sure of is that there is no moral high ground to be had on either side of that fence, and anyone who feels otherwise is deluding themselves. It's a tough decision, one I'm glad not to be making, but neither option is palatable. However, not choosing is a choice at this point, since the tube either stays out or comes back, and there's no room for fence-sitting.

@ Chev:
I agree with you in principle - I think that, in the absence of any fatal condition, removing the tube is tantamount to homicide and there are better options available.

Of course he does. Do you honestly believe that the parents and relatives wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing - meeting their objectives/agenda - if they could? It's not as if he induced the heart attack and went straight for the cash - he wanted to see her recover as well until he was told that there was no hope; if he wanted to kill her for the money, then why get her rushed to hospital? You're vaulting to conviction without enough evidence.

@ Ravynn:
There's a fundamental difference between refusing treatment and euthanasia. While I agree that an overdose of morphine may be the most humane option, the fact remains that Terry Schiavo is not dead and does not rely on life support machines to keep her breathing or her heart beating. It's still homicide, although arguably merciful than subsistence on a tube, and not a particularly pleasant way to go.

@ Hacken Slash:
Nice reductio ad absurdium. However, I think you're criminally over-simplifying this by using the time-tested "resort to emotionality".

I'm sure that if her husband didn't care, he wouldn't still be fighting for her right to self-determination (by proxy). His motives may be unclean if there is a lot of money involved, I'll grant that in the absence of proof either way. But if there isn't a huge payout to him upon her death, then why the hell would he still be trying to get her feeding tube removed after 15 years? Sorry, Hack - without proof, that argument won't fly.

I can't argue with that in the absence of any hard proof to the contrary. As much as I wouldn't want to live that way, if there is someone who is willing to take responsibility for her care, then I cannot say they should not be allowed to. Let her "scumbag" husband move on and hand over to the family, then - he has moved on from the wife he knows is gone and has been effectively dead for several years. Unless the money is a big factor, I don't find anything at all wrong with that; and even if it is, one would presume that his wife would have wanted him to be secure if he had to be alone.

She's got some autonomic nervous responses left and is "existing" without support. She has little to no cognitive ability, can't communicate effectively and can't survive without extensive assistance that she will never be able to acknowledge. In short, she can't move, she can't think, but she can breathe and make noises. Many rationalists and religious conservatives meet that definition too.

@ HB: RuneQuester is right on, IMO. Maybe not quite as cynical as that, but the heart of it is right.

[ March 22, 2005, 05:13: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

I'm stunned that this poor person has become a political football. In many ways, this is a bigger issue than the dilemma over her rights (not wanting to demean the value of a person's life, but you know what I mean).

 

Sorry Chevalier but I have to call you out on this one. I am not familiar with how this is done in foreign countries, but I can't imagine it being very different from here (the US) either. Feeding through this sort of apparatus is termed parenteral nutrition, and it isn't simply grinding up a steak and potatoes in a blender and hanging that in an IV bag. It is quite complex and requires someone with advanced training to prepare and administer (usually a pharmacist ). It is medical care being given by a professional.

However, I do also agree with you in that this unfortunate woman should not have her feeding tube removed. She is a living (even if it is in the most basic sense of the word in that she can breathe without assistance) human being whether or not she responds to stimuli or family members. She represents the lowest common denominator of humanity because she has had her individuality and opinions stripped away from her by her condition, which leaves only the physical shell of what she once was. Starvation/dehydration is a method of killing that is regarded as cruel and unusual and is not allowable for use on anyone or anything, even criminals or livestock animals. It would be inappropriate to use here as well regardless of whether or not she would "feel" it.

 

@Hack

The handicapped, like my brother for instance, did not chose to be the way they are, and they have done nothing wrong or in my opinion immoral and hypocritical, those a$$holes did, and are, therefore they would not be a part of my "gassing", although in my opinion, gassing's letting them off easily. This world would be a much better place if all those intolerant muckers were executed. *That probably includes myself* . Now back to the topic at hand.

What right do total strangers have in the decision of an individual to end their own life? I and I assume most or all of the people posting here are merely expressing our opinions, not lobbying the government to pass laws concerning things that's nobody's damn business but the family involved, or picketting outside the hospital, or harassing the family. The government should legalize euthanasia and people should express in writing whether they want DNR's or not. Those that do not should be left alone, but it should be the families responsibility, or preferably that of their insurance provider, to pay to keep a person alive. They should not be allowed to keep a person on a machine if that person doesn't want to be kept alive. Physician assissted suicide is legal in Oregon, it should be legal nation wide. I know PAS is different from euthanasia, I think both should be legalized. These politicians should be impeached for what they are doing to this poor woman.

Let individual's decide for themselves if they want to stay on life support. The most the government should be involved in this process is to pass laws legalizing euthanasia and PAS.

 

That's not a good idea. Some legislative areas need to consist of black and whites. If you're introducing grey areas (euthanasia) to issues like life or death you're opening the door for abuse - however well meant your intentions have been in the first place.

Whereas I feel that individuals are free to decide whether they want to live or die, the state is in no position to say "go ahead, kill yourself, it's all the same to me." The state is more than just the sum of its subjects.

I don't really see the issue with Terri, though. If she's brain dead - well, then it is completely insubstential whether she lives or dies. She's dead inside. Being nourished means nothing to her. Being switched off means nothing to her. If, however, she has a glimpse of what is going on around her - however unlikely that may be -, then switching her off would indeed be homicide.

In one case our decision has no impact on her whatsoever, in the other case it is an issue of life and death. The decision seems to be clear to me then: let her live.

The one and only point speaking against her prolonged life seems to be money. Keeping her in the comatose state is costly. Should that be an issue? How unethical.

If this would happen in Germany, it would only be the tiniest bit of all the billions we spend on our health system. What is the fuzz about?

All the other issues (dignity, Terri's notional wish, the feelings of relatives) are just that: the feelings of other persons who are not Terri. Hence they should see how they cope with themselves without involving Terri. What does dignity mean to Terri right now? And why do people feel that she has no dignity in her current state?

Because of the following: we are projecting our full life with all the activities and possibilities onto Terri's state - and find a gap between what we feel a life should be all about and what Terri is capable of doing.

One solution to the problem would indeed be to switch her off "to maintain her dignity". The other way would be to rethink the approach we have towards the concept of dignity and what human life is all about.

 

Newsflash - Michael Schiavo IS Terri's family. In this country, when someone can no longer make their own decisions that power goes first to the spouse, then any adult children, and only then is the jump backwards to parents and siblings made. Perhaps this is based on Genesis 2:24, a Biblical passage that the right-wingers are conveniently forgetting.

I haven't followed the case rigorously - how certain are the Schindlers the Terri wouldn't want to have the tube removed "in accordance with ther Roman Catholic beliefs"? I was raised RC but I never bought into the vast majority of the Church's social stances (which is why I left, but that's another post). Can the Schindlers say FOR CERTAIN that Terri wasn't one of those thousands of Catholics who go to church every Sunday but have a box of condoms in the bedside table, for example? A lot could have happened in the time between her departure from her parents' home and the accident that left her in her current state. I know that my parents and sister are unaware of quite a lot of things that have shaped my personal beliefs.

So who's projecting on who, and which agenda should be sanctioned? The Schindlers are no less guilty of this than they accuse Michael Schiavo of being.

Here's the other side of the issue, and the one that really toasts my bread. How DARE the Republican party, the so-called conservatives who are SUPPOSED to be in favor of smaller government and less interference in peoples' lives, get involved in this?! Oh that's right, Bill Frist, that House Majority Leader, said that the right to life trumps everything. What's that supposed to mean - the Republicans will support my right of personal autonomy as long as I live in accordance with their established values, and they'll take legislative action if I don't? Talk about stepping out onto a slippery slope.

Maybe Darkwolf and I will get lucky, and this case will create the schism that the Republican party so desperately needs. It would be great if the religious right went off on their merry way and left the rest of the party behind to represent true Republican values - fiscal conservatism, small government, and SOCIAL NEUTRALITY.

Sorry for the AoLS rant. If you haven't guessed by this point, I support Michael Schiavo - let this circus end. Starvation is a horrible way to die, but being a cabbage is a horrible way for a person to live.

p.s. - As I was writing this, Judge Whittenmore ruled that the tube should not be reinserted. On to Atlanta.

 

This bill signed into law in Texas in 1999 by Bush while he was governor there, which has been making the rounds of the internet, seems to demonstrate the duplicity of the Republicans on this issue:

Note that the attending physician here is given the ultimate power to decide whether or not this (incredibly expensive) treatment is viable. In the Schiavo case, a series of lawsuits have established: 1) that not only the attending physician, but also a consensus in the medical community as shown in these lawsuits, believe that treatment isn't viable in this case; 2) that Schiavo's husband is indeed her guardian; and 3) that Schiavo has had not just 10 days, but 15 years of government support to maintain her in her persistant, hopeless vegitative state.

If you add in the astronomical costs born by the public to support a series of extended public trials culminating in essentially renting out the entire US Congress for several days, keeping Schiavo on life support has to be running into the hundreds of millions of dollars by now. If these kinds of protections were afforded to every person who fell into a vegitative state, the healthcare system would be bankrupt in no time. People might object to the cruel logic of saying that public healthcare is limited, and that choices need to be made how to spend public funds. (Of course, private healthcare and insurance does this calculus very well, tho you don't hear about it as often). But it seems utterly absurd that Schiavo's parents believe that the vast costs of their unrealistic hopes should should be borne by the healthcare system, at a time when many US citizens aren't recieving even basic healthcare.

Note that the Bush bill essentially says if the doctors think there's no hope, and you can't afford to fund the life support yourself, you are SOL. In fact, I'm sure that insurance lobbyists had alot to do with this bill, as they didn't want to have to bear the costs of keeping people on life support. Where was the vaunted conservative compassion for life then? Didn't they know that life is miraculous, that sometimes people come out of comas (and vegetative states, lol) all the time? Why only ten days? Why wasn't Bush a murderer then, for sponsoring and signing into law this bill? This Schiavo thing is nothing but a show trial, and I hope the Republicans get what they deserve for encouraging it.