Terri Schiavo

Remove all ads!

I've read through this entire thread and made only one comment on living wills. I feel I need to mention something that BOTH sides have not realised:

What about the other people in the hospice? What about the family of those other people who could not get in to see their loved ones because of the protesters?

Terri Schiavo was not the only patient there dying. And yes, hospice is for dying in peace and dignity. But these protesters disrupted the peace and dignity of the hospice setting. Their attempts at entering the hospice prevented others from seeing their loved ones.

And, a school near the hospice had to be closed because of the protesters. Is that fair to the children and the teachers?

Is it fair to the people who lived near this place to be unable to get in and out of their homes? Is it fair to these people to be unable to get police help because the police are tied up dealing with these protesters? Is it fair to these people to have to worry if fire truckers and ambulances can get through the protesters?

Also, is it right for PARENTS to encourage their children to try to break into the hospice and allow their children to be arrested?

Whether or not I support either side, I feel that these protesters over stepped their boundries and what is considered proper in a protest. Their right to assemble and free speech and to protest should end when it interfers with the live and livilihood of innocents not involved in this mess.

This sad case also shows that there needs to be serious reform in protests.

 

Judge Greer is a Repulbican and a conservative. In fact, in one court, I wish I could remember which, it was the "Clinton judge" who voted against Michael and for Terri's parents.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7347210/

 

Nice, Kelvon. Half-dead, so we should finish her off, is that what you're saying? Other people claimed she was totally dead.

 

Maybe not as straight forward as he put it, though, I think what dmc said originally is right. What good is it going to do keeping the poor thing alive?

 

Gosh, I just saw a scan of her brain. I have never seen anything like it (and I see a lot of terrible cases at work). The entire cerebral cortex is just... empty. CSF fluid occupies the hollowed space. She has a brainstem and the midbrain, and that's about it. How on earth did it get to this state?!?

 

Right now, Michael's newest idea is to keep the burial location secret from the family.

 

Could be a good idea to prevent her being abused as a symbol for one cause or other. If I was him, I'd probably cremate her and spread her ashes over the seven seas - or something like that. Melodramatical.

Her parents can erect some private monument in Terri's honor if they feel like it. Where's the difference to where her bones actually rest? Soul is gone anyway.

 

Very good point, Bion.

Just one more thing, DHB and NS: She WAS on life-support. Why else would she have died two weeks after her feeding apparatus was removed. And can you just imagine what a brain that's been inactive for the last 15 years be capable of? Let me tell you: nothing!

 

How long would you live if someone locked you in a room without food?

 

Terri Schiavo was not on life support. She had sufficient brain function to keep her body alive but was unable to eat. She had a feeding tube instered. By removing the feeding tube the body was deprived of food and water. She was starved to death. her body already in a weakened conditioned would not last as long as a normally healthy person's.

 

About Judge Greer - He is a Southern Baptist but he may not be a church-goer right now... he got kicked out of his church. Excuse me, he was "invited to leave."

About feeding tubes.

@ Aldeth - Christopher Reeves was on a feeding tube. Other paralyzed folks are too. Lots of other folks are on feeding tubes as well (oral cancers etc.)

I'm not sure that folks are really aware of what a feeding tube entails though. It isn't just like screwing a garden hose in, turning on a spicket, and coming back in an hour to turn off the spicket. It requires an endoscopy, the tube pulls away from the wall, there is an exact degree angle the patient should be adjusted to for feeding to be succesful. There is extensive and careful cleaning of the tube and the stomach that must be done. Dieticians must come in and monitor the patient regularly and adjust the formula. It isn't uncommon for the tube to start pulling away from the stomach which creates a danger off leakage which could be deadly. There....

Basically, a feeding tube requires a surgeon to put in, dietitians to formulate the feeding formula and to monitor the progress, certified nurses to monitor and clean the tube. In short, a team of medical personnel are required to put in and take care of the tube for the time a feeding tube is in place.

So, clearly a feeding tube is legally speaking medical care. That's just a matter of looking at the statutes, linked above.

Because a surgeon is required to emplace the tube and numerous other medical personnel are required to constantly care for the tube (note I said the tube, and not the patient) I think the decision to consider it medical care by Florida makes sense.

A spoon doesn't require a team of medical experts to make it work.

 

I just heard something that scares me on the radio this morning. The local conservative right wing-nut radio host (and if I am calling him this, you know he has to be bad!!) was interviewing an Oklahoma Congressman named John Sullivan. Besides the fact that the wing-nut kept calling him Sulli (talk about disrespectful ) it seems that our esteemed Congressman is wishes to assure us that he is sure that legislation will be forthcoming to "address issues like this". They were discussing the fact that while the Terri's parents had raised her an known her almost all her life, she had only been married to her husband for a little more than 3 years, so what gives him the right to determine her fate?

Given the load of fecal matter that was previously pushed through by Congress and the President to "alleviate" this situation, I can only imagine with great fear and dread what they will come up with next.

For the record, when you get married, you are de facto legally placing the rest of your family in a position of being second to your spouse (and I believe this should apply not only to legally, but in all other aspects as well). This is something that anyone considering marriage should consider, and acknowledge to themselves, their spouse and their family. If you don't have enough faith in the person you are to marry to place your life in their hands, you shouldn't get married!! If the US legislature is successful in pulling something like this off it will be further proof of their total disregard for the founding fathers and their intent of what the Federal Government was intended to be. I have little faith left in the judiciary, but if this idea becomes law, I sure hope that the Supreme Court takes the first opportunity to declare it unconstitutional.

Oh, and if you live in the US, go fill out a living will. For most states you can get the form free online, make many, many copies of it, and leave it lying around everywhere.

 

Three cheers for Darkwolf!

This is one of the very few issues in which he and I are in complete agreement. The government should keeps its hands off of this. I liked the Republican party of 20 years ago when they were much more hands-off than they are now.

 

chevalier,

Ever considered it's better that way?

Considering that her parents are half crazed now, and how much crazier the right-wing nuts in the US are, it is entirely possible that she might be dug out and her body parts sold as relics to the christian right.

Not to mention the unavoidable Schiavo cult instated at her grave by militant crackpots, probably making it impossible for her husband to visit the grave without a police escort.

 

@Darkwolf- Heh, perhaps these guys don't see the bible is the exact word of God and adjudicator of all things afterall:

Perhaps they'd like to insert a new verse, say Mark 10:7.2:

 

Aldeth


Ragusa,

I am hoping that was supposed to be tongue in cheek. I have serious doubts that such a thing would happen.

That is too true.

Bion,

Good point. I really didn't even think of the hypocrisy there.

 

Darkwolf,
actually, it was tongue in cheek

But then, that wouln't be much less ghoulish than what the Tom deLay's and George W. and Jeb Bush's are doing atm.

For them, Ms. Schiavo is merely object of this debate, not the subject. Wether she lives or dies is irrelevant. She is interchangeable.

I'm actually relieved that Bush took a beating in the polls over how he and his GOP goons tried to exploit Ms. Schiavo's situation.

You're aware that you and I agree that this travesty about Ms. Schiavo is sickening?

 

Be careful how much Bible you drag into this Bion...it can be dangerous in untrained hands .

If you dig a little deeper into that ponderous text, you'll find that Michael is an admitted Adulterer...and depending on which Covenant you ascribe to...could be taken to the edge of town and stoned.

I think we should all just leave the Shindlers, the Schiavos and this thread in peace. Pull the feeding tube on the thread and kill it too.

 

Couldn't agree more, HS...

Sadly, though, I have a pretty strong feeling that the American public hasn't heard the last of Terry Schiavo...

 

Hack,

I disagree. I think that there is still a lesson to be learned here. This issue is not settled, and won't be for some time. There is no disrespect to Terri by continuing this discussion. Quite to the contrary, I think that the majority of people would believe Terri would want us to continue to discuss this, and not forget about it or her. To just let it go diminishes the meaning of her death.

I do agree that the bashing of the individual players in this drama should stop. At this point it doesn't matter if Michael is Satan himself, or if W is trying to create a theocracy. The law was followed, and that is as it should be. I believe that it is more appropriate to debate now that she has passed. Changing laws to suit individual cases is wrong. However, the use of individual cases in the debate of changing laws for posterity is absolutely valid.

Edit:

Hack, I assume that you are speaking as a participant in this debate and not as a Mod. I assume you have the power to lock threads, and would have done so if you deemed it appropriate under the rules. I do not wish to be seen as debating the decisions of those who are here to enforce the rules, as it is disrespectful and also against those same rules. My apologies if I am wrong.