News Plight of Terri Schiavo: Facts, Emotions, and Outcomes

[russ_watters]

Kat you present an interesting opinion on this story. My question is, why wasn't there any more investigations of abuse?

Quite frankly, I don't believe a word of that story. That site is just chock full of spin and lies. That they continue to make claims about her condition that directly contradict the opinion of the doctors tells me they can't be trusted.

 

[kat]

Bill S.686 is adopted

 

[Moonbear]

Did the House vote yet? I heard they were going to do that late tonight and Bush was flying into be available to sign it immediately. How sad to turn this poor woman's life into a tug-of-war match by politicians who want to grandstand. Let her die with a little dignity.

 

[russ_watters]

Did the House vote yet? I heard they were going to do that late tonight and Bush was flying into be available to sign it immediately. How sad to turn this poor woman's life into a tug-of-war match by politicians who want to grandstand. Let her die with a little dignity.

It's created what could become a pretty severe Constitutional issue, too:

The bill passed and Bush signed it early this morning. But the bill does not call for the re-insertion of the feeding tube (it really can't, since that would kinda be directly contradicting a court order), but rather calls for a federal district court to hear the case. But since when does Congress have the power to demand judicial review? And the USSC has already declined to hear the case. It'll be interesting to see what the court does... my guess is they will simply decline to hear it since the USSC already declined to hear it.

Its also ironic that this is a Florida case: Bush signed a bill that usurps power from his brother's state! (after Jeb tried to usurp the power of the legislature and courts)

Legal issues here: http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/index.html

 

[Dayle Record]

Many studies have been undertaken to determine the best care for terminally ill patients. It was discovered that in the last few days before death, patients refuse food, and that is a part of the process of a pleasant death, as it turns out. The patients fare much better going into death if they do not eat, and experience a pleasant euphoria that is increasingly a solution to the pain that may be present in the advanced disease state. Patients are no longer force fed in the last stages of life, it is the most humane treatment. This is practiced in many hospitals that care for the terminally ill.

There would be no horrible pain for her, as she lapses into that euphoria. Maybe there would be some emotional pain, as she realizes on some level, that this life is being ended. What if her vital energies have long ago migrated, from the bed-ridden shell, and she is rejoicing at the severance of her connection to it? Oh, never mind, politicians have taken to this matter, I am sure they will absolutely do what is best.

 

[gravenewworld]

Oh please there is no money to be made over Terri, it is just propaganda thrown out there by the parents who are desperate and will try anything. The husband was already offered 1 and 10 million dollars to just walk away but refused both times clearly saying it wasn't about the money. He was awarded 700,000 for her care and 300,000 for the loss of his wife. After 15 years only about 50,000 remains. In 1993 Judge Greer even found that the Shindler's financial motives were just as conflicting as Michael Schiavo's.

The abuse allegation are also simply more propaganda, the judge in charge of the trial threw out the abuse argument because it was irrelevant--there simply was no evidence to suggest that Terri was in an abusive relationship.


The parents have from the very start play the old fashioned character assassination game against Michael Schiavo in a desperate attempt to get their way.

 

[adrenaline]

The Republican party(you know the states rights people) once again are challenging not only the individual rights of the people involved, but also the Florida courts jurisdiction. This is not a federal concern they need to be doing more important things now. Court after court has sided with Terry's husband in this mater, but since they do not like what the state has done they are trying to move it into Federal jurisdiction. They are the ones pulling at the heart string and pandering for votes. I have to wonder what the Republican leadership would be doing if this had been a Democrat cause.

 

[adrenaline]

Many studies have been undertaken to determine the best care for terminally ill patients. It was discovered that in the last few days before death, patients refuse food, and that is a part of the process of a pleasant death, as it turns out. The patients fare much better going into death if they do not eat, and experience a pleasant euphoria that is increasingly a solution to the pain that may be present in the advanced disease state. Patients are no longer force fed in the last stages of life, it is the most humane treatment. This is practiced in many hospitals that care for the terminally ill.

There would be no horrible pain for her, as she lapses into that euphoria. Maybe there would be some emotional pain, as she realizes on some level, that this life is being ended. What if her vital energies have long ago migrated, from the bed-ridden shell, and she is rejoicing at the severance of her connection to it? Oh, never mind, politicians have taken to this matter, I am sure they will absolutely do what is best.

Yes, the corresponding ketosis that ensues provides a natural anesthetic and may even provide euphoria. I believe some of this data derives from physicians studying political activists who have voluntarily starved to death (and therefore are not in a vegetative state such as Terry).

 

[GENIERE]

...The Republican party(you know the states rights people) once again are challenging not only the individual rights of the people involved, but also the Florida courts jurisdiction. This is not a federal concern they need to be doing more important things now. Court after court has sided with Terry's husband in this mater, but since they do not like what the state has done they are trying to move it into Federal jurisdiction. They are the ones pulling at the heart string and pandering for votes. I have to wonder what the Republican leadership would be doing if this had been a Democrat cause.

Duh! The US Constitution, a federal document, guarantees the rights of the individual, not the states. The President is required to uphold those rights. The courts merely interpret constitutionality of the law. Congress may pass any law it wishes as long as it can pass constitutional muster. This particular matter has already been heard in federal courts many times; your argument is nonsense.

Apparently a very large majority of both houses voted in favor of passage, why do you see it as a Rebuplican issue?

 

[Moonbear]

Duh! The US Constitution, a federal document, guarantees the rights of the individual, not the states.

Where do you get this from? The US Constitution does protect individual rights, but also states that anything it has not explicitly included as a responsibility of the federal government is a matter for states to decide. This particular bill undermines the court system. My understanding is it was worded specifically to apply to Terri Schiavo, and is not written to be generalized to other cases. Since when is it Congress' responsibility to pass legislation for ONE person to force a case back into a court when the court has already rejected the case? They are claiming it is to give her one more chance...how many "one more" chances does she need after 15 years in this condition?

 

[quantumdude]

I have a question:

Have Terri's parents ever attempted to press charges for adultery? If not, why not? It seems to me that they could use that as leverage, instead of tying up the Federal government.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Duh! The US Constitution, a federal document, guarantees the rights of the individual, not the states. The President is required to uphold those rights

Doh! "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Amendment X to the Constitution.

Rights enumerated in the Constitution

Freedom of religion.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of the press.
Right to peaceable assembly.
Right to petition government for redress of grievances. (All above in Amendment I)
Right to keep and bear arms (Amendment II)
Right to be free of unreasonable quartering of soldiers. (Amendment III)
To be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures (Amendment IV)
Right to a Grand Jury in criminal cases.
Right not to be tried twice for the same charge.
Right not to testify against yourself.
Right not to have property, life or liberty taken without due process. (These 4, Amendment V)
Right to speedy and public trial.
Trial by jury.
Right to confront witnesses.
Right to compulsory process for obtaining defense witnesses.
Right to counsel (These 5, Amendment VI)
Right to trial in suits for over $20, and freedom from aribitrary settlement. (Amendment VII)
Freedom from excessive bail or fines.
Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments. (These 2, Amendment VIII)
Rights declared in constitution do not deny or disparage others held by the people (Amendment IX).
Freedom from slavery (Amendment XIII)
Citizenship automatic with birth in the US.
States may not abridge rights of citizens.
States may not deprive citizens of life, liberty or property without due process.
States may not deny equal protection of laws.
If States deny any males right to vote, they shall not be counted for determining representatives in Congress. (These 4, Amendment XIV)
Right to vote not to be denied or abridged by any State or the US because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. (amendment XV)
Right to vote shall not be denied or abrdged because of sex. (AMendment XIX)
Right to vote in federal elections not to be denied for non-payment of poll tax (Amendment XXIV)
Right to vote at 18. (Amendment XXVI)

Now just which rights of these have been denied to Terry Schiavo? Which rights are the subject of the proposed act?

 

[adrenaline]

Duh! The US Constitution, a federal document, guarantees the rights of the individual, not the states. The President is required to uphold those rights

Well, if you want to look at it that way:
Judge Greer held a full trial in this case to determine how Terri would choose to exercise her privacy rights. Michael was on one side; Terri's parents were on the other. Both sides brought witnesses and experts. In the end, the judge ruled that Terri would not wish to continue receiving nurishment and hydration through a surgically implanted tube. But I think Selfadjoint and Moonbear's remarks speak for themselve.

It's interesting that this was voted along party lines, Republicans for Terry Schiavo's parents and Democrats for Terry's husband. She (Terry) is already on Medicare and Medicaid, thus, taxpayers are already paying for her care and there have been major cuts in medicaid and medicare during this administration. Ironic.

 

[misskitty]

No offense intended here..but I find it kind of funny that you say that outside opinion has no bearing here...and then you turn around and give your personal opinon that she should just die..(not to meniton in a rather painful long drawn out manner).
Not only that,. but if it was Terri's wish to just die..according to her husband..why did he pursue and win a law suit based on her medical care for the span of her lifetime in this state..and then afterwards (not sure if it's before or after the new "wife" came along) but after being awarded a large settlement for her care..he suddenly remembers that she wanted to die all along? hello?..
when you take into consideration the money...and the new commonlaw wife and kids...can we say conflict of interest? I can't imagine how the court would allow this guy to be calling the shots here. If someone had her best interest in mind..there'd be bigamy charges, or at the very least adultry charges and divorce and her rights turned over to the state,not to a husband who's best interests are served without her hanging around sucking up all of the money awarded. I'm also curious if there is a life insurance policy that kicks in $$ when she dies?

Good questions. I'm not sure there is a life insurence policy that he gets after she dies. The fact he's rejected two offers of money to let this be might say something about him and how he feels about the money involved.

As far as my opinion goes, worldwide opinion doesn't matter, no more than mine does here in New England. The only opinions that matter are those of the people involved. However, that isn't going to stop me from expressing my thoughts about the situation. I certainly wouldn't want to be kept alive that way. I'm also not the only person here that is expressing the opinion that she should be allowed to die.

I don't think its so much as a conflict of interest as it is him trying to move on with his life.

 

[adrenaline]

In addition, Michael Shiavo gave up his decision making right to discontinue life sustaining measures.
In May, 1998, Michael filed a petition, asking the court to appoint a Guaradian Ad Litem, and to determine whether or not Terri would want the tube to be removed.
It turns out that Terri told five different people -- including her mother, by the way -- that in the case of brain death she would not want her body kept alive. (accordng to the legal breifs)
Read the decision:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

And as sad as it may be for her parents, the law is very clear on the matter, as far as who has the responsibility of making these decisions in the absence of a living will.

 

[misskitty]

Tom, I'm not sure you can press charges for adultery. Piligamy yes, but I'm not sure about adultery. What would that fall under?

 

[quantumdude]

Tom, I'm not sure you can press charges for adultery. Piligamy yes, but I'm not sure about adultery. What would that fall under?

It's a misdemeanor, punishable by at most $500 and/or 6 months in jail, but it is a crime nonetheless.

http://www.sodomy.org/laws/florida/cohabitation.html

 

[GENIERE]

Doh! "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Amendment X to the Constitution.

Rights enumerated in the Constitution

Freedom of religion.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of the press...

Now just which rights of these have been denied to Terry Schiavo? Which rights are the subject of the proposed act?

Denying life certainly deprives the individual of their rights.

 

[misskitty]

Ok, I was wrong. I didn't know that it was a misdemeanor. They may not press charges for adultery because they don't want to deal with another lawsuit.

 

[quantumdude]

They may not press charges for adultery because they don't want to deal with another lawsuit.

It wouldn't be a lawsuit (those are only for civil cases). It would be a criminal trial that the DA would prosecute. It would be an open and shut case at that. He would either have to divorce his wife or face possible jail time.

 

[GENIERE]

…
And as sad as it may be for her parents, the law is very clear on the matter, as far as who has the responsibility of making these decisions in the absence of a living will.

You likely presume I am not in favor of pulling the plug. With the minimal knowledge I posses of the medical facts, it seems pulling the plug is the correct decision. Normally the husband wishes are the determining factor.

The new law specifically refers to this case and this case only, as it should. If it were not specific to this case I would not favor it. In this specific case the husband may not, note I state “may not”, be acting in the best interests of his wife. I think that even the Catholic Church would agree to an annulment given the husbands plight. His lack of attempting to sue for divorce is suspicious in my mind. The large insurance premium paid after her death may be a motivating factor. Lacy Peters should serve as a reminder that a spouse may not always act in their mates beat interest.

Medically speaking I think she has been denied a PET scan, the best means (TMK) of detecting the origin of brain activity. If no cerebral activity exists, then her body should be allowed to die.

 

[gravenewworld]

Why would the parents press charges for adultery when they were the ones who specifically told him to move on and find someone else?

 

[russ_watters]

Denying life certainly deprives the individual of their rights.

How does "right to life" imply "right to artificial life support"? If it were, we'd all have free healthcare already.

 

[kat]

Geniere, russ..just a small point..there's no "plug" to pull. She's not on a life support system. She has been living because she's been eating through a feeding tube. She is able to swallow, but not to swallow well enough to eat enough to sustain herself. Her husband and/or through judge greer denied her being given therapy that would help her to swallow well enough to not need the feeding tube.

 

[zefram_c]

I've been following this case for the last while. I am not going to weigh in on the issue of what should or should not be done with Terri, but doesn't anyone see the larger implications of this? Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that Congress made an act that was targetted to deliberately override the authority and jurisdiction of the state of Florida? It did not even make it into a general law or a precedent, no, it deals with this ONE issue alone. I'm not going to speculate as to the motives of Congress since it is not my place (as a non-US citizen), but if I were one, I'd be very wary of what precedent this DOES set. It is an extension of Jeb Bush's interference, and a dangerous one.

Edit: I forgot to add that democracy is best served by making good, fair, universally applicable laws. Making a one-person law goes against all of that; it denies equality under the law and opens a big can of worms.

 

[GENIERE]

QUOTE=russ_watters]How does "right to life" imply "right to artificial life support"? If it were, we'd all have free healthcare already.[/QUOTE]

Not up to your usual high standards. Even if one accepts the first statement as correct, it does not lead to the latter.

Many posters have indicated that the "Terri law" is unconstitutional and is without precedent; that the federal government has never before acted on behalf of an individual to protect his rights; that the federal government has not repeatedly infringed on the rights of states. President Clinton during his last days in office saw fit to issue many edicts. One of these edicts was the establishment of 21 national monuments that removed 10's of millions of acres of land from the affected states. Perhaps the land grab had merit, perhaps not but there was no liberal outcry. JFK sent federal troops to Alabama to protect the rights of a black individual to enjoy the same quality of education as a white student. There was no liberal outcry. It is in fact necessary for the federal government to intervene in matters affecting the rights of the individual when a state is not capable of doing so or refuses to do so. It is required by the constitution. It may be that Florida has already acted in the best interests of Terri. In my opinion, I am allowed my opinion; there exist suspicious activities by the husband sufficient to warrant some investigation.

The only state to

Oopps! Gotta go- unbelievably there seems to be a Star Trek episode on that I’ve never seen!

 

[misskitty]

A judge just ruled that he will not allow the parents to reinsert Terri's feeding tube. He said the parents failed to present a strong enough case for the reinsertion of the tube. He also said their case was built more on an emotional plea versus an actual medical account and evidence.

Her brother spoke on Good Morning America just a few minutes ago. When he was asked about his feelings on the situation, he said "Oh only if she could be rehabilitated, if only we could rehabilitate her."

 

[misskitty]

Geniere, do you remember where you were going with the last sentence of your post? If you could, do you think you could finish it? I'd like to know where you were going with that.

 

[misskitty]

The parents just annonunced to the media that they are going to immediately appeal the judge's decision to a higher court.

 

[misskitty]

Is it really going to take her a few weeks to die? If it does, would it be from starvation or dehydration?

 

[russ_watters]

How does "right to life" imply "right to artificial life support"? If it were, we'd all have free healthcare already.

Not up to your usual high standards.

Ehh, it may have been short, but that doesn't make it wrong...

Even if one accepts the first statement as correct, it does not lead to the latter.

It really does: if you get in a car accident and don't have insurance, the hospital will take immediate emergency measures to save your life, but once they stabilize you, you're on your own. If you need a heart transplant, unless you can find someone to sponsor you, you're finished. You don't have the right to a heart transplant even if its your only chance to live.

Many posters have indicated that the "Terri law" is unconstitutional and is without precedent...

Well, many posters - and every court that has ruled in the case... Like I said, Florida and Jeb Bush tried exactly the same thing that Bush and Congres tried. It was struck down as unConstitutional.

JFK sent federal troops to Alabama to protect the rights of a black individual to enjoy the same quality of education as a white student. There was no liberal outcry. It is in fact necessary for the federal government to intervene in matters affecting the rights of the individual when a state is not capable of doing so or refuses to do so. It is required by the constitution.

That's fine and its absolutely true, but it has no bearing on this case because there isn't an issue of Terri's rights being violated. On the contrary - its her husband's rights that have been violated. The courts have ruled unanamously (afaik).

Right to life is not an issue here - it wasn't claimed in the suit filed yesterday (1st amendment religious free exercise and 14th amendment due process was it) and wasn't in the bill passed on Sunday. The similar order passed by Jeb was ruled unConstitutional for three separate reasons:

-It violates separation of powers. (on appeal, this was the only reason given)
-It violates right to privacy.
-It is an unConstitutional retroactive order.

All of this comes from the "findlaw" link I posted yesterday.

The only state to

Oopps! Gotta go- unbelievably there seems to be a Star Trek episode on that I’ve never seen!

I understand completely.

 

[SOS2008]

Judge denies request to reinsert feeding tube
Terri Schiavo's parents to appeal to 11th Circuit Court
The Associated Press
Updated: 9:50 a.m. ET March 22, 2005

TAMPA, Fla. - A federal judge on Tuesday refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube… Whittemore’s decision comes after feverish action by President Bush and Congress on legislation allowing the brain-damaged woman’s contentious case to be reviewed by federal courts. …But George Felos, an attorney for Michael Schiavo, argued that keeping the woman alive also violated her rights and noted that the case has been aired thoroughly in state courts.“ …Yes, life is sacred,” Felos said, contending that restarting artificial feedings would be against Schiavo’s wishes. “So is liberty, particularly in this country.”

One can argue individual rights and liberty, whether right-to-life versus right-to-choose, and I will always be astounded that people work so hard to impose their personal belief against other people’s freedoms. But that the President himself, along with Congress intervened in an “extraordinary weekend effort by congressional Republicans to push through unprecedented emergency legislation early Monday aimed at keeping her alive” is appalling beyond my comprehension. This man has never understood the role of presidency and leader of the free world. I can’t wait for his last term to be ended.

In the meantime, I applaud this federal judge--the very check and balance Bush and Republicans would like to be rid of in their effort to change the historical senate rule allowing filibuster opposition. These people (Bush, Frist, etc.) are determined to remove any right, representation, or iota of democracy so they can turn this country into Jesusland.

 

[adrenaline]

Is it really going to take her a few weeks to die? If it does, would it be from starvation or dehydration?

Dehydration kills faster. It'll be a good thing she is also starving since the ensueing ketosis is anesthetic and somewhat euphoric. The doctors are not heartless and will most likely give around the clock morphine for "comfort measures", but it will comfort them (the doctors) more than the patient since her natural ketosis is already on board.

As for PET scans, there are not enough studies to show its utilization yet in PVS or persistent vegetative states.

It's greatest utility is in the field of oncology since it is a powerful tool in the diagnosis, staging, and evaluation of recurrent cancers, because of the avid affinity of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) to malignancies exhibiting increased metabolic activity.

The best application for PET today, in terms of neurological diseases lies in its ability to evaluate dementias, including Alzheimer's disease, and to differentiate Alzheimer's disease from multi-infarct dementias and other forms of dementia. However, in evaluating or prognosticating vegetative states, there is a dearth of information and not enough research except smalll selected studies where study participants number 5 or a little more.

 

[GENIERE]

Ehh, it may have been short, but that doesn't make it wrong... It really does...QUOTE]

Much better!

 

[GENIERE]

Geniere, do you remember where you were going with the last sentence of your post? If you could, do you think you could finish it? I'd like to know where you were going with that.

Me remember! You ask too much, according to my kids (now adults) I’m in the early stages of Alzheimer’s.


..

 

[stoned]

Could not they communicate with her in some way ? I'm sure she wants to die.
I would.

 

[misskitty]

From the information I have, there isn't any way to be able to communicate with her. Its rather unfortunate, then she could tell her family what she really wants. Or if she had enough brain function to use the retinal typing computer system like Stephen Hawking uses to type with his eyes. Besides the point.

From what the neurologists have concluded is that she little brain function. They have also concluded that there is no way of rehabilitate her because there is a part of her brain stem that is so badly damaged that there is no way to fix it.

I could be wrong. Thats all the information I know of. Its all you get from watching the news.

 

[stoned]

So what they waiting for ?..pull the plug for the god sake !

 

[quantumdude]

Why would the parents press charges for adultery when they were the ones who specifically told him to move on and find someone else?

So that they could force a divorce and regain the decision to keep her alive, obviously.

 

[russ_watters]

So what they waiting for ?..pull the plug for the god sake !

They already did. It'll be about another week before she dies.

 

[scarecrow]

Is there an insurance policy on her? Because that might be one of the motives Shiavo's husband doesn't want to give up the rights to her to her parents. I just heard about this case recently though so I don't know much details.

My opinion: Since the husband deserted her, i.e., has a girlfriend and kids -- then the parents should regain custody of her. How can they allow her to die? That just shows how wrong our justice system is.

 

[kyleb]

Well GENIRE claimed:

The large insurance premium paid after her death may be a motivating factor.

But I have no clue where he came up with that info.

Last I heard he turned down considerable sums of money offered for him to back down.

 

[adrenaline]

The Schindlers have been painted as being purehearted and innocent in all this, while Michael Schiavo has been painted as the veriest devil.

The irony is that Terri had anorexia nervosa, and most psycologists feel this disorder stems from bad family dynamics, which is probably what is playing out publically and perpetuating this struggle by her parents .

Many researchers claim that family dynamics are at the root of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa. The role of dysfunctional family interactions in the pathogenesis of anorexia nervosa has been given a prominent place in the research field. Evidence for a specific family constellation in this disorder, however, has been conflicting. While the majority of studies argue for a specific family interaction style, further studies must be conducted to identify distinguishing characteristics of anorexic subtypes and to determine whether these characteristics are of a causal or consequential nature (Minuchin, Rosman & Baker, 1978).

Family focused treatments for anorexia nervosa have been developed based on accounts in family therapy literature of the "typical" anorexic or "psychosomatic" family (Weme & Yalom, 1996). Anorexic families may appear to have a perfect or ideal environment on the surface, but upon close observation little expression of affection or warmth is seen. Members of these families seldom take specific stands on issues, and conflict is avoided at all costs. Underlying dissatisfaction and tension is often present within the parental dyad. It has been suggested that parents of anorexic offspring put high expectations on their children to over-compensate for the lack of love in their own marriage (Blinder, Chaitin & Goldstein, 1988). The anorexic is then capable of using the illness to unite his/her parents.

In a review article on anorexia and family issues, Yager describes how anecdotal reports of child-parent interactions and personality styles of parents show a great deal of variability. The relationships between mothers and daughters are reported by some to be rejecting and by others to be ambivalent or overinvolved. Although these mother-child interactions are contradictory, several general themes are present (Blinder, Chaitin & Goldstein, 1988). Anorexic mothers tend to focus all of their attention on the well-being of their children (Minuchin, Rosman & Baker, 1978). They set high expectations and foster ambitions for external achievement. The mothers of anorexics may be involved socially, they usually lack intimate friends. In many cases, the daughter becomes the mother's confidant. This overinvolvement creates separation difficulty later in life (Blinder, Chaitin & Goldstein, 1988). A great amount of variability exists in father-daughter dyads as well. Some anorexic fathers have been described as kind and affectionate, while others have been described as passive and ineffectual. These fathers are often peripheral to the family (Blinder, Chaitin & Goldstein, 1988). ...etc etc.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psych...gy/famstruc.htm

I am not a psycologist, but most anorexics do have a lot of emotional/ family baggage. in other words, I think a psycologist will say Terri's family response is intricately linked to years of preceding psycological/ family dynamics (probably dysfunctional) and we have little hope of them changing their attitude and behavior.

Physicians see the interplay of family dynamics and dysfunctional behavior battle it out when a family member is sick. More often then not, just from experience, the family members with the closest ties are not afraid to relinquish their hold on the patient and let them die, while estranged children, spouses or parents
want to hold on...perhaps to assuage their guilt over years of neglect or distance?

What's ironic is that even if Terri was not physically brain damaged, her psychiatric diagnosis of Anorexia Nervosa would preclude her from making any decisions regarding feeding (in much the same way a depresssed suicidal patient is no longer mentally competent to decide wether he wants to stop his artificial life support after a suicide attempt.)

She would probably opt for no feeding, no? I just find this whole thing ironic since it stems back to her Anorexia.

 

[russ_watters]

So the not wanting to let go thing, besides causing the conflict with the husband could also be causing the family to irrationally hold out hope for her recovery, which is why they don't want to pull the plug. Interesting - and I didn't know about her anorexia.

 

[gnome]

I have a question:

Have Terri's parents ever attempted to press charges for adultery? If not, why not? It seems to me that they could use that as leverage, instead of tying up the Federal government.

I find it astounding that you would propose using an obsolete law to add even more misery to these people's lives.

Are the adultery laws to be used only against people you disagree with, or are you in favor of incarcerating all of the 10s of millions of offenders?

 

[gnome]

My opinion: Since the husband deserted her, i.e., has a girlfriend and kids -- then the parents should regain custody of her. How can they allow her to die? That just shows how wrong our justice system is.

He has not deserted her. HIs willingness to subject himself and his new family to the strains of this legal melee for all these years, fighting for what he believes is Terri's wish, shows his love and devotion to her. If he wanted to desert her he could have simply dropped the fight years ago & gone on with his life. He probably could even have gotten a divorce under these circumstances.

If this shows anything wrong with our justice system, it's that lawyers can drag something like this out and torture people for 15 years. Her parents have no right to make this decision. And Michael is not making the decision either. Keep in mind that this has been more than thoroughly litigated, and the courts have consistently found that the preponderance of the evidence is that Terri would not want to be artificially kept alive in this manner, and that is the basis for the rulings.

And why should that surprise anyone? Surveys show that about 80% of Americans would not want to be kept alive this way.

 

[quantumdude]

I find it astounding that you would propose using an obsolete law

As opposed to using the US Congress and President?

You bet.

to add even more misery to these people's lives.

That's a bit 1-sided of you. Certainly Michael Schiavo would be miserable if Terri were to be kept alive, but what about the rest of the family?

Are the adultery laws to be used only against people you disagree with, or are you in favor of incarcerating all of the 10s of millions of offenders?

That's not up to me. That's up to law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and citizens who wish to file charges. All I am saying is that it is an avenue by which the Schindlers could have wrenched the say-so over Terri's life out of her husband's hands.

 

[Shadow]

Last I heard he turned down considerable sums of money offered for him to back down.

Of course he didn't. Probably because since this is now a nation wide story, he doesn't want the whole nation to see him for who he is. If he took the money we would all see that he was in it just for the money, and making a great deal of his story up, and that he does not care for his disabled wife. Another reason could be (which several people I have spoken to outside of PF agree with) is that if she gets better, which doctors say is a possibility, she may say that he did something to her.

By the way, does anyone else find it "sketchy" that he won't let any media or her own parents and family into see her? If she is going to die, would you not think that he would at least let her family see her?

 

[Shadow]

He has not deserted her. HIs willingness to subject himself and his new family to the strains of this legal melee for all these years, fighting for what he believes is Terri's wish, shows his love and devotion to her. If he wanted to desert her he could have simply dropped the fight years ago & gone on with his life. He probably could even have gotten a divorce under these circumstances.

If this shows anything wrong with our justice system, it's that lawyers can drag something like this out and torture people for 15 years. Her parents have no right to make this decision. And Michael is not making the decision either. Keep in mind that this has been more than thoroughly litigated, and the courts have consistently found that the preponderance of the evidence is that Terri would not want to be artificially kept alive in this manner, and that is the basis for the rulings.

Hah. Love and devotion? Sorry but you don't cheat on your wife consistantly (he did before this accident happened) and have kids with your girlfriend while still "married" to your wife that's in the hospital. You should visit her, try to make her better.
Her parents absolutely have the right to make this decision. They obviously care more aobut her than her "husband."
Her parents that brought her into this world and cared for her for years, which is a lot more than can be said about her husband.

And why should that surprise anyone? Surveys show that about 80% of Americans would not want to be kept alive this way.

Show me the survey. Last time I checked, the majority supported terri and her parents. That's what they said on ABC and CNN yesterday, not to mention the radio...

 

[Moonbear]

By the way, does anyone else find it "sketchy" that he won't let any media or her own parents and family into see her? If she is going to die, would you not think that he would at least let her family see her?

The family has been into see her. Her parents and brother have stated so in interviews I've seen this week.

The part of what her parents say that holds the least water, in my opinion, is that they say she would not want to starve. Yet, the way she wound up in this condition in the first place was by starving herself; that's what anorexia is, either not eating or eating far too little to sustain yourself.