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

[fifiki]

Funny that she should tell her husband, who by no means appears trust worthy and not her parents, eh? Show me one or two trustworthy link that show that Terri, WITHOUT A DOUBT said those words.

It just goes to show you what bias media reporting can do. None of the parents insubstantiated claims have withstood judicial scrutiny. The guardian appointed by the court have said how well her husband took care of her and there has never been any real merit to the claims of abuse. It would require one heck of a big conspiracy between all medical personnel and even from Terri's parents themselves.

Where is the proof of her husband is untrustworth? And I don't mean pure accusations and claims, real proof. Why shouldn't a wife tell her husband want she wants? A lot of people are closer to their husbands than their parents. Besides she didn't just tell her husband, she told others. It's absurd to ask that we provide actually concrete proof she actually said those words. If she did they wouldn't be in that mess. That's why the courts are there when such difficulties arise.

 

[fifiki]

this is the first setp America is taking to becoming a NAZI like society where we can starve people to death. By the way, starving is by no means painless, and if you don't agree with me, starve yourself and see what happens. I am sad to say where the scum of society: rapists, murderers, and generally bad people cannot be starved to death but innocent, helpless, crippled people can, because judges say so! who gave judges authority over the congress and president of the United States of America? Seperate but EQUAL branches of government, not bow to judges, they rule the land.

No. Not at all. This is about choice. You are actually excluding the relevant portion: she doesn't feel anything. She doesn't have a cerebral cortex. It's not that judges have opted to kill Terri; that was found to be her wish.

So let's just say that you were in a similar state as Terri and living in Texas, but you can't afford the medical costs, you would allow the government to pull your life support? Because according to Texan law, they can, even if your family wanted otherwise. Would you then applaud the authority of congress and the president? Would you then want the Court to step in and determine what it was that you wanted?

I think you need to understand what it is that separation of powers mean. The Courts if they think that the executive or legislative branch is doing something unconstitutional then can declare it void. Because the Constitution is the highest law of the land. And yes, even the President must bow to the decisions of the Courts when it is required.

What you are also missing is that we allow people to die with dignity because that is their choice and we respect that. You might think it's barbaric and inhumane, but to others that is preferably to living in that state for years on end. You cannot equate the situations of murders with that of Terri's because their situations are different. The crucial question is: What did Terri want. If that is what she wanted, then no one should deny that to her. Not Congress, not the President, not even her parents.

 

[Monique]

His point is that there are alternatives besides starvation. Death-row inmates are not starved to death, they get an injection.

 

[fifiki]

His point is that there are alternatives besides starvation. Death-row inmates are not starved to death, they get an injection.

That would be called euthanasia and the US does not allow that. As Dr Jack Kevorkian knows only too well.

 

[Shadow]

You are basing your facts on information obtained from a personal AOL page and the freerepublic and the rest. In case you didn't know, those sites are a little out there from time to time...

Which is why I included sptimes and libertypost...the others were backing it up. Libertypost was first because its more hardcore and sptimes was last because as I stated, it discussed floridas law...

and if you don't trust either of those two, I can only tell you to look yourself.

 

[faust9]

Which is why I included sptimes and libertypost...the others were backing it up. Libertypost was first because its more hardcore and sptimes was last because as I stated, it discussed floridas law...

and if you don't trust either of those two, I can only tell you to look yourself.

Your liberty post link is not a reputible news organization. In fact it is nothing more than an opinion piece(and we all know about opinions).

The SP post is not about this case. Time and again it has been show that M Schiavo did not abuse his wife. Most of the abuse alligations against him after Terri had the heart attack, not before. The only abuse alligation from before was recanted by an ex-girlfriend of M Schiavo.

 

[russ_watters]

In this past week of watching the flurry of appeals, I've begun to wonder, and should have wondered this sooner...how much of an influence is the Schindlers' lawyer playing in this? Is he giving them false hope to bilk them out of every dime he can get from them before she dies?

Oy, don't get me started on lawyers. Though that question has been wriggling around in the back of my head, I've been trying hard to avoid thinking about that. Someone mentioned within the last day or two - if they think Terri is actually talking, why did they wait until now to argue it? Its true desperation - or is it exploitation? Halucination?

If those were her wishes, of course. But they aren't...

Are you saying you know Terri's wishes? If you are, how? If not, then who should be the one to best interpret her wishes? Who was in the best position to know? Who did Terry give this responsibility to? (yes, these questions have a straightforward answer...)

Regarding the allegations against the husband - after seeing the other things that the family is claiming, I have no qualms about saying I think he's the more sane. The family is claiming quite a lot of things that are quite simply wrong/impossible.

 

[Monique]

That would be called euthanasia and the US does not allow that. As Dr Jack Kevorkian knows only too well.

"That would be called euthanaisa"
omg, how is taking someone OFF OF LIFESUPPORT not euthanaisa? You do it with the intent to kill.

Here, dictionary: The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

 

[fifiki]

"That would be called euthanaisa"
omg, how is taking someone OFF OF LIFESUPPORT not euthanaisa? You do it with the intent to kill.

Here, dictionary: The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

As the US considers what euthanasia is, taking off life support is not active euthanasia. As a previous poster have stated, the difference is actively taking someone's life. Rather I should have said that the US allows passive euthanasia. Pulling the plug is letting nature do its work. I have never said that I agree or disagree with the law of it, just stating what is.

 

[Scratch]

Grace wrote

Terri's death is an exercise in eugenic murder just like the Nazi campaign to kill German citizens with physical and mental handicaps that preceded World War II and the Holocaust. Americans with disabilities are watching this case anxiously to see whether their lives are threatened.

Not to get off subject but Grace what are your feelings towards the sanctity of marriage? Although I am assuming here I would believe seeing as this country is pretty divided that you are leaning towards the right.
Which brings me to my point, remember also that Jew could not marry Non-Jews and that homosexuals were systematically exterminated along with disabled people. Hope your able to see what I am getting at.
Now to get back on subject what worries me is that somewhere these two sides are going to meet in the middle and agree on what's right and wrong for our country and that's when the #$&^ will hit the fan. So to speak.

We as a country and as a human race have valued life way to much we are keeping infants who weigh less than 5 ounces alive only to live lives with degenerative problems and we are keeping geriatrics alive longer than what nature has allowed for them forcing them to spend their lifes earnings on medications that probably cause them more pain than gain. So for us on both side of this spectrum need to have judges who will stand up and take a case like this, even with threats to his life by people who want to save Terri's life (Idiots!). I am glad he (the judge) is making a clear descision on where one life will end in hopes that others in the same condition who want to die can do so with dignity and not have a long drawn out case pleaded over people on both sides who are selfish and most times ignorant.

As to this becoming a precedent for people to be euthanized who have and probably will "wake" up from PVS and Coma's. How come I do not hear out cries for inmates on death row who have been wrongly accused? This has gotten way out of hand and I would rather see this come to a close then to have this woman be put back on life support to suffer through another 15 years or more.

 

[Scratch]

His point is that there are alternatives besides starvation. Death-row inmates are not starved to death, they get an injection.

Starvation is a natural way of dying like having no teeth and only beef jerky to eat. We could probably invent a machine to insert and take out a feeding tube but what good is that would probably have to pay a couple thousand just to power up the machine. The point is there is other ways to end a life but to do so without killing, murdering, slaughtering whatever you want to call it, you can allow someone to die naturally

 

[Loren Booda]

Let's do the math. How many on Medicaid would otherwise be alive today if their heroic measures were continued, how many extremely premature infants could be saved similarly, what percent of the Medicaid budget would be consumed by these "pro-life " actions, and what conservative is willing to increase his taxes to cover the expense? Elastic morals?

 

[Kerrie]

As the US considers what euthanasia is, taking off life support is not active euthanasia. As a previous poster have stated, the difference is actively taking someone's life. Rather I should have said that the US allows passive euthanasia. Pulling the plug is letting nature do its work. I have never said that I agree or disagree with the law of it, just stating what is.

fifiki, you have some excellent logical points here. without modern technology, Terri would have passed away years ago. the process she is enduring now is a natural one, not one induced by humanity (such as euthanasia).

egarding the allegations against the husband - after seeing the other things that the family is claiming, I have no qualms about saying I think he's the more sane. The family is claiming quite a lot of things that are quite simply wrong/impossible.

Another great point Russ. The parents have much more extreme actions and claims against this man (at least what the media is reporting as fact) and this is a credibility issue as far as I am concerned. I had read also that people were offering rewards to have Terri's husband murdered and an even bigger reward to have the judge killed who ordered her feeding tube removed. Michael Schiavo however has no outrageous actions, claims, etc and is following through something, as Terri's legal guardian, she had expressed prior to her collapse. People forget that when you marry, your spouse is the (legal) next of kin who will speak for you if you can't speak for yourself.

 

[Moonbear]

Someone mentioned within the last day or two - if they think Terri is actually talking, why did they wait until now to argue it? Its true desperation - or is it exploitation? Halucination?

It really could be any of those. Some people cannot handle loss. When my father died, my grandmother sat talking to an empty chair one evening, insisting my father had returned and was sitting right there in the chair she was pointing to. There were a few other incidents with her, during the wake, at one point she was sure he had opened his eyes and was really alive, or that she had seen his chest move as if breathing. As we attempted to escort her to a different room, she was accusing us of trying to bury her son alive. Some people have very extreme reactions to grief, especially when it is a parent losing a child, even an adult child. Having that experience, it does not surprise me if her parents really believe they are seeing the things they claim, even if it is not true. The problem is someone needs to have the strength to tell them it's not true, to help them through their grief rather than allowing it to fester within them. I don't think anyone is doing that for them; it's a very difficult thing to have to do because it sometimes means being the tough guy knowing for a while they'll probably turn their anger to you too.

 

[fifiki]

Law Bush Signed as governor of Texas

who gave judges authority over the congress and president of the United States of America? Seperate but EQUAL branches of government, not bow to judges, they rule the land.

For your edification: read in particular (e): it codifies the ability of doctors to stop treatment, even agains the explicit directives of the patient or family. This is the law in Texas (the same law that Bush signed as governor).

------------------

§ 166.046. Procedure if Not Effectuating a Directive or Treatment Decision


(a) If an attending physician refuses to honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician's refusal shall be reviewed by an ethics or medical committee. The attending physician may not be a member of that committee. The patient shall be given life-sustaining treatment during the review.

(b) The patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual who has made the decision regarding the directive or treatment decision:

(1) may be given a written description of the ethics or medical
committee review process and any other policies and procedures related
to this section adopted by the health care facility;

(2) shall be informed of the committee review process not less than 48
hours before the meeting called to discuss the patient's directive,
unless the time period is waived by mutual agreement;

(3) at the time of being so informed, shall be provided:

(A) a copy of the appropriate statement set forth in Section 166.052;
and

(B) a copy of the registry list of health care providers and referral
groups that have volunteered their readiness to consider accepting
transfer or to assist in locating a provider willing to accept
transfer that is posted on the website maintained by the Texas Health
Care Information Council under Section 166.053; and

(4) is entitled to:

(A) attend the meeting; and

(B) receive a written explanation of the decision reached during the
review process.

(c) The written explanation required by Subsection (b)(2)(B) must be included in the patient's medical record.

(d) If the attending physician, the patient, or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does not agree with the decision reached during the review process under Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with the directive. If the patient is a patient in a health care facility, the facility's personnel shall assist the physician in arranging the patient's transfer to:

(1) another physician;

(2) an alternative care setting within that facility; or

(3) another facility.

(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).

(e-1) If during a previous admission to a facility a patient's attending physician and the review process under Subsection (b) have determined that life-sustaining treatment is inappropriate, and the patient is readmitted to the same facility within six months from the date of the decision reached during the review process conducted upon the previous admission, Subsections (b) through (e) need not be followed if the patient's attending physician and a consulting physician who is a member of the ethics or medical committee of the facility document on the patient's readmission that the patient's condition either has not improved or has deteriorated since the review process was conducted.

(f) Life-sustaining treatment under this section may not be entered in the patient's medical record as medically unnecessary treatment until the time period provided under Subsection (e) has expired.

(g) At the request of the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient, the appropriate district or county court shall extend the time period provided under Subsection (e) only if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is a reasonable expectation that a physician or health care facility that will honor the patient's directive will be found if the time extension is granted.

(h) This section may not be construed to impose an obligation on a facility or a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter 142 or similar organization that is beyond the scope of the services or resources of the facility or agency. This section does not apply to hospice services provided by a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter 142.

 

[Kerrie]

interesting too, if Terri Schiavo was in my state (Oregon), there would have been no uproar most likely because of our relaxed views of dying with dignity.

 

[Monique]

The point is there is other ways to end a life but to do so without killing, murdering, slaughtering whatever you want to call it, you can allow someone to die naturally

What is naturally and why is that better than other ways. I don't see euthanasia as killing, murdering or slaughering (how do you think of that?) and it certainly is more dignified than starving a helpless person to death. Euthanasia should not be thought of lightly, I think it should be a strictly controlled, but it should be allowed.

There are stories of dying rooms in China, this is where unwanted female babies or children are left on their own to die of starvation and dehydration.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can see both sides of this argument. On one hand, it is only food and water, but on the other hand, there is nothing natural about a feeding tube. As for the state of the patient, it sure seems to me like the parents and family refuse to let go of a person who is already dead. But, if some reports are to be believed, this is not the case. I have no way to know...if there is any doubt, I say error on the side of life. But, in the end I can't tell what the facts are so I have refused to torture myself over this.

I can only say that after spending 25 years around medicine and hospitals, when I go, I hope that I drop like a rock - alive one minute, dead the next.

 

[misskitty]

Fifiki is right. Dying of starvastion is considered passive euthanasia. The public outcry might be much worse if the passive euthanasia becomes assisted; people might try to twist it into assisted suicide. It all boils down to what Terri wanted before she collapsed. Right now as far as we know it was that she would have wanted to die and not be kept alive on a feeding tube. She does not have concisousness. Part of her cerebrial cortex is so serverely damaged she can not feel anything. Her body still goes through wake and sleep cycles, but that is part of basic human function.

Kerrie also has a point that where she lives also plays a part in why this has become what it is.

How many more days might she be alive without the feeding tube?

Ivan, I share your sentiment about death. Quick and hopefully painless.

 

[Kerrie]

What is naturally and why is that better than other ways. I don't see euthanasia as killing, murdering or slaughering (how do you think of that?) and it certainly is more dignified than starving a helpless person to death. Euthanasia should not be thought of lightly, I think it should be a strictly controlled, but it should be allowed.

In this case, it is being strictly controlled. Terri has a morphine drip to ensure she does not suffer any pain in the dying process.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

According to one interview with one of the nation's leading neuro-something-or-other on the NBC national news, according to patients who have willingly died in the same fashion, even if she was awake she would feel no pain, hunger, or thirst.

 

[Loren Booda]

What percentage of us will starve to death by eventually refusing food? I believe my Mom did. I was told by a nurse that not eating was often a sign that death is imminent for the bedridden.

 

[Zantra]

According to one interview with one of the nation's leading neuro-something-or-other on the NBC national news, according to patients who have willingly died in the same fashion, even if she was awake she would feel no pain, hunger, or thirst.

Sorry but I just had to point out a small detail.. how did these patients who willing die attest to the lack of pain if they were already dead?

 

[Moonbear]

Sorry but I just had to point out a small detail.. how did these patients who willing die attest to the lack of pain if they were already dead?

There are a number of case studies on people who have gone on long hunger strikes, where there is a physician evaluating and monitoring them continuously. Some have died, others have stopped prior to dying but with neurological damage.

 

[Shadow]

Are you saying you know Terri's wishes? If you are, how? If not, then who should be the one to best interpret her wishes? Who was in the best position to know? Who did Terry give this responsibility to?

No Russ, are you? Who should be best to interpret her wishes... there is not just one person. Seriously consider it. Putting someones life in one persons hands...way to close to playing God. But if the decision was given to a group of people that could be trusted, then that is different. At least it includes different peoples views, views made by those who love her.

(yes, these questions have a straightforward answer...)/QUOTE]

A straightforward answer? Meaning what? This is no classroom for you to teach at, no church for you to preach at. In this case there are no clear answers, so I hope you are not saying those were rhetorical questions. I pray you are not saying you have the answers. And God help us if you say that her...spouse ( )is the one that would be in the best position to know.

 

[faust9]

Are you saying you know Terri's wishes? If you are, how? If not, then who should be the one to best interpret her wishes? Who was in the best position to know? Who did Terry give this responsibility to?


No Russ, are you? Who should be best to interpret her wishes... there is not just one person. Seriously consider it. Putting someones life in one persons hands...way to close to playing God. But if the decision was given to a group of people that could be trusted, then that is different. At least it includes different peoples views, views made by those who love her.

(yes, these questions have a straightforward answer...)

A straightforward answer? Meaning what? This is no classroom for you to teach at, no church for you to preach at. In this case there are no clear answers, so I hope you are not saying those were rhetorical questions. I pray you are not saying you have the answers. And God help us if you say that her...spouse ( )is the one that would be in the best position to know.

Her husband is her guardian. Her husband knew her wishes best. She told others. Why can't you grasp this? Why does it bother you so much that a wife would confide in her husband more than her parents? Why do you find this situation so vexing? Oh, also are you married? I am. My wife and I talk about things we don't with our parents. That's part of marrage. I'm sure Terri and her husband did the same thing.

 

[Shadow]

http://www.terrisfight.org/timeline.html

Also go http://www.terrisfight.net/ and click on "myths about terri"

 

[faust9]

Yeah, they don't have a vested interest do they. Just go ahead and disregard the fact that the Schindlers have never presented anything this side of credible. Go ahead and look over the fact that the courts have sided with the husband almost 30 times in a 15 time span. Go ahead and ignore the fact that judges from all political and moral perspectives have found for the husband.

Here's a rebuttal site: http://www.outlawslegal.com/arms/bread-kills.htm

Start think out side the box. Look at the facts.

 

[faust9]

http://www.terrisfight.org/timeline.html

Also go http://www.terrisfight.net/ and click on "myths about terri"

Also, 30 seconds of fact checking(Time has a timeline of their own) shows that your Terri site is actually wrong on a few of those points. Your little save Terri site couldn't even get the value of the malpractice award right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

Hmmm if they don't take the time to get even the most simple of figures correct, then I wonder how factual the rest of their timeline is(rhetorical BTW)?

 

[russ_watters]

No Russ, are you? Who should be best to interpret her wishes... there is not just one person. Seriously consider it. Putting someones life in one persons hands...way to close to playing God. But if the decision was given to a group of people that could be trusted, then that is different. At least it includes different peoples views, views made by those who love her.

You still didn't answer the most important question: who?

A straightforward answer? Meaning what? This is no classroom for you to teach at, no church for you to preach at. In this case there are no clear answers, so I hope you are not saying those were rhetorical questions. I pray you are not saying you have the answers. And God help us if you say that her...spouse ( )is the one that would be in the best position to know.

Legally the answer is straightforward. That's why the courts have been pretty much unanamous over the past decade.

 

[Shadow]

I admit I have to think outside the box, but I follow my beliefs. And unless there is solid evidence that terri ever said that if she were in this state she would like to have her feeding tube removed, I have to believe life should prevail. It only seems right.

My question for you is, do you look outside the box? Have you looked at the evidence pointing to what this Judge greer has done in the past? Into her husbands past? Heh, I'm not married I'm a student. My parents have been married for 20 years and did not discuss the situation until this case came up. My grandma, 65, had never discussed it with my grandpa before he died in 1994 (the topic came up at Easter dinner...quite the discussion.) My point is that times were different, as my grandma said, (my grandpa was on a machine awaiting a heart transplant in 1992 when he died.) and they never felt the need to discuss it. Although, my grandpas situation, along with terris story has made her wish she had. My point is, terri was only married 6 years before she collapsed. Its entirely possible they did not discuss it.

However I do want to thank you. For reminding me that I do have to look outside my box, and that there are other views, just as logical and illogical as mine. But I will defend my beliefs and I hope (well in your case, know) that you will defend yours.

 

[faust9]

I admit I have to think outside the box, but I follow my beliefs. And unless there is solid evidence that terri ever said that if she were in this state she would like to have her feeding tube removed, I have to believe life should prevail. It only seems right.

My question for you is, do you look outside the box? Have you looked at the evidence pointing to what this Judge greer has done in the past? Into her husbands past? Heh, I'm not married I'm a student. My parents have been married for 20 years and did not discuss the situation until this case came up. My grandma, 65, had never discussed it with my grandpa before he died in 1994 (the topic came up at Easter dinner...quite the discussion.) My point is that times were different, as my grandma said, (my grandpa was on a machine awaiting a heart transplant in 1992 when he died.) and they never felt the need to discuss it. Although, my grandpas situation, along with terris story has made her wish she had. My point is, terri was only married 6 years before she collapsed. Its entirely possible they did not discuss it.

However I do want to thank you. For reminding me that I do have to look outside my box, and that there are other views, just as logical and illogical as mine. But I will defend my beliefs and I hope (well in your case, know) that you will defend yours.

Yes I have. I've posted that I had to make this decision myself. I've asked others of your opinion to spend some time with people in Terri's condition. I've watched my grandmother track my finger(natural instinctinve responce) while a doctor poked her at various points with ne response. I've seen people in Terri's condition smile, cry, laugh, and do many other things--for no reason. I've volunteered at hospices and met more people like Terri than most posters here will in a life time. I read what doctors who have examined Terri have to say(not just from a TV screen looking at a total of 5 minutes of video taken over a 15 year time span).

I've looked into the case. I've looked into her parents pleas and wrongful accusations. I've not found any credible evidence from their camp. They have had 15 years to show some truth to their claims. They have not.

Also, WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THE FACT THAT TERRI TOLD MORE THAT HER HUSBAND HER WISHES WITH REGARD TO LIFE SUPPORT?

What credible evidence do you have that Terri would want to be on life support? Your not married so you really have no idea about how most married couples interact. You are basing your decisions on pure emotion with little to no idea of what a husband and a wife talk about. I hate to sound like an ass but you actually have to idea what mothers and fathers talk about when you are out of ear shot. You haven't the foggiest idea of what transpires between a husband and a wife over dinner or following a movie.

Terri told others of her wishes. You are in denial for some personal reason. You've let the emotional cries of a distraught mother cloud your judgement. You blindly accept the facts as presented by the parents while lambasting the vindicated husband. I don't know what transpired between those two but I do know how I and my wife interact. I do know more that Mr. Schiavo spoke with Terri about life support.

At least that's the way I see it. There are many reasons to keep someone on life support. Coma patients 'may' come out of a coma(brain scans of coma patients show brain activity). Terri will not.


[edit]softened my tone a little.

Also, you've managed to avoid russ's 'WHO' question.

 

[Kerrie]

Your not married so you really have no idea about how most married couples interact. You are basing your decisions on pure emotion with little to no idea of what a husband and a wife talk about. I hate to sound like an ass but you actually have to idea what mothers and fathers talk about when you are out of ear shot. You haven't the foggiest idea of what transpires between a husband and a wife over dinner or following a movie.

If our government wants to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" (remember the gay marriage uproar last year), then this situation is a perfect example of doing so. Marriage is a legal contract that is binded by two consenting adults and ends any sort of legal attachment that a parent and that consenting adult can have. The judges have sided with Terri's husband and I am pleased they have done so. Perhaps those who have not had a loving marital relationship do not understand how special it can truly be. Terri's parents have done their part in smearing whatever blissful marriage they may have had in their short time together for reasons that seem selfish.

Does anyone believe that if Michael Schiavo had insisted the feeding tube kept in the judges would have ruled it be kept in? I do.

 

[russ_watters]

And unless there is solid evidence that terri ever said that if she were in this state she would like to have her feeding tube removed, I have to believe life should prevail. It only seems right.

Why?

My question for you is, do you look outside the box? Have you looked at the evidence pointing to what this Judge greer has done in the past? Into her husbands past?

Yes, and you do know that Judge Greer isn't the only one who has ruled on this case, right?

Also, you've managed to avoid russ's 'WHO' question.

And now I've asked another "w" question...

edit: actually, he may have answered it. His above reply suggests that there should be no decision without a living will: that in all cases life support should be indefinite.

 

[fifiki]

My question for you is, do you look outside the box? Have you looked at the evidence pointing to what this Judge greer has done in the past? Into her husbands past?

I am very curious about what these so called FACTS are. Seriously I am. Beyond pure speculation and accusation, can you provide any credible evidence at all for your claims?

Also, I just wanted to add that the Supreme Court judges, in not deciding, in a way did decide. The most liberal to the most conservative of them all decided the same way (and Scalia being one of the most religious person on the bench or outside of the bench). The facts speaks for itself and all the courts gave it's resounding opinion. For some reason these facts you speak so highly of were curiously missed by almost 30 courts and how many was it? 19 judges? Oh dear, what negligence!

 

[adrenaline]

By Jonathan Alter
Senior Editor and Columnist
Newsweek


April 4 issue - When he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush presided over 152 executions, more than took place in the rest of the country combined. In at least a few of these cases, reasonable doubts about the guilt of the condemned were raised. But Bush cut his personal review time for each case from a half hour to a mere 15 minutes (most other governors spend many hours reviewing each capital case to assure themselves that there's no doubt of guilt). His explanation was that he trusted the courts to sort through the life-and-death complexities. That's right: the courts.

I bring up that story because it's just one of several ironies that have arisen in connection with the Terri Schiavo saga, in which the president said that the government "ought to err on the side of life." Fine, but whose life? The inmate who might not be guilty? The poor people across the country denied organ transplants (and thus life) because Medicaid—increasingly under the Bush budget knife—won't cover them? ...

Or how about Sun Hudson? On March 14, Sun, a 6-month-old baby with a fatal form of dwarfism, was allowed to die in a Texas hospital over his mother Wanda's objections. Under a 1999 law signed by Bush, who was then governor, cost-conscious hospitals are empowered to decide when care is "futile." The Hudson case is the first time ever that a court has allowed bean counters to override the wishes of parents. "They gave up in six months," Wanda Hudson told the Houston Chronicle. "They made a terrible mistake." Wanda apparently was not "cable ready," as they say in the television world, and she failed to get Randall Terry and the radical anti-abortionists on her side. Tom DeLay never called.

Could there be—perish the thought—politics at work here? ....

The same conservatives who have spent the last generation attacking "judicial activism" and federal intrusion in state jurisdictions were suddenly advocating what they had so long abhorred.....


In a complex world, consistency is usually asking too much. (Seeing Democrats talk about "states' rights" last week was also a little rich.) But if you're going to accuse Michael Schiavo and the judiciary of murder (right-wing blogs and talk radio) or commit virtual malpractice by "examining" a patient long distance via outdated and heavily edited video (Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist) or advocate breaking the law by sending in state troopers to reattach the feeding tube (Pat Buchanan and William Bennett), you'd better be willing to look in the mirror.

As a father myself, I can sympathize with Terri's frenzied parents. There must be nothing harder in the world than watching a child die. And I still don't understand why Michael Schiavo didn't turn over custody and get a divorce. He says he's trying to carry out his wife's wishes and at the same time preserve her dignity. But the endless litigation and public spectacle have hardly achieved that goal.

The right wing should be ashamed of the way it has treated this man, who spent the first seven years after Terri's collapse doing everything imaginable to save her—even training as a nurse. For instance, Fox and CNN gave air time and credibility to one Carla Iyer, who accused Michael of shouting "When is the ***** going to die?" and claimed hospital authorities doctored her nursing charts—preposterous charges with no substantiation.

When this excruciating circus leaves town, the only sensible conclusion is a morally and constitutionally nuanced one. It should be possible to argue both that Terri Schiavo's case didn't belong in court—and that the courts are the only place to resolve such wrenching disputes when families cannot. That custody laws should contain a little more flexibility where the wishes of the patient are unclear—and that the president and Congress did real damage to their own principles by sticking their nose in this mess. They replaced reason with emotion, confused law with theology and allowed politics and tabloidism to trump the privacy this agonizing family tragedy deserved.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

for the full article

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7305206/site/newsweek/page/2/

 

[faust9]

Here's one for the hypocrit record books:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay27mar27,0,5710023.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Tom Delay did in 1988 what he is criticising today. Man you got to love that GOP!

 

[faust9]

actually, he may have answered it. His above reply suggests that there should be no decision without a living will: that in all cases life support should be indefinite.

I don't buy it. Shadow must know that people are taken off life support every day(maybe not that often but close). Some have living wills. Some are taken off at the behest of family members. Some are taken off at the will of medical personel sanctioned by the state(Texas) to make these life and death decision to the objections of parents. Shadow has an opinion about who, where, and when Terri should be allowed to die. Maybe answering a direct question raises questions about convictions and choices and mortality. Who knows--one person does. IMHO though I think answering the Who, Where, and Why questions and then asking Why again about the answera might lead to an uncomfortible place.

Who?
"Terri's Parents of course."
Why?
"Because they are her parents."
Wasn't she married? Doesn't the marriage ceramony include the father giving the daughter away?
"Well yes but..."
Then why would the parents be more suited?
"Because they love her."
Didn't the husband love her?
"Well yes but he wants to kill her now."
Why would a husband want to kill his wife if he loves her?
"He doesn't love her he wants the money."
What money?
"The money from the lawsuit."
The 50,000 dollars left vice the 1 or 10 million offered?
"Well he can't give in now he would look bad."
How much worse could he look?
.
.
.
Why does judge Greer--he wants to kill her too?
"Well, hasn't this case been through the courts for 15 years with many judges, including the supreme court, looking at the facts?"
Yes but how does Greer know what she wanted?
"Didn't multiple people testify to that fact?"
Yes but I bet they were all lying.
"Why would they all lie?"
To kill Terri of course!
"Why?"
For the money.
--see above--

That's my little Q/A session the Schindler family supporters are not going through. If more of the people went through a process like that I'd say this whole scha-bang would drift into oblivion.

My 2 cents.

I think I'm done with this thread BTW. Thanks for the conversation. Hopefully everyone turns out better in the end. Terri will be at peace, the parents will move on. The husband will move on... It'll be rough (15 years of fighting then what is there to do).

[edit]I spell like a two year old and type like a blind person with no fingers :)

 

[russ_watters]

I don't buy it. Shadow must know that people are taken off life support every day(maybe not that often but close)...

I really don't know. It seems clear to me that the parents have lost touch with reality. But in such an emotional situation, that's understandable. Could others be under the same illusions? Certainly.

 

[Astronuc]

Federal Judge Condemns Intervention in Schiavo Case

Federal Judge Condemns Intervention in Schiavo Case
By ABBY GOODNOUGH and WILLIAM YARDLEY

PINELLAS PARK, Fla., March 30 - A federal appeals court in Atlanta refused Wednesday to reconsider the case of Terri Schiavo, with one of the judges rebuking President Bush and Congress for acting "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our founding fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/national/31schiavo.html?
registration required

 

[russ_watters]

She died this morning...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-31-schiavo_x.htm

 

[Moonbear]

She died this morning...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-31-schiavo_x.htm

I just heard that a few minutes ago. May she finally rest in peace.

 

[russ_watters]

May she finally rest in peace.

Unfortunately, its not going to happen - the fighting continues between her parents and husband.

 

[Moonbear]

Unfortunately, its not going to happen - the fighting continues between her parents and husband.

Sadly, yes. How are they even going to hold a funeral when they can't be in the same place together?

 

[FredGarvin]

The one thing I have not been able to find any substantiation for in this mess was for the parents' claims that Terry could have gotten better. I have seen plenty of references to the contrary though. Has anyone seen any credible source say that she could have even somewhat recovered?

One other thing that I have started thinking about was the notion of a living will. After seeing the legal/congressional grandstanding, I am beginning to believe that even if you had a living will that was signed the day before, it probably wouldn't stand up.

 

[Astronuc]

One other thing that I have started thinking about was the notion of a living will. After seeing the legal/congressional grandstanding, I am beginning to believe that even if you had a living will that was signed the day before, it probably wouldn't stand up.

A living will 'may not be valid' depending on 'State' laws. Best to execute a 'durable power of attorney' which takes effect only when one is incapacitated. One should see a lawyer in one's jurisdiction.

 

[Loren Booda]

How applicable toward future cases are the lessons learned from Ms. Schiavo's dying?

Can we trust those who encourage child molestation, or threaten all others to obey their own God, to legislate American lives?

 

[Loren Booda]

Thank God that her soul is now free of her body.

 

[Evo]

The one thing I have not been able to find any substantiation for in this mess was for the parents' claims that Terry could have gotten better. I have seen plenty of references to the contrary though. Has anyone seen any credible source say that she could have even somewhat recovered?

No, there is no doubt, she could never recover.

Here is the transcript of "The Abrams Report" interview with Dr. Cranford.

CRANFORD: Her CT scan shows severe atrophy or shrinkage of the brain. Her EEG is flat and there's absolutely no doubt that she's been in a permanent vegetative state ever since 1990. There's no doubt whatsoever, Dan.

ABRAMS: Let's talk about the CT scan. You actually have the CT scan.

CRANFORD: Yes, this is a CT scan of Terri Schiavo taken in 2002, the most recent CT scan done on her, 2002.

ABRAMS: Tell us what it means.

CRANFORD: Well it shows extremely severe atrophy. Where those black areas are, that should be white. That should be cerebral cortex, and so really there is no cerebral cortex left. It's just a shrinkage of the cerebral cortex. It's a thin band of white on the outside and any neurologist or any radiologist looking at those CT scans will tell you that her atrophy could not be more severe than it is. So even if she were mentally conscious, which she's not, she's irreversible. She's been like this for 15 years, Dan, and that CT scan shows the most extreme severe atrophy of the higher centers of the brain.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/

 

[stoned]

hypocritical america is divided about this poor lady live,and we hear how precious even one american live is,meanwhile almost no one gives a damn about lives of hundred of thousands of afghani,palestinian,iraqi people killed or wounded.