That analogy is about as bad as it can get.

An 8 month old child has the potential to lead a life where he/she interacts with their environment in some capacity

Terry is a drooling vegetable who WILL never get any better.

Why didn't they try alternative treatments? What are the medical details surrounding this case? Did they exhaust all possibilities or did they give up? Why wouldn't they have tried? Has anyone been able to figure out the cost and to whom?

Wait, Manx, did you mean: "Don't count your non-interefering Republicans before they Orrin Hatch?" *ba-dum-bum* LOL! hahahaa! *wah-wah-wah*

*crickets*

I hope in my heart of hearts that you know the difference between an 8 month old child, and an adult in a vegetative state. I know you like the idea of the slippery slope, but the fact is that humans have been killing each other since forever ago, often with a great deal less deliberation than your average case of euthanasia, and yet we still manage to maintain a relatively civilized existence.

Also, i think maybe there is some kind of misconception that thousands of people aren't "taken off of the feeding tube" each day. Two of my grandparents were removed from life support; it is pretty normal to let someone die if it seems like they have pretty long odds of ever living a fulfilling life again. The only difference in this instance is that schiavo's parents need a reality check.

Showing my age and location here, because I remember it so well... In the 70s in New Jersey, there was a young woman who did something incredibly stupid (mixed booze and valium) and lapsed into a coma. After much time, she ended up in a prolonged vegetative state with no hope at all for recovery. She was attached to a respirator to help her breathe.

Because she was an adult, in the eyes of the law, her parents had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court of the state of new jersey in order to have the respirator turned off, because they beleived taht is what their daughter wanted. Her father was finally given custody and finally they were allowed to turn off the respirator.

The truly strange part, is that once they turned off the respirator, the person they said would never breathe on her own, breathed on her own, in a small nursing home in New Jersey for the next 10 years.

The woman in question was (and I won't make jokes about the New Jersey State Vegetable) Karen Ann Quinlan, and what her parents went thru was to bring attention to people the right to die with dignity.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, her life now isn't dignified, she has no life. Her parents could take a lesson from the Quinlan's and let their daughter go. She left long ago anyhow.

No, she's a living human being who is about to be starved to death. If y'all want to kill her so badly, how about a more humane way? You gotta admit, it's awful

I have to admit that this part does kinda get to me.

However, how long do we leave her in a vegetative state that she will never recover from.

What would you want for yourself if you were in this position?

For me, I would hope, that if there is no perceivable chance for me to live, that my family pull's the friggin' plug without thinking twice.

We would euthanise her but, but you "right to life" types fight us tooth and nail on that one every time as well.

I know it's awful. But so is being a artifically fed vegetable for 13 years.... and the prospect of being that way for another 40.

http://www.edthibodeau.com/nonplusse...i_schiavo.html

A reply to the "Nobel prize nominated" doctor who claims Schiavo could improve:

"The "experts" put forth by the parents also lacked the evidence for their claims. They lacked so much as a single study showing their efforts would work. Perhaps their chief "expert", William Hammesfahr, is a man known for claiming that his procedure works on every vaguely neurological based illness out there, but even he doesn't claim it cures people, and he's provided no substantial evidence for any of his claims other than one tiny study showing that his work may have helped people with whiplash (who were also being treated by other doctors at the time). Not that it matters much for his demands: he has a history of insisting his patients provide their money in cash up front. The Schindlers love to describe him as having receiving a Nobel-prize nomination in 1999, but the truth is Nobel-prize nomination lists aren't released to the public for fifty years after the original awards. Like the other "experts" provided by the parents, Hammesfahr hasn't published any studies in journals about patients in the same condition as Terri. That's not to say many people haven't heard of him, but that's thanks to work he's had published in the most prestigious medical journal available: The National Enquirer. The husband provided actual experts; the court brought in an independent actual expert; the parents provided people such as Hammesfahr, who at least is a neurologist, which is more than can be said for most of the experts the parents have used."

I can understand why people have such strong feelings about this case, and it seems that people tend to gravitate to one set of "facts" as presented by the media, but if you look around every "fact" presented by the parents is refutable.

For instance, that Terri smiles, laughs, responds, etc:
"At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli."

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

Or that Michael Schiavo abused Terry, and actually caused her heart attack (no such evidence has been found, and it's widely believed that her bulimia caused a chemical imbalace that triggered the heart attack), or that he is only doing this for the money (he's been offered more money than he'd get from any life insurance) or that he just wants to get rid of her so he can get on with his new wife (he could just hand over guardianship and be done with it in a heartbeat) or that it's just Michael Schiavo's word against the parents' that she would have wanted to die (I know the court interviewed several friends and family members - I've been able to find actual mention of Michael Schiavo, his brother and his wife, with whom Terry was very close friends, and a childhood friend , testifying for the parents, who said she made some statements when she was about 15).

That "Abstract Appeal" web site has a lot of very good, objective information on the case, particularly the legal aspects.

The bottom line is that there is SO much evidence that she would want to die and that she's never getting better that it is really puzzling to most of us why so many people are insisting that she be kept alive. It seems to me that her parents are understandably in denial, and that lots of activists and religious conservatives are jumping on a bandwagon for their "choose life" cause, which is really so disrespectful to this woman and her entire family, even though it may be aiding the parents' publicity efforts.

People talk about "God's will" like they know what that is. Near as I can tell, most people are using that term to mean "God supports what we believe." How do you know what "God's will" is, even assuming that there is such a thing? Why is it automatically assumed that God would want this woman to live? What if he was trying to kill her with the heart attack and we're keeping her from heaven? What if he was trying to use this as a lesson to people that death is not always worse than life? Or what if god isn't some micromanaging anthropomorphic deity in the sky pulling strings and making everything happen? At some point you have to quit propping up incoherent and inconsistent arguments with theology and say "what should we as human beings do to honor this woman's life"? And letting her finally die seems like a fitting answer.

Not really. Her cerebral cortex is liquid - she's not going to notice her own death.

Y'all could always shop for a judge to get it done. It's not as if lawmakers have any power these days.


Neither you nor I have any clue.

Anyhows, it looks like it's the begining of the end now. The best thing to do now is pray.

I hope you're right, but no one knows for sure.

Ouch! I must have missed that one!

Edit: Now I remember. It's been a long day. Also, pretty unusual that this is really the only thread that has been touched in the political forum. Speaks volumes on the feelings of this issue

Wrong. It is known that her cerebral cortex is liquid. The (exceptionally improbable) claim of success of rehabilitation of her cerebral cortex would require years. She is not presently in a state where she knows what is happening to her body.

Does that mean she also isn't "suffering"?

BTW, nice post lurkette.


I disagree with this one sentence though.

That's arrogant (not on your part, but on the authors part), to presume that people who have a respect for innocent life are in essence disrespectful towards the lives they desire to save.

Wrong, It's arrongant for anyone to use this as a political message. Any politician who touches this is doing so, on both sides of the aisle. As pointed out before, this is between a husband and a wife.

You are often found arguing the importance of that bond, and how homosexuals are attempting to usurp it. (It would be rather pathetic for you to use this sentance as a chance to argue homosexuality in this thread though). So if such a bond is so important by your own reckoning, then you condradict yourself by stating that the parents have any say over a husband or wife.

As it has been pointed out, a parent has no right to have a say between a married couple. A parent has no right period, both in court, and morally once a person is married. The only person with a say is the person to whom they have commited themselves for life, and only the spouse has such a say.

Additionally NCB, you have implied (and anything you imply is fair game, regardless of If you actually typed it or not ) that the husband does not have his wife's interests in mind {must resist poor taste joke here} and that he may bear malice or be attampting to acheive a selfish mean. That is called libel, as you have implicitly alluded to him wanting his wife dead for financial reasons. It has no more truth then stating that NCB enjoys homosexual anal sex.

Son, no one is using politics here. This is a matter of life and death.


So you want lawyers to argue questions of morality for all of us? No thanks for me, but if you would want that, good luck.

1. Did you know that the husband who went to court to recieve the malpractice money to care for his wife, reneged not even a year later after the award? Is that someone who's looking into Terry's best intrests?

2. Did you know that this knight in shining armor also has refused to provide even the most basic rehabiltaion care for his wife?

3. Why did her hubby exclude the opinions of medical experts who do not believe she is in a persistent vegetative state and would respond well to therapy?

Here's an intresting exchange in the 1992 malpractice litigation:

Q: How do you feel about being married to Terri now?

MS: “I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my wedding vows.”

Q: You believe in your wedding vows, what do you mean by that?

MS: “I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.”

Michael Shiavo is a bonafide scumbag who is only intrested in retaining the award money and the life ins policy money for him and his new wife and family. How's that for libel?

You missed a paragraph in your response NCB.


You replied with
Yup, nothing. Please insert a quarter and try again. Unless of course you are having a little trouble reconciling your two opinions that contradict each other.

You still haven't given a valid reason why the parents of a grown woman have any say whatsoever in their life. You simply assume that we understand that a parent has some say against a husband. You have to convince us of that if you want to be taken seriously.

Let her go to god. We are keeping her here for our own selfish reasons, and it's unfair to her. Give her the peace she deserves.

because some fool group of politicians and people decided that assisted suicide should be illegal. wonder who that was?

This goes back some in this disscussion but think it's really odd that almost everyone wants to have the 'plug pulled' if they are a vegtable. I used to think like that but then I realized that the mere fact that and individual is unable to move, or speak does not mean that they do not have anything valuable to add to society at large. These 'vegtables' teach sympathy, empathy and compassion to the rest of society and those are things that this society is lacking in.

What about quality of life of the individual who's in the vegetative state? If I were in that state... I would not want to be kept alive, even if the person can think, or feel, which I doubt, the not being able to communicate with others would be enough to want to have my life ended. I have a will, a DNR, and a living will all that back that up. (And to make sure that my parents got it-- my dad's law partner was the attorney who drew them up for me)

That's rhetoric that was used in the early days of the Third Reich. I apolgize to keep bringing it up, but the nature of the case makes it a perfect example.

Apparently, this judge Greer is beleived to be in contempt of Congress. Bush needs to do the right thing and send in the federal marshalls, which I think he'll do by the end of the weekend.


And oh, btw...she was walking with assistance at the time of the malpractice award and before Prince Charming pulled the plug on all therapy and rehab. I pray that none of y'all would ever end up with a guy like this as your son in law

so much for states rights, right? If federal jurisdiction is warranted here then nobody should be bitching about roe v wade at all.


now i'm not intimately familiar with the case but I've never heard this. care to link this?

I'm not a moderator or anything, but if I were, I'd tell you not to patronize other members. So instead I'll just ask you not to patronize other members.
You might consider thinking long and hard about your debate skills. It's not like people who are paying attention don't recognize your constant need (beyond just this thread) to rely on information that has already been demonstrated to be false. There are other things you could do to improve your debate skills as well, such as not repeating yourself in response to basic refutations of your arguments and not ignoring major points of someone elses position who has responded to you. Your prolific posting doesn't mask these debate deficiencies. You might find that if you limited those types of posts, your position would be clearer, more logical and worthy of consideration.
We must define things differently.

"Pulling the plug" is the definition of sympathetic, empathetic and compassionate. Fighting to "save the life" of someone who's brain is useless is cruel and unusual.

That Congress felt it appropriate to issue another delay tactic in this case that has been going on for almost 5 years is the contemptible portion of this event.

We all debate in our own way.....this is what makes for lively conversations, but ridicule should be avoided whenever possible.

A intresting example was made last night on one of the nightly news shows. Scott Peterson, who was just sentenced to death, automatically gets an appeal before a federal judge. Terri Schiavo's case is ultimately a death sentence. Why should get a convicted murderer and baby killer get more legal protection than an innocent woman? Does that not seem upside down?

Yeah, I'm gonna start looking for it. I learn more and more everyday about this case. The more I learn, the more heartbreaking this story gets.


And Manx, you're right my debate skills are not very sharp. I'm not the brightest guy in the world and I don't hop onto forums and pretend to be. My arguments tend to be succinct and full of typos and misspellings. Yeah, sometimes I repeat myself when I feel it's warranted. And no, my reference to the word "son" was not patronization, but rather exasperation. You see, I tend to type on the screen what I would say to someone if they were six feet away from me. Anyways, I've already given this more attention than it;s worth, but if you don't want to debate with a simpleton such as myself, perhaps it would be best not to respond to my post.

In the abstract, yes it does. What you are intentionally ignoring is the 14 years that have stood between her collapse and now. M. Schiavo didnt just abandon her, there were therapies tried and failed. Doctors have given their opinions and he has chosen, based on their familial conversations between spouses. Death is not the important issue in this, its the decision that terri made about how she would NOT want to live.



I would certainly be willing to change my position if unbiased evidence was given that she was ambulatory during the first two years.

this case is very sad, on both parts. the parents seem to be out of touch with reality, and the doctor(s) there seem not to be able to get across the truth to the parents.

if you've never seen someone with a significant brain injury, it all just sounds like words. you believe what people tell you, because you have nothing to compare it to.




here's a paper i wrote on diagnosing brain death about a year and a half ago...






in my mind, this is one of the most important pieces:
http://content.nejm.org/content/vol3...arge/06t1.jpeg


beyond that, as i said above, there are other tests that can be done:
eeg to show if there's any brainwaves...
mri to see if there's any metabolism
ultrasound
cerebral scintigraphy to see if there's any blood flow...

i just wonder in terri schiavo's case whether or not any of this has been done. i imagine that it has, but we never hear about it.

also, as i said earlier, if you've never seen someone with a significant head injury; never seen someone comatose... never seen someone brain dead, you have no idea what the experience is like.

for instance, you can pinprick the bottom of someone's foot. if you or i had our foot pricked by a pin, we would move our foot away from it (and maybe even hit the person, lol). someone who's brain dead may not move, or the foot may move towards the stimulus... the movement doesn't mean the person is aware of it.

also, reflexes may be intact, but that doesn't mean anything, as we do not control our reflexes- it's simply an electrical relay between the neurons of the foot and the spinal cord... the brain isn't involved. but if a layperson came in during that exam, he or she might think the person moves on his/her own.







just one medical student's opinion...

Anyone else notice that we started this thread in 10/2003, a year and a half ago. Holy crap, I am ashamed of our government. ASHAMED! GET RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT. It has no business there. This is what you get. Jeb Bush making a “special law” that was found unconstitutional, Congress trying to subpoena a brain dead woman and continuing to try to enact legislation to infringe on State and individual rights. They are doing it under the guise of protecting life. What a crock. I heard some Senator, I’m not sure who, either Tom Delay or Bill Frist, say that “We wouldn’t let our dog starve to death.” Duh, we would have brought our dog to the vet for a humane (note the root of the word “human”) lethal injection. But no, we as a nation can’t be as kind to humans. The same wing of government that is pontificating about “starving” Schiavo, would NEVER allow a more humane measure. Fuck you very much. A big thank you goes to the Florida judge that bitch slapped Congress for once again overstepping the line. Bah, 17 months have past since the feeding tube was removed last time. 17 months of staring blankly at a spot on the ceiling. What a wonderful life we are hanging on to.

Ridicule would imply a degree of humor. I was entirely serious in my suggestion to NCB.

Man, I never thought I'd see the day where trying to keep someone on a feeding tube is cruel and unusual.

Also whoever pointed out the fact that her husband has a million dollar insurance policy and another family on the side is exactly right, this is simply disgusting.

If there were hope for improvement and an adequate quality of life for the person whos wishes we are trying to help keep, then it certainly would be cruel and unusual. As it stands now, it's pure sadism to want to keep her alive simply because it's 'life'.

and this has what to do with terri's wishes?

It pertains to her husband's motives, the guy who claims she said she wanted to die, which has no real merit because there is nothing that backs up his claims. If he were to get hauled into court his argument wouldn't stand up because it's based on hearsay. If half the other stuff said about him in the thread is true, like Terri was making progress and he stopped her treatment and Rehab, it's goes to further show he is an evil douche.

First of all, I haven't seen any evidence that there is a life insurance policy other than a hell of a lot of people posting opinions on the Internet claiming there is. Second, his claim that his wife did not want to remain in the condition she is in is supported by multiple people. Third, he WAS hauled into court (for 5 years) to defend his statement. And in 5 years of testimony with all kinds of accusations, it has been found that it is clear and compelling that Terri Schiavo would not want to remain in this condition. And fourth, he turned down a $1 million offer to let her parents decide the outcome.

You are essentially prolonging the case on your grounds of suspicion, as repeated by untold numbers of Internet users. The courts, having access to all the information, unequivocally disagree with untold numbers of Internet users. Your uninformed suspicions are not justification for doubting the merits of the courts decision.

off topic but relevant:
It's interesting how the conservatives these days make laws and call special hearings to serve their own purposes yet when the courts strike these laws down its the judges who are activists. You see it with gay rights, steroids, and now Shiavo just to name three big issues.

Judges do not campaign, politicians do. Judges do not have to answer to the public in the way a politician does. A true 'activist' judge would not remain on the bench for decades while Republicans and Democrats come in and out of office.

Back on topic:

Drop the money motivation people. It has been shown time and time again that he's not in it for the money. If it was about the money he would have taken the million that guy offered him. Besides, it's not as if there won't be any medical bills that he has to pay...

The fact that he remains married to her so that her family cannot impose their will against her wishes shows that he loves her very much. If he simply didn't give a fuck he would have divorced her 15 years ago.

NCB: Dump the Hitler references.

for an unbiased look at the subject, check this page out. seems pretty good to me so far, lots of information.

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

edit: sorry if this has been mentioned before, i skipped to page three since some of these posts were so old.

I don't think the fact that he turned down the million proves that he is not interested in the money. The negative publicity would follow him around forever if he took it. Besides, the guy is going to make a bundle when the inevitable book comes out.

The best thing for her would be to kill her quick instead of starvation. It is what she probably would want, I know I would if it was me. If I was laying there I would hope that someone who cared and knew what I wanted would figure out a way to get it over with quickly without getting arrested.

yes that would be preferrable but the govt would call that murder

Believe me, I want to. However, the more I look at this case and and compare it to what I know about the early days of the Third Reich, it the one thing that sticks out. This whole thing isn't as cut and dry as any of us make it out to be. Thus, I feel we need to err on the side of life. Remember, this is a human being that's being starved to death here

i think we should err on the side of what she would want. and according to the courts, it has been proven beyond a resonable doubt that she would not want to remain in a pvs.

if you think starving her to death is torture, what do you think starving her multiple times is?

"The best thing for her would be to kill her quick instead of starvation. It is what she probably would want, I know I would if it was me."

...and there is the crux of the issue. You want her dead because in your perfect world you couldn't possibly imagine living like that, and think it's what "she would PROBABLY want". You look at her and you can see she is ALIVE. She is not in a coma, she is not on life support, therefore, and there is no "pulling of the plug." You'd prefer to inject her, put a gun to her head, but no matter - if that can't be done, starve her.

"the parents seem to be out of touch with reality, and the doctor(s) there seem not to be able to get across the truth to the parents."

When you people can get over your own personal feelings about what you would do in this situation, and accept the fact that even in the medical community there is disagreement about Terri's prognosis, and there is NO DEFINITIVE DIRECTION on the part of Terri to respond a certain way in this situation, you have only one option. As NCB said, ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIFE.

"Terry is a drooling vegetable who WILL never get any better." Yeah that's real sweet, considering your willing to kill her, i'm sure you've got something more than a gut feeling to prove for statement. After all, it is a LIFE were talking about, though i'm becoming more and more convinced that means nothing to you people.

"just one medical student's opinion..." no doubt 1st year. I've never even been to medical school and could write 3 times the length of your paper on the problems with your paper. But i have a feeling that wouldn't be good enough. My dad's practiced medicine for over 30 years, perhaps you'd like to talk to him about your conclusions...they certainly don't parallel yours.

When all is said and done, none of you know what Terry is going through. The only thing certain is that none of you could imagine going through it, and it's so easy to say from the sidelines "Kill Her", because i wouldn't want to go through it. If she dies, as far as i'm concerned, every single one of you that so nonchalantly talks about her fate as if it were your own, is responsible for it. Responsible for killing her, responsible for starving her. Because it is this mentality that has killed her. Congratulations, you must feel proud.

Her husband declaring years after her injury (and months after his malpractice award) that she would have wnated to be dead instead of this does not constitute evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

But instead of using legal terms and such, let's just use common sense. Why didn't he declare her supposed desires early on? Why wait years after the fact? Is it too convienent to have him declare this after the litigation was completed? Maybe I'm just too much of a simpleton, but something doesn't add up here.

And thus you insult another member of these forums for the debate technique they use......Bad Form.

Clarification:Another....as in someone other than yourself

You know what's sticking in my craw over this?

Did anyone see the episode of ER with the women from Sex and the City (Cynthia Nixon, I think)? It was interesting because she had a stroke but had almost no motor skills and couldn't speak, yet she could hear and think and feel pain. So, we kinda watched the events from her side, felt the fear she felt, etc.

Yes, I read the articles where they say the part of her brain where cognitive thinking occurs is mush, but....then you see the picture with her mom and it seems genuine.

It's really weird for me, especially since I have a DNR, but you still wonder. Does she know? Can she feel? Think? In any form?

We hear from the experts, but that is not 100%. We don't know for sure, we just have educated guesses.

In a sense, I feel pain for her family. They honestly believe that their daughter is somewhere in that girl. They honestly believe she can feel, think, react, etc. To the bottom of their hearts, they believe that their little girl is being tortured to death while she starves.

Everyone else, save the husband (I hope), is doing it for the cause. They really don't care about this girl, they care about the point.

But the family, right or wrong, really does love their daughter. And whether you think they are delusional are not, they are going through hell--Terri Schiavo hopefully has no idea what's going on......but I would never want to experience what that family is experiencing.

"another"? You lost me.

Tecoyah/Manx...are you guys having sex?

I'm gonna second Harry on this:

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

Get the facts (as far as I can tell). It will help focus the discussion better.

One thing no one's mentioned: Who pays for all this?

If the parents get guardianship, are they willing to take on the financial responsibilities?

Do the taxpayers want to take on the responsibility, especially given that so much of us don't have access to adequate health care?

What about that guy who offered to pay Michael $1 million to walk away? He could pay for it. Come to think of it, maybe he could give me $2000 for my wisdom teeth pull (causing me great pain but insurance won't cover it!! F*ck you Blue Cross!). $2000 is cheaper than $1 million and I am actually alive and a "productive" member of society with potential. Millions to keep someone artificially alive in a PVS. while so many others go without health care....hmmmmm.....

What makes me really sick is all the political grandstanding (I don't really care which "side" or party) surrounding this. I hear the president is making a special trip to sign some bill putting the tube back in her. Are they (the politicians) gonna pay for it? Out of their own pocket? Or with our money....then, how about health care for the rest of us who are actually "alive"?

Before anyone gets too excited, I just wanted to present another perspective on this issue that I think is salient. I thought it wise to step back emotionally and try to look at this issue with some more rationale, common sense, and logic. I'm not saying that's the solution, but it does provide insight.

One thing is certainly clear: we should all have living wills and DNR etc.

OK, I've read the whole thing over, ever briefly, and I have one question. Feel free to answer this in PM to avoid debate, because I have NO INTEREST in joining the flame war that has become this ethical debate. Please forgive me if this has been answered, but I looked and never saw it mentioned.

I'm not american, so I'm not sure of the whole legal involvement, but what I don't understand is this. The husband is the legal caretaker in the event that the wife enters a vegitative state. How is this even a legal battle? Don't involve personal opinion in this, I'm just curious, why is this even in court? If husband is legal caretaker, and husband choses option A, why is option A questioned?

I'm not going to enter my personal feelings into this, because I feel that this whole debate is turning into a Fark partisan debate. I am just curious as to how it seems to have superceded the legal boundaries that I understand it was bound by.

Everyone *should* have a living will. Her parents seem unreasonable; while I can't imagine what it's like for that to happen to your own child, I think it's torturous to keep her artificially alive -- with no reasonable hope of recovery -- for so long.

Sure, you want to preserve life, but is that what you call life??

I'm sure a lot of this has been beaten to death in this thread but Teri Schaivo is in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS). No one has ever recovered from this condition and it is uniquely different from "coma".

lurkette hit the nail on the head. Get a living will put in place that documents your wishes clearly.

KMA-628, just think how much worse it would be if she was aware of her surroundings. I'd want to die all the more. 15 years of lying in bed, paralyzed with conscious thought. GOOD GOD! that IS torture. The Feds look like they are going to overstep their bounds again. I for one, would vote everyone of them that touches this out of office. Political hacks are looking for face time at the expense of this woman.

You know, I'm getting very frustrated repeating myself so this is the last time I'm going to address your "arguments:"

THE HUSBAND WAS NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO TESTIFIED.

If you read the ample documentation we have supplied to you, he believed too in the first couple of years that therapy might improve her condition. When it became clear that that was not the case and he realized what it would mean to have her living in a PVS forever, and ever, and ever, he petitioned the courts to have the feeding tube removed.

Ever been at the side of a dying person in a coma? Ever wished beyond hope they'd come back? Ever promised God you'd do anything to bring them back? Ever had a moment of clarity and realization that they were not ever coming back and that your wishes to have them back were not as important as the kind of "life" they would want to have?

I have (read back a few pages), and I know how quickly you can change your mind when you realize that your own selfish wishes mean nothing in the face of your love for the person lying in that bed. I don't know if Michael Schiavo is the conniving asshole he's been portrayed as in the media, but I do know that these things are a lot more complicated than most of us realize. Maybe I have some sympathy for him having walked a few yards in something like his shoes, and maybe that makes me biased. I just have a hard time understanding why people can't understand that life (or something vaguely resembling a life) is not always the answer.

And I'm going to second (third? fourth?) the call for dropping the Hitler references - they're really inappropriate and they don't do anything to further this conversation.

Instead of getting frustrated, just respond to the fact that why did this guy wait years before divulging his wifes' true wishes

he gave several years of attempts at therapy. wouldn't you?

lol, negative publicity. Taking the money and walking away would give him bad pub as opposed to the great pub he's getting now, right? Here at the TFP he's beimg compared to Hilter and Scott Peterson. I'm sure the right wing talking heads are calling him much worse.

Not exactly.

I've pointed out that the handicapped were killed under the guise of compassion during the early years of the Third Reich. I've never compared him to Hitler.

AKA I've compared him to hitler, but i've never compared him to hitler.

:lol:


It ain't flyin', eh??

if you reread her post, you'll find what your asking for clear as day.

And then there are these, due to a law signed in 1999 by then Governor George Bush:
Which brings up a bunch of issues, such as:

- The questionable pro-life position of George Bush. Suddenly he is pro-life, but in 1999 he was pro-money.
- The lack of universal health care that results in hospitals being allowed to kill patients against the patients wishes.
- The stark contrast to Terri Schiavo, who doesn't want to remain in this condition yet has Congress attempting to force her vs. Spiro + Sun, who did want to be kept in thei conditions for hope of improving yet had no support from Congress.
- The clear political points motivation of Congress to be taking on a fight at the 11th hour for a case that has made national headlines while ignoring cases of supporting the patient when it only makes local headlines.
- The myopia of the right to life movement that they would collect charity to fight a court case for 5 years when they could have used that money to enable Spiro + Sun to not be killed against their wishes.

Thank you! I was starting to wonder if I was going insane. I'll repeat it just to be safe:

"If you read the ample documentation we have supplied to you, he believed too in the first couple of years that therapy might improve her condition. When it became clear that that was not the case and he realized what it would mean to have her living in a PVS forever, and ever, and ever, he petitioned the courts to have the feeding tube removed."

Incidentally, here is some information that might be relevant (from http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html):

Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

He waited 8 years. Is there any amount of time he could have waited that would satisfy his critics? If he'd said immediately "let's pull the plug" people would have criticized him for being too quick. Maybe after 8 years of watching her just persist with no hope of ever getting better it struck him that this is never going to end, and that she wouldn't want to linger forever in this state.

OK, I under stand the postiion you're taking, but this should bother you more than anything:


I know I'm a simpleton and all, but I don't like having a trial court or a single judge deciding matters like these. I don't care where you stand on this issue, but is this a good predcedent?

when it became the husband vs. the family he chose a court to decide. How much more fairer and honestly judicial can you get?

So he essentially is taking the side of the court over her own flesh and blood.

What a hero

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

why are you being obtuse? you know the sides of the issue, the court agreed that the husband was correct that terri would not want to live like this.

let me ask you, what part of the sacrament of marriage and the holy union do you not understand?

well, if her own flesh and blood are wrong about her wishes and only selfishly prolonging her shell's life, then yes, he is a hero.

it's a lot harder to make the tough decision (even when it's what she wanted) then to turn a blind eye to the reality of the situtation and keep her alive (against her wishes) in 'hopes' of a meaningful recovery.

i'd say it takes much more strength of character to let go of her then to keep holding on because you're unwilling to let go. i think i'd call it noble even, to put her wishes ahead of his own.

NONONONONONO!!!

Dude, you're not making any sense at all.

He's not "taking the side of the court", for god's sake!!! He had one opinion about what Terri would want, and her parents had another opinion. He elected AS HER LEGAL GUARDIAN to turn over the decision to an OBJECTIVE body. And in every single instance since he did that 7 YEARS AGO the courts have essentially decided that 1. Terri's in a PVS and has no hope for any recovery, and 2. based on her stated wishes, according to multiple witnesses, she would not wish to remain alive given the circumstances. Every single court case in those 7 years has been as a result of her parent's appeals of the court's decision, and every single trial has come to the conclusion that allowing her to die would be consistent with her wishes.

Y'all can enshrine this guy in bronze all you want, but the fact remains that during this whole time, he has not let her recieve any therapy or rehab that might ease her suffering. He still could have went to the court and seek an "objective" opinion on what to do AND allow her to recieve therapy. He has not even allowed her parents to allow her to go outside for over 3 years.

If this is your defintion of a noble man or a hero, that's y'alls business. However, I personally think the man is a scumbag.

Let's put it this way. If it were your sister or daughter laying there and you needed to go to court to get a ruling to have the tuibe pulled, would you at least want her to recieve some sort of therapy? Hell, or at least allow her go outside?!!?

first of all, she has had plenty of therapy. four years worth, and (according to the timeline found here: http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm she was even taken to cali for an experimental brain stimulation treatment).

if i were convinced that my brothers lights were on but no one was home then i wouldn't waste the time, energy or money on more therapy. it would be a waste. what difference would it make to someone who's not aware fo their surroundings whether they're inside or outside? none.

i had a friend from middle school get into a bad car accident and had major head trauma. originally, i heard that she wasn't likely to make it through the week. when she did, i heard that odds were taht if she was going to wake up and have any meaningful recovery, it would have to happen within the first year following the accident. after that, the odds of recovery dropped drastically. luckly, she woke up from her coma after about a month.

michael schavo gave her four years of therapy and it did no good. that's much more than he needed to. and once he realized that there was no chance, he had the balls to follow through with her wish on not being kept alive in that condition. if that were me, i'd hope my loved ones would have the balls too.

**I was posting at the same time HH was.....so its kind of the same but I will let my post stay**


its stated in several places but I will use the last site quoted

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

seems to me I see lots of rehab and therapy attempted for her

where do you get that during the whole time he never let her receive therapy or rehab? Are you actually reading anything people are providing because you're comments certainly dont reflect that you are

Let me clarify. He discontinued therapy and rehab after he won the malpractice money that was intended to go towards her care and therapy.

I am. I just don't accept their "facts" as absolutes truths. Heck, I could post my facts as well and see who could out vague each other

so public record court documents arent fact?

I could post court briefs and affdavits as well. Just go to Terri Schiavo's parents website. There are a lot of 'em. However, for every doc that I can post, someone can post another and vice versa. The point is, this is not a clear cut case. If it were, there wouldn't be all this fuss.

hmmm, recieved all malpractice awards by november 1992, therapy continured until sometime in '94. more than a full year after the malpractice awards. sounds like a real quick turnaround to me!

then do so. others have quoted them in his favor, why aren't you quoting the ones in the parents favor?

a discussion where on person says 'the sky's blue, i have this picture of it that proves it' and then produces the picture while the other person says it's polka-dotted and that he too has a picture but won't produce it, well, i know who i'm siding with.

But we agree that he stopped therapy after the settlement, right? And we agree that he stopped the therapy even while the court process was in motion?

the bottom line IS, and always will be, that the spouse has final authority. When the parents objected, he allowed the courts to decide what terri WANTED listening to all reports, testimony, and witnesses. They decided that terri would NOT want to live this way. Now, congress wants to declare the state courts decisions invalid simply because the didn't decide the way they wanted. They DID decide according to laws, signed by jeb bush.

nope. we agree that therapy was stopped eventually, sometime between 13 and 25 months after the court process had ended (assuming the court process you're referring to is the malpractice suits).

The court docs and other docs are here .

If y'all are truly intrested into reading about the rebuttals to her hubby's doctors, then please read. If you're more concerned about seeing her killed because you yourself wouldn't want to live that way, then please don't bother.

ohter than the new 17 affadavits saying there should be new testing (of which none of the links work), there isn't anything in here that leads me to think your agrument has any merit. all of these court documents have already gone through the court system, and it has consistently sided with the husband. all alegations of abuse and neglect have been shown to be meritless and nothing more than stall tactics.

i guess as long as you can cover your ears and yell "i can't hear you" whenever the information is from a non-biased source, you'll just keep listening to only one side of the story. afterall...

you don't seem interested in hearing an opinion other than your own. but at least you win. posting a link to her parents website definatly out-vagues your opposition who directly quote judges rulings, court documents, etc.

forgive me if Im just not seeing them, but with the exception of one doc there is nothing from 96 to 2002...and there seem to be no references on the timeline about the doctors that disagreed with them, but plenty about the ones that did (once again if i missed it please be sure to show me where I overlooked them.

Actually now that I've found a way to search it, Id rather read ALL of the court docs on the florida courts websites.....at least that way I get them all....not the ones that have been picked and chosen.

terrisfight.org. got an unbiased source by chance?

I say unplug her. And yes, most of that is because I don't want to live in a shell for almost a decade; I think it's a form of torture. If her brain is even working at this point...And if not, then they're just keeping her body alive for no reason.

Let me sum up NCB's argument and mentality in this case as it relates to politics, aside from the right to life/ right to death debate:

-Family is more important and has say over court systems.
-In cases where a husband and parents disagree, the parents have the rights.
-It is against common sense to allow the courts to settle matters between family
-The Schindler family should not have to cover the actual medical expenses should they get custody, that should be left to the tax payers and insurance company.
-The court/legal system has overstepped it authority by interfering in such a family dispute, and it is up to the Federal Gov to stop this "activism"

What NCB still hasn't clarified for us:
- If you argued in "gay marriage" threads about the sanctity of marriage, then why are you arguing for interfering in that sanctity now? Becuase you don't like the husband, and suspect his actions, doesn't actually give any government authority to jave a say according to your previous marriage arguments.
Please clarrify..

You really are talking out your ass at this point. Would you care to deny any of the above bias's? Would you care to define who will cover the costs associated with her care? How about how long she should be kept alive? Indefinitly?

Also it;s worth knowing should you choose to answer, what religion and subset are you Son, I mean NCB?

The bloodlust in here is unbearable.

Perhaps it's time we stop and remember that this is an actual human being we're talking about, not an abstract, faceless person.

How great, avoid the other arguments when you can't seem to ignore it.

Oh and try pulling that one in a thread about a war and other people... and we get laughed?

Not working here man.

we do remember that. and we remember that the evidence is 'clear and convincing' that she would not want to be kept alive in the state she's in.

now will you please remember that this an actual human being we're talking about, one who left instructions with her husband and friends, not an abstract, faceless person?

Whats interesting to me, is that on the site NCB posted there is a statement that says
but yet.......she did that with her husband and friends and they want to discount it

she told her husband, who is the most important family member AND she told friends.....albeit it should have been written down....but I feel even if it had been her parents would still be fighting it.

If you can please show me the link as to where I can find these words written by her to her hubby and friends ( :rolleyes: ), that would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Oh wait, that's right. She verbalized it to them and they came out years later and said that is what she wanted. I forgot.

and thats the rub. some people wish to ignore the sanctimony between husband and wife.

More than a dozen courts have all sided with the husband. His intentions may be suspect to some, but I think he is showing fidelity to his wife, and I think he really never thought he would see his (former) marriage under the scrutiny it is under. Neither he nor Terri's estate pays for her care. Who wants Congress or federal courts deciding end-of-life cases? Think of your own parents and siblings and spouses. Ask them what they want, and get a living will.

No rub, I just want to see the compelling evidence of Terri's true wishes.

It ain;t there, and this case comes down to this: Is it best to err on the side of life or err on the side of death? Y'all made your positons pretty clear, and I've made mine. I believe in the message of life, which is the message of the Torah and of Catholicism as well.

So HH, is the Torah wrong on this?

can we assume that if the roles were reversed and the parents were the ones wanting to take the tube out and the husband didnt, that you would be so obscurly blind in the face of the evidence(regarding court testamonies that were found to be compelling evidence)?

1. that there was compelling evidence of her verbal wishes was deemed by the court. unless you wish to discount our entire legal system, i'm going to stand by the judges ruling.

2. i believe that it is best to err on the side of life when there is life to err in favor of. this does not happen to be the case.

3. while i may be a jew by birth, don't mistake my handle and avatar (which if anything poke fun at religion) as a belief in the religion of my ancestors.

but...

from what i do know of my religion from hebrew school, nowhere in the torah does it say anything about 'erring on the side of life.' nor do i think you will actually find any part of it to really be able to be interpreted that way when taken metaphorically. yes, the torah, and judiasm, hold life in high regard, but i think that given the particulars of this case, they would agree she should be allowed to have her body join her spirit.

Look, before we bring up these bengin legal terms, how about reading the "compelling evidence" that her family has brought up but was muted by the courts.

Despite y'alls fierce arguements, there are nor winners here. Thus, how about treating this as a human issue instead of a legal issue? Otherwise, your apparent bloodlust comes off as pretty sickening

what bloodlust is it that you keep mentioning? no one wants to see her mauled. we want to see her wishes carried out.

dispite your lack of arguments, there will be a winner and a loser, unfortuantly if congress and the pres get their way, it's gonna be the wrong side.

if there is 'compelling' evidence that her family brought up but was muted in court, please, bring it to our attention. don't like to her parents website and say 'lookee here!' find the links to the specific stuff and show us. until then, i think most anything you say from this point on will be pretty meaningless.

I have no desire to continue a discussion with someone that cant answer a simple question directed specifically to them and would rather argue that any comments made in court that didnt go this poor lady's way are not factual and hold different meanings than it would if they had gone they other way.

Im out

I believe we are treating this as a human issue. Humans have a right to dignity, including death with dignity. Keeping her alive in the condition that she's in is not a dignified life, and not one that she would have chose for herself.

What does keeping her alive do for anyone? (I'm heartless right?) Does anyone think that she's going to wake up and jog around the block? Let the woman go.


She had no idea of what her future held, which is why she never put it down in writing what her wishes would be, but somehow, I don't think her parents would have cared much.

It is there, in numerous court rulings after hearing all testimony. why do you choose to ignore it?