This poor woman is just a political football. It's a damn shame.
Judge blocks removal of feeding tube from Schiavo

But then again...
Header at the top of CNN.com
>
BREAKING NEWS

AP: Case judge reinstates order to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Details soon.

I have still yet to read her wishes to die in this situation.

Has anyone considerd the cost?

Who is paying for all her care?

The husband?

The parents?

The state (taxpayers)?

I'm just curious and wonder how much that plays into it.

If the parents are paying for all her costs, maybe Michael should just walk away and wash his hands of it.

Shame on the politicians for trying to milk it. That's just wrong. If the state is paying for it, then the people need to know. They may change their views when they find out money s being flushed down the toilet while everyone'e medicaid is being cut.

If the husband is expecting some kind of insurance pay off, then, that's messed up too. I would imagine it would go to the medical bills which would be enormous. Must be in the millions already if not tens of millions.

Anyone know or have info on this?

If the arguement is truly based on that logic then she should have died 15 years ago. It is man's intervention that allows her to live.

NCB: Thanks for invoking Goodwin's Law.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050318/D88TII400.html

Update. Looks the Mullahs have spoken and the party of death will get their wish. I pray that God takes her quickly.

Mullah's? Party of Death eh?

Don't worry. The American Taliban will do something to get a feeding tube shoved back down her throat to continue her agony.

as it should. It's not that I don't feel badly for them, I certainly do. Ask yourself, would you let your child live in a state where they could do nothing on their own, maybe not even eat, talk, communicate, even understand whats on TV?

stated by her husband. a relationship that has dealt with and been respected for centuries even with this issue.

blah blah blah, party of death crap.

God probably would have taken her quickly 7 years ago before her parents decided they knew better and pushed to have her brain dead body made into a shrine

No link, but just heard this on the news:

From Tom DeLay - "She is not being kept alive, she is alive...yada-yada-yada".

If she isn't being "kept alive", why would she die with the tube removed? What a maroon.

Also, they are saying no person has every recovered from a Persistent Vegetative State, ever. That doesn't leave much room for her chances now does it?

What is up with congress? We had the baseball bullshit waste-of-time yesterday and then we get this today.

I hope voters remember this waste of time and money come next election cycle, but they won't.

not with crappy opinion pieces like this one from peggy noonan.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110006442

In America today all big stories have three dimensions: a legal angle, a public-relations angle and a political angle. In the Schiavo case some of our politicians seem not to be fully appreciating the second and third. This is odd.

Here's both a political and a public-relations reality: The Republican Party controls the Senate, the House and the White House. The Republicans are in charge. They have the power. If they can't save this woman's life, they will face a reckoning from a sizable portion of their own base. And they will of course deserve it.

This should concentrate their minds.

OK, a slight correction here.

The news is saying she is not comatose, she is in a PVS--so the headline for the thread is a tad misleading.

People have come out of comas, no one has ever come out of PVS.

Also, apparently how long it takes for her to die now that the feeding tube is removed is subjective--not right away, maybe a week, maybe two, they aren't really sure when and they aren't really sure "how" she will die.

Well, it looks like it's been done. According to the news (NPR - no link, live radio), the tube has been removed.

Hopefully, we've all been given pause for thought and will spark discussion with our loved ones about living wills, DNRs etc.

On another note, Congress is messed up and needs a reality check: I mean really, subpoena her to DC? What are they thinking? Same with the "steoids" questioning. That was hardball?

Oh, I guess there is a news link afterall - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._damaged_woman

Voters have no memories of what is done at the start of a new term. All they know is what they are told by the commercials. Most people vote party line anyways.

congress' subpeona is nothing more than a federal attempt to subvert the florida courts.

well they do have to look out for those 'activist' judges...

Don't count your non-interfering Republicans before the hatch: The feeding tube has been removed atleast 1 time in the past, only to be replaced by a new "law" from Jeb Bush that was subsequently found to be unconstitutional.

And even when she is finally allowed to die, the Jeb Bush contingent will continue to try and eliminate our rights to end our lives when found in such a state.

Because, ya know, it's exactly like the death penalty. And Hitler.

I'd play it on the safe side and not proactively pull the feeding tube.

My limited understanding on an important part of this situation, is that from a point early on in the past 15 year issue - therapuetic treatment was denied Terri. Could it have been that with treatment, progress could have been made? Seems like both sides should be more willing to allow for some latitude ... why won't can't Judge Greer entertain more opinions form medical experts.

Also, I am not convinced of the husband's purity of intention here, even if there is little left of the settlement funding for him. Even if he said no to the million bucks. Strikes me as though he stuck into following through - he has no way out at this point.

I'm not a fan of dealing out the ultimate finality - death.

btw rock on NCB and Lurkette both!

You know... we would never agree to kill an 8 month old child, but if they are left alone they would not be capable of feeding themselves... but if we stopped feeding our 8 month old child, its a horrible horrible offense and considered criminal! It will be interesting to see the precedent this sets for euthanasia in this country. Its a snowball effect.... we just keep on cheapening the dignity of human life.

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)