Comatose Woman's Parents Hope for Legal Help - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

NCB · 03-18-2005, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

What about quality of life of the individual who's in the vegetative state? If

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

dksuddeth · 03-18-2005, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

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

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

Manx · 03-18-2005, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Son, no one is using politics here.

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.

Quote:

*** some basless suspicions removed ***

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 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cierah

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.

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.

Manx · 03-18-2005, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Apparently, this judge Greer is beleived to be in contempt of Congress.

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.

tecoyah · 03-19-2005, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

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.

I am a Moderator and indeed we wish to avoid undo disrespect in these forums....

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.

Thats said....it certainly serves little purpose, and cheapens your statement to follow it up with the statement above ^^^^

"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.

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

NCB · 03-19-2005, 06:00 AM

Quote:

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

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?

Quote:

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

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.

dksuddeth · 03-19-2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

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.

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

uncle_el · 03-19-2005, 08:45 AM

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...

Quote:

Mr. JF is a 57 year old man with a past medical history of hypertension who was found unresponsive by a family member. Emergency Medical Services found the patient to be unresponsive and hypertensive. Upon arrival to the Emergency Room at Grady Memorial Hospital, the patient was in respiratory distress. He was a very difficult intubation, and a tracheal tube for breathing was eventually placed. On Computed Tomography (CT) of the head, he was found to have bilateral posterior cerebellar artery (PCA) infarcts and uncal herniation.

Whether as a physician in the emergency room, in the trauma bay, in the medical intensive care unit, or on the neurology service, we already have or will encounter a situation such as this at some point during our careers. Many difficult decisions need to be made immediately, and others will need to be made over the next few hours and days. As with many patients, these decisions will be critical to the patient’s prognosis for survival, the family’s perception of the patient’s prognosis, as well as their perception of the care given to the patient. The comatose state, vegetative state, and brain death are issues that are discussed by those outside of medicine. These topics have quite a bit of confusion among the general public, and it is quite apparent in the with the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case.

According to www.terrisfight.org, Ms. Schindler-Schiavo “is in a locked-in state”. Furthermore “though she is responsive to stimuli, interacts with her environment and her loved ones and is capable of communicating in limited ways, she is a disabled and vulnerable adult - requiring protection, therapy and the route to recovery.”1

Her case has spawned debate on television, on Internet forums, and even a new “Terri’s Law”- the term given to the decision of Florida governor Jeb Bush to restore tube feedings to Ms. Schindler-Schiavo. It is important for us as physicians to dispel any misconceptions our patients’ families may have. It is also important for us to respect and honor the decisions of our patients’ families.

Brain Death, a definition:

The levels of consciousness can be thought of as a continuum: from alert, oriented, and active in a meaningful way with other individuals to absolute absence of alertness, orientation, or activity.

Coma, from the Greek word “koma”, literally means deep sleep 1. The comatose state is one of pathologic unconsciousness. The comatose patient is unaware of his/her surroundings, and is unable to be aroused. There are many anatomical and metabolic reasons for a person to be in a coma, which are outside the scope of this paper. However, all of the different reasons for coma affect the cerebral cortex and/or the reticular activating system. The cerebral cortex, which is composed of the right and left hemispheres, controls voluntary movement and sensation. It is also responsible for thought, reasoning, and memory. The reticular activating system is not located in a particular area of the brain, but rather it is a collection of different portions of the brain, including the thalamus, brainstem, and medulla. Together, the cerebral cortex and the reticular activating system are responsible for consciousness.2, 3

A comatose patient may or may not make a meaningful recovery. One comatose patient may regain consciousness, as well as regain all abilities present prior to the coma, whereas another comatose patient may regain consciousness, but with impairment of some or all abilities. Yet another comatose patient may remain in a coma. This third scenario is termed a persistent vegetative state. A persistent vegetative state is also characterized by unawareness, but patients have normal sleep-wake cycles and are arousable. A fourth comatose patient may progress to brain death.

Brain death can be defined as “an unresponsiveness and lack of receptivity, the absence of movement, and breathing, the absence of brain-stem reflexes, and coma whose cause has been identified”4. In the brain dead state, a patient is completely relying upon medical interventions to keep the heart beating and the lungs respiring.

Mimickers of brain death: hypothermia, drug intoxication, “locked in” syndrome.

There is an old saying that a dead body must be a warm body. Hypothermia is a condition that occurs when body temperature falls below 35 degrees Celsius. It may occur when a person is subjected to extremely cold temperatures, or if there is a pathological condition affecting the temperature regulating portion of the brain, found in the hypothalamus. As the core temperature of the body drops below 35 degrees Celsius, coordination will begin to be lost. The skin may become pale, muscles may become rigid, and shivering may occur in an attempt to maintain and perhaps raise core temperature. Heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure may begin to rise in this early stage of hypothermia. As the core temperature continues to drop, speech may become slurred and confusion may begin to set in. As the core temperature of the body drops below 32 degrees Celsius, the response to light is lost (i.e. no pupillary response). Although they rose in the early stage of hypothermia, heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure will begin to plummet once core temperature falls below 32 degrees Celsius. As the core temperature drops below 28 degrees Celsius, brain-stem reflexes are lost. It is imperative to remember that people can survive the extreme cold, and all of these deficits are potentially reversible.5

A chart used by EMS.

Somewhere between twenty-five to forty percent of hospital admissions are related to substance abuse and its sequelae, and ten to sixteen percent of outpatients seen in primary care practice are suffering from addiction related problems. Roughly ten percent of Americans, report misuse of sedatives in their lifetime. Approximately five to ten of primary care patients meet clinical criteria for major depression. Approximately ten percent meet criteria for minor depression. Antidepressant has increased dramatically within the last ten years with the advent of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the television commercials and advertisements of pharmaceutical companies, leading to the increased awareness and recognition of depression by the general public. Sixty-two percent of Americans age eighteen and over have had alcohol in the past year. Thirty-two percent of those had five or more drinks on the same occasion at least once in the past year. Needless to say, sedatives, antidepressants, and alcohol are commonly used, misused, and abused in today’s American society. When used in combination, the effects can be deleterious, even fatal. Barbiturates, other sedatives, antidepressants, even alcohol can mimic brain death when present at extreme or toxic levels. However, certain portions of brain-stem function remain intact, such as the pupillary response to light.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy of unknown origin, characterized by progressive muscle weakness and areflexia. It appears that GBS, also known as ascending paralysis, was first described by James Wardrop in 1834. It was more fully described by Jean Baptiste Octave Landry de Thézillat in 1859, and for a time was known as Landry’s ascending paralysis. In 1916, the landmark study was undertaken by Guillain, Barré, and Strohl. The name "Guillain-Barré Syndrome" was first used in 1927 and persists to this day. GBS occurs in both men and women, affecting people of all ages. It has an annual incidence of 0.6 to 2.4 cases per 100,000; and is now the most common cause of acute flaccid paralysis in healthy people. 14, 15, 16, 17

Though spontaneous remission is the typical outcome, GBS can progress to involve cranial and peripheral nerves, resulting in a “Locked-In Syndrome” (LIS). The term LIS was introduced by Plum and Posner in 1966 and is used to define a clinical picture characterized by a total paralysis of voluntary motor functions with preservation of vertical eye movements combined with synergetic elevation of the upper eyelids when looking upwards. This syndrome is usually associated with a bilateral ventral pontine lesion.18, 19, 20

Brain death is a completely irreversible condition, whereas hypothermia, drug intoxication, and locked-in syndrome are potentially reversible.

Determination of brain death:

One must use his/her clinical neurological skills to find and document coma, the complete absence of brain-stem reflexes, and apnea. The clinical criteria consist of: coma, absence of motor responses to pain, absence of pupillary responses to light, absence of corneal reflexes, absence of caloric responses, absence of gag reflex, absence of coughing in response to tracheal suctioning, absence of sucking and rooting reflexes, and absence of respiratory drive at a PaCO2 that is 60 mm Hg or 20 mm Hg above normal base-line values (i.e. failed apnea test). 21

A physician should refer to the rules, regulations, and criteria of the particular hospital in order to establish brain death in a patient. It is of note, “that it is not the physician’s role to diagnosis death, but rather to diagnose life.”22

What to do if uncertainty remains about brain death?

If uncertainy remains, so-called confirmatory tests can be ordered: electroencephalography (EEG), transcranial Doppler ultrasonography, cerebral angiography, and/or cerebral scintigraphy. None of these technological modalities should be used alone in determining brain death, but rather their interpretation should be combined with the objective findings of the physical exam.

An EEG is a non-invasive procedure in which electrodes are placed on the head of the patient. The electrical output and activity of the brain is recorded and read on a monitor. In brain death, a lack of reactivity to stimuli needs to be demonstrated on EEG.23

Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography is another non-invasive procedure. However, this modality uses sound waves to detect direction, velocity, and direction of blood flow.

A cerebral angiography test is an invasive procedure where a radiopaque substance is injected into the arteries so that the blood vessels will be prominent on X-ray. In brain death, no filling of the cerebrum should be detected in the carotid or vertebral arteries on cerebral angiography.24

Cerebral scintigraphy uses a radionucleotide, generally technetium bound to another molecule, to determine perfusion of the cerebral perfusion. There should be absence of cerebral and brain stem activity on cerebral scintigraphy in order for brain death to be determined.

Conclusion:

The subject of brain death is a hot button issue in today’s society. Care should be taken by the physicians, and the rest of the health care team in establishing brain death. The cause of the patient’s coma must first be determined. Mimickers of brain death need to be ruled out. A careful physical and neurological exam will lead the physician to diagnose life, or determine a state of brain death. If the objective physical exam does not fit all clinical criteria of brain death, there are a number of confirmatory tests which can be done. The results of any test performed should be used in conjunction with the physical exam. In the end, it is important for the physicians: 1. to answer any questions of the patient’s family, 2. to dispel any misconceptions about the patient’s condition, and 3. to honor the decisions of the family, even if it goes against what the physicians would choose to do.

Upon neurological exam, Mr. JF was found to have absence of all brain stem reflexes. He failed the apnea test. However, he did have a reproducible triple reflex with plantar stimulation. An EEG was obtained, which was found to be severely abnormal, but not isoelectric. The medical ICU team was informed of the findings. The family, taking everything into account, decided to withdraw care.

in my mind, this is one of the most important pieces:

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...

JBX · 03-19-2005, 08:52 AM

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.

Manx · 03-19-2005, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

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

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

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-19-2005, 11:43 AM

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.

dksuddeth · 03-19-2005, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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

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'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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.

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

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-19-2005, 12:20 PM

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.

Manx · 03-19-2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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.

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.

kutulu · 03-19-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBX

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.

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.

hannukah harry · 03-19-2005, 04:47 PM

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.

flstf · 03-19-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

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...

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.

kutulu · 03-19-2005, 07:52 PM

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

NCB · 03-19-2005, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

NCB: Dump the Hitler references.

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

hannukah harry · 03-19-2005, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

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?

matthew330 · 03-19-2005, 09:23 PM

"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.

NCB · 03-19-2005, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

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?

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.

tecoyah · 03-19-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

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

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

KMA-628 · 03-19-2005, 09:51 PM

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.

Manx · 03-19-2005, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

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

"another"? You lost me.

matthew330 · 03-19-2005, 09:59 PM

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

jorgelito · 03-20-2005, 12:06 AM

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.

Antikarma · 03-20-2005, 01:58 AM

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.

macmanmike6100 · 03-20-2005, 02:19 AM

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??

Blackthorn · 03-20-2005, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette

I don't know all the medical facts, but it sounds like her doctors think that what the parents are clinging to - that she's making sounds and motions - are just reflexive actions and don't indicate that she has any chance in hell of coming out of the vegetative state. I sympathize with them, but sometimes you have to be strong enough to just let someone go. What kind of life would she want? It's sad, but I think they ought to let her go.

P.S. Everyone should have a living will.

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.

JBX · 03-20-2005, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

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.

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.

lurkette · 03-20-2005, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

NCB · 03-20-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette

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.

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

dksuddeth · 03-20-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

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?

kutulu · 03-20-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

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.

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.

NCB · 03-20-2005, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

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.

filtherton · 03-20-2005, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

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.

NCB · 03-20-2005, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

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

It ain't flyin', eh??

hannukah harry · 03-20-2005, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

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

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

Manx · 03-20-2005, 10:04 AM

And then there are these, due to a law signed in 1999 by then Governor George Bush:

Quote:

A patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile are two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support, the chief medical officer at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital said Monday.

Dr. David Pate's comments came as the family of Spiro Nikolouzos fights to keep St. Luke's from turning off the ventilator and artificial feedings keeping the 68-year-old grandfather alive.

St. Luke's notified Jannette Nikolouzos in a March 1 letter that it would withdraw life-sustaining care of her husband of 34 years in 10 days, which would be Friday. Mario Caba-llero, the attorney representing the family, said he is seeking a two-week extension, at minimum, to give the man more time to improve and to give his family more time to find an alternative facility.

Caballero said he would discuss that issue with hospital attorneys today.

Pate said he could not address Nikolouzos' case specifically because he doesn't have permission from the family but could talk about the situation in general.

"If there is agreement on the part of all the physicians that the patient does have an irreversible, terminal illness," he said, "we're not going to drag this on forever ...

"When the hospital is really correct and the care is futile ... you're not going to find many hospitals or long-term acute care facilities (that) want to take that case," he said. "Any facility that's going to be receiving a patient in that condition ... is going to want to be paid for it, of course."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3073295

Quote:

Life-Support Stopped for 6-Month-Old in Houston

Yesterday Sun Hudson, the nearly 6-month-old at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, diagnosed and slowly dying with a rare form of dwarfism (thanatophoric dysplasia), was taken off the ventilator that was keeping him alive. A Houston court authorized the hospital's action, and Sun died shortly thereafter. Today's Houston Chronicle and Dallas Morning News have most of the details.

Both papers report that this is the first time in the United States a court has allowed life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent. (The Dallas paper quotes John Paris, a bioethicist at Boston College, as its source.) If true, the unique Texas statute under which this saga was played out contributed in no small way to the outcome. As one of the laws co-authors (along with a roomful of other drafters, in 1999) let me explain.

Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate). In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient). These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors. (I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee. Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society. Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/hea...pport_sto.html

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.

03-19-2005, 08:52 AM	#129 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	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. __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

03-19-2005, 11:43 AM	#131 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-19-2005, 12:20 PM	#133 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-19-2005, 04:47 PM	#136 (permalink)
hannukah harry Junkie	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. __________________ shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

03-19-2005, 09:51 PM	#144 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	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. __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

03-19-2005, 07:52 PM	#138 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	yes that would be preferrable but the govt would call that murder

03-19-2005, 09:23 PM	#141 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	"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.

03-19-2005, 09:59 PM	#146 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Tecoyah/Manx...are you guys having sex?

03-20-2005, 12:06 AM	#147 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	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.

03-20-2005, 01:58 AM	#148 (permalink)
Antikarma Psycho Location: Yellowknife, NWT	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. __________________ "Whoever you are, go out into the evening, leaving your room, of which you know each bit; your house is the last before the infinite, whoever you are."

03-20-2005, 02:19 AM	#149 (permalink)
macmanmike6100 High Honorary Junkie Location: Tri-state.	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??