I would say that the subjective opinion of a lawyer about her client's case is not terribly reliable. If Terri is as responsive as these accounts say, I am confident that further court-ordered investigation by court-appointed physicians will find her not to be in a PVS.

However, I also know the power of the (intact) human mind to see/hear what it wants to see/hear. Given the extent of the brain damage I find it beyond the stretch of imagination that she could have the kinds of reactions attributed to her in her family's and her family's lawyers' accounts, and that a dozen trained neurologists could have missed it. The family has previously claimed that Terri is "responsive" and "happy" or "frustrated" or "wants to live," but subsequent medical investigation has shown that she is simply acting reflexively, and that the parts of her brain that process cognition and emotion are GONE.

Again, I would be happy to see another court-ordered physician's report, and I'm pretty confident about what it's going to show. Letters from lawyers or no.

Like I said before, these are desperate people willing to say or do anything to further their fantasy that they will win and force her to stay that way for the next 40 years. Seriously, if Terry was that responsive, don't you think they would have more than a few seconds of video footage that shows her doing anything more than sit there for the last 15 years?

The next revalation from the family will be that Michael Shiavo is actually Scott Peterson and that Terry tried to grab the feeding tube and put it back in as it was removed.

What are you talking about? who said lawyers are bad? Why doesn't barbara weller have any place in writing such a letter? Where is the medical diagnosis you speak of?

Ms. Weller wrote a letter describing her experiences with terri. She has every right to let the world know her interactions with this woman. If this letter is accurate, and instead of writing it she decided to not say anything on terri's behalf, that would make her complicit in her death.

The reverance towards the courts here is what really gets me. To think that they are completely objective is laughable.

Remember, the courts also upheld Dred Scott, Seperate but equal is equal, ect... They weren't right then and they;re not right now

What really gets me is how people believe they know that terri shouldn't live, that any reports/letters/whatever that come out siding with terri to live are only desperate attempts by desperate people to prolong a fantasy. What really gets me is that nothing can be objectionable unless it comes from a doctor or a court. What really gets me is that there are people that would rather this woman starve to death so that they can be right.

Let me guess guy's, the public's opinion on this matter is wrong as well.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/P...=599622&page=1

Now repeat after me;
"63 Percent of the publc is not in suport of federal intervention, but rather allowing the state courts to work this one out."

So are you one to say that 63 percent of the public is wrong in their interpretation of Congress oversteping their authority? You guys know the right answer to this very difficult and heart wrenching issue that pit's family against each other, everyone else is just clueless right?

You don't stand for the rights of family or the sacriment of marriage at all.

Also, neither of you has answered the following;
1) who pays the medical bills?
2) Do we keep her alive indefinatly?
3) Who has more right's, a spouse or a parent? You already implied your choice, your just afraid to voice it.

And Stevo, your just covering your ears if you haven't read through the court breifs that both side submitted. Oh wait, it's a huge left wing conspiracy, right? :rolleyes:

It's because when you rely on what people 'saw' or 'said they saw' the end story is not what was originally said. Additionally, when you are relying solely on representatives for the family you will get what they want you to hear. This is how you end up with obvious lies:

Michael never provided treatment for Terry
Michael put her in this state and has to kill her to cover the evidence
Micheal wants the money for himself
Terry is able to be spoon-fed
Terry smiles and laughs all the time

Who is the reliable source in this? We have plenty of people who consider themselves informed enough to shoot out an opinion, but who is actually qualified? I'm not. I've just started reading articles and opinions about it. I've never spoken to the doctors, the husband, the parents, or those in the legislative or judicial branch involved. If I could actually talk to them, then I could make an informed opinion about it. Until that time, we are not qualified. Anyone here who consideres his or herself totally justified in an opinion either way is kinda lying to him or herself. We can guess at who is lying and who is telling the truth till we're blue in the face, but we can't KNOW. Until we KNOW for sure the facts, it's irresponsible to err on the side of death.

I think if terri was actually a real-life vegetable, in a persistant vegitative state, with a brain turned to liquid, her parents wouldn't be fighting to save her.


arch - If deciding who lives and who dies was a matter of money, those on welfare would have been killed off a long time ago. we don't keep her alive indefinately, we let her eat, so that she can live. I'm not against marriage, or spousal rights, but just becasue her husband said she wants to die, doesn't make it true. I'm for terri's rights, specifically the one to live.

I don't know if this has been posted or not, but it's interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...on/whbriefing/

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3084934

"And in what many liberal bloggers are calling an example of outright hypocrisy, Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 that created a legal mechanism to allow attending physicians and hospital ethics boards to pull the plug on patients -- even if that specifically contradicts patient or family wishes."

Whaddya know, when the media spotlight hits, the politicians run for cover.

I'm still largely undecided on this case. I don't believe Michael Schiavo is the monster the media enjoys making him out to be. He has publicly disavowed all financial gain from her death and has no reason for wanting Terri to die. Were he just trying to be rid of her he could have gotten a divorce. Rather it seems he is trying to carry out her wishes.

I have seen clips of her, and she is neither a vegetable or a severely retarded person(various media sources seem to angle for either extreme). Miracle cases have happened before, but I doubt anything will change for her. I suppose in the end I believe she should be left alive. Not for any real moral reason, but rather because she didn't put her wishes into documentation. A cop out? I suppose so, but one has to make a line somewhere.

Just coming in as a new debater, Terry Schiavo's medical costs are covered by a malpractice settlement related to her current predicament. There is an issue about how long the money will last as it's almost depleted. If that was supposed to a more rhetorical type question I apologize.

Not necessarily. Some people just cannot face reality. Doctor after doctor has said she is in a PVS. Their work falls on deaf ears because it's not what the family wants to believe.

What about the right to die?

Oh, I forgot. We don't have that right. That's why suicide is, in fact, against the law. Not to mention euthanasia.

The Western civilization cannot deal with death, as natural as it may be. I am intrigued by this question: what if this woman was Chinese? How would the Chinese handle it? And would their approach be right or wrong by our standards?

I wouldn't want to sit motionless for decades, whether it was my right or not.

stevo - I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the letter you posted should be considered compelling evidence? She's the lawyer hired by the parents - if she writes down her thoughts, would you expect them to be anything less than that which supports the parents claim? I'm sure Johnny Cochrane would tell you how innocent OJ Simpson was.

will - Who is the reliable source in this? If it's being suggested that we must evaluate either the attorney hired by the parents vs. quite a few judges and court-appointed doctors - it should be obvious who the reliable source is. Obviously none of us can know with perfect 100% certainty - but the same could be said of anything and everything. The courts have erred on the side of life for 5 years now, there has been no sudden, jump-to-death decision making here. It's time to let Terri go.

GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo




http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Schiavo/story?id=600937

The letter posted by stevo isn't evidence, it's one of many stories of perceptions from non-medical people describing Terri's medical state. I have great sympathy for these people who clearly believe what they see (or think they see). Although every word in those stories may be heartfelt, the stories can't be accepted as medical evidence, because none of the evidence is from the best of our medically trained professionals in the field.

On the other hand, every single doctor that has personally examined Terri Schiavo agrees that she is in PVS. That is the reason Michael Schaivo hads won every court appearance in this matter to date, over a dozen cases in 7 years. There aren't any cracks in the case from this perspective -- not one.

About who is paying the bills -- I read in the Sunday New York Times that Florida and Medicaid are paying the entire costs of Terri's care, which is not an unusual situation for a person in hospice care (which is usually not as long as it is in Terri Schiavo's case). The Schaivos paid for some of the care earlier on, but are no longer responsible for the cost. Michael Schaivo says he won't be receiving a penny.

The talking points that were pointed out in the links above just emphasize the political importance of this event for the mid-term elections next year. Remember when everyone in Washington pledged they would never use 9/11 for political purposes? We know better now about how Terri Schaivo is going to be used in next year's elections.

Again I say unto the masses

"In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care."

Medicaid does cover her prescription medicine and a hospice takes care of her for free. According the the hospice she requires very little medicine.

I need to set something straight to everyone. In advanced conditions such as advanced stages of cancer, comatose people, and PVC, a chemical shift occurs in the body, and basically kills any feeling for hunger. (I got a much better explantion from both a professor and my uncle (neurologist) and wish I understood more of it)

Personally I don't think she can be saved. From what I've heard, her higher brain is soup. What I have seen in the tapes seems to comfirm that she has no cognative ability whatsoever. I feel that her wishes should be carried out.

ABC just laid it our pretty clearly on the evening news:

1. Doctors who have examined her say Terri's state is permamnent and irreversible.

2. Fifteen judges in 34 court appearance have all ruled in Michael Schaivo's favor.

3. Whatever money was once there from malpractice is virtually all gone. There is no cash.

4. The new federal judge appears very skeptical that there are any new legal considerations in the case, despite the new federal law. The judge also appears to believe that Terri Schaivo has received due process in the court.

5. The Supreme Court has now twice refused to hear the case.

6. An independent court investigator reviewed all the court documents, including sealed documents, and reported to Judge Greer in Florida, who agreed that her state is permannet, and that she has received due process in the courts.

The upshot of the whole thing? It sounded like ABC was trying to get the Shindlers to understand that there is no hope for Terri's recovery, and that she will likely die from starvation/dehydration.

The longer this goes on the less it is about Terry. Instead, it is becoming a case of conflicting ideals.

It seems painfully obvious that most people outside the family are hanging onto this for political motivations only. The case isn't unique. Many people every year have feeding tubes withdrawn. Most people (especially young people) do not have living wills and families do not always agree on whether life support should continue.

The GOP talking points memo demonstrates this clearly. The religious right put the Republicans in power and they want their agenda pushed. This is a great opportunity to further their pro-life agenda.

NCB, you've got some stamina brotherman.

"This is a great opportunity to further their pro-life agenda." I've never been so proud of NOT being a liberal.

Just FYI,

As most people on this board know, I do not identify myself as a liberal, but I think this poor woman should be allowed to die with dignity instead of being made a political pawn of the right-to-life movement.

I mean, if it was someone you loved and they were going to be a turnip the rest of their life what would you do?

If you were the turnip, what would you want?

Pro-life?

Yeah, right. What they have, and what you apparently share, is an anti-choice agenda.

I would say it is irresponsible to err on either side without know the facts. If they have managed to go through the amount of court appearances already, without one judge saying "keep her alive", it makes me think the evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion you have made.

Yeah, Terry's a turnip, a vegetable. That's so easy to say. Do you think she's suffering, right now? If she's a "vegetable" than she ceraintly isn't. But if she isn't suffering why are you so hell bent on ending her life?

Define what "vegetable" means, and we can go from there. Convince me that your answers are something more than "I couldn't imagine living like that" when you look at her.

stop being obtuse. this isn't about her suffering. she no longer has the ability to suffer. the suffering that would be ending would that of her loved ones who have to see her kept in a pvs with no hope of recovery.

what this is about is following her wishes for her to not have to 'suffer' the indignity of being kept alive when there is no hope, to not be kept alive artificially (and if she needs a surgical implant in order to ingest food without choking, that's definatly artificial life support).

Who's Dr. Pate?

the suffering that would be ending would that of her loved ones who have to see her kept in a pvs with no hope of recovery.

So it isn't about Terry?

i was wondering how long it would take for someone to point that out, so much for following proper legal procedure. the florida legal system has been completely invalidated. and really, one can't discount their findings with a wave of the hand. furthermore, the legislation said to ignore the rulings of florida in this particular case (how many appelate cases carry this caveat?) and that the "final" ruling would not be treated as precedent for future court ruilngs. now that's pretty weird.

the bush 1999 law...i heard about that yesterday but didn't find many specifics. it also seemed to guaranteee that no one was denied live-saving medical treatment.

and PVS...divisive issue because we can't be sure how "alive" someone is. body can do most things, although swallowing is dangerous, hence the tube. doctors seem to think a person is usually "gone" in this state, but some family members disagree.

so, err on the side of life? or believe the consensus of every professional involved?

sad that it has come to this.

Michael S. Responds to the slander and power grab by Congress.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/20/Ta...e_down__.shtml
BTW, it is not Congress' right to legislate on individuals. Their mandate stops at broad national policy.
Individuals are handled by the courts.

All congress did here was give terri one last appeal in a federal court, which until now she was denied the opportunity. Convicted murderers get a mandatory appeal in federal court, why is it so hard to give her one appeal at the federal level? Does she have less rights than a convicted murderer?

This whole thing is sad; from her condition, to the way this has spun into a pro-life/pro-choice match. The saddest thing is that no matter what her estranged husband says, we will never know what her true wishes actually were. It is possible that terri wanted to stay alive, but she is condemned to die, regardless.

Why do people keep ignoring the fact that other people, including family members, testified in court that this was what she wanted.....its NOT just what her husband said.

What part of that dont those of you that just keep referring to the husband understand?

I referred to her husband becasue he is the one the courts have sided with in this case, not because I take what he says as gospel. Personally, I don't believe a thing he says.

Courts have sided with him 7 times. And not just him, other friends of Terri have testified on her behalf.
Courts also side with him because HE is the legal guardian.

By the way, STOP referring to him as estranged. It conjures up demonizing images of emotional detachment, which is something the anti-dignity people need to do to keep this shell alive.

Terri's parents (Not Terri herself) already had two appeals to federal court and the SCOTUS denied their case twice.
It appears some won't be satisfied until she gets 30-60 hearings in federal court. By law of averages, one may eventually go their way when they find an ideologically similar judge.

i guess the matter was already "over" as far as procedure is concerned. now it's "over" again, same result. it's a strech to say that her parents' case has not been adequately heard or needs to be re-examined yet again. granted, the legal issues are easier to sort out than the bioethics.

just to keep this updated, news on the radio said that the executive branch/justice department is considering getting involved.

how disingenious, only picking a small part of what i wrote somewhat out of context. now let me quote me.

as far as suffering is concerned, this isn't about terri. unless you think someone with no consciouness and no ability to comprend the environment or time, then she's not suffering. the only people suffering are her family and loved ones.

And the republicans called us crybabys when we asked for a recount of a presidential election. You've got to be kidding me.

I should say that the conservative response to this situation causes me actual embarrassment. I don't know how else to put it, really. Supporting this President has been my inclination for many years now. This particular case just did not need to be politicized. I'm confident the precedent of the courts and the position of the medical profession are quite correct.

Some people have mentioned dying with dignity. I would like to see that as well, given from what I've observed, that being she wants to die.

So why not lethal injection? What is the greater of two evils? ( or morals?) Starving someone to death (removal of tube) or murder. ( killing by injection)

People have the plug pulled on them everyday but usually those people die relatively quickly. Is this not inhumane to let someone starve to death? And if she feels nothing, why not the injection.

Could it be a can of worms opening up called state sponsored euthanasia?

This is one pickle in a jar that got in and now can't get out. To bad for those involved.

Death is almost near. Let's hope the 11th Circuit doesn't fuck it up!