Terry Shiavo and the Sanctity of Life...

[Ray]

Not being polite on this one.

Listen up, Ray: this woman is DEAD, in every meaningful sense....
You are supporting federal interference in private, personal decisions... being pushed by Protestant fundamentalists..."Bible-thumpers," is exactly right....

You are militating for keeping a dead body, "alive." So, YOU go do the care. YOU pay for it. YOU tell all the poor kids, and sick people, that it's fair to divert the resources THEY need to keep a woman's body with no hope of recovery...

Not only are you NOT being polite you're also WRONG on one important fact: I am not militating for keeping a dead body alive; you'll note that I offered no opinion whether her body should be kept alive.

But I will offer an opinion: It should be the family that decides in cases like these. Who is the family and who has that right? When I decided to let my older brother "expire" in 2002, I had been given "permission" by my other brothers to make that decision. (I lived close enough to visit him and talk to the docs). He was divorced and had no children; our father was unreachable. I can't imagine what may have taken place if we hadn't been unified.

I think it is good that decisions like this are not taken lightly, that they are subject to legal challenge. It is not (or maybe "it should not be") an easy decision to make.

This is grotesque.

You might be right.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Listen up, Ray: the family HAS decided. Legally, and by tradition, this is THE HUSBAND'S decision, unless of course there's reason to think he's the one who put her in the coma to begin with. And there isn't.

There have been FIFTEEN YEARS of court decisions--twenty-two separate court decisions on this matter. The husband's made his wishes clear, and he's been consistent. The Supreme Court has turned town hearing the case, which means that they've seen no reason to reconsider lower court rulings.

Yes, the parents want something else. They've gone to court. Twenty-two different courts. It's gone to the Supreme Court. Their demands have been turned down, again and again and again, for 15 years of this insanity. What's kept it going? Right-wing fundamentalists--a term I am using because the polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans think pulling the feeding tube is the right thing to do. Why'd it get to Congress? Tom DeLay and his crowd of right-wing loons pushed it--oddly enough, at a time when Hizzoner is nose-diving in the polls with regard to Iraq and Social Security.

So tell us: when's it going to be enough? What more than 22 judges, and all her actual doctors, and the husband's wishes, do you want?

 

[Ray]

Listen up, Ray: the family HAS decided. Legally, and by tradition, this is THE HUSBAND'S decision, unless of course there's reason to think he's the one who put her in the coma to begin with....Yes, the parents want something else. They've gone to court. Twenty-two different courts....

So tell us: when's it going to be enough? What more than 22 judges, and all her actual doctors, and the husband's wishes, do you want?

Sounds simple to me, you always have the right answer; we'll just elect you to supreme leader and live happily ever after.

 

[Deuce]

I agree. Enough is enough. There should be the option of going to court in cases where the motive of the legal gaurdian may not be in the best interest of the person in question. But in this case, I think it's gone to far. It has already been shown again and again that the decision of the husband is acceptable and justified, regardless of the parents feelings. The parents are no doubt in pain and disagree with the decision of the husband, but I think there should be certain limits applied to situations like this in order to come to a speedy conslusion as to let the family members move on instead of having to deal with this every day for 15 years. This ongoing battle is probably causing everyone more pain than if they would have removed the feeding tube 10 years ago.

 

[oldnewbie]

A few facts:http://www.wftv.com/news/4221314/detail.html


The timeline in the case of Terri Schiavo, who has been at the center of a protracted legal battle between her husband and parents over the husband's attempts to remove her feeding tube:


1990
-- Feb. 25: Terri Schiavo collapses in her home. Doctors believe a potassium imbalance caused her heart to temporarily stop, cutting off oxygen to her brain.


1992
-- November: Terri's husband, Michael, wins malpractice suit that accused doctors of misdiagnosing his wife; jury awards more than more than $700,000 for her care, Michael receives an additional $300,000.


1993
-- Feb. 14: Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have a falling out with Michael over the malpractice suit money and Terri's care.


-- July 29: Bob and Mary Schindler file petition to have Michael Schiavo removed as Terri's guardian. The case is later dismissed.


1998
-- May: Michael Schiavo files petition to remove Terri's feeding tube.


2000
-- Feb. 11: Circuit Judge George W. Greer rules feeding tube can be removed.


2001
-- Jan. 24: 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds Greer's decision.


-- March 29: Greer rules feeding tube to be removed April 20.


-- April 18: Florida Supreme Court refuses to intervene in the case.


-- April 20: U.S. District Judge Richard Lazzara grants the Schindlers a stay until April 23 to exhaust appeals.


-- April 23: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to intervene.


-- April 24: Feeding tube is removed from Terri Schiavo.


-- April 26: Circuit Judge Frank Quesada orders doctors to reinsert Terri's feeding tube.


-- April 30: Lawyers for Michael Schiavo file emergency motion with appellate court asking it to order removal of Terri's feeding tube.


-- July 11: 2nd District Court of Appeal sends case back to Judge Greer.


-- July 18: Schindlers ask Greer to let their doctors evaluate Terri before making a final decision on removing the feeding tube.


-- Aug. 10: Greer denies the Schindlers' evaluation request, as well as their request to remove Michael Schiavo as guardian.


-- Sept. 26: Schindlers' attorneys argue before 2nd District Court of Appeal, citing testimony from seven doctors who say Terri can recover with the right treatment.


-- Oct. 3: 2nd District Court of Appeal delays removal of feeding tube indefinitely.


-- Oct. 17: 2nd District Court of Appeal rules that five doctors can examine Terri to determine whether she has any hope of recovery. Two doctors are picked by the Schindlers, two are picked by Michael Schiavo and one is picked by the court.


2002
-- Feb. 13: Mediation attempts fail; Michael Schiavo again seeks to be allowed to remove Terri's feeding tube.


-- Oct. 12: Weeklong hearing begins in the case. Three doctors, including the one appointed by the court, testify that Terri is in a persistent, vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The two doctors selected by the Schindlers say she can recover.


-- Nov. 22: Judge Greer rules that there is no evidence that Terri has any hope of recovery and orders feeding tube to be removed Jan. 3, 2003.


-- Dec. 13: Judge Greer stays order to remove feeding tube on Jan. 3 until the 2nd District Court of Appeal reviews the case.


2003
-- April 4: Schindlers' attorneys ask 2nd District Court of Appeal panel to "err on the side of life" and overturn Greer's ruling.


-- June 6: 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds Greer's ruling.


-- July 15: The 2nd District Court of Appeal refuses to rehear the case.


-- Aug. 22: The Florida Supreme Court declines to hear case.


-- Sept. 2: Schindlers take case to federal court seeking judicial intervention.


-- Sept. 17: Judge Greer sets Oct. 15 date for removal of tube.


-- Oct. 3: Attorney General Charlie Crist says he won't get involved in case.


-- Oct. 7: Gov. Jeb Bush files a federal court brief urging Terri Schiavo be kept alive.


-- Oct. 10: U.S. District Judge Lazzara rules he does not have jurisdiction to intervene in case.


-- Oct. 13: Protesters and Schindler family begin 24-hour vigil at Pinellas Park hospice where Terri Schiavo lives.


-- Oct. 14: 2nd District Court of Appeal again refuses to block tube removal.


-- Oct. 15: Doctors remove feeding tube; Bush pledges to search for possible legal options to resume feedings.


-- Oct. 17: Two state courts reject the Schindler's request to reinsert the feeding tube.


-- Oct. 20: The Florida House of Representatives votes to give governor the power to issue a stay in the feeding tube dispute.


-- Oct. 21: The Senate and House pass a bill allowing Bush to intervene. He signs the bill, called "Terri's Law," then issues an order to reinsert the tube. Morton Plant Hospital begins rehydrating Terri Schiavo, six days after her feeding tube was removed. A judge rejects a request by her husband's attorney to temporarily restrain the governor's order.


-- Dec. 2: An independent guardian concludes there's "no reasonable medical hope" that Terri Schiavo will improve.


2004
-- May 6: Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird rules the law allowing Bush to intervene is unconstitutional. The governor's attorneys appeal.


-- June 1: 2nd District Court of Appeal agrees to let Michael Schiavo's attorney ask the Florida Supreme Court to take the appeal directly, bypassing the 2nd DCA.


-- June 16: In a 4-3 order, the Florida Supreme Court agrees to take the appeal.


-- Aug. 31: Oral arguments in the case are nationally televised.


-- Sept. 23: Florida Supreme Court strikes down "Terri's Law" as unconstitutional.


-- Oct. 22: Greer refuses to hold a new trial based on recent comments from Pope John Paul II calling the withdrawal of food and hydration from the disabled a sin.


-- Dec. 1: Bush's attorney ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case on "Terri's Law."


-- Dec. 29: The 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds Greer's decision not to grant a new trial.


2005
-- Jan. 24: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal brought by the governor's attorneys.


-- Jan. 28: An attorney for the family of Terri Schiavo asks Greer to allow him to proceed with a motion arguing that her due-process rights were violated because she has never had her own attorney.


-- Feb. 22: The 2nd District Court of Appeal clears the way for Michael Schiavo to remove Terri's feeding tube, then Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer issued an emergency stay blocking removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube for until 5 p.m. EST the next day.


-- Feb. 23: Greer extended the stay by two days, saying he needed time to decide whether her parents should be allowed to pursue other legal and medical options.


-- Feb. 24: An attorney for the Schindler's says the Department of Children & Families is seeking a 60-day stay on the removal the feeding tube while it investigates new allegations of abuse and neglect.


-- Feb. 25: Greer gives Michael Schiavo permission to order the removal of the feeding tube at 1 p.m. March 18.


-- Mar. 18: Feeding tube is removed at 1:45 p.m.


-- Mar. 21: President Bush approves federal review of case.


-- Mar. 22: Federal judge refuses to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.



And it ain't about the money. $700,00 + $300,00 = $1,000,000
minus attorney fees, let's say 40%???? Leaves $ 600,000 +/-

15 years of care, at say $3,500/month (correct me if I'm off) = $42,000 / year, x 15 years = $ 630,000......

I would think she's probably on medicare right now....

 

[Feisty Mouse]

This must have been a nightmare. 15 years of this.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ray, you're willfully missing the point. It's not that I get to decide because I'm such a smarty-pants--it's not that ANY one person gets to decide. it's that this has been gone over, gone over, and gone over by all sorts of different legal and medical groups, for FIFTEEN YEARS.

In a different context, I'd say this is a no-brainer. The point is, Ray, what would be enough for you? All her doctors, all the courts, and her husband all agree--so what would be enough for you?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Well if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that my fiance and I are both signing pull-the-plug forms after we're married. Hope that all we have to do is file them away and forget about them, but let's face it, her parents are pretty religious folks, and I don't think I could handle a similar 15 years of publicity, legal hoops, contention, all while watching my wife's all but dead form everyday.

Poor guy. Not only is he still carrying the financial and emotional burden of keeping her body functioning when she's gone, he's getting harrassed, I'm sure, over a decision that couldn't have been easy. I've seen a number of protest signs in Tallahassee (my, but what a year to move to this city) condemning him for killing his wife. Naive question, but has anyone read whether Terri's parents are paying for her current medical expenses, or have been over the last 15 years? I know that the writers of the protest signs aren't.

 

[Tgace]

Nothing like "being nasty out of sympathy" eh??

 

[kenpo tiger]

NO ONE should have to make this decision for someone they love.

However, if *one* loves someone deeply, as a parent loves a child, *one* should know when to let the loved one go.

Who's being considerate of who here -- as I pointed out way, way, way upthread.

 

[Tgace]

Yeah, but thats always easy to say when its not your child. While not in total agreement with them, Im not going to paint them as selfish either....if it was going to be "quick" I could probably let my child go. Weeks of "starvation" regardless of how many medical professionals told me its "painless"...less likely so.

 

[Cruentus]

Yeah, but thats always easy to say when its not your child. While not in total agreement whith them, Im not going to paint them as selfish either....if it was going to be "quick" I could probably let my child go. Weeks of "starvation" regardless of how many medical professionals told me its "painless"...less likely so.

I don't have a lot to say on the issue, because I can honestly say that I haven't made up my mind yet on exactly how I feel on this one.

But Tgace illustrates the moral dilemma I have.

I am all for the husband having POA to pull life support mechanisms, and doing so. But I am hung up on the idea of pulling the feeding tube and letting her starve to death. Despite justification, I can't imagine that starving someone is the moral way to handle it, or that it is a painless way to go, despite whatever she may or may not have left in her head. Also, I can't say I trust all doctors to verifiably determine how "vegitative" a person is, when there is still some brain activity beyond minimum life support.

However, I do rightfully understand the arguement that if this person is basically a shell of her former self with no hopes of being nothing but an empty body cavity again, that we should let her rest in peace.

So, on this one, I am stuck. I don't really have my mind made up yet.

Another issue to consider: there are larger public policy issues at stake here.

This is why I am against assisted suicide. It has nothing to do with silly neo-conservative or pseudo-religious ideals, either. I am all for someone having the right to take their own lives, or for someone having the right to die. The problem is, if you institute assisted suicide, this opens up the doors for our already corrupted medical and insurance system to say, "Well, I am sorry Mrs. Poor Person, but because you aren't part of an elite percent of the wealthy out there, your insurance doesn't cover pain medication, life support mechanism, or methods to help your husbands quality of life for the next 5 to 10 years. But for $500 bucks, we can hook him up to a machine and he can rest in peace. Well...I'll leave it up to you two to decide..."

We face a similar problem if public policy allows us to pull a feeding tube without the proper documentation (via living will). "Oops, my wife is in a coma from an accident, and I don't feel like waiting for her to wake up again, so I get a doctors note that says that she might never wake up again and I pull her feeding tubes and all other support mechanisms, and watch her die." Or, better yet, "I'm sorry Mr. Poor person, but because you aren't part of an elite percent of the wealthy, your insurance doesn't cover us to keep your wife on life support. But instead of incurring all these overpriced medical bills that we know you'll never pay, for $1000 bucks our doctors can determine that your wife most likely will never wake up, allowing you to pull the plug and let her rest in peace. We'll let you decide..."

The point is, regardless of what the right answer is in this case (an answer that I am not sure of), there are larger policy issues at stake here. We need to make sure that we are protecting life, and the people from any sort of corruption of the system.

Paul

 

[rmcrobertson]

The point, I'd say, isn't that we should think anything through. As far as I'm concerned, the point is that the husband, the woman's doctors, and fifteen years of courts, have decided what the best thing to do is in this case. They've done every single thing they should, and a few more besides.

And led by a group of fanatics, a small group is insisting on over-riding the husband, doctors', and judges' decision.

 

[Cruentus]

The point, I'd say, isn't that we should think anything through. As far as I'm concerned, the point is that the husband, the woman's doctors, and fifteen years of courts, have decided what the best thing to do is in this case. They've done every single thing they should, and a few more besides.

And led by a group of fanatics, a small group is insisting on over-riding the husband, doctors', and judges' decision.

Yes. And those are good points that I agree with, which is why in this case I think it is justifiable to let the woman rest in peace if after pulling every other life support mechanism but nourishment, she is able to die.

I do think that policy should be taken into consideration though for future cases, but for the reason of protecting people from an already curropted system; and that we need to not let policy be dictated by the few religious fanatics who continuesly and unconstitutionally try to impose their religious beliefs on our government.

But I am still hung up on that feeding tube part. How do we justify pulling a feeding tube and allowing someone to starve to death? That is still a part of this that greatly hangs me up.

Paul

 

[Kane]

Hmmm, strange how nobody in this thread has brought up how much the credibility of this husband should be questioned. A Nurse who cared for Shiavo for over a year witnessed this "husband" trying in Terry's room with syringes of DEATH. The syringes with poison were found all over her body. The nurse stumbled into her room with the "husband" found alone with the syringes. This man tried to kill his wife, and yet the media tries so hard to hide the identity of this nurse and her story. The hospital staff has even heard Terry's "husband" say and ask "when is Terry going to die, when is the B***h going to die". Those were the exact words, and yet folks like “rmcrobertson” even dare to bring it up.

I think a homicide detection needs to be carried out. I cannot believe one has not been carried out already.

 

[Makalakumu]

Yeah, but thats always easy to say when its not your child. While not in total agreement with them, Im not going to paint them as selfish either....if it was going to be "quick" I could probably let my child go. Weeks of "starvation" regardless of how many medical professionals told me its "painless"...less likely so.

I'm finding a lot of empathy for the parents in this case and I am finding some common ground with Tgace on this one. As a parent, I would feel unbelievably torn. I would hope that would still be able to reason and see what is most likely best for my daughter...but I don't know. I've never had to experience this and I hope I never will.

I think what I really object to is the hypocritical political circus that has sprung up around this issue. It really is a slap in the face to these grieving people and even the blind can see the blatent manuvering on this.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Yes, Upnorth. You and Tgace will hopefully never be faced with having your child in a life and death situation. It's not one I wish on anyone else. Until you've been there, you simply cannot understand.

And, once again, I agree with Robert (restating my position to the point of ad nauseam.) In this particular case, the parents are not in charge any longer.

And Kane. Document exactly where you got all that foofaraw about the 'syringes of DEATH' (merely reiterating what you said and how.) To make accusations like that in a discussion like this, a source is mandatory I would think.

 

[Ceicei]

Hmmm, strange how nobody in this thread has brought up how much the credibility of this husband should be questioned. A Nurse who cared for Shiavo for over a year witnessed this "husband" trying in Terry's room with syringes of DEATH. The syringes with poison were found all over her body. The nurse stumbled into her room with the "husband" found alone with the syringes. This man tried to kill his wife, and yet the media tries so hard to hide the identity of this nurse and her story. The hospital staff has even heard Terry's "husband" say and ask "when is Terry going to die, when is the B***h going to die". Those were the exact words, and yet folks like “rmcrobertson” even dare to bring it up.

I think a homicide detection needs to be carried out. I cannot believe one has not been carried out already.

So what is your source of information for this???

- Ceicei

 

[rmcrobertson]

Actually, I believe that "Mr. Schiavo," is actually one of the Roswell space aliens, who has killed his wife as part of their vast, insidious program of genetic research, and who has been fighting for the removal of all support as one of their coded messages that, using our own satellites against us (see, "Independence Day") is telling his compatriots that it is time for the invasion to begin.

And I have every bit as much evidence for this claim as for the claim that Mr. Schiavo has comitted a murder, or is trying to withdraw his dead wife's, "life support," for financial gain.

But beyond the lunatic logic, I am glad to see that Michael Savage's daily line has, once again, poured directly into the argument here. I actually heard that little creep say, just today, that the fact that Michael Schiavo went back to school and studied nursing so that he could care for his dying wife was a sign that he was guilty of some crime, because why else would a man study nursing and want to take care of his own wife this way?

If that sort of claim--done to sell books and radio ads and make its maker very, very wealthy--doesn't revolt you, very little will. Fifteen years. Innumerable doctors. Twenty-two court decisions.

How much is enough for you? And more than that--who do you think you are, to get involved in somebody's marriage like this, to claim you know better than the whole rack of doctors who have actually examined the woman, to attack a husband who--whether you like his choices or you don't--has taken care of his destroyed wife's body as best he can for fifteen years?

It's outrageous arrogance.

Or do you have some actual evidence? No? Didn't think so. But then, hell, we're presently engaged in a war on pretty much the same lack of grounds.

 

[Cruentus]

My question has yet to be answered.

It seems that with many court decisions and Dr. diagnosis over 15 or so years, the husband had every right to make the decision to pull life support. I don't think this issue is clear for the next time, and I am not convinced fully that proper policy is in place, but in this particular case it would seem that the husband had the right to pull life support.

But...

what about the feeding tube? Is it justified to pull the feeding tube and allow the person to slowly starve to death? And if so, please explain so that I can understand. It's the whole starving to death thing that I am having trouble with.

Paul