Printable View
URL: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/sc...brain-damaged/
The husband says that she should be allowed to die in peace. Her parents want her feeding tube reinserted so she can continue living in her current state.
Although the courts have rejected the appeal for the tube to be reinserted, what's your opinion?
Well, people think just because she can blink her eyes, that she's responding. Actually, almost all of her brain is damaged, except for her brain stem. The brain stem is what controls the blinking of the eyes, so actually, she could be unconcious and still be able to blink because of the messages sent throughout her brain.
One thing I don't understand, is that the parents want here alive, but are not willing to pay for it.
Overall, I think they should remove the feeding tube.
I can't answer your poll the way you worded it....
Should she be allowed to die?
You didn't put an option for "Yes - if those were her wishes before she became in a vegatative state."
Or, "No - if those were her wishes before she became in a vegetative state"
If she had a written living will prior to this incident then she wouldn't be going through this tragedy. Lesson to us all.
I side with life, and not starving to death until her case can be properly reviewed. She is not in pain and she does not have a terminal illness.
well the husband claimed that she told him she wanted to, while the parents say she wounld want to. Naturally she has no will.
Any way i think they should kill her personly even if i did wake up after 10-15 years i would have no clue what to do
She should have been bumped off years ago.
How do we know she is NOT in pain? The doctors have made an educated guess, which could be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
As for a terminal illness, that is what she has. A terminal illness is an illness that cannot be cured and the patient will not recover from. She will not recover from her brain damage.
By law her next of kin must decide, her husband. That is why the courts did not uphold the parents' appeal.
Terry Schiavo? Didn't he used to present WCW wrestling with Jesse "The Body" Ventura in the early 90's?
If she's not paying for her own healthcare then its up to whoever's paying the bill. I'd say kill her, or let her die, or whatever the PC terminology is :rolleyes:
Let her die. I certainly wouldn't want to live like that :(
Let nature take its course. :thumb:
Let her die. I certainly wouldn't want to live like that!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
Thats Tony Schivani
Is there an echo in here? :ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfish
You know personally I don't think living like that is living and would rather die, but having her starve to death is cruel. If there was a lack of consciousness and she was comatose, it would be a different story.
Brain damage is not a terminal illness. She will die, but not from brain damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Her husband should have divorced her years ago. Certainly, before he hooked up with his now common law wife and had two children. He is a bigamist and should not be her guardian. There are questions as to his motive since there are suspicions that there was abuse in the marriage.
Her parents and brother and sister are willing to care for her and should be appointed guardians.
Letting her starve to death is barbaric. I wouldn't want it for one of my family members.
Just to give a flip side to your argument...Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
She had a heart attack because she had bulimia.
I personally feel that the whole family (her parents and her) should have gone into therapy for that problem 25 years ago.
Her parents are "enablers" - I cannot stand enablers.
Now they are "enabling" the condition she put herself into because of the bulimia.
Being in a persistent vegetative state is a whole lot more than brain damage - it's complete and total brain damage.
Artificially extending the life of a body is absurd.
800+ people a day are taken off feeding tubes - it's common and natural to allow the body to die. Morphine is used to mitigate the experience - in hundreds of hospices around the world daily.
Again - 800+ people a day taken off feeding tubes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cander
Morphine is used to mitigate the experience.
She is already dead for all intents and purposes...
They can keep a body alive on a heart/lung machine without much of a head at all - is that ok?Quote:
Coma and Persistent Vegetative State
A coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. The affected individual is alive but is not able to react or respond to life around him/her. Coma may occur as an expected progression or complication of an underlying illness, or as a result of an event such as head trauma.
A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.
It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.
Problem is we don't know her wishes because she didn't have a living will.
And, it is very questionable whether or not Michael Schiavo has her best interests at heart.
When I watch Terri on the videos with her mother, she is responding. Especially, when her mother is close up.
It's been 15 years, what's the rush now? Why can't they reinsert the feeding tube? Then provide her with independent counsel, just like serial killers receive, reexamine her condition with the new medical technology available and review the case with all the facts being considered.
Because the courts have already decided it is her wish to die - both her husband and a friend back that up. That was thoroughly argued when they brought this into the legal system I think 15 or more times already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
This is not a legal matter - it's a medical decision that is between the husband (in Florida that's the pecking order - him first) and the doctors.
And she is not responding - sorry - that's the lower brain stem keeping the autotomic functions of the body working.
It's a shame that so many people are voicing an opinion without any medical knowledge of the issues or any personal stand in the case.
She has had more than enough time in the legal system.
What we should really all be afraid of is that the US President decided to get involved - that is a vary scary breach of states rights and the constitution is shuddering at that aspect alone!
If you want to understand a little more about the condition that she is in, then read this:
PVS
btw - I develop medical claim processing software - have been associated with medical conditions and outcomes for the past 20 years.
I appreciate your expertise. But, Terri has never had independent counsel. And, the judge in the case has refused to visit her. Why?
Her husband is an abuser. They had a serious fight on the day of the incident and he failed to give her CPR, even though he was trained in it. Bone scans in 1991 revealed serious bone breaks that were inconsistent with someone being bedridden for 13 months. Her "husband" wants to have her cremated immediately upon her death. Perhaps, he's trying to prevent anyone finding something mysterious in an autopsy. The new doctor Schiavo enlisted has five malpractice suits pending against him.
I wouldn't want someone like that to be my guardian.
I really cannot speak on any of those items. I do find it hard to believe that 15 trips to various courts, including the recent federal appeals court have not given credence to the points you mention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
That makes me believe they are not accurate - but what is being suggested by the family, those opposed to all of this and the press (who love a good argument).
From what you just said, it seems like we have JFK conspiracy theory all around this case.
I find that hard to swallow.
Unfortunately, most doctors have malpractice suits against them in the US - but that goes back to last nights thread - people trying to beat the system!
This can not be argued. She has not had independent counsel.
So you feel that the parents lawyers did not represent her properly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
And I already think you feel that the husbands lawyers did not represent her properly.
So you have some law in your back pocket that says the "state" has to represent her?
That's the whole ruling that came down from the Federal Appeals court - there is no law to fashion this desire out of.
:eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
YES
I did add "!!!!!!"
I have a living will.
:thumb:
Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Doesnt change my feelings on it.
If it's a right that's good enough for serial killers, it's a right that's good enough for Terri Schiavo. Just stating my opinion. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
There is a lack of consciousness and she is way past comatose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cander
It's driving me nuts that people don't have a clue what PVS is but want to decide the fate of this body.
Some felons charged with a certain level of crime/punishment have an automatic right to appeal - not indepenent counsel. They still pay for the lawyers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
I think that 15 years in the courts is enough - even more than was worthwhile.
Felons have independent counsel through out the trial process. From the beginning, not only during appeal. And, if they can't afford a lawyer the state provides one for them. Unless they deny representation.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Let the ***** live :bigyello:
Life... What a beautiful choice
I don't get your distinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
Criminal (felon) hires a lawyer - that's independent counsel to you - right?
Cannot afford one - state gives you one (that's really nice of us to do - kindness of our hearts).
There is no criminal case here - so the whole description I just ran off is not valid.
We have a civil issue here - the parents want to oversee the medical care of the daughter over the husband. That means those two side hire lawyers and beat each other up for 15 years.
The husband comes out the winner and pulls the tube.
I like that scenario - I certainly don't want the legal system getting involved in my medical care - that's absurd, big-brother, insane - simply not the way the US functions. We have individual rights - and her rights are assigned to the husband because of the medical condition she finds herself in.
There is no argument against any of this - every level of the legal system agrees - there is no way for it to change.
Just because he smacked her around doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to terminate her life - medically speaking that is...
A couple of points:
1) Starving in this case is probably not cruel at all. Loss of appetite is common in serious illness. This goes to the extreme that some cancer patients waste away because they have to force themselves to eat. They feel no need for food. While you can't ask the lady how she feels, it is likely that she feels no need for food, and will not miss it.
2) I am hearing increasing stories of increasingly severe abuse. Considering that there are many people with a vested interest in this being the case, I feel that it is unwise to believe any of these stories unless they come from a source that is neutral or for the cessation of feeding.
3) The healthcare is being paid for out of a malpractice settlement. Why hasn't the husband divorced her? Perhaps he cares what happens.
4) In general, this is a problem that is coming. Forty years back, this would not have been an issue, she would have died fifteen years ago. Only medical technology is keeping her alive. As technology advances, it will be increasingly possible for a portion of the body to be kept alive indefinitely without needing the rest. At some point we have to determine what is life. There will always people like the parents who never want to let go. Nobody likes to lose a loved one, but it happens to all of us. These folks have lost their daughter, but have never been able to let go.
Its driving me nuts that you dare tell me how my feelings should be on the issue. If you don't like it, that is tough!Quote:
It's driving me nuts that people don't have a clue what PVS is but want to decide the fate of this body.
What they DON'T tell you about those vids is when they were originaly shot... I can tell you this, it wasn't just last week. Those vids are from years ago, prior to the current state of things. Think about it... think about what you see & don't see in those shots and you'll understand what I mean. The media doesn't want to show new shots, of here just lying there, essentialy wasting away. Doesn't make for good TV or ratings. So they dig out the old footage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
At 34 cases, 15 years, that's avg 2 cases per year.... And now that the highest court has refused to hear the case, I don't think there is anything left to be done but wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Tg
Great - we are fighting now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cander
I could care less what you feel - you simply have no facts - she is past comatose.
If you want to make statements and have feelings based on no information then that's your problem.
Have a good day :wave:
Once again, people think she is conscious because she blinks her eyes occasionally, but in reality, she is probably unconscous doing this. This is because she is almot completely brain dead except for her brainstem, and the brainstem is what controls the blinking of your eyes. So, she could actually be opening her eyes while unconscous because of the lack of controls she has.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Now, there is the other reality that she is responding, and some evidence supports this. But I still say it is ridiculous not to let her go.
Ah - I see we agree on this thread :)Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
I was just reading the abstract you referenced. There was some interesting stuff in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
It states that the classification of a persistent vegetative state is not straightforward. It sites the case of an 86 year old woman who had a stroke and fell into a persistent vegetative state. The doctors and courts agreed with her caretaker that her feeding tube could be removed. Before the decision could be implemented she woke up. She started eating and speaking. She was less positive than she had been before the stroke about her ethical views on the termination of treatment. It states that PVS is not absolutely irreversible; some people with a diagnosis of PVS do recover.
It says it is not easy to prove the condition of the brain in patients diagnosed with PVS, as a class, is such as to rule out the possiblility of recovery or awareness in any geven case.