Printable View
Yes - it's quite an ugly difficult medical and ethical call.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
It really is starting to bother me that the country had decided to make it a legal, political and media battle as well - that's just sad for everyone :cry:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
Yes, some do recover. But I guarantee you, that that old person's brain wasn't almost completely damaged and unusable.
I can totally see the validity in all the points you've made. However, since Terri didn't have a living will, then I think, the right thing to do is error on the right to life, instead of the right to die. Our courts are imperfect. One more thorough review of the case would do no harm. A lot of the court actions that were taken in this case were simply the refusal to review.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I'm basing my opinion on the simple fact that she didn't have a living will. I believe if a person does not have a living will then they might have said something off-the-cuff about "last wishes" that they didn't really mean. If they really meant it, they would have gotten a living will. For example, I want to be an organ donor. I have told my family of my wishes. But, I have also had it put on my drivers license, so that there is no question that I want to be an organ donor.
Terri should have gotten a living will if she was so convinced that this is what she wanted in this situation. This is a lesson to everyone who wants to have their feeding tubes removed if they fall into a PVS!
Hey Sys-Err,Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings in that other thread! :)
Did you go to the link and read the account of what happened with this lady? She regained her speech and changed her opinion about terminating medical care in such situations. I heard an interview on the way home with a woman who had recovered from a PVS. She said the entire time she was in this so called "state" she could hear the Dr.s saying she had no cognition.
I'm not saying this will be what happens with Terri. But,the bottom line is that Terri Schiavo had no living will and she should have one more go in the courts with independent legal counsel. She should also be able to divorce her husband on the grounds of adultery.
I wonder if He'll still get the remainder of the malpractice settelment and life insurance money if he divorces her before she dies. Seeing as she didn't have a Will my guess would be no and it would go to the parents. The guy is a POS, he beat his wife. Probably mentally abused her as well seeing as an eathing disorder is what caused her illness. They should dehydrate him to death as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
From what I know, Terri got a 1.4 million medical malpractice settlement. Of course it went to Mr. Schiavo, and Mr. Schiavo got a 600k malpractice settlement early on. Much of it was supposed to go to therapy for her. But, she hasn't had therapy since 1993, because her "beloved husband", who supposedly has her best interest at heart, decided that she didn't need it and wouldn't benefit from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
When you love someone, and have their best interest at heart, where would you be when they were going through the death process? Making media appearances? Or, at the bedside of your "beloved spouse" who's best interest you have in mind?
I think Michael Schiavo is a monster!
Death is another way to the begining :mad:
After reading many of your posts here, I see that this is also an issue of morales relevant to this issue versus the law or court ruling passed regarding this issue. I don't see though, how they can mix in here and determine her future. I don't even think they should mix.
Post your opinion, what do you think should happen - Mendhak Imagine it was your close relative, and the courts were determining the ourcome.. mother, sister, brother, wife, father, son, uncle, aunt??? What then? And then, if the courts had control -- how would you react??? I know I'd be freaking out if the courts decided that I had no control over the situation! Particularly if I was willing to take on care and rehabhilitation from a "man" who supposedly is my guardian, but forget the "Until Death Do We Part". of our vows.Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Morally: Supposing she's a relative of mine, she should have been terminated a long time ago, instead of having to suffer vegetation. Whether she can "feel" it right now or not, it doesn't make sense to have kept her alive for so long. It's like being buried alive in a way with a tiny little pipe coming in so that I can have water and food. I could go insane in the box or go into a lapsed state.
But she's alive right now, and her condition is a sad one. It would be nice if she could be revived, brought back to life. Making her starve to death isn't good, and I don't agree with the method being used.
Legally: The courts have ruled. The decision has been made, and several times over, I might add. Legally, the husband, no matter what his intentions, has the right to determine what happens to her. He wanted it to end, the courts agreed with him. End of story.
In the end, I agree with the legalities, that the feeding tube should not be reinserted. I don't want this to get blown up, and I agree with the poster who said this earlier: I don't want the governments to be involved with private medical affairs.
Hey, maybe euthanasia should be legalized the world over too. After all, morales keep changing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Why she should be allowed to die:
She's been in this state for too many years. There's no way to tell if she can revive and lead a better life. From what I read on the net, most doctors agree that her situation is not going to improve much. Frankly, and out of sheer pity for the woman, there's no point in continuing her life just to prove a point.
Life sucks anyways.
Her husband is my former schoolmate and he's a real nice guy who wouldn't want to hurt a fly.
Anyway, the moment the case was taken out of the family and into the court, the poor woman has started the most tragic part in her life. I would let her die just to get her out of this sick people's world.
Yeah and the Bush administration stinks even more just for trying to politicize the plight of the poor woman.
.
I think that is the most important point that everyone is failing to realize.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
This is not, and cannot be a legal/state/federal/court decision.
It's a private medical decision.
I'm not sure about my feeling on this, I think I'm afraid to think about it.
But, I did find a story the other day kind of interesting. An alligator that was loose in a Florida neighborhood was captured. It caused a big uproar amongst the general population. They were all concerned about the fate of the gator. Don't worry though, it's going to live out it's days on display somewhere. Poor thing, wouldn't want to kill it or anything cruel like that.
Also, an interesting point some news bimbo brought up - instead of lethal injection, electrocution, etc - why not just starve death row inmates? Or would that be cruel and unusual punishment?
Funny, the state of things these days.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was many years ago when she was able to speak, and was only witnessed by a couple of people. Plus, if she did, with the damaging of the brain that has happend, it would be almost impossible for her to make a logical decision, especially on the grounds of her medical situation. I mean, how do you explain her condition to her, when she's that bad off?Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
Another thing, I believe the husband is automatically exempt from their marriage because she has been in a legally "dead" state for so long. But, I could also be wrong about that.
Exactly, and if the parents want her alive so much, it's their prerogative to take the responsibilty of keeping her alive, but they are not willing to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
That's actually the crux of the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
He is still very married to her - she is still very legally alive.
Once he has a death certificate, she will be buried - he can marry his common-law wife who he has kids with now and a very ugly 15 year long chapter in everyones life can end.
Actually under Florida law, the pecking order goes to the husband first - it's his choice on how her medical care should be performed.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
:eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
OMG I agree with honeybee!
:thumb:
Sys -Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
When I posted about a woman coming out of a PVS and being able to talk, I wasn't talking about Terri Schiavo. I was pointing out a reference about a woman who came out of a PVS after a stroke made in the abstract that Szlamany posted.
And, if you believe Michael Schiavo is automatically exempt from their marriage, then he shouldn't have the right to make medical decisions for her.
In regards to the money, I believe that it is gone now. The entire settlement went to her care (after 15 years, 2 million is hardly enough these days). As for my family, I think they have it pretty well in hand. My mother has already announced that she intends to kill herself if her condition gets to the point where life is not worth living to her. I would let the dead be dead.
Much of this is about moving on. Perhaps it is possible for someone to awaken after 15 years without higher mental activity, but I personally doubt it. If she is not dreaming, and not conscious, then this isn't really about her in my mind. She is dead, as we all will be in time. The parents would rather keep her around. I find it hard to believe that they want this for her sake. Do they feel no grief? Will they only feel grief once she has died? Are they hoping that by doing this they will put off the pain to themselves?
How can the husband be a monster when he has been there all this time. What prevented him from divorcing her years ago. Gingrich did it when his wife got cancer. Served her the papers in her hospital bed, as I recall. The monster is the one who abandons her when they are needed. I see no monsters here.
As for starving prisoners, that's a different thing. People lose their appetites in extreme disease states. This makes it hard for cancer patients, and others facing similar life threatening diseases to keep their weight, because they no longer feel hungry. Is this the case for Terri? I don't know, perhaps somebody could ask her. However, the reaction to deprivation of a critically ill person and a healthy person are probably not comparable.
I don't know if he is exempt or not, but it should be his decision hands down, without any complaint or legality involved. If anyone wants to interviene, then the responsibily should be handed over to them, and then the husband should be able to move on with his life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
Sorry, didn't realize you were talking about someone else.
That's what her immediate family is trying to do. Michael Schiavo has already moved on with his life, as he has a "fiance" and two children from that civil union.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
Well, the problem with euthanasia being applied or revoked by using a law is that it can either be misused if applied, or the deserving people won't benefit, if not applied. Such issues must be dealt with on a case to case basis, as we cannot generalize the situations and therefore the remedies. And this could probably have been the best example for such an approach, clearly wasted by almost everyone involved. The husband and the family lost it when they decided to seek legal recourse to their respective arguments, the courts have lost it by giving conflicting decisions and thereby simply playing with the poor woman's life (I mean whatever is left of that). I think it's utterly revolting to see the woman lying in a state where her feeding tube ha been removed for a couple of weeks, while an appeal is being heard in some upper court, and if the appeal is granted, she might get her feeding tube back. There's absolutely no respect to her life/death. She has become just another toy in the game.
With the US constitution being as it is, I won't find it surprising if the President enacted a law forcing the doctors to keep her medically alive, and the governor of the state passed a law forcing the doctors to remove her life support and let her die. Whether the woman survives this turmoil (ironic, isn't it?), and stays alive or dies, it will have been a cruel joke played by the government, the society and the judiciary on her life.
I cannot understand why there is no medical opinion sought (or if sought then not enough publicised) over her present state, chances of her recovery, extent of her recovery and a likely timeframe for her recovery.
It would have been a great act on part of Bush (yeah, I hate giving him tips to become more popular worldwide :() to proclaim this to be a personal and medical issue and ask the concerned judge to take into account only the medical aspects and the opinions of the nearest family and decide the case, and declare that that decision would be the final on the matter. Whether she lived after that or died, it would be much much better than the present state.
.
I believe that the medical profession wants to stay as far away from this as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
As I said in earlier posts, more than 800-plus people a day have feeding tubes/life support removed - and the pains of death mitigated by morphine - in emergency rooms, hospitals and hospices around the world.
None of that is for public opinion - and the less "simple minded people" have to think about it the better - they only over react and think they can force their personnal (uneducated) views through litigation.
I also believe that the husband does not want this to become a legal battle between medical opinions. The battle is over custodial rights to make medical decisions on a profoundly disabled person.
Not with that method. They aren't starving her, they're torturing her. Two to four weeks before she dies? That's what I would call cruel and unusual.
I've made the effort to find some links to back up my opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
I appreciate your point of view - give me an education as to how you arrived at it.
Two to four weeks of not even trying to save her. Who knows what they could accomplish in that time? Oh yeah... during that time, she's going purely on what's already in her. Dehydration isn't something you go for because you're bored. It really sucks, and forcibly putting someone through it for four weeks when they have no choice but to comply is, in my opinion, a torture that she doesn't deserve, regardless of her physical state.
szlamany - you slay me!!! We agreed with each other on the immigration issue and we disagree on the right to life issue...Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Why do you say that someone who has a different opinion is "simple minded" or "uneducated"??? This is obviously a highly charged issue, and we can agree to disagree without being nasty. What's your particular "education" with this issue? From what you've said, you are a programmer with some programming experience in the medical field. Doesn't make you an "expert" on the issue with a "superior intellect"! It's just a different opinion.
All these words keep coming up here that I can't accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
This is not "right-to-life" - she is dead - granted that is my opinion, but also the opinion of every medical review she has had in the past 15 years.
I'm not trying to be nasty - the last poster (before you) did not answer my question - I wanted to see something that could educate me in his point of view. All I got was more of his "point-of-view".
I don't see the removal of a feeding tube (not a good medical description of what she had - but that's what the media loves to refer to it as) as starvation.
Did you just type "I don't see the removal of a feeding tube as starvation"?????Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
That does not compute!!!!
You see - it's not a feeding tube. It's a medical procedure - just like intubation and saline solution drips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
It's very romantic to think they are feeding her with a tube - but that isn't the case.
This is just one snippet of the legal standing of all this:
You see these are the facts that I cannot dispute - I hugely support this point of view, and I would more than welcome some other "backed-up" legal perspective of this. Even organized religion has a hard time with this "ethical" question.Quote:
Those arguments had been heard and rejected by every court of final jurisdiction that has reviewed "right to die" cases since Quinlan in 1976 and Brophy in 1983 first occasioned consideration of these questions. They took on renewed strength, however, when presented at a televised news conference by a state governor claiming he had a duty to intervene to protect the interests of the most vulnerable of the state's citizens.
A Prince William Circuit Court judge and subsequently the Virginia Supreme Court rejected the Governor's argument that removing the feeding tube that had sustained the severely brain damaged Hugh Finn for three and a half years would constitute euthanasia. In an emergency ruling, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the trial court's finding that the withdrawal of nutrition and fluids from a patient in Hugh Finn's condition merely permitted the natural process of dying; it was not an illegal "mercy killing."
Starvation (which I have had the pleasure to experience) is not terribly pleasant, but not terribly unpleasant either.
However, in this case, I have never heard any evidence to suggest that she will experience any suffering, and I have heard evidence that she will not experience any suffering. Therefore, I would tend to believe that she will not suffer.
Timeshifter: I also, do not understand what you were trying to say. Two to four weeks is enough time to do....what? I don't understand what you feel could be done in that time? Are you suggesting that she should be actually killed, or are you suggesting that she could be 'made well'?
9 days. Just as long as the last guy lasted in '98.
Wife wanted to stop the feeding, Virginia Govenor delayed it.
Finally, she got her wish, and he lasted 9 days before he passed away.
Okie dokie. You mean in two to four weeks somebody could try and save her. As if they just sat on their bums all of 15 years, twiddling their thumbs and whatnot, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
Yeah, ending her life quick would actually be a relief, but that could be illegal. I agree with the legal point presented in an earlier post, which also explains the "feeding tube" matter very clearly as per the existing laws.
So I guess she will die a "natural" death under the present conditions, and not be "killed" in any way or on any grounds.
Yes, and the latest report on BBC does mention that the court-appointed panel of doctors has found her condition to be irreversible. Though the medical fraternity has not joined in with their opinions, I really think there's no two ways about her condition. Every mention of doctors and their views about her condition says the same thing: It's not going to improve.
.
I think the argument must be resolved by each individual as and when the situation occurs them, personally. I have instructed my wife to conduct research into any condition I might fall prey to and if it there's no cure on the horizon - say within 10 years - unplug me, let me die, and chop me into little bits for the scientists to play with.
The dillema for individuals I think is what do you value most:
- The value of life
A life of value
The moralist will always cling to the first, the more practical will always hide behind the second. I think there must be a little of each. How much of each? Well, that's the argument isn't it.
I have left explicit orders to roll me up and smoke me upon death.
While singing "You light up my life"?Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
I don't think the value of life vs life of value is quite the issue in the current case. There are plenty of people who do not want to see a loved one die...let's see....probably about 7 billion or so.
With advances in medical technology, we will have an increasingly hard time defining when life ends, and the battle will grow more intense.
found on the Internet:
:thumb:Quote:
In light of recent national events, I want it to be known to my best man that, should I become an actual vegetable, it is my desire to have the feeding tube removed.
However, the water tube is to remain in place, with the saline solution replaced with 80% medium-shelf Irish Whiskey (Bushmills, Jameson, possibly Powers), and the remaining 20% to stay water (to account for on-the-rocks ice meltage).
The whiskey solution is to remain in place until I die of alcohol poisoning, malnutrition, or extreme happiness.
Thanks Buddy.
She's dead.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/