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.
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.