MERGED: Terri Schiavo

[starsgoblue]

I just don't understand...this woman is never going to be able to come back from the current state she is in. She's not living, she's in limbo somewhere between living and death. Why are we so afraid of death? Especially those that are arguing this from a religious standpoint (I hope I don't seem argumentative but am curious for viewpoints because I do consider myself a Christian)...why are we afraid for her to go to that 'better place' that we always speak of to console those greiving for a loved one who's passed by any other means?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

starsgoblue. And to those who covered the question regarding pain.

it shocks me that people think of doctors as barbarians.

they know what they are doing. it's not like this hasn't happened before. in fact, the medical aspect of the case is the LEAST interesting/contraversial part of it. the right wing has pounced on starvation because it sounds cruel to people who don't know any better or have a clue about what goes into palliative care.

Exactly. And in regards to the last sentence of yours, I will once again post the things I stated earlier:

Besides that, she's been essentially wasting away for 15 years as it is. I can't imagine this is any crueler an option.

What good exactly would keeping her in this state do, for her or for anyone else?

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

What good exactly would keeping her in this state do, for her or for anyone else?

Is this something that politics can answer better than her parents?

 

[starsgoblue]

Is this something that politics can answer better than her parents?

Ok, so is the main problem you have is that this has become a political issue? I can understand that.

But I don't understand why her parents come into play...this was a woman, not a child. A woman who was married and became this way because of the choices she made. I mean, I'm not married, but if I was I would would most likely go to my husband with important decisions before I'd go to my parents. Wouldn't that pretty much be the norm for all of us? I hope I'm making sense in the way I word this......I worked a long day today.

 

[verte76]

Who you go to to advice depends on circumstances. Some might want to go to their husbands first, and some might prefer their parents. Terri's family is Roman Catholic; I believe her husband is (nominally) Catholic as well. Orthodox Catholic teaching would say that the feeding tube should stay, however this is non-binding and I'm not sure who I agree with to be perfectly honest. Terri's parents are following Church teaching on this; her husband is not.

 

[BVS]

Is this something that politics can answer better than her parents?

No, neither could nor should answer this. This is something beyond politics and beyond the longing of a set of parents.

 

[nbcrusader]

But I don't understand why her parents come into play...this was a woman, not a child. A woman who was married and became this way because of the choices she made. I mean, I'm not married, but if I was I would would most likely go to my husband with important decisions before I'd go to my parents. Wouldn't that pretty much be the norm for all of us? I hope I'm making sense in the way I word this......I worked a long day today.

The man has two children with another women. To me, the other woman is her de facto wife. He could of simply returned her to her parents and saved everyone the drama.

 

[BVS]

He could of simply returned her to her parents and saved everyone the drama.

And keep a soul trapped in limbo forever...

 

[jay canseco]

And keep a soul trapped in limbo forever...

This is your personal religious belief. I happen to agree with the decision to remove life support for non-religious reasons.

Since each person has their own religious beliefs, it would solve alot of future problems if a living will became legally mandatory.

The afterlife as believed by many is eternal. Fifteen years of suspension may be tolerable to some believers when compared to eternity.

 

[Irvine511]

The man has two children with another women. To me, the other woman is her de facto wife. He could of simply returned her to her parents and saved everyone the drama.

or perhaps he's fufilling his husbandly duties and granting her what he, and others -- let's not forget, this has been upheld in court many times -- have said was her wish: that she not remain in a state like this.

the easy thing for him to do would be to give her back to her parents.

 

[drhark]

This woman has, above all, a right to live. She is judged by some doctors to be in a persistent vegetative state. If she was only severely retarded but responsive and reactive to outside stimuli, as the parents insist she is, there would be no grounds to remove the tube and we wouldn't even be discussing this because we dont starve retarded people in this country, at least not yet.

So some doctors have convinced one judge that she's in a PVS. (yes, many judges have reviewed the procedural aspects of the case but only one has reviewed the facts in the case). Never mind the possibility of evidence to the contrary or possible misdiagnosis, next question is, what do you do with her?

1)The husband does not have the right to remove the feeding tube just because he wants to. His legal case is that he's speaking for her wishes and that she would have wanted the tube removed, because she said so at one particular time. It seems his entire case is built on flimsy hearsay evidence that would not stand in many other legal cases. The full burden of proof that she forfeited her right to live should be on him.

2)The family is perfectly willing to care for her and in fact are pleading for her life.

Something just doesn't add up for me.

If Michael is so passionate in his belief that she wouldn't have wanted to live this way but at the same time believes she is completely brain dead, just a body on auto pilot, well case is closed, isn't it? For all intents and purposes, she's dead. No thinking. No feeling. She's 100% out of the picture.

Why not give her to the parents and brother and sister who are pleading for life? The mother that bore her?

Point 2: I don't blame him for hooking up with another woman, but by doing so, setting up house and having two children, doesn't he forfeit his moral claim to her guardianship?

Point 3: Another thing that's not sitting right with me is the fact that her parents and family talk of her laughing and smiling and uttering sounds as if trying to form words as opposed to the doctors' characterization of PVS.
Either the parents are telling the truth, are in serious denial, or are lying. I'll be the first to admit I don't have nearly all the info in the case but I have to believe the family.

There's a lot of talk in this thread about:
1) what she would have wanted:
Nobody knows.

2) what you would do if you were in her position:
Totally irrelevant

3) no chance of recovery or rehabilitation:
same could be said of many neurological injuries. Life's value does not lie in it's potential.

4) Why are we so afraid of death?
Because she's still alive, and she may want to be alive

Don't get me wrong, if it's true her cerebral cortex is 100% liquefied, her EEG is 100% flatlined and she's truly in a vegetative state then there's no question. It's just that I choose to believe the parents when they say they can interact with her, over the testimony of a few doctors who may have misdiagnosed her.

If I'm wrong, I'm glad to err on the side of life.

5) And keep a soul trapped in limbo forever...

Well we can start a whole new thread over this. So when did this soul first enter her body, the day she was born? You don't want to go there. May end up in Hypocriteville.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Is this something that politics can answer better than her parents?

I was just posing the question to anyone out there who thinks that she should be kept on the feeding tube, just to see what, in their eyes, could possibly be a benefit of keeping her on the feeding tube-but I personally would agree with BVS on this one. I do think that it's stupid (and a bit sick, too) that people are using this as a political thing-no argument here regarding that aspect of it all.

Angela

 

[drhark]

I was just posing the question to anyone out there who thinks that she should be kept on the feeding tube, just to see what, in their eyes, could possibly be a benefit of keeping her on the feeding tube-but I personally would agree with BVS on this one. I do think that it's stupid (and a bit sick, too) that people are using this as a political thing-no argument here regarding that aspect of it all.

Angela

It doesn't matter what we think the benefit would be. Her parents obviously see a benefit. What benefit could ther possibly be to keeping a Down's syndrome person alive? and so on and so on

It's quite a charge to accuse someone who believes in the sanctity of life of using this for political gain. There are some politicians who actually believe in what they stand for. It's always a knee jerk reaction to accuse one of politicization. If some politicians gain politically for standing up for their beliefs, so be it.

 

[BVS]

So some doctors have convinced one judge that she's in a PVS.

Yeah I'm sure these doctors have a political agenda in doing so.

Something just doesn't add up for me.

If Michael is so passionate in his belief that she wouldn't have wanted to live this way but at the same time believes she is completely brain dead, just a body on auto pilot, well case is closed, isn't it? For all intents and purposes, she's dead. No thinking. No feeling. She's 100% out of the picture.

That makes no sense. If it's his belief that she wouldn't want it this way then he'd try and make that belief true, how the hell would being brain dead change that?

5) And keep a soul trapped in limbo forever...

Well we can start a whole new thread over this. So when did this soul first enter her body, the day she was born? You don't want to go there. May end up in Hypocriteville.

Hypocriteville, um no don't think so.

 

[melon]

4) Why are we so afraid of death?
Because she's still alive, and she may want to be alive

So why don't you ask her yourself? Blink once for "no." Blink twice for "yes."

You see, though, when you don't have a brain, you can't do that.

Melon

 

[BVS]

It doesn't matter what we think the benefit would be. Her parents obviously see a benefit. What benefit could ther possibly be to keeping a Down's syndrome person alive? and so on and so on

It's quite a charge to accuse someone who believes in the sanctity of life of using this for political gain. There are some politicians who actually believe in what they stand for. It's always a knee jerk reaction to accuse one of politicization. If some politicians gain politically for standing up for their beliefs, so be it.

Oh come on don't kid yourself this is being used for political gain. Bush left a vacation, first time ever, he didn't even leave for the tsunami.

Another thing is you say the parents see a benefit and that it doesn't matter what we think. But is there a line? Especially for adults that were no longer under parents care when they originally got sick. Where science should supercede a parent's wish? If it's proven that her cerebral cortex is liquified should science supercede and say the body should be let go? Or do we let the parents who can't let go just keep her organs running indefinately?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It doesn't matter what we think the benefit would be. Her parents obviously see a benefit.

And the only one I've heard so far is that they can still have their daughter around by keeping her on the feeding tube. I understand they don't want to say goodbye to her, but to keep her suffering the way she has been for 15 years just so they personally don't have to say goodbye...I don't see how they can consider that beneficial to her, to the doctors who are taking care of her, to them, to her husband, etc.

Originally posted by drhark
What benefit could ther possibly be to keeping a Down's syndrome person alive? and so on and so on

A difference there-people with Down's syndrome aren't in a vegative state. They can survive without various things around them. Neither of those things apply to Terri. She's been in this state for 15 years. She will never get better. Why insist on keeping her in this state?

Originally posted by drhark
It's quite a charge to accuse someone who believes in the sanctity of life of using this for political gain. There are some politicians who actually believe in what they stand for. It's always a knee jerk reaction to accuse one of politicization. If some politicians gain politically for standing up for their beliefs, so be it.

I don't doubt that there are some politicians who truly believe in what they stand for. But with others, that is not the case. We've got elections for Congress next year, so naturally some of them will want to try and do anything in their power to get votes, even if it means exploiting something like this. And it happens on both sides, I'm not pointing fingers at one side only here-Democrats and Republicans are both equally guilty of this stuff.

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

i think we should all notice that the WH is pulling out of this. Bush's approval ratings have dropped 9 points, i believe, so they're stepping out.

erring on the side of political life, i suppose.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I would hope that this sends a message that the religious end of the Republicans are not all powerful, I would dearly hope that in the future the secular end gets the upper hand. Conservatism does not and should not equate to religiousity.

As to the matter of Terri herself ~ she is dead. She is not suffering ~ the mind has gone but the body exists. The ultimate decision should rest with the family ~ now husband versus parents becomes a very specific part of this and I don't ~ and neither does anybody else here ~ have a proper answer to that. Dragging the courts and politicians into this is not the right way to go.

 

[BVS]

I would dearly hope that in the future the secular end gets the upper hand. Conservatism does not and should not equate to religiousity.

As to the matter of Terri herself ~ she is dead. She is not suffering ~ the mind has gone but the body exists.

I agree.

 

[indra]

Is this something that politics can answer better than her parents?

I'm not picking on you, because I've seen similar statements in this thread by others, but I wanted to respond to the comment.

Her parents aren't her next of kin -- her husband is. I don't understand how they have any say at all. Kinda too bad for her parents that Terri wasn't gay and living with a lover, then they would be her legal next of kin and they could do whatever they wish.

 

[indra]

The man has two children with another women. To me, the other woman is her de facto wife. He could of simply returned her to her parents and saved everyone the drama.

Did you really mean to make her sound like a piece of meat?

 

[MrBrau1]

The ultimate irony: Terri Schiavo is in this state because she wouldn't eat. And now, the whole world wants to force her to.

 

[indra]

The ultimate irony: Terri Schiavo is in this state because she wouldn't eat. And now, the whole world wants to force her to.

Agreed. That thought struck me too.

 

[MrBrau1]

Strange thing is, my girl and I have both said to each other tonite, if we're in the same spot as the husband, kill me. Do everything you can, kill me. We're both going to see our parents this weekend, and make it very clear: kill us. We might even put it in writing at 31 and 26. More $ for lawyers.

 

[trevster2k]

I watched a debate on Nightline last night and they brought up the issue of age. Many people think this is an issue for older people but they said most of the people who are in the media due to this situation are young people like Terry Schiavo.

Accidents and tragedies which take down a young person in the prime of life lead to this situation. Generally, older people in this situation are let go in a much easier way since they usually have lived a full life and people want to ease their suffering. However, young victims who have no brain function or who are on life support have families who have a much greater difficulty in letting go of a child or younger member of the family.

It seems to be more crucial for young people to ensure that their loved ones know their explicit wishes should they be struck down by such a tragedy.

 

[indra]

Strange thing is, my girl and I have both said to each other tonite, if we're in the same spot as the husband, kill me. Do everything you can, kill me. We're both going to see our parents this weekend, and make it very clear: kill us. We might even put it in writing at 31 and 26. More $ for lawyers.

Well, Terri Schiavo was 26 when she had her heart attack...so can happen to anyone at any age.

 

[MrBrau1]

Well, Terri Schiavo was 26 when she had her heart attack...so can happen to anyone at any age.

I know. That's why we're professing our love to each other by declaring we'd kill each other... but, her 1 stipulation is that I kill myself right after I kill her.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I would hope that this sends a message that the religious end of the Republicans are not all powerful, I would dearly hope that in the future the secular end gets the upper hand. Conservatism does not and should not equate to religiousity.

I am very curious here, your post is based on religion vs secularism. Yet, I haven't seen one conservative on here rage about what God wants for her. In fact, I've seen a number of liberals do that.

 

[jay canseco]

Since you're open about it, have you determined what the cut-off line (condition) would be?
(for MrBrau1)