Let me make this perfectly clear, crystal clear.
If ever I am in some kind of an accident or suffer some unknown natural cause that turns me into a human vegetable do me a favor and take out the food tube. And leave it out, for good. Don’t pull it out and put it back in like how you play with the vacuum wand on your hand.
Unless you can make me sound like Darth Vader, then by all means put me in a black cape, throw the helmet over my head and charge fan boys to have their picture taken next to me. Don’t worry about flash photography because at that point I could stare directly at the sun and it wouldn’t phase me.
Also, should some asshat politician try to champion my 'right-to-life' cause in order to take media attention away from his criminal investigation, tell him that I said to go blow smoke out of his rear and face the music like a man.
Let me have the dignity to pass away while you can still remember who I was when the upstairs lights were still on and people were home. I'd rather be in Heaven hanging out with the Good Lord than a human cadaver in some stupid hospital, staring at ceiling tiles all day long.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
You want the dignity of being starved to death over two weeks.
I'm sure Greg would prefer the dignity of lethal injection, but that's flat out illegal.
What if there were a chance of recovery?
It's more dignity than been fed through a tube for 20 years. Nice article, I agree with everything that you've said.
Harris: from what I've heard, a part of her brain has been umm... liquified. So unless they develop some brain unliqufier in the recent future, she will still lie there for the next 20 years converting Oxygen into CO2.
Although I'm not very familiar with this particular case (didn't hear much about it in Canada), so I'm sure the people who voted to keep her alive had more information than me.
Interesting country were you can pull somebodies breathing tube (their only way to live) yet the whole "assisted suicide" is utterly illegal. How the heck is pulling somebodies breathing tube NOT assisted suicide??? Flippin' sweet, gotta love America.
Well if some asshat politician is trying to distract attention from his criminal investigation, he sure has the support of the entire Senate and 203 Representatives.
Personally, I agree with you. If I was in that situation, I would accept the inevitable and choose death instead. Since Schiavo didn't make that decision, it probably should rest with her parents. Not her husband, who seems to fit the description of a scumbag.
For a country that uses terms like we don't do body counts this simply amazes me.
The total lack of logic in this argument is worth noting. At least abortion argument has some legs: You ending something at the beginning of possibility. But this girl? He ship has sailed. what life?
It's funny to me how you guys are talking about this now. Since I live less than an hour away from the hospital where Terri is being kept, I've heard about this for weeks. Your news probably isn't as detailed. She's not entirely vegetative for one thing. She speaks, just not completely perfectly, I mean she has suffered brain damage. She remembers people. Her husband is the only one related to her who wishes her to starve to death and he has started a new family.
Also, she wouldn't last two weeks. She'd die in a single week for lack of water, not food. Didn't you guys see the ring? Where do you think they got that seven days thing from?
And yes, it is stupid that assisted suicide is illegal while this is not. Personally, I'm all for assisted suicide in nearly all cases. Terri still seems to have a chance. She's not that much worse off than a disabled person. Of course, she's probably stated something like Greg did at some point in her life. I wouldn't want to go on like that if I were to be in a similar situation, however it is a miracle that she came out of that coma.
What's worse off about America is that I've seen so much of this story that I'm tired of it. It's sad when they show a woman fighting for her life on TV and I can only think that I'm tired of hearing about it. That's how the news is. There's never anything good on the news? There's never anything on the news!
And amen to that! I cannot believe the government is stepping all over this. That to me is what's truly shocking.
What if you aren't a vegetable, what do we do then?
As I recently quoted on my site, she's not vegatative.
Here's what a reporter for WTSP news (in Tampa) had to say about it:
[Her parents] want medical experts to reevaluate Terri; 17 doctors that specialize in brain injuries have sent in afadavits saying, Terri is not in a persistent vegatative state and that recent medical breakthroughs could improve Terri's condition.
For me it is the stigma of the "miracle." To me, the entire concept of a "miricale" is misplaced and erranous. Miracles, in my opinion, do not exist. It's merely the statistics behind it. Probabilities and human nature. Miracles are make believe, and keeping a poor suffering woman alive because of the hopes of a "Miracle" has some serious ethical problems associated with it.
At least, that's how I feel.
And for the record, I would want to be put to death, as well.
Back in the Netherlands, where I live, it's completely legal for docters to help you end your life when you're in unbearable pain and you meet some other conditions (like you should be in the state of mind that you know what you're saying and things like that).
Some American news company therefore compared us to Nazi-Germany, where doctors could end lives and play their sick experiments on patients any way the liked. *sigh*. I believe it was Fox... is that possible? :)
If you don't want this to happen to you then create a living will. Let people know in advance and with some legal clout what your wishes are.
On another note, I'd like to know just how many cases like this there are in the US every year. Whether Terri is in a vegetative state or not, using her as a right-to-life pawn by politicians is deplorable.
*sits back and watches the circus pass by*
You want the dignity of being starved to death over two weeks.
No. If my brain activity can be compared to that of a rock then by all means let me go out in a blaze of glory. Strap me to a missile and point it towards Osa Bin Laden or let me go on the next shuttle mission strapped to a lawn chair welded to the main tank like a human hood ornament — make sure I get to wear a spacesuit though, I want to go out in style.
Your news probably isn't as detailed. She's not entirely vegetative for one thing. She speaks, just not completely perfectly, I mean she has suffered brain damage. She remembers people. Her husband is the only one related to her who wishes her to starve to death and he has started a new family.
Lately my news has come from NPR which I have found to be a good source for news and everything I've heard so far is that she's a vegetable. That she can speak at all is news to me. Yesterday afternoon they had a doctor on explaining that she 'lights up' around certain people, but there was no mention of carrying on a conversation. Still when a coma patient has more going on upstairs I think that's a big clue.
I have no idea what grief the parents have gone through but I find their lack of faith and selfishness disturbing. I can't imagine that the type of improvement that might occur is somehow better than what awaits in the afterlife.
Jeff, the estimate is that there are 35-40,000 cases like this in the US every year, hence the applicability of Greg's 'asshat' call — what we're seeing now is grandstanding and political hackery, with the unfortunate Mrs. Shiavo as a prop. It's ghastly. To all those championing some one else stepping in on your right to make a decision like this, pray you're never faced with it. As much as we might all like it not to be so, life can be a particularly difficult issue near the very beginning and near the very end.
Of all the reprehensible behavior on both sides, the thing I find most appalling is the consistent refrain oft-repeated and let stand unchallenged in almost every news piece that the parents, "believe she's been misdiagnosed and that with proper therapy she could improve." Which sounds completely reasonable unless you see one of those few and far between reports that actually shows one of her brain scans. Her brain isn't there anymore. As Slava points out above, her brain has degenerated and full of big black holes (where normal brain tissue would be). She no longer has a cerebral cortex and the gaps in brain tissue are now filled with spinal fluid. Sorry to be so detailed at this hour in the morning, but if you're going to argue this point get the facts. I'm there are upteen 'experts' willing to sign anything these days, with Delay and his cronies running both houses and sitting in the oval, but reserve your personal judgement until you see the scans.
So, *if* there was hope for recovery, that would be another issue. But there isn't, baring a full on, stop the presses, Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich miracle. If you believe in those types of things, right on. If not, let's move on people, and let the poor woman move on to a better place than she currently resides.
Sincere question: Why is it that the religious faction, who one would imagine are concerned with the spiritual and the soul, get so hung up on the minutiae of the physical body? Seems like a bizarre medieval hang up to me which I've never quite understood.
There are a couple of distinct points of disgust with this issue:
(a) Terri supposedly told her husband that she would not want to continue life if in a state similar to her current one. How close to completely vegetative does one need to reach before there's no turning back to a life worth living?
(b) All of that aside, what I personally find more problematic is the fact that the legislative powers have passed, and are trying to pass, legislation targeted to a specific case involving one single person. That's an egregious overstepping of the boundaries of government, no matter what you think about her right to life.
Another note: Where's the 'sanctity of marriage act' when we need it? Terry [unfortunately] did not leave a legal living will, but she did make a very public, legal decision by marrying her husband. Legally, that makes him her closest relative. The government is now going to step in and prevent him from exercising his legal rights as her guardian because they (and the people who vote for them) find his decision un-Christian? It's all stomach-turning if you're still clinging to some shred of trying to believe that America is actually the home of the free.
Sorry, let me correct myself—the entire court case thus far has been about ruling on what Terri's decision would have been, not about her husband's legal rights. He actually petitioned the court to start this case, and it is the court's judgement that the evidence supports his point of view: that Terri would not want to be kept alive in this state. Florida law is very clear that living wills or other written documents are not required; you can establish an incapacitated person’s wishes by testimony alone.
Isn't the reality here that most of the folks who oppose Terri’s death would oppose anyone being allowed to choose to die, ever—even if there were a living will, or even if the person was conscious and in sound mind and wanted to die. Isn't this just part of what the president's 'culture of life' codespeak is all about?
The first lesson here is this: Get yourself a living will, people. Save your family and loved ones from going through what Terry's parents and husband are going through.
If you want to review the definitive collection of documents relating to this case it's here. CT scan image is here.
This whole thing is just absurd, the gov't wants to bend you over a barrel and treat you like the gimp if you file for bankruptcy (unless your rich, then you get a pass) but try and end your life if you were going to be in a "persistent vegetative state," and they enact last minute laws that go against your wishes.
So much for Federalism.
Wow, I'm glad someone was able to just come out and be frank about the issue besides Livejournal's infamous Jameth.
It's a difficult issue, but I think that the political 3-ring going around it is even more disrespectful and cruel than the issue at hand....
I think that the political 3-ring going around it is even more disrespectful and cruel than the issue at hand....
It's the perfect example of how modern day politicians are more interested in saving their Washington D.C. address than doing the job for which they were elected. Why we continue to reward such shameful behavior and poor work ethic is beyond me.
My wife and I each created living wills and covered other legal, life-and-death scenarios (as best we could) a couple of years ago, when we were pregnant with our first child, spelling out in black and white our wishes NOT to be kept in a vegetative state. We've told our families and other of our wishes so this isn't a surprise.
Now it seems as though the government, in some loophole discovery, can override what is said in living wills. So, we will go back to our lawyers and make sure we can add something that won't allow the government to 'reinterpret' what we really mean.
That the government is getting this involved is unreal. This is a very private matter, and, in my opinion, the parents are being selfish and narrow minded.
"Right to life" is different than "right to death." They are trying to kill her.
Josh, yes it's a 'right to die' issue and an argument over what is the interpretation of Terri's wishes. We all have the right to refuse medical treatment (as Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusions, etc). The history of the case follows a pretty simple timeline. The husband, because of the bitter debate with the parents, petitioned that the court determine, based on evidence and testimony, what Terri's wishes were. The court ruled, and each successive ruling has reinforced, that while not explicitly stated in writing, it was Terri's wish to not be kept alive in this state. The issue now becomes a chilling one — does the state have the right to supercede your wishes and your refusal of medical treatment and impose its will?
Lately my news has come from NPR which I have found to be a good source for news and everything I've heard so far is that she's a vegetable. That she can speak at all is news to me. Yesterday afternoon they had a doctor on explaining that she 'lights up' around certain people, but there was no mention of carrying on a conversation. Still when a coma patient has more going on upstairs I think that's a big clue.
Yes, they are a good source. I think news that is closer to the source is generally better. She can speak, or at least she could when I first saw the story. She doesn't speak like sentences and such though. She does remember people.
For the record, if that "miracle" comment was about my use of the word miracle in my previous post, I don't believe in miracles as such anyway. However, a miracle is just what you said wasn't a miracle: Probabilities and human nature. That's what a miracle is....something that happens that's highly improbable. I don't think anyone talking about Terri is talking about a "Jesus descending from heaven, touching her on the forehead and completely healing her back to perfect health from 15 years ago" type of miracle.
(b) All of that aside, what I personally find more problematic is the fact that the legislative powers have passed, and are trying to pass, legislation targeted to a specific case involving one single person. That's an egregious overstepping of the boundaries of government, no matter what you think about her right to life.
Exactly. It is appalling that we have such frivolous laws. If the law were such that it had to do with people in her situation it would be more tolerable, but a specific person? We have enough frivolous laws that lawyers can wade through to make frivolous cases with loopholes, etc. Maybe we should be spending time trying to actually clarify the crappy laws we already have? Plus this law will set a precedent which probably should not be set.
Mirco focus:
Fact: The husband lives with another woman who is commonly referred to as "his fiance" (though he is not divorced yet). He has two children with the other woman. He has spent little if any of his own additional monies on his wife's care.
That makes him an aldulterer (I know, that's not a big deal these days or illegal in most(?) states, but it's at least grounds for divorce) and a common-law bigamist which should, in some part, call into question his role as husband. Though Terri may have made her wishes known to him before she arrived at her state, I doubt she'd want him making the decision after he left her and started a new family.
At their wedding, I'm sure they read marital vows to each other that included something like: "in sickness and in health" (though he seems woefully absent during the sickness) and "'til death do us part."
Regardless of what my living will might say, were I ever in that situation, I'd want someone who was still fulfilling their obligations as my spouse, - not the person who started a new life as soon as it was inconvenient for them - to make those decisions.
Macro focus: the political grandstanding & lawmaking is ridiculous and overstepping.
Note: the husband is *not* making the decision, it is the court, based on evidence and testimony, what Terri's wishes were. The start of the case was the husband appealing to the court to rule on the matter of Terri's wishes, which they have. Read the documents.
She cannot speak. She makes sounds. She doesn't remember people, as she has no cerebral cortex (look at the scan linked earlier and read a bit of neuro-anatomy). Edit enough hours of video into a couple minutes and it's possible to make a patient in a PSV to appear responsive, "appear" being the operative word.
The hypocrisy of these people is truly appalling. It is somehow just and moral to indiscriminately bomb villages, cities, and towns for justifications that are questionable at best, but for some reason they care deeply and dearly about this one life.
Break me off a piece of that Kit Kat Bar.
Terri's situation is by far the best case yet for getting a living will. I got one shortly after I turned 18 last year. The reason Terri is getting all this attention is because she doesn't have a living will or any written directive for situations such as this. I wouldn't have a problem with the feeding tube being removed if she had a living will expressly her intent not to be put through extreme measures just to remain alive. Heck, that's what my living will states. But, because she doesn't have one, the decisions have to be made for her.
Legally in situations like this one, the spouse is the final decision maker, however, Terri's husband, Michael, presents grave doubts about his ability to make a decision in Terri's best interest. 1) Shortly after her accident he sued and won $1.4 million expressly for Terri's treatment and therapy. As of yet, she has not received any of the promised therapy. 2) He personally won $600,000 in a separate medical malpractice suit and stands to gain yet again when Terri finally passes away. 3) He "left" his wife and started a new family with another woman and has had 2 kids through that relationship. With those three factors in mind, no one in their right mind can say he has the ability to make a decision in Terri's best interest.
A ton of y'all are upset about government intrusion, but bear in mind the facts of the case. He fulfills the statutory requirements for spousal neglect and has refused to grant therapy for Terri. This constitutes abuse and neglect. Such cases are and should be investigated by the government. If the government can take away custody of children because of parental neglect, it's only fair the government can investigate and if necessary intervene for this case.
By nearly all accounts, she is able to respond to communication, though not verbally. There's no guarantee that she couldn't be talking now if her husband had given the promised therapy. She is able to breath on her own and only requires the assistance of a feeding tube to remain alive. Is this not any different than many seniors today?
Consider all of this before rushing to judgment on this case.
Again, read the documents. The husband is not making the decision. The court is, based on extensive evidence and testimony. The court happens to agree with the husband. He is not the final decision maker, the court is, and what their ruling represents is their intepretation of her wishes.
Tell you what, book an open ended ticket to Switzerland to be used if you turn into a vegetable. They're civilised over there, and allow you to choose to die in a humane and painless fashion. There's been a few high-profile cases here in the UK of terminally ill people heading off there to die.
Starving someone to death is obscene! How is that better than legalising euthanasia?
By nearly all accounts, she is able to respond to communication.
Simply not accurate, and just more spread of disinfo. Again, the court documents are available for all to read (link above). It's hard to believe that anyone can characterize this case as a "rush to judgement" as it's dragged on for over 15 years.
Amen Greg. I too agree with everything you said in the article. Good job.
I'd want to dissapear. Like someone would kidnap me and fly me to some unknown location and then there would be a big uproar - but no one would ever find me - cause the kidnappers would have just pulled the plug, cremated me and gotten paid - yes, i would pay for something like this - or at least written into the will.
I mean, if i weren't already famous, then I'd want to be remembered forever as the person who dissapeared when it seemed nill chance of that actually happening.
I agree with Greg.
Ive never posted on Airbag before, although I read it daily. I really dont have anything astounding to say, but just a thought: If Terri wasn't just a name on the news, but instead your child, you would see it differently. As a family member of a severely disabled person, the hope Terri's family has is refreshing. Maybe therapy won't help- but isnt it worth trying before giving up on her? (As I understand, her husband has refused her most therapy). If therapy had been attempted and unsuccessful, things would be different.
"By nearly all accounts, she is able to respond to communication, though not verbally."
Yep, by nearly all accounts except for the doctors who have examined her personally and testified in multiple court appearances that she is in a persistent vegetative state.
Have evidence that she can speak?-- please link to it.
She DOESN'T have a large, fluid filled cavity where her cerebral cortex used to be? Please link to it.
She can remember people without a cerebral cortex? Again, link to it.
***
The courts are in place to interpret the law: let them do their job based on the evidence at hand. If it takes more medical experts to testify, then bring them in and get it over with-- but do it in court, where it belongs (and has already been settled). We don't need Congress butting in to take the place of the courts for the sake of votes. Check the Seattle Times for a short summary on why we're spending tax payer dollars to fly in Congress for an emergency session.
The misinformation on this (here and elsewhere) is a little shocking. What makes people feel like they have all the details when they haven't heard more than one side of things or been able to see the facts to make their own judgements?
Rob- according to the Constitution, courts are not even given the authority to rule a law unconstitutional. That "right" was invented by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 (?). Show me on what basis any court has native jurisdiction to determine Terri's fate.
Congress isn't butting in-it is exercising its constitutional perogative where the court has failed. Every court that has heard a case related to Terri is under the jurisdiction of Congress. I stress the term UNDER. Reading the documents Tom Dolan linked to, Judge Greer refused to admit certain pieces of evidence.
One more thing Rob - the doctors aren't all in agreement either. Just as there are doctors who say she can't communicate or remember, there are those who say she does. If medical professionals are the definitive source, why are they not in agreement? Also, Mr. Schaivo refuses to grant Terri an MRI, so we don't definitively know the condition of her brain. She has shown a limited ability to remember those close to her and respond to laughter and talk by using her facial expressions or attempting to make noises.
If those people in Britain want to go to Switzerland to die, fine. But, Terri isn't capability of expressing her desire to do so, and we can't rely on an unsupportive husband as the source of information. It's one thing to do an assisted suicide (as in Million Dollar Baby), but completely different when it's not consented to.
Tony, the documents are all here, linked above. There's no better source than this, and all one really needs to do is look, please look everyone, at the CT scan, which clearly shows that Terri's cerebral cortex no longer exists. If one truly believes in a spirit or soul I'm astounded as to why people think Terri's is still trapped in her empty husk of a body. She has moved on, it's time we did likewise.
Congress are a pack of sleazeball vote whores. Period. There are over 30,000 cases like this every year but only now, when it's an opportune moment to score points with the highly organized and politically contentious religious right, is it time to champion this fight. Damn those opportunistic hypocrits—if they truly believe in hellfire I hope they're getting their thinking about getting their asbestos suits tailored. May they each suffer the purgatory they are willing to condemn this poor woman to. Culture of life indeed. Disgusting.
I'm sorry Scott, this has been in litigation for 7 years, and has been decided on more than 50 ocasions. Her brain is liquid!
She purportedly expressed a wish not to "live" like this to her husband -- which you choose not to believe based on what facts?
She was a bulimic. You think what she wants is to be paraded around the world press in a chubby, tube-fed state of mental incapacity?
I am afraid I must disagree with most people in here. Some talk about the "sanctity of marriage." Well, if its so sacred, then why did he leave and start a family with someone else? He wants to be morally released to go off and start a new family, yet he still wants to be legally responsilble for her well being. I don't he should have both. There has also been afidavits describing Michael Shiavo as anxious for his "bitch" to die so he could get rich. He also became elated at news when her situation deteriorated. This does not sound like a wonderful and loving husband looking out for the best interests of his wife.
As for the congress, they are allowed by law to intervene. It's in the constitution. Remember how we have 3 equal branches of the government? Just because a judge in Florida says its so, doesn't mean that's the final law.
Also - Terri isn't a total vegetable. She responds to light, is able to speak on occassion, and can laugh. If she was a complete vegetable, with no signs of life or anything, that would be a different story. But that's not the case, and that is why this case has dragged on for so long.
Also, before making up your mind on this issue, I encourage you to read these 2 links. There is something information in there worth knowing about.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Now again, there should have definitely been awhile outlying what she wanted in case such a sitation arose. And, if she were just a mere vegetable with no level of visible response, this case would have been over a long time ago.
Tom wrote:
Note: the husband is *not* making the decision, it is the court, based on evidence and testimony, what Terri's wishes were. The start of the case was the husband appealing to the court to rule on the matter of Terri's wishes, which they have. Read the documents.
Uhm, the "decision" is that of the court, so you're correct in that respect, but, really, what a diversionary tactic. "We both sued but the JUDGE made the decision!" And who initiated the legal action? Someone made the decision to start the procedings... Oh. As you state, it was the husband.
The reason the case is in litigation is because of the husband's vs. the parents' understanding of Terri's wishes, no? In the husband's own words, to be rid of the "bitch."
My question to you, Tom, regardless of what state you'd be in and what your known or unknown wishes were, is: who would you want initiating legal action while you were in that state?
Option 1: your parents and brother, who visited you regularly until your spouse forbid them with a court order?
-OR-
Option 2: Your so-called 'spouse' who left you for another partner while you were comatose, has benefitted in the extreme financially from your situation, and now appears on Larry King instead of at your bedside?
Just answer 1 or 2, please.
Tom also wrote:
There are over 30,000 cases like this every year...
Could we get a footnote for the 30,000 cases? I'd hate to think that figure was just more spread of disinfo.
@ Rob, I have no evidence that she can speak. I saw her on the news a bunch of times as Clearwater is about 45 minutes from here and the news station I watch is 15 minutes from there. This is on the local news every night. I'm sorry, I only know what I've seen on three different news channels. It may not be the best way to get news, but unlike most of the people posting here, I've see current and up to date video from the same day she came out of her coma until now. Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but you getting information from one single source and claiming it is the end all is not correct either.
For all of these doctors that have testified there are others who have signed affidavits that she is not in a PSV state.
Terri's Fight
There's a link if you must continually ask the same question. I'm not saying it is the end all for information either. As with anything you read or see, your mileage may vary.
However, regarding Terri's ability to laugh and things like that, I've seen it on the local news many times. Up in Seattle (which is where I'm assuming you're from since you linked to a Seattle times article) you probably get a 2 minute blurb when something major happens in this case. Here, it's been Terri for about 30 minutes a day.
Thank you Scott.
Also, if what Scott says is true about the MRIs being dated, it is entirely possible that enough of her cerebral cortex has re routed itself that she could remember people.
@ Tony, I don't believe that her husband has any conclusive proof that those were her wishes. If he did, this would be over now wouldn't it? I mean come on at least think logically about this.
I'm not going to disagree that she wouldn't want to be paraded around like that, but since she didn't leave a living will behind in the first place, it's up to those around her to make the decision.
As far as that decision goes, I don't think people are angry that congress is stepping in so much as the fact that they made a national law for a single person. Did they really have to go to the extent of making a law? I'm sure they could have held off the removal of the tube until after arbitration without a law being made. Making a law just makes it look like the good 'ole boys in congress are actually doing something useful for their large salaries instead of vacationing.
Uh, PV state :)
Jojo - Excellent point. I don't think Mr Dolan, an obvious fanboy of Terri's husband, would be replying to your questions. His reasoning is stupendous.
Mr Dolan, I really find your arguments remarkable. They would be laughable if the circumstances surrounding Terry were not so unpleasant. You link to photo of an MRI scan and ask readers to make a judgement. You really believe a layman reader of the site can make a valuable judgement of her medical state? You question the assertion that her state can improve. You point to the advice / opinions of medical professionals. But for every 10 medical professionals who declare that Terri's situation is irreversible, I am sure her parents can put forth 10 professionals who will say otherwise. The fact of the matter is that she doesn't even fit Florida's definition of a "vegetative state".
As for your right of kin argument, given the facts surrounding Terri's husband, you cannot really be serious? A nurse is on record of his saying, "When will this bitch die". Also there was this unusual request "Can you accelerate her death"? Also a former girlfriend of this man has testified that he had confided to her that he had never had "no tubes" conversation with Terri. The court case you keep throwing around as the be all end all, is based on this man's testimony. While we are at it, might I also ask what exactly is happening to the settlement that Terri earned? I will not even go into his present marital / live-in affairs. Even without that he is a scumbag. Right of kin should rightfully be the domain of Terri's parents.
And Mr Dolan, if you really believe that the courts should have the final say, that the courts are the impartial party, why are you so against the idea of Terri's parents asking for a second opinion? What is a few more months when as you so eloquently put forth that this has been going on for 15 years?
Greg is right about the political circus around this terrible state of affairs. Man, you have to give it to the Republicans. Never to miss an opportunity to score some brownie points with your core base / audience.
But to concentrate on the political aspects of this case would be a fallacy. What is important here is that Terri should be given another opportunity. Give her a fair go. Explore all the possibilities. Let Terri's husband live his life (which he has not wasted a single minute in starting anew) and let her parents continue with her cause. That is the right and simple thing to do.
Points: I am not a fanboy of anyone, let alone Terri's husband. My point of view is based on a person's right to die as they wish —the argument in this case is simply about who represents Terri's wishes more persuasively. It's a legal dispute, and like all other disputes in the good ole USA it will be decided in the courts. Lawmakers make laws, judges interpret them.
For those disputing the neurologists and specialists and claiming the cerebral cortex can 'reroute itself' well, it's pretty impossible to debate with that type of fantasy. Thanks for making such a plain demonstration of the quality of rational thinking going on from the let's keep this poor woman's body alive for the next 40 years camp. To the genius trying to insult me by calling my reasoning stupendous, thanks. Another nice demo that I couldn't have fashioned better myself.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=stupendous
Greg, welcome to the culture war.
Per request, footnote on the numbers of patients in the US in a PVS were estimated at 10,000 to 25,000 adults and 4,000 to 10,000 children. Source: The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS, "Medical Aspects of the Persistent Vegetative State," parts 1 and 2, New England Journal of Medicine 330 (May 1994): 1499-1508; (June 1994): 1572-1579.
Tom-your footnotes are from 11 years ago. Anything newer?
Sorry Scott no, the medical library is closed.
The number ranges widely and I'm only using it to demonstrate that decisions like the one in this case are made every day, all across this country and all over the world. I think it's reasonable to assume that the numbers from 1994 are still ballpark accurate. There are only a few factors that are unusual in the Schiavo case: chiefly that she was tragically stricken while so young, and that her family is bitterly divided over the direction of her care, and that both sides (it seems) have been willing to make the case publically, using the media as amplifiers of their arguments. A vegetative state that was caused by lack of blood or oxygen delivery to the brain and has gone on more than five years is "considered permanent." (source: James Bernat, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Neurology, Dartmouth Medical School), and "no one has ever come back from such a condition." (source: The American Academy of Neurology).
So let's give up the pretense that this is about Terri's recovery—because that's not going to happen. So what could all this really be about?
It's hard to speculate what is driving the Schindlers, although it seems like some combination of a oil-tanker sized boatload of denial and a staunchly pious Catholicism. What is all this about for the right-to-lifers? Just another brawl where someone else's suffering can be used to further an agenda that seems (paradoxically) to attach a bizarre, medieval importance to the physical body when conceptualizing about the soul (I truly find this confusing).
What's in it for the politicians? It's all too transparent. It's called pandering. As in the Seattle Times article linked earlier, GOP lawmakers circulated a memo last week on how their visibility on the Schiavo issue could win them votes with Christian conservatives. Specifically, the GOP wants to use the issue to help defeat a Democratic senator up for re-election in Florida next year:
"Republican leaders believe their attention to the Terri Schiavo issue could pay dividends with Christian conservatives whose support they covet in the 2006 midterm elections, according to a GOP memo intended to be seen only by senators. The one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, called the debate over Schiavo legislation 'a great political issue' that would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who is up for re-election next year."
Bottom line: If you think for one minute that Tom Delay or Bill Frist give a rat's ass about Terri Schiavo you're a rube. She's a readymade 'great issue' — nothing more.
but since she didn't leave a living will behind in the first place, it's up to those around her to make the decision.
More that 50 times this has been before the court and been decided in Mr. Shiavo's favor -- including being before the Florida and US Supreme Courts.
What you all are saying is that Congressmen with incomplete information on the situation and political agenda are better equiped to decide Terry's fate than all the judges that her case has appeared before. And, you are saying that those Congressmen should be spending their time writing laws targeted at a single individual in Florida (when a Florida law targeted at her was already struck down as unconstitutional), instead of persuing their duty to provide checks and balances to the executive branch.
I'm sorry, but unless your name is you are a relative of this woman, there is no way you can say that this issue is more important than others that the congress is ignoring.
Each case is obviously extremely difficult for all concerned and its impossible to pass cold judgement on what should and shouldnt happen from the comfort of an armchair.
Nevertheless, my big concern with this debate is a possible consequence of allowing assited suicide.
Should it become leagal and therefore the norm, would that mean those people who chose to live in a situation like this be branded as selfish and a drain on their families and society as a whole?
Nevertheless, my big concern with this debate is a possible consequence of allowing assited suicide.
There is a big difference between withdrawing medical care and assisted suicide, and you know it. Assisted suicide/euthenasia is a red herring.
Richard, I do think there are things that all of the "life" related issues have in common—namely the right to control your own body and your own medical care, free from the intrusion of government and unrestricted by one segment of society's religious beliefs, however popular they may be. Freedom of Religion also means freedom from [other people's] religion(s). I understand all too well this isn't a popular opinion in today's America. Call it what you want, assisted suicide, euthanasia, refusal of medical treatment—it happens every day and every hour in countless medical centers and hospices all over the world. It's high time we as a society evolved our thinking and came to grips with the complexities and realities of it. The spectacle of this case is sad and dishonest. Shame on the opportunistic politicians who pretend otherwise.
Why do people keep bringing up assisted suicide? A feeding tube means she's being kept alive unaturally. Removing it means she would die a natural death. Her body is no longer able to care for itself and medical intervention merely prolongs her death.
Why is it that the religious often support science when it supports their ideas, but condemn it when it does not? Shouldn't you be praying for her release from this world, rather than hoping that she'll be tied to it with no medical chance of getting better? (DO NOT cite her parents beliefs that she could get better. Her parents are not doctors, and yes I'm aware that they can find doctors with personal beliefs that supercede their medical training that will claim she can improve.)
And, many of you keep saying that were we in her Parents position, we wouldn't make the choice to pull the tube. You're probably right. But I also wouldn't be in the right frame of mind to make that decision, and I would hope that the support of my loved ones would help me realize that it was the right decision to make.
Her parents are thinking of themselves. They are NOT thinking of their daughter.
Tom - Sunny and JoJo brought up some great points and all you could do was focus on the word stupendous. Shouldn't Terri be dead already? Is it not incredible that she has survived 15 years? No one is completely interested in your concrete "brain scan" because medical miracles (oh shit - i used the "miracle" i must be one of those crazy religious fanatics) happen all the time. People recover from lengthy coma's, disappearance of cancer, sight restored, etc. And etc. is quite lengthy. It baffles doctors and the greatest minds to this day.
I'm sure the Schindler's are grateful for any help they could receive. Maybe they are "pious" Catholics. You obviously have a low regard for religious people. Since when does a high regard for life require people to "outfit themselves with asbestos"?
http://www.braininjury.com/amazingrecoveries-stories.html
Whatever happened to:
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
?
Brian - Asshat comment. Perhaps heart pump/pacemaker patients (and a thousand other artifically assisted people) should just cut that unatural object from their chest and just die.
Have any of you watched a family member have their life miserably prolong by medical equipment? It's a horrible experience, believe me.
Mr. or Mrs. Rocket: With all due respect, Sunny and Jojo brought up nothing that I think provokes meaningful discussion on the issue. Again, you're free to believe that Terri is capable of recovery. You're free to believe the moon is made of cheese. I defend your right to do so. I have spent the greater half of my life deeply involved with doctors and medical professionals of many stripe. They are the first to admit they know little of the amazing detail at work in the human body. However, they do know what Terri Schiavo's CT scan means: she will not regrow her brain matter any more than an amputee would regrow a severed limb. Such an occurence wouldn't be a 'medical' miracle—it would be a parting of the Red Sea type miracle. Believe in that possibility if you wish, but you should accept that belief for what it is: a feeling rooted in your spiritualism rather than any rational likelihood or realistic possibility.
I have the highest regard for the truly selfless and spiritual and those concerned with the deepest questions of spirituality and conscience. I think you'll find I'm not alone if I say I don't see them present in the sad angry Schindler family or the phony pandering politicos.
Coincidentally I was just reading a nice quote from a conservative legal scholar re: the Schiavo bill:
"Douglas W. Kmiec, a conservative law professor at Pepperdine University, said the legislation had left him anguished. 'I would be naturally inclined to Terri Schiavo's part in this enterprise,' Professor Kmiec said. 'This is, however, a benignly intended but tragically mistaken law. It contravenes almost every principle known to constitutional jurisprudence.'"
Amen to that.
Tom wrote:
"Call it what you want, assisted suicide, euthanasia, refusal of medical treatment—it happens every day and every hour in countless medical centers and hospices all over the world."
*Spread of disinfo.* Again, please - footnotes? But use only cases from our country please, because we follow the laws of the United States, not France, the Netherlands, Uganda, Rowanda, or anywhere else.
Tom wrote:
"footnote on the numbers of patients in the US in a PVS were estimated at 10,000 to 25,000 adults and 4,000 to 10,000 children. Source: The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS, "Medical Aspects of the Persistent Vegetative State," parts 1 and 2, New England Journal of Medicine 330 (May 1994): 1499-1508; (June 1994): 1572-1579."
More "spread of disinfo." What number of those adults have living wills stating their desired status? Is there a chance, just a chance, that some of those people wanted to remain on life support and their wishes are being followed? Are all of these PVS patients in litigation like the Shiavos? While I appreciate the footnote, between 10,000 and 25,000 cases is QUITE a margin of error. And finally, your footnote fails to point out if those are new cases every year - or - include the number of persistant cases that exist in a particular year when a count is performed. Which leads me to your initial misleading statement: "there are over 30,000 cases like this every year."
From that remark we're to believe that there are 30,000 new cases "like this every year" akin to the Shaivo's - with 'husbands' initiating litigation and each case with no living will. But if you look at your footnoted numbers, it could just as easily be as low as 14,000, and a majority of those could even have living wills, yes? However you cite the highest possible number, imply the maximum number occur every year and that they are all litigious.
Ahhh. Finally, we come to the snarky semi-reference to Godwin's Law (Tom wins the prize for the first reference to Nazis):
"It's hard to speculate what is driving the Schindlers, although it seems like some combination of a oil-tanker sized boatload of denial and a staunchly pious Catholicism.
What is all this about for the right-to-lifers? Just another brawl where someone else's suffering can be used to further an agenda that seems (paradoxically) to attach a bizarre, medieval importance to the physical body when conceptualizing about the soul (I truly find this confusing)."
The logic of invoking Oskar Schindler doesn't follow - clearly Tom implies the 'right' are Nazis, albiet sympatheic and confused Nazis who try to save people, which Tom sees as a bad thing. Or, perhaps Tom just wanted to make a snarky post. Clearly Tom believes most everyone who wants the woman to live is a sympathetic Nazi - he calls them "Schindlers." Congratulations on raising the level of debate, Tom.
Me? I just wouldn't want that 'husband' fighting for me - regardless of my wishes. I'm still waiting for Tom's pick (option 1 or option 2 - see the request for footnotes post) as to whom he'd have exercise his will.
Brian - Asshat comment.
Nice try. Those people lead productive lives because of medical technology. This woman -is- dead. A machine is keeping her body parts working while providing no quality of life. She is not walking around enjoying the sun on her face. She is not registering that there is an argument about whether she should live or die. She's not anything. (Except a memory that her parents will not let die gracefully.)
It's a shame that analogies are being cut from the Scholastic Aptitude Test because it's clear that most people are unable to draw legitimate comparisons when they attempt to do so. (Or, maybe you're just manipulating the facts in order to support your personal beliefs?)
I never claimed to be against medical technology. I just happen to feel it's been misused in this instance. What we have here is a woman being USED by politicians and right-to-life folks to support their agenda.
WHUPS!
I apologize for the Gowdin's law Schindler reference.
Sorry Mr. Dolan - my large and egregious error.
ok -
Let me get this straight. If today at lunch I decide not to eat. And then tonight at dinner I decide again, not to eat... and breakfast the following morning same thing... and days go by like this... what happens? Obviously they put me in jail for attempting to commit suicide.
HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT?
Seriously, since when is food and water medical intervention? You really really have to stretch the logic of medicine to even get close to this bizarro, completely wacked out definition that everyone has accepted as obvious and socially acceptable.
I just don't buy it.
Boy, the more I think about it, the more it rubs me the wrong way that you made the analogy that you did. Do you really think that a person on a pacemaker is in any way comparable to a person in Terry Schiavo's position?
No problem Jojo, you undermine your own arguments better than I could ever hope to. For the record and those keeping score at home, the Schindlers are Terri's parents (Schiavo being her married name). Nice example of the level of familiarity with the basic facts of the case some people feel they need to have before going off—less than zero one might say.
Regarding your ridiculous question, there's a simple answer [demanded by logic] of who I would choose to exercise my will if "I were in that state" ... A: If I were in that state I wouldn't freaking care because I'd be a vegetable. Your very inability to frame the question in a logical way is simply another example of your irrational perspective. Again, I don't say this to be mean or insulting—just to point out you're being irrational. I'm imagining you don't find being called 'irrational' upsetting at all, but rather take some fierce pride in it. Bully for you.
To indulge and answer in another way: If I were magically somehow capable of spiriting back my wishes from the great beyond I'd communicate that I'd hope everyone would get over the morbid fascination with my useless flesh and let my old husk of a body die in peace. Who would ask for anything else?
HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT
It's a shame that I have to point this out but:
You used the words "I decide." SHE cannot decide. Her brain CANNOT make decisions. Her family has MADE a decision to prolong her life beyond what her body is capable of and doctors have hooked her up to medical equipment which FEEDS her beyond her ability to feed herself.
Think before you post.
HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT?
The reality, again widely practiced in medical settings all across the country, every day, is that ceasing life-prolonging treatments is, in select circumstances, a rational, reasonable, respectful, and even loving course of action. Medical technology has gotten to the point where they can keep the body alive long after the brain has ceased functioning. "Life" is not so easily defined as Tom Delay would have you believe, and most serious theologians and scientists would agree on this point. To choose to withdraw life-sustaining measures in cases where they are only prolonging suffering with no hope of recovery is not unreasonable or irrational.
Taylor, if you, I'll assume a healthy adult, decide you want to stop eating and commit suicide you wouldn't be "thrown in jail" but an intervention would entail a psychological evaluation and a course of discussion surrounding the circumstances of your actions and their rationality (or lack thereof). It would likely be a fairly easy argument to point out to you that you have other alternatives that offer promise. The Terri Schiavo's of the world have so such alternative—that is how this is different.
Tom, with regard to my case familiarty - I own up to my mistake and say that it was my poorly-biased inference of your comments overall that had led me (by my own accord) down the foolish path I took. I know the names of the players - I mistakenly rushed to judge your perspective from some of your other comments. As I stated, my bad.
But watch out for a similar rabbit hole:
"I'm imagining you don't find being called 'irrational' upsetting at all, but rather take some fierce pride in it. Bully for you." It's your imagination - run wild with it. Take fierce pride in it. Bully for you and your imagination.
My 'ridiculous' question was merely a hypothetical, as I'm sure most 'rational' people in the forum could infer. Perhaps it was just too simple a question, or perhaps I should have stated it as a hypothetical.
But you did see it as a hypothetical, because you indulged me anyway and put the answer "another way: If I were magically somehow capable of spiriting back my wishes from the great beyond I'd communicate that I'd hope everyone would get over the morbid fascination with my useless flesh and let my old husk of a body die in peace."
It wasn't one of the choices I offered, but thanks for seeing the question as hypothetical even after your irrationality remarks. I guess it wasn't so irrational as to not garner a hypothetical response.
Hmm, a little off-topic, but maybe if all those who are so "pro-live", and fighting to keep a human body "functioning" on a machine would turn their time and energy to making laws against the possession of guns.. ... that would save a lot more lives!! (I just saw on the news something about a school kid in the usa shooting around and killing, but maybe that's not on the american news anymore because it's so common)
Sweet. He told me to think before I post. How cool is that?
So, basically if I understand both Brian and Tom's argument everyone who can't decide for themselves should be allowed to be starved to death. The elderly, the mentally retarded, even my 6 month old daughter - everyone that doesn't know that is actually a great thing for one to do - should be allowed starve themselves to death without impunity.
I actually buy the argument that if machines were keeping her alive her husband should be allowed to pull the plug and collect the insurance money he is so interested with receiving. But that isn't involved here at all - we are killing her by depriving her of water just because she doesn't have the capacity to ask for it. Just boggles the mind. That logic is sick and very twisted in my opinion.
Think before you post. Amazing.
Tom,
Regarding this conclusive and obvious CT scan (except to all of us), would you mind comparing it in detail to that of a stroke victim? I found one for you here.
What are the differences we see in them? What specific functions of the brain are affected by this stroke victim's CT scan versus Terri's? What are the practical differences we can expect to see in brain function between the two? How can recovery options be compared between these two individuals? Oh, while we're at it, how about this one and this one?
I find your ability to conclusively diagnose Terri's condition and chance for improvement based on the CT scan intriguing...especially without ever interacting with Terri whatsoever. Although I guess you somehow know that there were hours of video taken and then edited down to make her appear responsive...how do you know that again?
I'm obviously not requesting that you do that (since I wouldn't trust your untrained and isolated interpretation anyway), but rather, making a point. You can't do it and neither can we. Leave it to the professionals who are using a CT scan amongst all the other evidence to create a realisitic and informed diagnosis of Terri.
Regarding PVS, as has been stated already, the argument has been made by many (the 17 brain injury doctors who have writted affidavits to that end, for example) that she is not in a PVS and has a good chance of recovery or improvement. So let's not be so quick to toss her in with the 30,000, as that group includes people in truly vegatative states (full life support, no argument about condition, consistently unresponsive except to painful stimuli, etc.).
And Brian,
As to your comments:
This woman -is- dead.
Medically, scientifically, you're wrong. Disinformation or overstating the case - either way, it's inaccurate
A machine is keeping her body parts working while providing no quality of life.
Um, no - wrong again. No machine is keeping any of her body parts working. IT'S A FEEDING TUBE. Got that? It puts food and water in stomach. Not only that, but her parents have been prevented from doing testing to see if Terri can learn to swallow on her own. She's breathing on her own, her heart is beating on it's own, her internal organs are functioning. The issue here is whether or not she will be deprived of food until she starves to death (or is dehydrated to the point of death).
She is not walking around enjoying the sun on her face. She is not registering that there is an argument about whether she should live or die.
Since when is that the standard for a right to life?
She's not anything. (Except a memory that her parents will not let die gracefully.)
You mean, she's not anything except a living, breathing (on her own), human. And dying gracefully, in the mind of most people, does not consist of starving to death.
Taylor, obviously it's not my argument that 'everyone who can't decide for themselves should be allowed to starve to death' — rather, as practiced every day (how often to I have to repeat this? Why aren't you storming the doors of every hospital in America?) people who are judged to be psychologically capable should be able to practice their constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. If they're unable to express their wishes, their guardian has the right to decide for them. It's the law, and it's practiced in emergency rooms and trauma centers and geriatric wards every day.
Terri Schiavo's body is being deprived of food and water because over a dozen courts have reviewed the medical evidence of her irreversible state and testimony expressing her personal preference. I argue only for her right to control her own body, as I hope to be able to control mine, and as I would think any person would want to control theirs. It's a logic that is simple, humanistic, and respectful of an individual's rights.
Nathan, fine. Let's not debate CT scans, obviously there is a level of discussion that needs to take place regarding them that would be difficult to carry out in this forum, and I'll admit there is a wide array of brain injury and a wide array of potential prognoses. I've stated before that because Terri's cerebral cortex has liquified, her prognosis is not good. I'll leave it at that.
Re: the 17 "experts"—they're an interesting bunch. Please note on the disinfo front they are not "brain injury doctors" as you suggest, but rather they include:
A psychatrist, Dr. Ralph Ankenman, who wants to treat Terri with an experimental drug of his design. Dr. Beatrice Engstrand who believes Terri is conscious based on "a television show that [she] watched." Dr. Richard Neubaeur wants to treat Terri with hyperbaric therapy, herbs, and acupuncture. It should also be noted that Dr. Neubaeur is also the owner of the largest neurological hyperbaric clinic in Florida and that his affidavit reads like an infomercial. Dr. Carolyn Heron's affidavit contains at least two elementary errors about the neuropathology of PVS. Dr. Lawrence Huntoon's assessment is based on video clips from "Terri Schiavo's web site." And, perhaps the most bizarre contribution comes from Dr. Richard Weidman, the head physician at the US Department of Engraving and Printing.
Doctors yes. Brain injury doctors, no. Doctors with a right-to-life agenda or a product to pedal. Seemingly so.
Nathan has stated my case much more succinctly than I ever will be able to. Brilliantly done Nate - keep up the good work.
And Tom, just because the courts or public opinion says it is ok, doesn't mean it's right. I honestly could care less who says its ok to starve this woman to death... we are still depriving this person of life. By not feeding her we are killing her. Its very simple in my humble opinion. Whether it is a life that is qualitatively up to par for you or not (which is a ridiculous excuse for killing someone) - the simple fact is that we are obviously killing her by not giving her something as simple as a glass of water... (or the tubular equivalent.)
The logical gymnastics we go through as a society to obfuscate and confuse the simple matter at hand is just amazing to me.
Brian - Sorry for not getting my point across better. I'll let Nathan take it from here.
In the time that Congress went all stop to concentrate on this case, more than 200 people have died from lack of adequate health care.
Just curious, are you saying you'd like her kept alive against her wishes (if it came to that)? What if Terri could speak today, do you believe she has the right to refuse medical treatment and/or nourishment?
Several nurses who provided care for Terri have signed affadavits stating the following: 1) Terri has spoken. She was able to utter single words such as "Mommy" or "hi" 2) She has the ability to express pain. During her periods, she communicated her pain to the nurses. 3) Those same nurses at one time fed her with a bottle (demonstrating the ability to swallow). She digested (and expressed enjoyment) items like jell-o or liquified foods.
They also strongly believe Michael Schiavo made an attempt to kill Terri through an insulin injection. In their affadavit, they state that Mr. Schiavo was with Terri behind closed doors for 20 minutes and when nurses checked on her afterward, she had an extremely low blood sugar count and puncture marks under her breast, arms, and groin. After the nurses reported this incident to the police, Mr. Schiavo had them fired.
Think of Terri right now as a baby. Can babies survive on their own? Contrary to mis-information from sources like ABC News, Terri is on no kind of life-support. All she requires to remain alive is what each and everyone of us needs to remain alive: food.
Also-Mr. Schiavo appeared on Larry King last night and falsely stated that Terri isn't dying of starvation or even dehydration. He called it painless and natural. He equated it with the last few weeks of cancer patients. What a comparison. What we have here is state-sanctioned torture. Everyone was all upset about the alleged American torture of terrorists, but they all survived. Why is there not a similar backlash against an even more heinous form of torture? Listening to even just a few minutes of leftist media coverage, one would wonder why we don't make starvation the preferred method for administering the death penalty. Supposedly it's so painless and natural.
Michael wants his wife to die. I repeat, he wants his wife to die. That makes him a murderer as far as I'm concerned.
Scott,
What do you say about the case of the baby in Texas that had care withdrawn against the wishes of the mother simply because she didn't have the money to pay for his care? And under a Bush-signed law, no less.
While I have no reason to doubt your convictions, this is just political posturing an hypocricy by these politicians. They are taking this up because it is politically expedient and distracts from some of the more pressing issues they should be addressing.
Tom,
Obviously it'd be suicide if she could talk and decide for herself. This brings us full circle... (can't believe you walked into that one.) We don't allow cognizant individuals to take their own lives by starving themselves to death... why is it any different for those who are not cognizant of their surroundings? Once again I state that of course we'd allow her to die if a machine was keeping her alive, but this is the point I've been making all along - this isn't medical treatment. Since when is food and water medical treatment?
Well, this has been fun and informative, but I'm about to head to lunch, oops, I mean out for medical treatment.
Scott, again, just sincerely curious — what if Terri wants to die too, and her husband is just fighting to honor her wishes. Do you think she should have that right (to refuse medical treatment or nourishment)? Just a hypothetical, and again sincerely curious.
Tony,
I'm afraid I'm unaware of the case of the baby in Texas. I apologize for my lack of knowledge on that specific case. Feel free to give me the basic facts of the case and I'll get back to you.
I appreciate your respect for my personal conviction. Being politicians, I have no doubt such thoughts have entered into their decision making. I have to disagree though that there could be more pressing issues than a life/death situation. Also, most congressman/woman were on spring break, so it's not like they would have been dealing with the other "more pressing issues" even if this bill hadn't taken place.
Tom,
I was not aware of some of the doctors' backgrounds and qualifications (or lack thereof), I was just quoting Tampa's WTSP news that called them, "17 doctors that specialize in brain injuries".
As for the rest of the lot, are there qualified professionals in there? Where did you get the list (I'd like to peruse it, if possible)?
If Terri was capable of completely expressing her desire not to be kept alive, I would have no problem honoring that wish. That being said, I do not feel Michael Schiavo is fighting for HER rights or wishes. There are many grave doubts as to his capability to decide such things and I have only scratched the surface in my comments.
Scott:
Baby born with fatal defect dies after removal from life support
Thank you Tony, I'll read it over lunch.
Nathan, yes some of the 17 would have to be recognized as qualified professionals, but unfortunately they seem largely to be basing their writ on seeing a few minutes of video. As judge after judge has ruled, it's a pretty unconvincing set of documents (unless you're already predisposed to want to believe them). The affadavits are on the Terri Schiavo foundation website. Just google "schiavo affidavits" and you'll get a ton of links. C'mon people, let's buck up on the independent research.
"Um, no - wrong again. No machine is keeping any of her body parts working. IT'S A FEEDING TUBE. Got that? It puts food and water in stomach. Not only that, but her parents have been prevented from doing testing to see if Terri can learn to swallow on her own. She's breathing on her own, her heart is beating on it's own, her internal organs are functioning. The issue here is whether or not she will be deprived of food until she starves to death (or is dehydrated to the point of death)."
Her body parts would most certianly stop working were this machine not providing her food. This food is in no way creating a positive change in her condition. My argument stands. And before you condemn me for saying that people who can't feed themselves should be allowed to die... I am referring to Terry Schiavo's case. Not someones mentally retarded cousin, not your baby, not a stroke patient. If you put food in front of these other people when they were starving to death, they would either THINK, WISH, or TRY to get that food. Terry Schiavo would continue to starve to death and have no thoughts one way or the other about it.)
She's clearly not capable of getting the food herself, nor will she ever be.
To the person who used their baby as an example: Your baby will eventually be able to feed herself. Terry Schiavo will not.
Her parents are being prevented from doing these things because her parents are not doctors, and have no way of knowing, medically, what is best for her. Tom Dolan has done a good job of clarifying that the doctors who DO support Life for Terry are questionable, at best.
Perhaps I should have stated that based on her "quality of life" the woman is dead. I'm sure you'll still argue with this, but whatever.
She is not walking around enjoying the sun on her face. She is not registering that there is an argument about whether she should live or die.
Since when is that the standard for a right to life?
Once again, you've cherry picked one of my statements to fit an argument it wasn't trying to make. My statement was illustrating that there is a diffference between Terry Schiavo and a person who is using a pacemaker. (I notice you left out the context. Way to (once again) manipulate my argument to make it work against me.)
And yes, I will say that it is my honest belief that if I were in her position I would no longer be living, and that I should be allowed to die in a manner that didn't involve years and years of political debate.
One thing for sure: Terry Schiavo isn't a political agenda or religious debate. Unfortunately, that's what she has become.
I'm completely aware that I'm not a doctor. I'm not arguing against any Brain Surgeon's opinions. I'm arguing against the opinions of those on this forum, who seem to be proving that it is indeed possible to live life without any brains.
At any rate... the issue is deadlocked. You feel one way, I feel another and the wheel goes 'round. Unless there are (more) examples of my opinions being used counter to their actual arguments, I've no more to say on the issue.
We don't allow cognizant individuals to take their own lives... .
Taylor, we do, in certain circumstances. Again, for the umpteenth time, It happens in hospitals every day when critically ill patients ask their doctors to not perform heroic measures or to place them on a ventilator should their condition necessitate it. It's called refusing medical treatment and it's your right. It's a right I'd like to have, hence my argument in this case against governement intrusion.
Okay, I have a very difficult question to ask all of you. The case of Terri Schiavo holds particular interest to my family because we care for my grandmother in house. She is in her late 70s and suffers from medium to severe dimentia. Very rarely can she utter a reasoned statement. She is somewhat capable of feeding herself, but we feed her just to insure she receives enough nutrients. She doesn't suffer pain because of any physical condition, but she holds absolutely no chance of getting better. Should be discontinue feeding her and let her die "naturally and painlessly?"
That brings to case about the baby in Houston. I disagree with both the law and the final outcome in this case. The decision to discontinue life support was based on the fact that the baby was eventually going to die. A key phrase in the article was that "nearly all babies...". I am a Christian and believe that is inserting one's self in God's place to decide whether or not a person should continue to live. That baby was probably going to die very soon, but shouldn't we let the parents decide that or let it happen naturally?
Brian,
Actually, no, I used your comment completely in context, by copying and responding to each part of it. No cherry-picking here (feel free to scroll up and verify).
But now to your last post...
Her body parts would most certianly stop working were this machine not providing her food.
First off, we don't know that, as her parents have been prevented from trying to do so. Also, if you read Scott's comments above, evidently nurses HAVE fed her via other ways. Second, it's not that the machine is sustaining her life, it's that the machine is sticking food and water in her belly. Her body and internal organs are functioning normally, she just needs sustenance. The issue is *clearly* not the machine (read "tube"), but the food. Of course lack of fodo and water would kill her. It would kill anyone. You're grasping at straws here.
This food is in no way creating a positive change in her condition. My argument stands.
It's sustaining her life - that's enough. This is equivalent to saying, "the oxygen is not creating a positive change in her condition, so let's suffocate her." What? I missed the connection you are trying to make here. You mean each successive meal is not making her leap out of bed, so let's remove the food? Make the connection, because I'm missing it.
And before you condemn me for saying that people who can't feed themselves should be allowed to die... I am referring to Terry Schiavo's case. Not someones mentally retarded cousin, not your baby, not a stroke patient. If you put food in front of these other people when they were starving to death, they would either THINK, WISH, or TRY to get that food. Terry Schiavo would continue to starve to death and have no thoughts one way or the other about it.)
First off, you have no idea as to Terri's thoughts, so don't pretend to. She very well may THINK, WISH, or TRY to get that food. That is the point here. She is responsive enough that some say she is not in a PVS. Second, if she has some (arguably good) chance of recovery and improvement that she may get to the point of thinking about her food (assuming she's not), should she be cut off before those means have been explored? No, she shouldn't.
Brian - Stop making statements then that are so easy for "cherry pickin'". Someone answers your statement and then you say it's taken out of context.
My opinion is that Terry Schiavo's case crosses the line. Your grandmother (and both of my great grandmothers) don't (didn't in my GG's case) cross that line.
If your great grandmother lost all conginitive reasoning, any ability to "make herself" do anything at all, with no hope of "ever" making herself do anything at all; I would say yes. I would feel sorry that you had to make the decision to let her die sooner, rather than pointlessly later, but would hope that you would make that decision with the support of your doctors, friends, and family. I would also hope that if you came to that decision and were the lawful caretaker of your grandmother, that the government wouldn't make a law regarding YOU specifically that might prevent you from making your decision.
I sincerely hope that when it's your (or my) turn to make this decision, that we are allowed to make it privately.
Nathan,
What you are missing is that the person legally responsible for carrying out her last wishes believes she did not want to live this way. Neither you or I have any information to the contrary, and this has been before the courts more than 50 times, and those courts have agreed with Mr. Schiavo.
Brian, you missed my point. The government doesn't regularly intervene, in fact, it is extremely rare, which is why Terri's case is getting so much attention. My point is, what is the standard for determining who should die? Is is societal value? Usefulness? Reading your post, one would think that's what you think. My grandmother is contributing nothing of tangible value to society (the case with many seniors), why is she being kept alive?
AMEN!
Bottlerocket:
Are you defending the practive of taking a comment out of it's orginal context and then placing it into the context of another argument? Ease has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. You're damn straight that I defend the context of my statements when they're misused.
And yes, Nathan, you did take my argument out of context. My comment was meant to demonstrate that there is a clear difference between Terry Schiavo's condition and the condition of a person with a pacemaker. (And was in response to another comment that had nothing to do with the context you then put it in.) You chose to ignore that I was comparing the two situations, and went on to use my my description of her condition as some sort of agenda. Hence, it was taken out of context, whether you want that to be the case or not. My feelings on whether or not her condition meets a quality of life standard or not are irrelevent, as I was merely stating that her quality of life is clearly different from a person with a pacemaker.
I don't pretend to know what she's thinking. I actually stated she was likely not thinking anything at all. AS SHE IS MISSING PORTIONS OF HER BRAIN THAT ALLOW HER TO THINK.
Nathan, I applaud your faith and conviction. Please don't take any of my comments above to be belittling them. I'd ask you to consider two points:
Terri Schiavo has no cerebral cortex. It has liquified. This is a medical issue which has been persuasively argued in many courts. She cannot think. You are projecting if you believe she may be able to, and while that may be hopeful, optomistic, and touching, it's not in line with reality. Your argument will be stronger if you come to grips with this detail of her specific case, rather than ignore it.
Second, as you're a person of faith, I'd love to hear your opinion on the larger "life" issue. What if Terri could express her will and (as her husband contends) would choose to die herself. Given her circumstances, should she be allowed to make that choice?
Nathan,
I don't think usefullness enters into it. There are plenty of people with all of their functions who are pretty useless. I don't think they should be withheld food.
I can't really say what the criteria is. Based on her condition, and the likelihood that it will just get worse from "really over-the-top" bad... Terry Schiavo meets the criteria, and I would advocate pulling the tubes were she my wife or child.
My previous comment was actually intended for Scott, not Nathan.
But, I would like to address yet another bad analogy, which was made by Nathan.
You take exception to my comments about the feeding tube doing nothing to improve her condition (merely keeping her "alive") and compare it to "witholding oxygen because it doesn't improve our condition." Well, "we're" not vegetables. As soon as our brain is partially liquified, and on oxygen to remain "alive"... I will consider your analogy to be accurate. And I will also say that YES, I would want to be denied that oxygen by a loving wife for the same reasons that I would want to be denied a feeding tube were I Terry Schiavo.
As it stands, your analogy doesn't pose a similar situation, so I suppose I would have to agree that depriving oxygen from a healthy person would be bad. Is there a point that's supposed to make?
I have a few comments on this:
1) No doubt its political grandstanding on the behalf of the christian conservatives trying to reach out to those to get a lousy vote. Schiavo is nothing more than a politcal pawn to reach out to those pro-lifers to get more votes.
2) How could the parents be more selfish. I'm sure its already been established that she can't recover from this, her brain is the same consistency as oatmeal. Do they think the good lord is going to somehow work a miracle on this woman? Its not going to happen.
3) Some people make the point that she's going to starve to death and she's going to suffer. Yes, if it were a normal human being like you and me we would suffer. But for a woman in a vegatative state, not likely, she's probably in a state of euphoria.
3)Since when did our democracy turned into a socialist government? Who the hell gives them the right to intervene somebody's right to death, why are they wasting our tax money figuring out if MLB's steroid policy is good enough? Why is the FCC gone fine-happy on people who likes to say nothing more than dirty words? Our democracy was created to keep order, not to make decisions for everybody.
4) Only in America, if we were in Europe or virtually anywhere else other than the U.S. the doctors would determine whether they would pull her feeding tube, not some politico asshat that is trying to get votes.
Brian - Damn straight? I mean, straight up, for real?
Brian - Damn straight? I mean, straight up, for real?
I am completely at a loss for a rebutal to this response. I'm assuming bottlerocket (who unfortuantely has good taste in movies, if he's a Wes Anderson fan) had no mature answer to my question, and therefore decided to spout something that he thought was funny instead.
Brian - I completely apologize for my juvenile answer. Really. I have requested Greg take it off. It was pretty damn immature. This subject definitely has people on different sides of the subject and I let myself get torqued. My humble apologies.
Bottlerocket... Good Timing... I was about to post this:
"Bottlerocket said:
Asshat... ...heart pump/pacemaker patients...should just cut that... ....object from their chest and... ...die.
Wow, you're right, this taking things out of context game -is- fun. That is such a horrible thing to say about pacemaker patients! Thanks so much for making arguing easier for me!"
Instead... I will accept your apology and also accept that we're never going to see eye to eye on this matter. (And appreciate your taste in movies, as a compromise.)
Brian - Thank you. Accepted.
Right or wrong, if we have a anything to learn from all of this, it is to please please PLEASE complete a living will so there is no doubt as to what your wishes are...
For those of us who don't have a family lawyer on retainer, here is a resource:
https://www.legaldocs.com/htmdocs/livin_st.htm
I printed out my copy this morning.
Also, check out the positive results of this whole debate.
Mr Dolan, thanks for the compliments. All I have to say is that if you would point your browsers to this definition of 'stupendous', you will see (if you scroll down a little) "so remarkable as to elicit disbelief". Yes I am a genius! That's the first thing you got right in this thread!
Since its obvious that you are not much of a wordsmith, should I also link to a thread defining asshat?
All the same, I bet you meant to say "stupefying." ;)
People are going to read "stupendous" and the most common definition of that word is going to come to mind. (That would be Tom's; not yours.)
Similarly, if a person were to carve a Swastika into his head because of an ancient and peaceful meaning that has been largely forgotten due to Hitler's perversion of the symbol for his own uses... that person would be on the painful end of a lot of a**-kickings.
It doesn't matter what you mean, it matters what people are likely to infer. Stupendous, but true.
JennyBunny's link underscores an important truth, but also happens to support Tom Dolan's (as well as my) opinions on the issue. Definitely an interesting read.
I have read every post on here so far (as of 2:02PM CST). Meaning that any post made after Brian Ford's post of 11:56AM (replying to Bottlerocket) has not been read by myself and is therefore not considered in my post here. It has, literally, taken me around 3 hours or so to digest these posts and follow many links to investigate the issue. This post is what I have gleamed and is merely my perspective on Terri Schiavo's case.
I would like to state that I agree with Mr. Dolan. If nothing more than he has done an incredible amount of research and has supported his statements quite well, indeed. After review of the Schiavo timeline, I believe that the Schindler's have made quite a mess of this whole thing. They seem to have been the sole instigator's for bringing this matter to such a public light. The tube has been removed 3 times (the most recent removal on March 18th of this year). Regardless of the level of the ruling (and the numbers of those rulings), the Schindlers continue to seek appeal and have the tube reinserted. To the point of the US Congress getting involved to create very specific law(s) to keep Mrs. Schiavo alive. I choose the word alive, because I don't feel she is "living", an issue being argued by many here already.
Mr. Logan: With regard to your CT scans of stroke victims and your curiosity as to their differences to Mrs. Schiavo's CAT scan — the ones you provide show brain activity. The one Mr. Dolan provided shows brain matter. A stroke victim has reduced brain activity, but still has many, many faculties of the brain available to them. Mrs. Schiavo, however, has lack of actual brain matter (in her case, the cerebral cortex has basically turned to liquid). She is nonambulatory and without a cerebral cortex, it is impossible for a human being to experience thought, emotions, consciousness, pain, pleasure, or anything at all — let alone recover. And this is not to say they are not having pains or are not conscious, only that they are unable to experience it and relate it. Poke her with a needle and she would not comprehend it to be painful, or to even rationalize what she is seeing.
I think what we all need to realize is that Mrs. Schiavo has no chance of recovery beyond her current status. Her condition will not improve. Court appointed Richard Pearse, Esq., concluded that Mrs. Schiavo is in a PVS with no chance of improvement on December 20, 1998. Court appointed Dr. Jay Wolfson concluded that Mrs. Schiavo is in a PVS with no chance of improvement on December 1st, 2003. These were court appointed individuals. I have yet to find actual documentation of her ability to speak that wasn't on a pro-tube/life website or wasn't hearsay from the nurses and the Schindlers. If she does have the ability to speak (which seems unlikely without having that portion of your brain available), then why not record that data on video or, at the very least, audio? I am more inclined to believe that the sounds/noises she makes are due to random synapses in what's left of her brain being interpreted physically. They are involuntary. If any person listens with the intent to hear something specific, they will, in fact, hear it. How many times have you thought you heard your cat or dog say something because it sounded similar to a spoken word and that is what you wanted to hear? I feel for these parents, so desperate to see their daughter inside the body of this person. They are grasping for anything that might suggest she will come back to them.
As for the thought that they are killing her... well, yes, her life is being ended. But I hardly equate it to "killing" her. The connotation in that word is barbaric and murderous. As for the justification, she is not merely failing to ask for sustenance, she is not able to comprehend that she requires it. Every time that tube has been pulled out, she doesn't understand why it was there in the first place. She doesn't realize she needs it to stay alive. She is one step above the Pet Rock. Had this happened prior to the technology of the PEG, she would have already died naturally. These lawsuits, and court appeals are only delaying what nature demands. In my opinion, she is simply being and nothing more. Should she be allowed to continue "being"? That is up to her guardians and those responsible for her. The courts have found in favor of Mr. Schiavo, that ending her life is in her best interests. Regardless of what he does now or has done in the past, our legal system agrees with, what is perceived as, Terri Schiavo's wishes. The use of technology simply because it exists has always bothered me. The availability of something doesn't necessitate its use. I am not a ludite, just stating that not all forms of technology actual improve our quality of life. Just because her body can be kept alive, doesn't mean it should.
This whole case has just opened my eyes on living wills. I mean to make mine very soon. I will not have my family and friends torn apart by the selfishness of the few.
Sunny, that's okay. I'll settle for you calling my comments 'remarkable'—kinda nice.
Maybe you want to take a crack at the simple question none of the pro-feeding tubers seem willing to answer:
What if Terri could express herself clearly, do you think if she communicated it personally she should have the right to refuse medical treatment or nourishment?
Also:
Health Care Directive form on lawdepot.com (though I believe there is a fee involved).
What Terry said.
Sorry for not posting the link mentioned above. The definition of http://www.answers.com/stupendous&r=67.
Scroll a tad and the words variety of meanings is obvious.
We can argue all day that the law that was signed is problematic. I agree, there is no denying that. That law is more harmful. But arguing about the law is missing the point here. To me the simplest and right thing to do would be to concentrate on the life of Terri Schiavo. I am not saying keep her alive for eternity, but give her parents the right to explore all possibilities. Mr Dolan, you seriously think that they enjoy watching her suffer?
I understand that right of kin rightly belongs to her husband. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but given the circumstances in this case, I find it deeply troubling. There is enough evidence that he prefers, Terri be dead. He declines to spend any of the settlement monies (which were compensation for malpractice and funds for treatment). One can easily make an argument that he has much to gain from a quick death of Terri. If he was a devoted husband, a model spouse, I won't have a problem. But he is not. Not even close. Therefore, it should be her parents' decision. Let him continue with his new life; let Terri's parents explore their options to their satisfaction. So yeah my point is guardians making decisions for Terri is fine as long as its a suitable guardian. Why not get a judge's decision on who is more of a suitable guardian?
I hope this was a more clear or coherent representation of my position.
but give her parents the right to explore all possibilities
They've had this in the courts for 7 years -- it's been decided more than 50 times in front of 20 judges, including the Supreme Court. Most recently, their latest appeal was found wholly without merit.
Sunny wrote: "So yeah my point is guardians making decisions for Terri is fine as long as its a suitable guardian. Why not get a judge's decision on who is more of a suitable guardian?"
They did. Several times.
June 18, 1990
Court appoints Michael Schiavo as guardian; Terri Schiavo’s parents do not object.
March 1, 1994
First guardian ad litem, John H. Pecarek, submits report. [not sure when Mr. Pecarek was appointed by the court.]
May 1998
The court appoints Richard Pearse, Esq., to serve as the second guardian ad litem for Terri Schiavo.
October 31, 2003
Judge Demers appoints Dr. Jay Wolfson as Terri Schiavo’s guardian ad litem. [as requested by the governor]
All guardians for Mrs. Schiavo were appointed by the court - which means a judge decided who was the most suitable guardian for Mrs. Schiavo. Whenever those guardians determined she was in a PVS or should have the tube removed, the Schindlers appealed for the reappointment of the guardian.
Brian, by any definition stupendous means "unbelievable".
And Tom, thanks for lumping with the pro-feeding tubers. Has a nice ring to it.
In my response, I would point to my preceding comment. And yes, Terri's wishes would be followed. I don't see how that can even be questioned. Doing otherwise would be an affront to her individual rights.
And if the individual cannot make that decision, it should be made by her guardians. I only question whether her husband is a suitable guardian.
Tom, please accept my apologies for my juvenile behavior.
Brian, thanks for the Swastika analogy. As a Hindu myself I can assure you that the religious symbol is ever so slightly different from the Nazi one. But if you expect me to write in a way so that morons can infer it correctly, then you are wrong.
Wow, a lot happened while I was at lunch. Too much for me to respond to directly, as I'm at work.
I'll try to hit a couple things quickly.
Brian, due to the illogical and unconnected would-be flow of your arguments, I simply don't have the time to try to address them. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just not following your 'logic' or how your comments have rebutted anything I have said.
Tony (and Terry Tolleson, now that I refresh before I post), I do understand that Mr. Schiavo believes that Terri would not want to live this way, but if she's not in a vegetative state, as some claim is the case, the issue changes completely. I agree that the courts have sided with Mr. Schiavo, but I have some serious qualms with their decision. Really, at the core of this entire discussion (in my mind), is the question as to whether or not she's in a PVS. To me, there are too many questions still unanswered to say that she definitely is.
Tom, as to your comments:
She cannot think. You are projecting if you believe she may be able to, and while that may be hopeful, optomistic, and touching, it's not in line with reality. Your argument will be stronger if you come to grips with this detail of her specific case, rather than ignore it.
There are experts who disagree with you. They would say that she can indeed think to some degree (hence her ability to respond as outlined above by Scott), and that with therapy, she could improve (drastically, even). I believe that you are ignoring the possibility of recovery as much as you claim I am ignoring the precarious position in which Terri currently resides.
Second, as you're a person of faith, I'd love to hear your opinion on the larger "life" issue. What if Terri could express her will and (as her husband contends) would choose to die herself. Given her circumstances, should she be allowed to make that choice?
You know, I'm still struggling with this one a bit. The question in my head is what medical measures should be 'optional' to keep someone alive? In my mind, depriving someone of food, water, or oxygen is unacceptable, while eventually pulling the plug on making their lungs or heart work for them seems somewhat acceptable. There seems to be some distinction between providing the basics to life, as opposed to artificially sustaining life. But as I said, it's not completely clear in my head. It's a tough one to work through (morally and practically).
Nathan,
Let's take out your cerebral cortex and see what you "think."
I think the problem here is, people have made up their mind despite, not because of, facts. Mostly the Schindlers, but also others who are, like we all are, getting in complete information.
Sunny, the motivations of the Schindlers are indeed puzzling, but no, of course I don't think they 'enjoy' watching their daughter suffering. I'll admit to having no real clue as to their motivation beyond guesses like a) they're in denial of all the medical evidence and, as is not uncommon in severe cases, they're just hoping that eventually they get good news—however unlikely, b) they're doctrinaire Catholics, following the letter of Vatican Law, c) they have some pathological hatred for the husband and are transfering their anger about Terri's tragedy to an effort to make his life a living hell, d) dunno, but it's a disgraceful spectacle.
If the judges made those decisions considering what we know about the antics of her husband, its a grave injustice. Its a travesty.
I also find it ridiculous that a third party in the form of Pecarek and Pearse is a suitable guardian over Terri's parents.
Tony,
Let's take out your cerebral cortex and see what you "think."
No thanks, but don't let me limit your freedoms to do so to yourself.
Listen, the problem I have with the situation is that despite claims that Terri's cerebral cortex is utterly gone, there have been reports by her family, attending nurses, and qualified doctors that she has been responsive in a way that people in a PVS are not. So regardless of what you tell me about her cerebral cortex, I have to at least raise an eyebrow when I hear that someone who very well may not be in a PVS is being deprived of food and water.
As Bush said after signing the bill, "In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life."
There are doubts like their are "doubts" about the theory of evolution.
And, it was YOU who trudged my thought process into an argument that it was never meant to entertain. It's little wonder that you suddenly find it hard to follow.
And, Sunny.. I meant no disrespect... Morons or not, we have to play to our audience. Your choice of words confused at least two people who are clearly not morons.
Sunny wrote: "If the judges made those decisions considering what we know about the antics of her husband, its a grave injustice. Its a travesty."
My apologies... I'm confused. How do the actions of Mr. Schiavo have any bearing on the appointment of three other individuals for the purposes of prosecuting or defending an action on behalf of another?
I also imagine that some sense of personal investment precluded the Schindler's from being elligable for a non-biased appointment of guardianship.
As well, Sunny, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Dolan and Mr. Ford regarding the semantics of stupendous. Regardless of your use of the word's intent, the common perception is that it means "marvelous or of astounding excellence". I would suggest just admitting to using the wrong word for what you meant, rather than attempt convincing the majority to adopt the alternative as common.
Tom, no doubt. Just as you find the Schindler's puzzling, I find Terri's husband puzzling. I just can't get over the fact that he is a scumbag. I will concede that this bias is coloring my opinion.
As for the religious beliefs of her parents, I was not aware of their religion. And frankly to me its irrelevant. I think they have a case for questioning their son-in-laws intentions. And given the realities surrounding his present life and past behavior, it can be argued that he is far from a suitable guardian.
Just like Nathan, I can't also get over the fact that she does not fit even Florida's definition of PVS. I am not saying that I am an eternal optimist, that Terri somehow will make a remarkable turn around. Personally, I would like her to pass away (not by deprivation--thats's inhuman, but with politicos you don't really have a choice). But I can't make that decision for her. And neither can Terri herself. Given the circumstances, that decision should be her parents in spite of what their beliefs are or how disgraceful their behavior is. And by any account its no more disgraceful than Terri's husband's.
In a perfect world, this decision should be made by a doctor. BTW, as Texas Governor Bush signed a bill that specifically stated that doctors had a right to end a person's life if she was not responding to treatment, and had little hope of recovery. Why he would think otherwise now is beyond me.
All of this has made me think of creating a personal will. I don't want my parents (I am 21, single) to make such traumatic decisions. If anybody could point out advice and information about the same, it would be much appreciated.
Terry - Yeah I agree you are confused.
You wrote: I also imagine that some sense of personal investment precluded the Schindler's from being elligable for a non-biased appointment of guardianship.
And Mr Schiavo somehow passes the non-bias test?
And yeah common perception be damned. What is this - the vocab stasi? Prove me that my usage of the word is wrong and maybe I will consider it. But guess what, you can't prove it. And no I am not convincing anyone else. You are allowed to believe in anything however erroneous.
You say you think they have a case for questioning their son-in-laws intentions. Well, they've tried to make that case in court, and were ruled against. What part of that is confusing.
More that 50 times, in front of 20 judges, over 7 years.
Sunny wrote: "And Mr Schiavo somehow passes the non-bias test?"
According to the courts, he did not "pass" the "non-bias" test since other guardians were appointed. Even if there was some form of co-guardianship (which is exceedingly unlikely), all decisions for Mrs. Schiavo would come from the guardian ad litem, not Mr. Schiavo.
While I can not prove that the usage of stupendous was incorrect, I can attempt to help you understand what we are getting at:
I am gay. I'll suck on a fag until there's nothing left to suck.
Please, allow only your first perception of the statements come through. If you can, also consider what everyone else will think of those statements.
Tony, maybe they didn't make the case adequately, maybe their lawyer is an idiot. Does your unshakeable faith in the impeccable American legal system allow for that?
And to a grieving parents 50 times, 20 judges, 7 years is nothing but numbers. I didn't say I agree with their stance, but they have every right for that belief. They have every right to be heard again, have another day at court.
Well, most recently their case was just found to be wholly without merit.
Terry said: I can attempt to help you understand what we are getting at: I am gay. I'll suck on a fag until there's nothing left to suck..
Well, my first impression was - I am happy. I'll suck on a cigarette until there's nothing left to suck.
Terry, I think it would be helpful to suggest that I currently live in Australia. I have lived in America in the past, and I love the country and its people to death. But everyone does not have to conform to your usage of words. I understand your point. I will be mindful of this in the future. But you have to agree that your evidence is pretty thin and a tad extreme.
Tony, like I said, any amount of court cases or legal defeats would not change their mind. They are parents after all. They will keep trying. That's why I personally think this should be decided by doctors. They are the only non-biased parties. In a previous comment I pointed out the law that Bush signed in Texas.
The problem I see here is that people are ignoring scientific facts. No cerebral cortex means that the things that people "say" she can do aren't really possible. There may even be some bizaarre scientific explanations for the things she's doing that I would bet are completely unrelated to any "thought" process on Terry Schiavo's part. It wouldn't change the fact that she's PSV. Missing brain is enough evidence for me to believe that. Chickens run around with their heads cut off. I don't think that makes them "alive."
It makes a hell of a lot more sense to ME that her parents are seeing things that they have decided they're going to see, and that the "experts" that agree with them see a way to boost their status. One is in denial, and the other is willing to ignore facts in order to further an agenda. (George Bush fits into the agenda pushing crowd. Way to re-capture the conservative christians, Mr. Bush.)
Ok people, this thread passed the stupid line a while ago but after reading the last four comments I'd say it's about to enter orbit around planet Homer.
Terry, I think if you tried harder you could have found a way to make your point without dragging this entire thread down three notches. Thanks for that.
While I appreciate the vigor of this discussion, when the debate has turned upon itself (debate about a debate) then it's all jumped-the-shark and it's time to move on.
We just told North Korea to stop acting like they're four years old or there's going to be hell to pay, war and democracy still rage in the Middle East while the French are whining because they are being forced to work one extra hour for four days.
And just yesterday a troubled child killed other children, his teacher and a cop while waving and smiling. Then he took his own life in what has become a troubling pattern in gun-related school violence.
I can only hope that all of you will give these events the same attention and focus that has been demonstrated for and against the decisions being made in the case of the food-tube: yes or no?
Very excellent idea Greg.
Heheh, don't get me -started- on gun violence in schools. I just pray that he doesn't own a Nintendo.
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
That obligatory reference aside, I find it incredible that after so many court decisions, people are still thinking "well they deserve another chance".
They've used up all their chances. It's appalling to see Justice reduced to a last man standing fight. Who knows, maybe by the 58th trial, judges will finally agree with Schiavo's parents.
(Greg: as for the French, you try working one extra hour everyday with no increase in salary and no guarantee that they're going to hire more staff; all the while seeing your company claim outrageous profits.)
And hopefully was not a blogger.
Heheh, don't get me -started- on gun violence in schools. I just pray that he doesn't own a Nintendo.
What does owning a Nintendo have to do with gun violence? Why is it that everything but bad parents are to blame for gun violence? I'm not necessarily an advocate for guns but it's time parents started taking some of the blame for the actions of their children.
as for the French, you try working one extra hour everyday with no increase in salary and no guarantee that they're going to hire more staff; all the while seeing your company claim outrageous profits.
What, you mean like the last ten years of my life? Cry me a river.
I never said the nintendo had anything to do with causing him to shoot anyone. I said lets hope he -doesn't- have a Nintendo... meaning I realize the press and the lawyer is with the crusade against violent video games will immediately jump on the story as it's the easiest angle. I've already noted at least ONE article which makes mention of the fact that he wore black clothes, as though this somehow meant he was destined for a life of violence and murder. (It somewhat glosses over the fact that he was routinely made fun of.)
As an aside, a big problem I see with blogs is that people read a comment and immediately accuse the author of the comment of holding certain beliefs, without really asking a simple question in order to clear up any confusion. I would have gladly clarified my statement, but instead feel like I'm defending a statement that pretty much made the point you went on to make anyway.
Also, I'm not sure that you can expect people to accept a sudden shift for the worse in working conditions (even if it's insignificant) just because you've been dealing with the same crappy set of condition. I can assume that if there was a 5 hour increase in the American work week or anywhere else (mandatory) with no pay raise their would be a similar amount of compaining. (Except maybe in China. They're robots who prefer working to everything else.)
I can only hope that all of you will give these events the same attention and focus that has been demonstrated for and against the decisions being made in the case of the food-tube: yes or no?
For me, it's no, sorry. North Korea is the same North Korea it's always been. Insane and dangerous, but way out of my hands. Kids and guns? Seems an even harder argument to win than the food-tube, and look how hard this is. America is the world's supermarket for guns, where teenagers find easy access to lethal weapons and you can say you're buying a 50 cal. anti-armor rifle for "hunting" with a straight-face. The French, they don't bother me as long as they keep making wine and cheese.
Fundamentalists and politicians trying to enact an American Taliban and trample the constitution to pander to their 'base' — that bothers me. A lot. It impacts my personal future and depresses me greatly to think our great country is abandoning the very foundations of liberty and personal freedom that it was founded upon. The thought that a greasespot like Tom Delay actually has the power to swoop down and make legislation aimed at a single individual is chilling. The fact that an opposition party doesn't even have the sack to raise it's voice in disgust is frightening. Sometimes I feel like I'm living in 1930s Berlin or 1970s Iran, where intellectuals laughed at the possibility of crass thugs and book burners running the government, until it was too late. It's getting a bit surreal. Thanks for your indulgence.
A good and timely quote, from Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the Schiavo bill:
"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing. This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility. This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy. There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."
You can't call yourself a 'conservative' and really understand the term if you're with Delay and Frist on this one. Fundamentalist would be more accurate, but 'compassionate fundamentalism' sounds too obviously ridiculous I guess.
Right on Tom. The Republican party today is in no sense 'conservative'. Not in the traditional sense of what conservatism is all about.
Do you find it scary that we are in agreement with John Buchanan?
Compassionate Fundamentalism exists. Take Hamas for instance. They provide terrorists with retirement benefits (well their families anyways).
North Korea - Same old, same old. Will they eat the nuclear weapons? On a sidenote, is North Korea the only necrocracy in the world?
France - No comment. Tom, Australian wine is better.
School shootings - Terrible tragedy. Like Greg said, where the fuck were the parents?
Tom, your point about America turning into 1930's Berlin or 1970's Iran, is a tad extreme, no? In both cases they were broad, populist movements. Not that it makes it right, but it had the support of the majority. I really don't think the same is happening in America. In America it is the tyranny of the minorities (and for the vocab stasi, I don't mean minorities in a racial sense). The extreme right and the extreme left are holding middle / moderate America hostage.
Ok, the next person who comments twice in a row is going to get it.
Sunny, I imagine you mean Pat Buchanan (not John)? I don't know a John, and while Pat's a lunatic he's not a dope and he actually makes some effort to not be a flip-flopper—which if I recall from the GOP definition during the last campaign means changing your principles when convenient (see Rep. Shays quote above). Re: my Berlin/Tehran reference being a little extreme, of course it is. But it does feel that way sometime, and the consistent accounts of the intellectuals of those times are that the intelligensia thought the notion of extremists ntent on narrowing culture and imposing a theocracy actually coming to power was impossible and ridiculous. [I'm guessing BTW that some of the people reading this are seeing the words 'intellectuals' and 'intelligensia' and starting to hiss, just as happened in those eras in Berlin/Tehran]. No one took these 'fundamentalist' movements seriously—after all they were so unsophisticated and brutish—but all of a sudden, too late. Allan Bloom, a conservative political analyst had a great book several years ago titled, 'The Closing of the American Mind' ... it's an apt title.
Tom, the only people who've trampled the constitution are the judges in this case. What congress did was completely within their constitutional duties. Go read it for yourself if you don't believe me. Congress is the people's representative, not the judges. If you don't what congress is doing, go out there and try to get people to vote for the opposing candidate. The founding fathers never, NEVER intended judges to be the final arbiter in any matter.
Scott, our system of check and balances is designed to protect the minority view from injustice, however popular that injustice may be. If the 'final arbiter' were Congress we'd probably still have segregation. The Constitution (which yes, I've read) is not chiefly about ensuring the will of the majority be done, it's also about protecting liberty and justice for all—frankly, the tougher half of the bargain, and a commitment rightly left to the courts not given over to political hacks who'll bend with the popular breeze every four or six years.
Why don't these Reps use the "right to life" argument to support universal health care?
The Constitution states:
Amendment XIV, Section 1:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Amendment XIV, Section 5:
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Here, the State of FL can be interpreted as depriving a(ny) person life, therefore Congress has the power to act.
Whatever you may think of the actual action, Congress had every Constitutional right. We really have a robed charade at this point: Two courts pretending that Congress had the power to order what it ordered, but ignoring the law that was passed.
That, to me, is part of a far more frightening trend than Congress "bending with the breeze."
For all of those who don't know Consty the Constitutionalist, he was supposed to be a lead character in the popular School House Rock series but at the last minute studio executives brought in William the Bill who's performance is now a part of Americana.
After being kicked out of Hollywood, Consty traveled around the country and finally settled in Florida. Back in 2000 Consty was called in to give expert testimony about hanging chads and thought he was back in the limelight but after Albert Gore conceded defeat, the Constitutionalist retreated in seclusion.
He now performs in local dinner theater and participates in blog comments on matters that pertain to his namesake.
@ Matt
because then they'd have to save the lives of poor people, who don't matter politically. Gotta love their convictions.
What the courts continue to rule is that any claim that 'due process' has not been provided in this case is ludicrous. This case has had process up the wazoo, cubed. Just because an outcome has been reached that isn't the one you wanted doesn't mean due process hasn't been delivered.
Greg, Consty thanks you for your wonderful brief bio, and he appreciates you omitting the more sordid VH1-style "Behind the Veto" details of his past.
Tom -
Consty doesn't have an outcome he'd prefer. Consty is only concerned with the issues that relate to his favorite document and partial namesake, the Constitution.
Just because you may not be pleased with Congress's ability to act because lower courts have ruled due process has been served 'up the wazoo' as you so eloquently put it, that doesn't restrain Congress's actions (unless judges can now stop Congress from passing laws). Consty again points to Article XIV, Section 5.
Please note, Consty refers to himself in the third person as required by his psuedo-celebrity status.
Don't you wish all this national effort, care, debate and fervor could be harnessed when this case comes to a sad close (a sad close, no matter what side you're on) and be put towards our schools, our teachers, our slipping educational standards? Or will it just spill over to the Barry Bonds story?
Interesting debate ... I wonder how those coming down on the side of allowing Terri to die, essentially assisting her death by removing her feeding tube, feel about the death penalty. What I mean is, some people argue against the Death Penalty because they say it would be afwul to put someone to death if somewhere down the road evidence surfaced that would prove them innocence. Because, at the end of the day, you can never be 100% positive that the person is guilty. So, since you each side can find 10 doctors saying different things, can we be 100% positive that she cannot get better? And so, should she be "put to death?"
I'm just wondering if those who are for her tube being removed are also for the death penalty. Because, it would seem similar ... overwhelming evidence, so let's let them die.
Eddie,
It's about the freedom to make the decision to withdraw care without congress getting involved.
Greg
My answer: I am in favor of removing the food tube. End the suffering of all involved.
As for my statements that apparently brought down this entire thread: I am amazed and elated to know I wield such power (and apparent authority) that out of 144 posts, my 1 brought the entirety of the thread down three notches. I do, however, apologize for not "trying harder" to find a better means of expressing my point. I was looking for the quick fix. And to that fact, I'll use Greg's own quote to me from the previous thread: "Cowboy-up." This ain't Sesame Street, ya ass rancher.
Eddie
I am in favor of the death penalty. I am also a resident of the great state of Texas. C'mon down! Just be a good little boy while your here.
Mark L., Matt
I agree. I would prefer our elected officials make better use of their time and energy on far more important matters.
Consty
William the Bill was a no-talent hack. He was a one-hit wonder. It should have been you on the show...
That's all I got. I've exhausted my opinions that would be expressed here on the matter.
I'm not 'displeased' with the Congress' ability to act, I just find it an act of unconstructive, self-serving, reprehensible pandering. They can make a law that says they all have to wear clown shoes to the chamber for all I care. In order to 'enforce' provisions of Article XIV, Section 5, Congress must show that due process has not been served. That, thankfully, is very unlikely to happen.
As Terri's former court-appointed guardian ad litem, Dr. Jay Wolfson so eloquently puts it (in the Washington Post, free registration required), "Courts adjudicate disputes between parties by attempting to apply the rule of law to facts. That is what has happened here. There is no easy solution to this—but we like to say that we are a society of laws, not people. That is tough for parents and loved ones."
Dr. Wolfson spent 30 days with Terri, visiting for as much as 4 hours a day. He expressly notes, "The competent medical evidence submitted in the case, interpreted according to the rules of civil procedure and evidence in Florida indicated by the clear and convincing standard that she is in a persistent vegitative state with no reasonable medical likelihood of recovery. Extensive literature supports this finding." Regarding the disinfo flying around about this case Dr. Wolfson comments, "Misinformation is a characteristic of our information oriented society, and then there is hope and politics."
Well said.
Terry ... good to hear it. I'm in favor of removing the food tube and in favor of the death penalty. Just think it is a political issue for most instead of a pragmatic one.
Cheers.
Get
what?
For a group supposedly spending their lives working for admission into a heavenly paradise, basing their lives on the fact that they will be going to a place better than this world, they are trying awful hard to keep this woman on this plane of existence. Me thinks their motives are a bit off.
And make sure Larry King, on his show, doesn't ask your wife "Do you still have any emotional ties left towards your husband?"
What an ass.
Sunny, I love your thoughts and style in expressing them. Tom, you need to go to lunch and give us a break. If someone does not agree with you it does not help to repeat, repeat, repeat.
Sorry Linna, doing my best to bring new information to the debate (such as the Dr. Wolfson article and his accompanying report done for Governor Bush) and just attempting to answer and address debate that seems pointed in my direction. It seems like it was a difficult day in court for the pro-intervention faction—'Will the Supremes take the case?' seems to be the question left to answer.
Well, that's the trouble with debates of this nature. Everyone here (myself included) has an opinion that they're not likely to change. Even worse, most of us are unlikely to ever see the debate from any other point of view. As I've mentioned on this site before, my opinions are important to me, and when I believe in something I'm likely to defend that belief, until it's proven wrong. The "she might improve" crowd, I honestly feel, is never going to convince me that she might. As such, I support the decision to remove the plug and would if it were my plug or my wife's plug.
Tom, I've been really impressed with your ability to bring research along with your opinion. I don't think anyone else in this thread (again, myself included) has done much more than say... I feel this is right, and I don't see how anyone else can feel differently. Sadly, sometimes scientific facts and well researched ideas don't impress a lot of people. Linna, just because you don't agree with what Tom has said, doesn't give you the right to dismiss him from this discussion.
This topic (as well as just about every other topic involving deep held personal opinions) is almost pointless to debate. It's pretty hard to stop once you get going, and it's little more than "I'm right..." "No, -I'M- right."
And, for what it's worth, I honestly don't see gun violence in our schools as an epidemic or worrisome at all. The cases that are in the news are heartbreaking, but compared to the other murder's that occur day-to-day in this country, it seems to be blown a little out of proportion. The media likes to seize the moment, and that's what they've done here. Kids (yes, even those of us who wore black, played violent video-games, and had few friends) do great things every day that are overlooked.
I find it more appaling that a genocide can occur with little to no mention, while a tsunami that kills a stupendous (just a little joke) number of people is forgotten by the vast majority of this nation within a month of it's occurrence. Pretty shameful.
Maybe I'm wrong with my Tehran in the 70s crack, there seems to be a measure of sanity in the general populace, at least according to the liberal media: "Just 13 percent of those polled think Congress intervened in the case out of concern for Schiavo, while 74 percent think it was all about politics. Of those polled, 66% said the tube should not be inserted compared to 27% who want it restored. "
And hopefully 100% polled feel that if they are ever put in the position of making such a choice that they be allowed to do so without the help of the rest of the country.
I think the real root issue is a lack of preperation. We now know what your wishes are.
A will, a person with power of attorney and clear intentions would have stopped this woman's fate from turning into the political sideshow it has become.
I personally would not to linger. However, if someone desires otherwise, I feel we should respect that.
I feel compelled to weigh in with the queer perspective (without the, uh, sucking bit).
Today's Bay Windows (Boston's gay newspaper) hits the nail on the head in terms of defining what this means for same-sex couples and their families. Though I have the advantage of being legally married in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I fear for those in other states who lack the protection of civil marriage.
"While there are endless cases of gay and lesbian's couples rights and responsibilities to one another being denied by law, nowhere has this been clearer then in the 1980s and 1990s when the biological families of men who were ill or dying of AIDS denied hospital visitation rights and participation in choosing treatments to those dying men's gay partners. In simplest terms, heterosexuality trumped homosexuality when it came to defining family."
Except, the law gives the husband that power, Lumpy. And this case has had due process up the wazoo. And, even in cases where there is a written living will, it is often not that simple to carry out.
Jenny you're right. A friend of mine who's an attorney said the issue with the semantics of the word "marriage" is that there is something like 15,000 state and federal laws that use the word, so without using it (and if you're using a substitute phrase like 'civil union') you don't get benefit or relief from those statutes. It's of course just as you say, if Terri Schiavo had just happened to have been gay and and denied the option of marriage her parents would remain her closest legal relatives, regardless of whatever wishes Terri might have had that it be otherwise.
UPDATE: The Supremes pass the buck.
I'm happy to see that once again the Supreme Court has ruled with intelligence.
Meanwhile this from the New York Times:
In a Yahoo profile last updated in June 2004, Mr. Weise used the moniker verlassen4_20, combining Hitler's birthday (April 20) with a German word meaning "forsaken" or "abandoned," said his nickname was Totenkopf, German for "death's head" or "skull," and included a doctored picture of himself with a monster's teeth and empty eyes.
I could be wrong, but isn't it possible that he was referencing pot with the 4_20 portion of his moniker? Not that this would be any better as we would then be forced to watch commercials about how Pot makes kids embark on suicidal rampages.
Administators think "helping" means discussing issues and telling kids that they need to find a way to avoid trouble. Rarely does help mean punishing bullies in a way that might deter bullying. Sadly, with this young man, I suspect that their were far too many factors to boil the breaking point down to one thing over another.
One shouldn't think, "the Internet allowed him to become this person..." but, "why did he have to turn to the internet to escape the troubles in his life?"
JennyBunny - It is my opinion that Gay Couples should be afforded the same exact rights of any other couple in US. Anything less is discrimination, something that this country is supposed to stand against. If marriage is a religious institution, perhaps it should be given back to those who are religious, and the government should only sanction Civil Unions. Unfortunately, a solution so simple would force our government to admit that it does not look favorably upon the Gay and Lesbian lifestyle and as a result does not favor giving them the same rights as heterosexuals. (Which is what they mean when they say "protect the institution of marriage.")
It's an incredibly difficult situation. Personally, I'd like a reasonable amount of effort to be made, and if those proved unsuccessful, then by all means, kit me out. Harvest any usable organs, and give 'em to deserving candidate(s). Preferably someone on the younger side, so they can enjoy life longer.
A question about the argument that Mr. Schiavo "has spent little if any of his own additional monies on his wife's care:" was that before or after exhausting the medical trust fund (which had been seeded with $750,000 from the malpractice settlement)? Was that before or after flew her to California for experimental treatment (that proved unsuccessful)? As to his "benefitting financially" from her death, I find it hardly credible to suggest that ANY "financial reward" at this point could offset the legal costs incurred in fighting for his wife's wishes to be carried out, , much less the medical ones.
On the matter of starting a new family - did this happen in the first year, while Terri was being flown to California for experimental treatment, or did this happen in the subesequent 14 years following the initial request to remove her feeding tubes?
Note that I'm not trying to suggest he's not an asshat - he may very well be, but I'm in no position to pass judgement one way or the other. I'm just saying that the points mentioned above are insufficient to determine his competency to act as Terri's guardian.
On the issue of the refused swallowing tests - I have to quote from page 11 of (guadian ad lidem) Dr. Jay Wolfson's report:
Again, perhaps Mr. Schiavo ought to have allowed the tests be conducted one more time...but then again, if they proved unsuccessful again, the precedent would be set to allow "additional" tests...at what point does enough become enough?Some great tidbits this morning on the aptly named Dr. Cheshire, the "reknowned neurologist" that Gov. Bush has enlisted in his Schiavo battle:
"Mr. Bush called Dr. Cheshire a 'renowned neurologist,' but he is not widely known in the neurology or bioethics fields. Asked about him, Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, replied, 'Who?' Dr. Caplan continued, 'There is just no excuse for going in and making any pronouncement about the state that Terri Schiavo is in unless you're going to go in and do some form of technologically mediated scanning that would overturn what's on the record already.' Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and medical ethicist at the University of Minnesota Medical School who has examined Ms. Schiavo on behalf of the Florida courts and declared her to be irredeemably brain-damaged, said, 'I have no idea who this Cheshire is,' and added: 'He has to be bogus, a pro-life fanatic. You'll not find any credible neurologist or neurosurgeon to get involved at this point and say she's not vegetative.' He said there was no doubt that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. 'Her CAT scan shows massive shrinkage of the brain,' he said. 'Her EEG is flat - flat. There's no electrical activity coming from her brain.' (source: NY Times, requires free registration)
Cheshire's Christian credentials appear to be what's important in this political battle. He is the director of biotech ethics at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, a nonprofit group founded by "more than a dozen leading Christian bioethicists," according to its website. He has written previous papers [and poetry!] opposing right-to-die arguments and stem cell research.
At what point do the Republicans realize they're making themselves look ridiculous and the political return is not worth the exposure?
BTW—
"The application for stay of enforcement of judgment pending
the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari
presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is
denied." —the Supremes
Does this mean that the feverish lawmakers actually wrote their instant law so poorly that it didn't even come close to doing what they wanted it to do? If so, bonus idiocy points to Delay & team.
...just as you say, if Terri Schiavo had just happened to have been gay and and denied the option of marriage her parents would remain her closest legal relatives, regardless of whatever wishes Terri might have had that it be otherwise.
Thanks, Tom.
If I may have one more moment on my little soapbox, same-sex couples who don't have the benefit of civil marriage have to jump through many legal hoops to approximate just a small fraction of protections that are automatic for hetersexual couples upon marriage -- things like health care proxies and durable power of attorney, etc.
Right-wingers would never rally around a gay man or lesbian woman in the same situation as Ms. Shiavo. What is now a matter of right-to-life would unfortunately devolve into a let-the-sinners-rot mentality -- I shudder to think.
Read it all. No comment.
Spirited, thoughtful debate here, for the most part... ignoring those few asshats who felt the need to weigh in with little to say, or insist on attempting to battle the likes of Mr. Dolan (30+ posts and counting) with rhetoric and logic skills forged on the Montessori playground or Elmer Gantry revival camp. But it's time to let it go EVERYONE, and let Terri go. Unless the right to lifers have discovered a way to get Jesus himself to step in and rule on the matter, but then they'd probably just want to appeal to his Father when that decision doesn't go their way either.
Brian, I am not "dismissing" Tom from the discussion. I enjoy reading his posts. I did not say that I did not agree him, only commented on Sunny's writing. However, from a total of 186 post so far I think 35 post from one person is a little pushy on his/her perspective.
JennyBunny wrote:
"Right-wingers would never rally around a gay man or lesbian woman in the same situation as Ms. Shiavo. What is now a matter of right-to-life would unfortunately devolve into a let-the-sinners-rot mentality -- I shudder to think."
According to that statement, if the civil union same-sex partner of a PVS person started another life with a new partner, adopted children, was quoted as asking if their "bitch" of a partner was dead yet, and (assuming the same-sex couple had jumped through the "power of attorney" hoop) prohibited the PVS partner's Christian parents visitation rights, even though those parents were in favor of providing food and water to their PVS offspring to keep their child alive, you truly believe that "right-to-lifers" would side with the partner and let-them-rot? What a grizzly, pessimistic and prejudiced perspective.
Your rhetoric, JennyBunny, puts you squarely on the side of keeping the PVS alive. Unless, of course, you've devolved into a 'let-the-bible-thumpers'-child-rot" mentality.
John,
You are of course refering to the avadavits of the CNAs that the court found to be contradictory to accounts from all other parties, including the Schindlers, and totally without credibility.
Hey Consty (and his fans), no doubt you're thrilled that the Schindler's appealed in Federal Court yesterday on just the grounds you cite: Amendment XIV, Section 1, the well-worn "due process" clause. I would guess a true constitutional scholar would have easily handicapped the outcome. Judge Whittemore, in an 11-page ruling, said that "the plain language of the 14th Amendment contemplates that a person can be deprived of life so long as due process of law is provided," adding that all claims had "been addressed and been rejected by this court."
Hi Tom
Consty here. Consty can't quite understand your need make statements regarding other peoples' thoughts, but Consty has always stated the specific parties and cases are not in the scope of his interest. Consty would appreciate it you'd stop projecting how you imagine Consty feels and stick to facts.
Consty never cited the "due process" clause (that seems to be your horse to beat) - but rather Consty cited entire sections 1 and 5 of Article XIV specifically to point out that Congress had indeed not overstepped their bounds when they wrote their legislation.
Now, it can certainly be argued that Congress' quick action may have been poorly worded and allowed judges to continue on down their well-established course. It could also be argued that Congress used 'may' instead of 'shall' for exactly that same reason. Consty argues that the judges (240k pdf of the decision can be seen here) simply chose to ignore the intent of Congress' legislation (seen here), which Judge Wilson, (the lone dissenter of the three judges) states.
Consty sees all of those as valid arguments. Consty imagines they will be argued for some time to come.
You will note, however, that not one of the judges reviewing Congress' new law stated that it was 'unconstitutional' - in fact, they have specifically stated the opposite. Since that is the case, it is Consty's opinion that the judges chose to ignore the intent of Congress' legislation. I invite everyone to read it for themselves - specifically, Section 3 of the Compromise Bill:
After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
Consty is at odds with the 11th Circuit's decision - finding the law constitutional yet clearly ignoring the law's intent.
Now, Tom, before you shoot off reply #37 (or whatever number you're up to) Consty would like to again point out that he has absolutely no interest in the specific parties. Were the bill to state that Mrs. Schiavo be injected with enough morphine to end her life and the judges acted in a manner opposite of that law's intent, Consty would be just as perplexed. Consty is only interested with the issue of Congress' legislation and the subsequent judiciary actions upon that legislation.
Consty, as a 'true constitutional scholar,' remains correct in his initial statements defending Congress' right to enact legislation.
I think #38, going for a couple records here.
No one I believe, certainly not I, ever disputed Congress' "right" to enact legislation (I made a post directly in reference to this earlier—try searching the page on "clown shoes" just for fun). The courts are rightly the final arbiter of how the law applies to facts. I find the [multiple] courts decisions square with the Schiavo law quite easily: they have found "after a determination of the merits" that the Schindlers are entitled to no injuctive relief for the plain and simple reason that their suit is without merit. Had Congress wished to dictate a more clear outcome they should have passed a law without the "after a determination of the merits" clause, and simply legislated that life-sustaining measures be provided. (Of course, it's almost a certainty that that type of law would be ruled unconstitutional.)
To argue that Congress did not make its intent clear is to ask you disbelieve Congress intervened on behalf of Mrs. Schiavo with the intent of restoring her care during the interim period when a federal judge could review her situation de novo.
As Judge Wilson stated in his dissenting opinion:
"The entire purpose for the statute was to give the federal courts an opportunity to consider the merits of Plaintiffs' constitutional claims with a fresh set of eyes. Denial of Plaintiffs' petition cuts sharply against that intent, which is evident to me from the language of the statute, as well as the swift and unprecedented manner of its enactment."
So what was the intent of Congress' legislation - to intervene and resume feeding for Mrs. Schiavo? To pass some lame pandering legislation (which, if the Congress was watching the polls, they should've realized it wasn't pandering at all)? Or perhaps some other unknown purpose?
-----
Tom - Consty believes that the 11th Circuit was the only court to hear and rule on the appeal based on the Compromise Bill - therefore only two judges had to square their decision and obfuscate Congress' intent (Consty may be wrong here because he hasn't had as much time to follow the most recent proceedings, but Consty thought the SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal).
I couldn't agree more with what you wrote Greg. Imagine being like that for 15 years just vegetating in some hospital bed. What I don't get is why they don't end her life with some injection instead of letting her die slowly like she is now? Where is the dignity in that?
What I don't get is why they don't end her life with some injection instead of letting her die slowly like she is now?
Because giving her an injection to end her life is illegal. Ask Jack Kevorkian about that*. Just remember that the prison guards will read your letters first.
Where is the dignity in that?
There is no dignity in it. But then again, we're not big on end-of-life dignity 'round these parts. Hell, we're not so good with dignity when we're alive, either.
*Just to save folks from correcting me, I should point out here that Kevorkian went to jail for providing the means to commit, and assiting with a suicide, and not for euthanizing an incapacitated individual. Still, there are parallels here.
I agree completely with you. As an intensive care nurse, I have seen some wonderful medical miracles occur, but that is never going to happen in her case. She has mush where her gray matter should be. She does not recognize loved ones. She may occasionally moan but is incapable of speaking. This is not living. It is existing. We treat our animals better than this. Let her die peacefully. Not feeding her is not cruel but a humane way to end her pain and suffering. I applaud her husband for his diligence in carrying out her wishes.
I am sorry but this is a little too much. Its one thing to say that its right that she should be allowed to pass away but to say there is a dignity in being starved to death is thoughtless.
In a perfect world, it should be quick and painless. I think something in that regard is being done in Oregon. And that sort of solution should be available to everyone.
Couple of misunderstandings that is oft-repeated is:
She is on life support.
No she is not. She would be perfectly alive if only she was fed.
Her wishes are being carried out.
Unless she spoke to you in a vision, we don't know that. And I will not trust her husband's word.
To deny someone water is cruel. But that's what we get when politicians make decisions about what is right for us.
I'm sorry Sunny, but you are wrong.
She cannot swallow. Life support is defined as follows:
You say we can't know her wishes are being carried out, but the court found testimony by Mr. Schiavo and his brother and sister to be credible. They said she made very clear statements to the fact that she would not want to be sustained in this condition -- including once at the funeral of a person who had been on a feeding tube.
Interestingly, like all things political in the last few years, the crux of the matter is starting to form around the language being deployed. "Starvation" is now the popular term being used by the family and their supporters, complete with references to concentration camps. Dr. Douglas Nelson, a geriatrician in Hickory, N.C. today notes that language is "a gross medical error," continuing to say when a feeding tube is removed, death is caused by dehydration, not loss of nutrition, and patients in a persistent vegetative state, like Ms. Schiavo, feel no discomfort when the flow of nutrients through a feeding tube stops. A statement from the American Academy of Neurology states supplying nutrients to a patient in PSV should be considered a medical procedure "analogous to other forms of life-sustaining treatment, such as the use of a respirator."
The GOP is clearly better than their opponents at language usage. "The dispute is not about nitpicking," said Dr. Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Interest groups and politicians are adept at "coordinating the use of key words and phrases" that send a consistent message and frame the debate.
Dr. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York notes, "Withdrawal of nutrition is a common method for ending life, and many terminally ill patients choose that course. I have never had a patient who has stopped eating and drinking who has expressed that they are hungry."
Dr. Joseph Fins, chief of the medical ethics division of New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell hospital, on review of evidence accepted by the courts that Ms. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and not in a more conscious state, added, "the part of brain that allows one to suffer is not functioning."
Time to de-center a bit people and let .... go.
Good bye Terri. Good bye this thread. Out.
I am sorry Tom but politics is always about semantics. Its always been that way. Its not something that is new, it has always been that way. Yes, Republicans are always on the ball; that's why even in these times they are still in power.
I heard on a talk show on ABC radio (local radio down under), about how there is a group out there testing a pill (they are calling it "killing me softly") that anybody can prepare in their homes and choose to use it. We need some form of that freedom and empowering doctors to make such important life or death decisions. Sure beats politicians and courts.
And Tony, at this point I will not even get started on that. He also said something to the effect of "when will that bitch die." Now where you come from that may well be considered as a sign of integrity and trust, but it doesn't sit well with me. And a feeding tube is not a respirator or a dialysis unit. And in most cases a feeding tube is used so that the patient doesn't waste energy in eating. It doesn't automatically mean she can't swallow at all. And the fact remains that if there is no dignity in a food pipe, there is absolutely none in denying food. There just has to be a better way.
Hopefully, Terri finally rests in peace. She surely didn't get any of it when she was alive.
Are you a doctor or a nurse, Sunny? I am not, though I am married to a Newborn ICU nurse.
Just because a feeding tube is being used, doesn't mean the patient is incapable of swallowing on their own. For instance, they are used for patients who are on ventilators, who can't eat normally because they have a tube in their throat.
However, in this case, the doctors testified that Ms. Schiavo cannot swallow on her own.
Sunny, a feeding tube is used when the patient can not take anything by mouth. It can be used when the patient can not swallow, is being ventilated, is comatose, has had mouth, esophageal, or stomach cancer. It is not used so that the patient does not waste energy. A feeding tube is indeed in the same class as a ventilator and a dialysis machine. It is giving a patient something that the patient can not do on his own.
Sunny, a feeding tube is used when the patient can not take anything by mouth. It can be used when the patient can not swallow, is being ventilated, is comatose, has had mouth, esophageal, or stomach cancer. It is not used so that the patient does not waste energy. A feeding tube is indeed in the same class as a ventilator and a dialysis machine. It is giving a patient something that the patient can not do on his own.
All I can say:
"Right freakin' on brother!"
Vader would be cool. Asshats abound. Focus. And keep your laws off my body.
Tony,
Although some doctors may have testified that she cannot swallow, others, including the Schindlers and the nurses believe that she can (or claim to have witnessed her doing so). The Schindlers were also denied the privelege to administer swallowing tests or therapy to see if she could do so.
All of that to say - there is mixed testimony and it's pretty tough to decide conclusively that she can't (especially when the courts denied the privelege to test one way or the other).
Nathan,
The court (each court and each judge), which more completely and thoroughly looked over all of this than you and I have the opportunity to, found the contrary testimony to not be credible.
Tony,
REGARDLESS of what the court found about the testimony, the permission to administer swallowing tests or assoicated swallowing therapy were denied. So let's say that I grant to you (for the sake of argument) that the testimony of the Schindlers and nurses were out and out lies. Still, the tests as to whether or not she can swallow have not been done. And even more, no such therapy to teach her to do so if she cannot has not been administered.
So to say she conclusively cannot swallow is wrong. She very well may not be able to, but nobody knows. She may be able to, or she may be able to learn how.
The bottom line is, this is what Mr. Schiavo believes his wife's wishes were, and the court has agreed that he is the one to make that determination, and that he is doing so based on credible advice from her doctors. This is clearly a tragic situation, no matter what the outcome, but what makes this worse is the interference from the Congress and these fanaticals who are using the Schindlers for political purposes, and causing this poor woman's family even more hurt than they would otherwise endure.
I know I certainly don't want Congress or outside groups coming into my hospital/hospice room and stoping my family from carrying out my wishes.
Tony,
I'm sorry that it's ridiculous, but that's what I read from an objective third party (the local Florida news station). My guess is that the tests that Mr. Schiavo had performed on Terri were just that - experimental. The swallowing test is hardly experimental. Either way, I'm sorry it doesn't sound plausible to you, but that's what has been stated by objective parties reporting on the case, so that's what I'm choosing to go on.
And I wasn't addressing the rest of the issues you brought up in your last reply. I was simply rebutting your comment that she is unable to swallow when you simply have no idea as to whether or not she can (and neither do I).
I won't get into Congress acting on behalf of the public and in our best interest. Actions there are debatable to the grave.
You think congress was acting in our best interest here?
You also are calling every neurologist who has treated her incompetent.
Sorry for replying to my own post here, but please show me an article that says that no one ever tested her ability to swallow. Perhaps you mis-understood the article Nathan?
Nathan, your persistence that she can *learn* to do anything shows your hand. Do you discount all the neurology and tests listed above where they say her EEG is "flat" and there is NO brain activity? Why don't you get honest --- your issue here is based on YOUR religious beliefs, not anything relating to the medical testimony.
Wow. All I can say is Greg rox0rs.
I really just read this entire thread. No idea why, but I did.
Nearly every single post in this thread missed Greg's original cue, though he couldn't have made the set-up more obvious. Not surprising. It's the same seen on the teevee and other blogs across the globe. Everyone wants to chime in with an opinion, few are willing to get personal -- really personal -- with the discussion.
Bottom line: If you were in Terri Schiavo's condition, what would you want done?
Actually, to get at the heart of the issue: Would you want to live? In a state where you can't speak, can't move, can't eat, can't fuck, can't gorge yourself on the joys of fine wine and Kobe beef, can't kiss your children as they graduate from high-school or college, can't hug your spouse on Valentine's Day, can't cry when your parents pass away, can't type into blogs like this with your own thoughts no matter how insignificant they are in the grand plan of the universe...
I'm not so sure I care all that much what you think should be done in the legal or political matter as it stands. I definitely don't care what you think of Michael Schiavo or The Schindler's as people, especially when you haven't met them or lived through their 15 years of hell. And I certainly don't care if you think being a Democrat, Republican, left-winger, right-winger, wing-nut or just a nut-job means anything. (Because in the end, I doubt God cares either.)
Real clearly now: Would you want to live? Would you want to be kept alive in a shell of a body? That's what Greg was speaking to in this post. He laid out his answer. What's yours?
Me? I'd probably want to live for about week. Then after crying my heart out inside my head, railing against God like Job gone postal, screaming silently in my sleep over the horror of knowing I'm done for, I'd finally realize I'm with Greg. I'd have to say, "Beam me up Scotty!"
Once that's done, do what you like with my flesh, I wouldn't care less. Hell... you can cook the fat off my very rotund ass and use it to feed starving dogs in the pound who need some protein for all I care. If I was Terri, I'd be done. I'd have to say, please just let me done.
I pray there is a God. And if I weren't a thouand times as scared as Private Hudson screaming, "We're all gonna die!" (because guess what... we all are gonna die someday, so get ready for it), I'd have offed myself a long time ago to go chill out in Heaven.
To those who want to keep Terri alive, my only question is: Would you want what she has for yourself?
If you're willing to accept life like that -- YOUR life like that -- then fuck it. This discussion is over. I say to you, "Have fun storming the castle!"
Me... I'd be hoping to chill in Heaven. With Greg.
Andrei nailed it.
Tony and Secret Ninja - I think my number one problem is that there seems to be conflicting testimony all over the place. I'm not discounting any neurologists. The problem for me is that qualified professionals disagree all over the place on this case. Professional neurologists included (as discussed a while ago in this thread).
You know, to be honest, I think I've arrived at the place where I think it's more likely that she's in a PVS than not. At the same time, I would like to see some of these contradictions cleared up. It's hard to read one news source that says one thing and another news source that says something completely different. I guess I just don't know where to land (or who to believe).
As far as my religious beliefs, I have never hidden them or the fact that they play a large role in my analysis. Sheesh, the first two posts on my blog (that is linked directly from this page) are highly religious. But apart from my beliefs (or perhaps informed by my beliefs), I value life and the facts. And as I stated above, if there are discrepencies or questions that remain unanswered (which are admittedly becoming less credible in my mind), I think it best to err on the side of life.
As to Andrei's question, I don't know - I really don't know. I just don't have it figured out morally - where to draw the line. My inclination is to side with you, Andrei, and pull the plug after a week, but I still have to sort it out in my head.