Confused about Terry Schiavo

[scout26]

I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this:

If she had comitted a heinous crime she would not be subject to the death penalty, because she would be considered retarded.

But, because she has done nothing wrong, she can be put to death. (and in a manner that most courts would find cruel and unusual).

Or am I missing something.

 

[answerguy]

Whatever the outcome, it makes a good reminder for people to make their wishes known prior to an event happening.

 

[Wildalaska]

Not that its relevant to firearms IMHO, but your missing something

WildbutheyweallmisssomethingnowandthenAlaska

 

[scout26]

WA,

True, it's not directly related.

But just to square the circle: Let's say she had used a gun to commit the heinous crime.


So what am I missing ?????

 

[Sean Smith]

You're missing the fact that she's not just retarded. She doesn't just have reduced cognition. Several doctors, including those appointed by the courts, have pronounced her to be in a "persistent vegetative state." That's not the same as being in a coma, or being retarded, it means essentially ALL of her higher brain functions are kaput from brain damage.

They're basically keeping a sack of meat with some nervous tics alive through artifical means... there really can't be anything left of "her" in there anymore, given what's left of her brain. The only reason it is in a legal gray area is that she's somewhere short of total brain death, i.e. her lower brain functions keep her body more or less working.

 

[OF]

So what? Her parents want to take care of her, let them. Instead of that option, now we have the state courts determining that she is to be slowly starved to death?

I don't know very much about this case, but that doesn't strike me as a good precedent. If the sentance is death, then put her to death for crying out loud. How would you like to be her parents? They get to watch their daughter slowly starved to death by court order when all they want to do is take care of her.

Holy crap is that bad.

- Gabe

 

[Sean Smith]

Let's see, it is believed that people in a PVS can't really respond to any stimuli but pain. How does your wife dying by slow decay, trapped in a state where her mind may only be able to really respond to pain, sound to you? Since it is against the law for her to be euthanized humanely, his only choice is to try to get permission to have the feeding tube removed, so she can starve over weeks, or to let her rot for the next few decades in that state. In that context the parents' position is not necessarily the most humane one.

Keeping her stoned on morphine wouldn't really be an answer, either. I know what morphine dreams are from when I was in a coma myself. I don't wish them on anybody, certainly not for decades on end.

 

[Outbacker]

Whatever the outcome, it makes a good reminder for people to make their wishes known prior to an event happening.

+1

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I've had dogs that I've loved more than most people, and when their time came, I put them down because I loved them. If I had been greedy, I would have made them suffer just to keep them with me, but I cared too much about them to do that to them.

I can't believe that we aren't able to extend human beings the same courtesy just because of some goofy old Hebrew superstitions.

 

[deej]

Would you treat a dog like that? Let it die from dehydration before it even had a chance to starve to death? Doubtful.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I got a look at an MRI (x-ray?) on one of the local news casts -- most of the brain tissue that used to fill her skull ain't there no more -- it's fluid, and it ain't ever coming back.

The doctors involved say she won't get any better than she is now. Her husband says she made it clear to him that she wouldn't want to live in this condition. Her parents say she can get better if only she receives more therapy.

Now, everyone else is involved. If I'm ever like that, please let me die with whatever dignity I still have. The governer and legislature have no role in this -- it should be doctors and family only.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Her husband is her closest relative and legal guardian, not her parents. The courts didn't "sentence her to death", they granted a motion to her husband who requested it on his wife's behalf. He says it is according to the wishes she expressed when she was still healthy. Tough thing to do, but it underscores the need to have a living will.

My wife knows that I wouldn't want to be kept alive if I was in her shoes. If she has it in writing, my mother wouldn't be able to contest it, and it wouldn't be a big game of "he said, she said".

 

[GhostRider66]

:banghead:
This is what really gets me about the whole thing: the same people who are trying to conduct studies to find out if lobsters feel pain when they're dropped in boiling water are the same ones fighting tooth and nail to starve a feeling (physical stimuli - I don't think that part can be argued) human being to death. For crying outloud, we even sedate the ones we put to death in the most humane method possible.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

I am kind of curious

If I were to walk into her room and shoot her in the head, what would I be charged with?

I can't believe that it would be murder (her body is being starved to death because supposedly there is no one inside anymore). You cannot murder someone who is dead. May I would be charged with unlawfully discharging a firearm.

If I have to die, I am a fan of quick death. Slow death just sucks. I wouldn't wish it on my enemies. And I would think the quick way would be a good idea just in case we are wrong and someone is in there.

 

[OF]

I don't know anything about her medical condition, I've seen a couple short videos of her and it sure looked like she was responding to her environment to me.

It's just a hell of a bad situation any way you look at it.

Starving to death via court order just doesn't sit well with me.

That said, I understand her husband turned down $1,000,000 to turn her over to her parents...which would indicate to me that he is interested in her well-being, and not his own. I suppose.

You can put me in the 'confused' column on this one.

- Gabe

 

[Sean Smith]

People need to get it through their heads that humane euthanasia is NOT a legal option here. It is either slow death by starvation, or even slower death by literally rotting away in a hospital bed. Pick one.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

I understand that euthenasia is not an option

And I agree that it is a bad situation.

But I really am curious about what would happen if someone were to unsafely discharge thier weapon, hitting a dead person in the head. I figured that with a good number of really educated people (lawyers and such), one person might know the answer.

I might walk that path if my wife were in her situation. Starve or Rot? *Bang*, ooops, I accidentally hit a bag of meat. If the worst case is a few months in prison, I would probably live with that rather than starve her to death.

But it is a really crappy call to have to make.

 

[Sean Smith]

Also, this "responds to her environment" and "physical stimuli" stuff is irrelevant. MICROBES do that. It is not germane to the question of if she should be artifically kept alive or not. Unless you think a headless body with a pulse needs to be kept alive because Buddha told you to or something.

 

[GhostRider66]

Okay another huge pet peeve. "Literally" rotting away? Maybe figureatively rotting away but surely you don't mean literally. We're all dying my brother. Some of us faster than others. Show me where she's suffering. Show me where you're 100% sure that she can't improve. Show me where she independently indicated that those are her wishes. Show me any of these things and I might agree to immediate euthanasia. And by the way, I'm calling legal BS here. There's a whole lot of people around here who love to spout off about what they would do legal or otherwise about it if guns were banned and confiscation in the works. Either have the cojones and the humanity to kill her quick or piss off and leave her be while there are those willing to care for what's left of her. Sorry about the rant.

 

[Sean Smith]

me where you're 100% sure that she can't improve.

Well, the fact that the MRI scans of her skull show that there is a bunch of FLUID where most of her BRAIN should be is a pretty good hint, tough guy.

Okay another huge pet peeve. "Literally" rotting away? Maybe figureatively rotting away but surely you don't mean literally.

Sure I do. Seen what happens to the skin of people bedridden for decades?

 

[GhostRider66]

Fluid on the brain....seems to be a lot of that these days.

 

[jdege]

Several doctors, including those appointed by the courts, have pronounced her to be in a "persistent vegetative state."

And far more have said that such a diagnosis cannot be reliably made without tests that have never been done, and which her husband has persistently refused to allow.

She's never even had an MRI.

She may well be in a PVG, but neither the doctors nor the courts know that to be a fact.

 

[Sean Smith]

Fluid on the brain....seems to be a lot of that these days.

Not the same as "fluid where the brain should be," but why let reality get in the way of things?

 

[OF]

but why let reality get in the way of things?

Speaking of reality, I don't know where you saw this MRI, Sean, but I'd like to see a link or something. A little quick research right now gives me the impression that her husband and his lawyer have to date blocked the parents attempts to get an MRI done.

And when I said 'responds to her environment' I'm not talking about reflex-action stuff. It appears, at least to me, that she understands something of what those around her are talking about. Asked to 'open her eyes', she opened her eyes. She obviously responds to her mother.

Vegetables don't respond to their mothers. Neither do people with fluid for brains.

- Gabe

 

[goalie]

She's never even had an MRI.

Could you please substantiate this claim? I work quite often in a neuro ICU, and I cannot imagine that they never once did an MRI, especially during the initial diagnosis stage of her illness. That said, a CT without contrast would likely be enough to show how much damage her brain has anyhow. An MRI is really only needed to show a stroke in the absence of a bleed (or other fluid buid up) in the brain.

FWIW, there is a difference between killing her, and letting her die naturally. The lady cannot eat naturally, and she has been keep alive through artificial and extraordinary means for about 15 years. I'd say that she had more than a shot at recovering, and she didn't......