Confused about Terry Schiavo

[2nd Amendment]

Yes, great post. We basically have the Pull The Plug side claiming that because she is an inconvenience and the sources they choose to believe say what agrees with their pre-conceived notions we should ignore whatever comes from her family or anyone they don't agree with.

Well, regardless, it looks like the latest news is indicating the tube is going back in and Mikey may have his ass in a sling for witholding information. As for pro-lifers scoring points, it looks more like the death merchants trying to further cement their ability of the state to kill who it wants when it(they) want it.

 

[308win]

+1 for RealGun's post.

 

[280PLUS]

I haven't read through the whole thread...

I look at it this way, we all have to decide for ourselves. Would I want to remain alive for years and years in that state? Me personally, no. You? That's up to you and noone else. Terry Schiavo? According to her husband her answer is no. If that's true she should be allowed to have her wishes fulfilled without any outside interference. She should also be allowed to end her life with dignity rather than being(in this case) starved to death. We euthanize animals all the time but humans, they must suffer to the bitter end.

WHY?

I think the parents are thinking of themselves as they refuse to let her go.

 

[Sparks]

We basically have the Pull The Plug side claiming that because she is an inconvenience

Wrong. Those who actually have their heads screwed on right are saying let her body die because she died over a decade ago and it's a sick macabre travesty to keep the body alive like some sort of pet, against her previously expressed wishes.

and the sources they choose to believe say what agrees with their pre-conceived notions we should ignore whatever comes from her family or anyone they don't agree with.

The sources they choose? Are you kidding? A CT SCAN is a biased source?

 

[gc70]

This is a very sad situation. I will not add further to the discussion of whether the woman should or should not continue to be fed artificially because I have nothing new (or knowledgeable) to contribute.

However, I am disgusted by the opportunism being displayed by our elected representatives in Washington. Terry Schiavo's case generated a huge amount of media attention, which is something that attracts politicians like moths are attracted to a light.

Whether or not we agree with the results, Terry Schiavo's case has gone through the legal system to an apparent end. But Congress now intervenes to 'save Terry' by giving her another court hearing, but this time in a federal court. Unless the underlying law and facts have changed, the result will most probably be the same in a federal court as it was in state court. However, the politicians will be able to claim that they did everything they could to 'save Terry.' That sort of meaningless political posturing disgusts me to no end.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Your opinion is she died 15 years ago. You chose to believe those medical practitioners who say what you want to hear. The court does the same thing(and knowing no more medicine than any of us the court has the same credibility in this as anyone else, thus my prior comment that I really don't care what the court says.

Many others, including the rest of her family and many medical people and politicians(the latter carrying as much crediiblity as the court, which is to say not much)disagree with you. We have no idea what her wishes were since there is nothing in writing and her family says exactly the opposite of what Mikey claims. Again, pick your side.

As was mentioned way back in this thread, other people have lived fully functional lives with scans that claimed they had little but mush between their ears. As such the scan itself proves nothing and is just one more piece of evidence in the pile. Again, pick your side. It's all subjective and considering the almost total lack of credibility Mikey has in this why the hell does he continue to demand this circus side show be drug out before the public?

Whether you do or do not agree with his decisions to build another family, whether you do or do not believe he was abusive the fact is he has ceded his right to make decisions for her. Were she capable you can bet your ass he'd have already been served divorce papers. Since she is not(apparently) he gets to play both ends against the middle. Give the woman a dissolution of marriage, finish moving on and let her family have a little peace.

But like I said, it looks like it's about over anyway and Mikey is going to lose. Somehow I just can't work up any tears for him.

 

[Lil38]

There are probably some who feel he would be wrong to give her back to her parents. Does seem like the best possible option for him though. Or will it just add fuel to this fire?

 

[Sparks]

You chose to believe those medical practitioners who say what you want to hear.

No, I choose to open my eyes and look at the CT scan that shows that she has no higher brain centers left.

As was mentioned way back in this thread, other people have lived fully functional lives with scans that claimed they had little but mush between their ears.

No, they didn't. They lived functional lives with some cortex remaining. She has none. They are wholly different situations.

the fact is he has ceded his right to make decisions for her.

No, he hasn't. He is still her husband by law, and therefore her next of kin.

Were she capable you can bet your ass he'd have already been served divorce papers.

On what grounds, moving on with his life ten years after his wife died?

Face it, she's dead, he's got the legal right to put an end to this sick mockery that she's been turned into, and her parents are dead wrong in what they're trying to do.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Looks to me like it would pretty well "pull the plug" on the entire circus. He can no longer be accused of hypocrisy, nobody really cares about whatever money is left, the parents get to try whatever therapy they want and as for the media...well none of that makes a very good story, now does it?

 

[jefnvk]

Yes, great post. We basically have the Pull The Plug side claiming that because she is an inconvenience and the sources they choose to believe say what agrees with their pre-conceived notions we should ignore whatever comes from her family or anyone they don't agree with.

While the pro-life side claiming that because her parents believe in her and some other medical experts say she might live, that falls right in with their beliefs, and they aren't open to other ideas.

All I know is that she supposedly told her husband that she didn't want to live like that. The parents are claiming that she would have wanted to stay alive, not that she said so.

And how much improvement has she shown in 15 years?

 

[2nd Amendment]

No, I choose to open my eyes and look at the CT scan that shows that she has no higher brain centers left.

Your opinion, supported by some and opposed by others, all with more knowledge of the subject than you or I. Again, pick your side.

No, they didn't. They lived functional lives with some cortex remaining. She has none. They are wholly different situations.

Undefined. We don't really know what remains of Terri and, in at least one case I know of, a young man functioned for years with what scans repeatedly insisted was no cortex at all. An autopsy after his death(a stroke IIRC) showed he in fact did have some...very little, but some.

No, he hasn't. He is still her husband by law, and therefore her next of kin.

Which leads to:

On what grounds, moving on with his life ten years after his wife died?

So far as I know adultery is grounds for divorce anywhere. No court has declared her less than human and so he is, in fact, an adulterer by any standards you care to apply. This would have resulted, had he done it over some other medical issue that didn't involve total mental compromise to her, in his ass going to the cleaners. He get's to play aggrieved hubby only through a stroke of "luck".

Face it, she's dead,

Your opinion, supported by some and refuted by others. Again, pick a side folks.

he's got the legal right to put an end to this sick mockery that she's been turned into,

We're soon to find out what rights he has. As for a "mockery", is that another opinion I see? Yup.

and her parents are dead wrong in what they're trying to do

Your opinion, supported by some and refuted by others. Again, pick a side boys and girls. Get the point? Your view is not the default position and has no more credibility than the opposing point. Stop trying to claim a moral highground here. There isn't one.

 

[2nd Amendment]

While the pro-life side claiming that because her parents believe in her and some other medical experts say she might live, that falls right in with their beliefs, and they aren't open to other ideas.

So both sides have their own opinions and experts to back em up and neither side really has an interest in the other's opinion. So why do the death merchants have some right to claim the highground here? Answer, they don't.

All I know is that she supposedly told her husband that she didn't want to live like that. The parents are claiming that she would have wanted to stay alive, not that she said so.

Actually her sister says that during the viewing of a special or news report on a brain damaged patient Schiavo opposed the idea of euthanasia, claiming "where there's life there is hope". So in the absence of a written document Mikey gets to claim priority in the face of his current life why?

And how much improvement has she shown in 15 years?

Initially she was walking, before Mikey witheld treatment for a subsequent infection from which she has not recovered. That alone should have been the final word on this. For some odd reason it wasn't. I'm sure someone can come up with a defense.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Sparks

BTW I stand corrected on her husband being remarried. That's what you get by listening to the wrong radio station some times.
My bad.

On the other hand...

Those who actually have their heads screwed on right

come now......you'll hurt yourself reaching that far back to pat you own back..

I don't hold myself out to be an MD specializing in brain function. I never realized we here on the THR were blessed with so many. The relative amount of brain matter the lady has or doesn't was offered by the pro-pull-the-plug advocates as one of their justifications for pulling the plug. I offered a link to a site that might have called into question the scientific strength of the correctness of that POV.

Brain function is complex. Cortex vs no cortes was not my only point with the link but rather that I found the link interesting becasue it's a great example how the dogma within the scientific community gets challenged from time to time.

Here we have individuals functioning to the level of mathmaticians in one case with very little of the kind of brain material we associate with intelligence. Bout none actually.

Doesn't that give you pause that perhaps we don't know everything about this ladies medical condition from a scientific perspective.

At one time MDs had a "first do no harm POV." I see very little in the way of that tiny last margin of caution on their part that if they are incorrect, someone else will pays the price. Doctors are human and make mistakes. Over simplification but I'm not sure it sheds a good light on them or their proponents.

OAO

S-

 

[Sparks]

Your opinion, supported by some and opposed by others

My eyesight, supported by every doctor who's examined her, and the judges who've seen her CT scans and the unedited video footage of her body's behaviour under stimulus. As to opposed, the 17 "experts" who oppose the findings have never examined her, several aren't even in the same state, one's not even a doctor... basicly, the technical term is "quacks".

We don't really know what remains of Terri

Yes, we do. Her cortex is gone. There's nothing left. It's all liquid. If you'd blown her brains out all over the wall, it'd have had the same effect. She's gone.

in at least one case I know of, a young man functioned for years with what scans repeatedly insisted was no cortex at all

Yes, that's the case mentioned above. And, as I said, he had a cortex. And he had a condition that he'd had in the womb, so his brain had been able to adapt, which is a tribute to the plasticity of neonate cortexes, not to the survivability of having your brain liquified as an adult. (Which is not survivable, btw).

If a normal adult suffers from an increase in fluid pressure similar to that case, by the way, it kills them unless they receive immediate medical attention to drill a hole in the skull to relieve the pressure. It's just not survivable.

So far as I know adultery is grounds for divorce anywhere.

Yup, if she was still alive to bring the case. Thing is, if she was still alive to bring the case, he wouldn't have a family with another woman, because he only entered that relationship ten years after his first wife died.

We're soon to find out what rights he has.

Actually, we already know. The judge ruled. This congress crap is nothing more than a religion-and-PR motivated piece of BS.

Your view is not the default position and has no more credibility than the opposing point.

Bullcrap. This isn't a debate on sociology. It's not a question regarding interior design. It's not about cooking or art or music. There is a position with far more credibility than the others and that's the one that says that someone without a brain is dead for all intents and purposes. You're making the mistake that was made with the debate on creationism/ID versus evolution - namely thinking that if there are two points of view that both automatically have merit. That's just not the case in this instance. There is no medical basis for saying that a person who has no cortex can be alive in any meaningful sense. Their autonomic functions continue to operate, yes - but they can't feed themselves, because there's no "they" to do so. And even if fed without a tube, their swallow reflex (as in this case) may be damaged so that to do so risks aspiration and asphyxiation.

 

[p35]

This whole dispute is an excellent demonstration of why religion and politics shouldn't mix. The parent's side (coopted by the Religious Right) is so convinced they're right that they can't admit the possibility that Michael Schiavo is a decent guy trying to keep faith with what he believes his wife's wishes were. Thus, we get all this innuendo about how he's some sort of criminal or greedy bastard with no evidence to support it. Meanwhile, most of us on this thread are agreed that if we were in her condition we would want our spouse to do what he's doing.

There's more than one ethical position that can be taken on this issue. The tragedy is that one side can't admit that possibility. "I know what God wants" should scare any thinking person even more than "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

 

[Lone_Gunman]

If the husband considers her "dead" why does it bother him if her parents continue to tube feed?

 

[Richard.Howe]

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

+1

 

[Jim Diver]

There is something seriously wrong in this case.

First, there are conflicting stories as to her mental status. One side says she is capable of communication, the other refutes that. No video tape of her "communication" of a recent date has been allowed. What is the husband trying to hide? Is her family really telling the truth?

Second, there are several tests that should be done, but have been blocked by the husband. What is he trying to hide?

Third, justice has failed here. The consistant on again, off again, can itself be considered cruel and unusual. And now the congress wants to start it all over again in the fed courts. Where do things like this end?

Fourth, Congress has no standing in this area. This is a states rights issue. The courts have ruled consistantly over and over again. Congress is just using this to get face time on TV. Where is congress on the 12 or so American citizens who are being held hostage in Mexico? Since when does congress take status in an issue that only involves a single person?

Something stinks here and it emininates from everyone who is involved in this case.

 

[Sparks]

If the husband considers her "dead" why does it bother him if her parents continue to tube feed?

At a guess, for the same reason it'd bother you if your spouse died and was then stuffed by her parents and kept on the couch in their living room.

 

[BB62]

Regardless of what many or few judges or courts have ruled, Michael Schiavo's actions do not pass the smell test, and I feel he is unfit to present "what Terri wants". To me this means that "allowing" (huh!) Terri to die is not at all based on Michael carrying out her wishes, but is motivated by something else - what, I am not sure.

I am not a doctor, and don't play one on TV, but let me throw a few thoughts out there...

I think of it this way - IF MS is really convinced that Terri is a vegetable, and IF she is, then it goes without saying that she does not feel or sense much of anything - agreed?

IF she is a vegetable and doesn't feel any pain, anxiety, or have a death wish, then what skin is it off MS's back to allow her parents to care for her?

What kind of human being denies care and affection to his "vegetable" of a "wife" and instead seeks to actively terminate her existence? Why act forcefully against the continuation of another's life IF one truly feels that one's (former) spouse can't sense things anyway? It makes NO sense to me.

To me, there is no logical explanation as to why MS is so hell-bent on terminating "vegetable" Terri unless some external factor or factors were and/or are at work.

Can anyone explain to me in a logical manner why one would want to deny LIFE or another's care and affection to someone who doesn't know the difference anyway?


BB62

 

[Sparks]

Can anyone explain to me in a logical manner why one would want to deny LIFE or another's care and affection to someone who doesn't know the difference anyway?

Because she said she didn't want her body to be kept alive like that? Seems to me he's only carrying out the last thing he feels he owes her. Put yourself in his shoes. You know your wife is dead, you know she didn't want to have her body kept alive after the brain had died, the CT scans and MRI (yes, one was done) all show the brain is gone - do you let her body die as per her wishes or let her parents keep the meat alive as some sort of macabre pet?

 

[BB62]

Sparks,

... some sort of macabre pet?

Oh, puhlese. What has Michael done to show such a level of concern?

IF the timelines I have read are accurate, the denial of rehabilitative care, despite progress shown, and the denial of treatment, dental care, etc. hardly show an individual motivated by concern over what happens to the "meat".

Besides, I can't imagine that Terri said "she didn't want her BODY to be kept alive like that" - can you? I can imagine her saying she wouldn't want to live like she is COGNITIVELY, but then again, she is a "vegetable" (per MS), right?


BB62

 

[rwc]

The depth and diversity of views reflected in this thread, and similar discussions around the country, is probably the only good to come of this tragedy. And it is a tragedy, in every sense.

It believe this situation reflects the fundamental problems we are encountering as our medical capabilities out-pace our ethical or moral concensus. It is important to remember that many people feel passionately about the issues presented by this tragedy, whether due to their religeous/moral/ethical/personal beliefs, or due to their personal and professional experiences.

I have had to deal with similar situations from virtually every perspective except the patient's. I can only say that my wife and I have discussed it thoroughly and have communicated our wishes to our parents. We will be memorializing these wishes this week.

As a general matter I believe this is a question, like many issues surrounding life and death, that should be purely a matter for families, their physicians and the religeous/moral counselors they choose to consult. Far better for the courts and our government to remain uninvolved. Unfortunately, this is not possible today.

And for the record, I am a strong defender of the courts and our legal process, having sworn a couple oaths to that effect. After more than a decade of trial work at most levels, including trial court cases involving those in persistant vegetative states who are wards of the state, I am all too aware of the shortcomings of our legal system when it comes down to resolving questions of belief. Let alone the intersection of ethics, morality, and medical science. The only thing I am fairly certain of is that this tragedy is not easily boxed into "saint vs. sinner" or "greedy vs. loving."

[Start of rant - no "flame" intended, read at your own risk, etc...]

What I find actively pernicious is the politicization of this tragedy. While I do not believe all involved are politicizing it for political gain, ... some are. And those that are doing so for ethical or religious reasons should recognize the grave risks they are creating by politicizing such decisions and forcing the courts into playing "extra innings" through 11th hour federal legislation. For example, I'm sure those involved in this effort would find it reprehensible were the Congress and the Presidency firmly in the hands of pro-euthanasia politicians doing the same. Once you establish legal and political precedents it is almost inevitable that the procedures will be used in ways you never thought possible. And never would have condoned.

Oh, and a related question - Are these the same elected officials who believe in the sanctity of marriage? Wouldn't that mean that the husband (or wife) is best positioned, legally, morally, and ... dare I say, biblically, to make such decisions for their spouse? Well, ok, no one in the old testament would have let a woman make a decision about much of anything...

My two cents, other views welcome.

 

[Sparks]

What has Michael done to show such a level of concern?

Off the top of my head, he's turned down millions of dollars to see her wish was carried out, he's given her parents every opportunity to express their desires for their daughter's care in court, he sued the doctors whose misdiagnosis caused the heart attack that killed her, and as to the neglect charge, she's been in nursing homes and hospices since 1990, under professional 24-hour care.

 

[gc70]

Can anyone explain to me in a logical manner why one would want to deny LIFE or another's care and affection to someone who doesn't know the difference anyway?

I have a living will, written DNR orders, and my wife holds my medical power of attorney. I have made it absolutely clear that I do not want ANY special action taken to keep me (or my body) alive if I have been "out of it" for 90 days and am not showing substantial signs of immediate recovery. If I ever end up as a vegatable, I sincerely hope that my wife would not say "He doesn't know anything, so it doesn't matter what I do."