<p><a href=“http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513,hentoff,62489,6.html[/url]”>http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513,hentoff,62489,6.html</a></p>
<p>I had mixed feelings but he convinced me this is an outrage.</p>
<p>I just don’t understand this. I have a very open mind and always try to see all sides. But, this is ridiculous. It’s hard to imagine this being real and anyone actually supporting it.</p>
<p>This is real, it is happening, it’s every bit as bad as the article states and then some, and most horrific of all, the headlines of all the local papers this morning announced the planned autopsy. </p>
<p>Hard as I try - and I have tried very, very hard, reading all the credible material from both sides - I simply cannot force my mind to grasp that we are, really, truly, seriously, actually deliberately starving and dehydrating a human being to death, right within reach of blood relatives, persons who would give anything, pay any price, anything at all, to be permitted to take her home and feed and care for her. </p>
<p>And she’s not even dead yet, and the details of her scheduled autopsy (head doctor, location, procedure, etc.) are broadcast in all the media.</p>
<p>As has been stated over and over, if a person in Florida were to treat their dog or cat in the same manner, they would be jailed and charged with a felony. Even Florida’s death row inmates receive far greater due process. Terri isn’t even permitted ice cubes to ease the oral discomfort, because of Greer’s order.</p>
<p>And there’s no white hat in any of this. A few years ago a woman pled with Judge Greer for a restraining order against her abusive ex-husband. Greer denied the request, saying he did not think the woman was truly in danger. When the ex-husband stabbed the woman to dead a few weeks following Greer’s ruling, his comment was that he didn’t realize the man might have access to a weapon! (The guy had a very long record of felony assault convictions.) Beyond Greer, the lawyers for the Schindlers seem somewhat less than competent (how can you lead your clients to court and fail 30+ times???), the Florida governor strikes me as spineless, and the entire judiciary must be on drugs or something. And, of course all the fringe circus people are showing up - and the soon-to-be-corpse, this entity that was once a beloved daughter and sister, is being used by the right, the left, and everyone in between for their own political priorities. </p>
<p>“Thou shalt not kill.” It’s pretty simple.</p>
<p>I do not think the husband is evil and the the judge mistaken. A simple CT shows her missing cerebral cortex from the massive and catastrophic brain injury - the damage is so extensive and obvious that there is no need for more sophisticated testing and is easily seen on CT scan. She has no brain waves that would signify a responsive brain. She has no ability to think, feel, or communicate. Her motor behaviors are random reflexes from her brainstem. Those of us who are sentient want to read her behaviors as volitional but she has absolutely no capacity to do this. She does not have the ability to experience thirst, hunger, human touch, to experience joy, or to suffer. She has not been eating food for the past 15 years, she has been kept alive with artificial nutrition through a surgical tube implanted in her abdomen. Although her birth family would prefer to continue artificially sustaining her life, her husband is the next of kin. He has fought to have her wishes respected and end the artificial support of her physical body as there is absolutely no hope of recovery. If she continued to be given artificial nutrition (I avoid the term food because what she receives is not food is the sense of taste, texture, smells, social interaction, etc), what would she be “allowed” to die from? The natural end of her life happened when the catastrophic brain injury happened. It has been technology sustaining her. Kindly allow the technology to be withdrawn and allow her body to continue the journey it began 15 years ago when modern medical technology intervened. If grace is true, perhaps heaven trumps nursing home. There is a great book - Sherwin Nuland’s How We Die. Everyone should read it. Now, what is it I hear about starving children and adults in Darfur? Do you think we can have an emergency legislative session to end world hunger?</p>
<p><as has=“” been=“” stated=“” over=“” and=“” over,=“” if=“” a=“” person=“” in=“” florida=“” were=“” to=“” treat=“” their=“” dog=“” or=“” cat=“” the=“” same=“” manner,=“” they=“” would=“” be=“” jailed=“” charged=“” with=“” felony.=“”></as></p>
<p>In every state in the US, it is legal to euthanize a suffering animal. Any animal that can’t feed itself would be euthanized by a responsible vet.</p>
<p>Momgeh50, much of what you posted is in dispute - highly educated, evidence-based dispute, and some of it is unfortunate assumption. But even if we pretend that 100% of what you posted is somehow absolute fact, supported by incontrovertible evidence, the issue remains that we are deliberately starving a woman to death in the presence of her family - a family who would pay any sum, make any sacrifice to be allowed to take her home and care for her. </p>
<p>The fact is that Terri swallows on her own, but Greer’s orders have forbidden her family - or anyone - to even give her ice chips or water. They specifically asked the court to be permitted to feed her, to see if she could eat on her own, and Greer denied their motion. There are armed police officers in or just outside of her room, protecting the court’s order and ensuring no one dares try. </p>
<p>She has not been eating food for 15 years perhaps in part because care has been denied; no attempt to feed her has been permitted. </p>
<p>Local media reports the hospice has been giving her morphine for pain for the last three days - if she cannot feel, cannot communicate, how and why did they arrive at a morphine decision? </p>
<p>Forget about world hunger - if any of us have someone at home who cannot ambulate unassisted to the refrigerator, I’m guessing we should just let them starve. </p>
<p>We might agree on one thing - there is a higher power, a bigger judge, and for Terri at least, a better place. I am satisfied that all involved will one day answer for their actions, or for their failure to act.</p>
<p>I tried to call Jeb Bush’s office but couldn’t get through. I truly hope that the Florida Legislature is not re-elected. They could have done something but chose not to. Maybe Jesse Jackson can change their minds but it’s pretty late in the game.</p>
<p>Hentoff’s column would be a good one if it had the facts of the case straight. It doesn’t. That creates problems for his conclusion(s).</p>
<p>In the abscence of credible testimony from TS herself, a very obvious and huge assumption is being made. Someone says she wouldn’t want to live this way. Maybe she wouldn’t, but there is not a person alive who can prove it. </p>
<p>Even if her husband (?) hadn’t moved on in love and matrimony before deciding/remembering TS would not want to live given a certain state of affairs…society should still be suspicious of anyone being given the right to make an irreversible decision on someone else’s physical mortalityno one can argue she is not alive, she is legally alive and will be killed, the argument is only about her particular state of consciousness. </p>
<p>I think the so called “right to die” is morally legitimate in a society that places an extraordinary value on individual rights, as the USA does (though in a neutral environment I could see an argument against it). However, even in the circumstance wherein someone would be “assisted” in ending their own life, we would want to know that they were making a rational decision in a rational state, and if they were by some chance of fate unable to physically communicate it to us, their should be iron-clad evidence that this is in fact their wishnot the word of a single individual. </p>
<p>It would not be good enough to reason that we would want to end our own life under the same circumstances as TS, which is what I think most people are doing when they look at the TS case and therefore reason that TS was “likely” to have told someone (her loyal husband…as husbands always have the best interests of their spouses at heart…even if they are equally committed to a non-wife) that she would not want to live in a particular state because we wouldn’t want to live that way either.</p>
<p>This is all further complicated by the fact that no one is capable of making a decision that would hold into perpetuityeven about themselves (not even a college major). We make decisions under certain circumstances when we make decisions about certain circumstances, often bravely or romantically–often correctly in the end, but there are way to many variables here to make an irreversible decision on life itself; we require more valid information to purchase a car or take out a loan. It would not be good enough for a husband to say that “I can sign for my wife on this mortgage because she would have wanted me to” in the absence of a legal document reinforcing the husbands autonomy on his wife’s behalf. I guarantee my opinion of my wifes wishes would not be good enough regarding many legal issues that are no where near as relevant as whether or not my wife will be able to continue to physically live and I dont have another love-interest on the side.</p>
<p>Well, I can think of a few people, whom I’ve met through church and the community, who fall into that category of not being able to feed themselves because of severely debilitating disease. They are wheelchair bound. They barely respond when you speak to them - or just moan and move their heads from side to side. I suppose they should be thankful that their families are willing to take care of them. Otherwise, they would be right behind Terri.</p>
<p>And what about people like Christopher Reeves - I suppose his wife might have figured his wasn’t a life worth saving. He sure has a lot of technology sustaining him - oxygen tanks and monitors everywhere he went. </p>
<p>Well, I’ve always said - “don’t marry anyone you wouldn’t want to raise your children in your absence.” Now I can add, “and don’t marry anyone you wouldn’t trust in making decisions about your life and death”.</p>
<p>I can understand Michael having moved on a long time ago. I think I would have, too. But, I would have gladly divorced the person and given their care back to their parents - especially since they were only married for a short time.</p>
<p>“It would not be good enough for a husband to say that “I can sign for my wife on this mortgage because she would have wanted me to” in the absence of a legal document reinforcing the husbands autonomy on his wife’s behalf.” Good point, Woodwork.</p>
<p>Momsdream, I agree that the husband should exit the scene because he is not her husband (and because the oral statement she supposedly made to him is not adequate, according to any medical ethics guides Ive read, to clarify what she would have wanted; what matters is not one random statementwhich is what he keeps quotingbut a lifetime of knowing a persons wishes, which have been arrived at in a deliberate, informed, and thoughtful way). And after that the medical and medical ethics professions should assess the situation (which they already have) and act, which will probably mean that the parents will need some appropriate grief counseling. </p>
<p>As for Bush and the Congress, this is all politically motivated, and I hope it bites them in the rear end. I also hope the media can then get away from Terri Schiavo, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, etc., and start focusing on the real issues facing this country – the war, the economy, and the lack of universal health-care.</p>
<p>Cheers and whistles for your last paragraph, Aparent. It’s bread-and-circuses time in America, where we entertain ourselves with the [relatively] trivial, the soap-opera, and the humiliation factor of “reality” shows. Just say “No,” use the “Off” button.</p>
<p>MD, I’ve seen the brain scans of TS. TS is no Christopher Reeve. TS has random synapses firing off and much of her brain is simply destroyed. There isn’t even the neurological ability to swallow. CR was paralyzed but thinking, intelligently processing the world with a sense of humor. Bad parallel. TS’s parents, imo, are in an extreme version of projection and denial. It is an extremely sad case and, I suppose, something of a Rohrshach test for many. I would be mortified to ever suffer the indignity not of the medical condition but the public dissection of family circumstances and opinions.</p>
<p>Prompted by a recent circumstance in our own family, TheMom and I recently had durable powers of attorney for medical care drawn up and the machinery for a family trust set up. Yesterday I e-mailed our D our attorney’s name and contact info and told her we’d get her copies of the documents at some point this year. Right now it’s sufficient that she knows that they exist and how to get them if need be.</p>
<p>OK, this is obvious momgeh50 is either a lawyer or in the medical profession. Give me a break. I ask you to go on the web <a href=“http://www.terrisfight.org%5B/url%5D”>www.terrisfight.org</a>, log onto the videos, the swab test in particular and please come back to this thread and state your opinions.</p>
<p>One can legitimately question the motives of Congress (I happen to think they were doing it out of humane concern and have been joined by a number of leading Democrats - i.e, Tom Harkin and Joe Lieberman). But, regardless how one feels about Congress’ involvement, one should be distressed by the reaction of the federal courts. The law that was passed by congress was very clear and not open to “interpretation” by the court. The law specifically commanded the courts to perform a fresh hearing of all of the facts. This would involve testimony of impartial doctors and hopefully the order of key missing tests (MRI and PET scan). What did the court do with this law? They ignored it. </p>
<p>This, to me, was the scariest part of this whole ordeal and points to the virtually unchecked power of the courts. The fact that a federal court feels empowered to ignore a law of Congress is certainly not a good sign for our system of checks and balances. No matter where you come out on the specifics of this issue, you should be concerned about this development.</p>
<p>As a parent, it is distressing that the life of my child can be in the hands of virtually one man, Judge Grasso. He was the only one who heard the facts in this case. All of the other judges involved ruled from a point of law perspective and did not get involved with specific testimony.</p>
<p>Pedsox- thanks for posting that link. I’ve fwd. it along to others who need to see it.</p>
<p>
Sometimes it’s difficult to see how anything good can come out of a horrific situation like TS’ … horrific for her, her husband, and her parents and brother. However, this is probably it … apparently there has been a rush of people filling out legal documents outlining what their medicare wishes are … which hopefully will help families follow the wishes of individuals and more importantly difuse the need for courts and politicians to become involved.</p>
<p>I’m wondering why someone being in the medical or legal profession should have their opinion discounted a priori.</p>
<p>As for the courts, I find the proposition that a federal court could come in a second-guess any decision any where to be far scarier.</p>
<p>Finally, I looked at some of those videos. They don’t prove what the supporters of forced feeding contend. I have been at the bedside of a severe stroke victim who was “gone” and under a DNR. Head & eye movements, random squeezing of hands…but still “gone.” One would be hopeful for the first few minutes but as the patterns repeated after a number days it became clear just how random they were.</p>
<p>TheDad, Certainly didn’t mean any disrespect to anyone in the medical or legal profession. It’s just that sometimes people see things in a certain way because of their training. I’m just a teen trying to make my college selection…but the thing is, I do believe the issues of this case will prompt more people to take action with regards to their own wishes should (God forbid) the situation present itself. Like most people, I can see both sides of the TS case. The website proved to be interesting…and I am very curious as to how others will veiw it and what impact, if any it will have on their opinion. I like the discussion of this issue. I’m under the impression though that many experienced and educated legal and medical authorities have VERY conflicting opinions on this case. IMO, with respect to the video’s, Terri didn’t like her mouth being swabbed or the taste of the lemon glygerin swabs (family member in medical profession). Come on, she is not in a PVS. I totally agree that there is no hope for her recovery on any level, but to let her starve and dehydrate to death? Sorry, it just doesn’t make sense. I do respect the opinions and views of others who see it differently.</p>
<p>I do not think providing food and water meets the test of extreme life support measures. The fact that husbands whatever their motives have say over their wives dates back to when wives were considered personal property. The fact that the definition was expanded to work both ways is a suspect legal basis IMHO. One judge who was egregiously wrong in another case made the decision upon which all the appeals rest. I have no problem second-guessing him when it is a matter of life and death. Murderers get better treatment in our courts.</p>
<p>“As for the courts, I find the proposition that a federal court could come in a second-guess any decision any where to be far scarier.”</p>
<p>It happens all the time - think Roe v Wade</p>