Terri Schiavo Should Die in Peace

Parent Cafe
61

<p>Oh puleeze. Read the court transcripts. Sorry, but there is just no way Michael Schiavo and his attorneys could possibly have "manipulated’ the courts in the way you describe. I am sure Terri’s parents hired big guns too, and they have undoubtedly gotten lots of funding from conservative groups with their agenda as well. </p>

<p>I tried to present a balanced, fair picture, to allow for both sides to be considered. At this late hour, it is hard to continue to be so diplomatic. The reason I selected the legal blog I referenced was because it provided direct links to the court records, and it was very fair and unbiased.</p>

<p>And if I was a politician worrying about my re-election campaign in this very conservative climate, I’d be on a plane to DC too. It is all about politics. And that is fundamentally disgusting.</p>

62

<p>Jvm, it’s called political grandstanding. The GOP can be quite hypocrites.</p>

<p>As for the people on this thread who continue to criticize Michael Schiavo, they are putting their own emotions where the evidence does not show or present their biases. They need to use the facts and stop trying to act like they know what is best for Terri than her husband, the doctors and the courts.</p>

63

<p>Those assertions simply do not work when you consider that the next congressional election isn’t until November 2006; when you consider that the U.S. Senate passed the bill; when you finally consider that the House just passed the same version of the bill (200 to 55 so far), with 46 dems voting in favor, and no objections along the way.</p>

<p>The bill is being enrolled right now and rushed to the White House. The claim of GOP grandstanding falls apart when in fact no dems objected, and in fact only 52 democrats voted against the house measure. Of course, 112 democrats did not even show up to vote. Interesting.</p>

64

<p>

</p>

<p>This isn’t patently clear???</p>

65

<p>“But since we’re on the subject, it would appear that the governor of Florida, the state legislature, President Bush, the U.S. Senate, a majority of the House of Representatives, and a significant portion of the U.S. voting population have some problem with the Shiavo issue too. Now, why do you think that might be? Are they, too, biased?”</p>

<p>Well, some are biased, but most of them are grandstanding hypocrites, happy to support capital punishment even if the poor prisoner’s lawyer slept through the trial; happy to send our troops to die in Iraq behind trumped up charges and don’t mind at all when tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians are killed and injured. This includes Governor George Bush, who was happy to sign into law the right for HOSPITALS to remove life support if the family and insurance CAN’T PAY!!. But put one severely brain-damaged Floridian on CNN and watch the stampede. This is the culture of hype. . .not the culture of life. </p>

<p>Carolyn is right about Terry Schiavo not being brain-dead. However, that would be the right description for anyone that believes that these showboating politicians should intervene in this matter. </p>

<p>Other than the usual attempt to gin up more money and support from gullible pro-lifers, who return to the polls again and again and get nothing but tax cuts for rich people from their elected representatives, this whole thing is designed to (a) put heat on Sen. Nelson, a vulnerable Florida Democrat, and (b) take the heat off Tom “The Exterminator” Delay, who is up to his elbows in ethics violations.</p>

<p>As for the poster who “knows” something is fishy because a wife dies in the house and only the husband is there with her. . .WHO DO YOU THINK SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE HOUSE!!! Her golf pro??? The Culligan Man??? If I die unexpectedly in my house it is a near certainty that my wife will be the only one here. So tomorrow, I’m moving her out at as a protective measure.</p>

66

<p>Reidm-
GREAT post!! I haven’t laughed out loud at a post in quite a while!! I needed that :smiley: Too funny! Thanks again!</p>

67

<p>Is Michael really just looking for money?</p>

<p>I have no way to know. I know what the Schindlers say to reporters, but then I know that the Second District’s first decision in the case used these words to describe Michael’s care for Terri:</p>

<p>Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa’s care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.
Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri’s parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri’s wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri’s behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer.</p>

<p>What about the Schindlers’ claims that Terri is conscious and responds to stimulation?</p>

<p>When the Second District first reviewed the trial court’s decision that Terri would chose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and “will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others…” In October, 2002, as a result of Terri’s parents’ claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri’s cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue. The trial court did so, and in the course of that trial the parties litigated whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state.</p>

<p>The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:</p>

<p>At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.
The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri’s condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on “the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature.”</p>

<p>Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri’s brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.</p>

<p><a href=“http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda[/url]”>http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

68

<p>My H has medical power of attorney over me. if H & I were both incapacitated (like in a car crash) I gave my mother secondary medical power of attorney, precisely because I knew that if push came to shove she had the guts to stick with my wishes not to live in a persistent vegetative state and pull a plug if necessary. (My mother has secondary medical power of attorney for my H as well. We both trust her.)</p>

<p>The debate about Terri comes down to personal beliefs-- “what would I do in that person’s place?” We can imagine ourselves as Terri (personally, I’d want to be allowed to die with palliative care, like morphine, to make sure it didn’t hurt) and the parents (at the same time, I might not be emotionally able to withold nurtition from my own child nor “give up hope”.) Depending on whose position we take, and on our own value system and religious beliefs, we’ll all come to different conclusions. That’s precisely why I would want the state out of this decision. </p>

<p>I think it is possible for people who love Terri to completely disagree on the best approach here. </p>

<p>As for Michael: If Michael was universally viewed as a good, devoted husband with no negative innuendo surrounding him, no new girlfriend, etc-- wouldn’t the parents <em>still</em> disagree with a decision to let Terri die? If Terri had a signed medical power of attorney, would they still fight because they think she is sentient and may recover?</p>

<p>It seems that the argument goes beyond the facts of this case and into more fundamental territory: whether or not it is acceptable to hasten the death of a person in Terri’s condition, ever, or whether one does all possible to sustain life.</p>

<p>I mean no disrespect to anyone’s religious beliefs. I think there can be thoughtful, compassionate, and ethical responses in more than one direction here. Again, that’s why the state must leave this up to the legal guardian. </p>

<p>If you have strong feelings about this get them in writing.</p>

69

<p>Oops… I was searching for the Parent Cafe Forum (you know, the genteel one), but instead must have somehow been redirected to the College Confidential Cafe (the rough and tumbly one).</p>

70

<p>This is a picture of a normal brain scan. </p>

<p><a href=“Application Error”>Application Error; </p>

<p>This is a picture of Terri’s (abnormal) brain scan. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png[/url]”>http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>(The dark section in the middle is the cerebral spinal fluid. Much of that section has deteriorated including the cerebral brain stem.) </p>

<p>“You’re left with a woman who suffered a heart attack 15 years ago, who essentially died but was resuscitated, though not entirely. Her brain had suffered enormous damage from the heart attack. As time passed, her brain further deteriorated – to the point where much if not most of her cerebral cortex (the portion of the brain that controls conscious thought, among other things) was literally gone, replaced by spinal fluid. Doctors hired by Terri’s husband say the deterioration of Terri’s brain left her without thoughts or feelings, that the damage is irreversible, and that Terri’s life-like appearance is merely the result of brain stem activity – basically involuntary reflexes we all have. An independent doctor hired by the court reached the same conclusions. Doctors hired by Terri’s parents did not dispute the physical damage done to Terri, but they claim there are new therapies that could improve her condition. In two separate trials, the trial court found such claims of potential improvement to be without merit. Terri’s body continues to function without her cerebral cortex. She is sustained by a feeding tube surgically inserted into her stomach. She cannot eat through her mouth without a strong likelihood of choking to death.” </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.livejournal.com/community/christianity/1870674.html[/url]”>http://www.livejournal.com/community/christianity/1870674.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

71

<p>People - make a Living Will, make it SPECIFIC. Also, have a discussion with your family - your spouse, your parents, your children, your friends, about your wishes, and about their situations as well. Do not wait, because you, too, can have your life story paraded all over the Internet, including your medical records!</p>

<p>This is a terrible tragedy, that may end up affecting all of us. The most positive outcome is for each of us to have that discussion with our families.</p>

72

<p>From the Detroit News Politics Blog =</p>

<p>"Fate of Terri Schiavo?</p>

<p>I don’t understand why all these religious fanatics find it so important to keep a brain dead living cadaver alive thru medical science. If they really believed in heaven and hell they would allow her to go on to the after-world. Our Muslim enemies certainly understand this, which is why the suicide bombers have no fear of death. They think heaven awaits them. The religious right apparently doesn’t have the courage of their convictions.</p>

<p>I think that if the parents want to keep Terry on life support then let them pay the $800,000 a year it costs. Maybe President Bush can chip in some Halliburton money? Our science has brought us to the point where even dead people can be kept alive for years. Are we now going to pay for millions of people to be kept alive indefinitely? "</p>

<p>$800,000 a year, people. $800,000 a year!</p>

73

<p>tenis, you’ve missed the whole point. This isn’t about religion - it’s about human rights and the damage of government imposed decisions being made about someone’s life or death based on a loosely defined set of standards.</p>

74

<p>How do you propose to die in peace from starvation?</p>

75

<p>What is so troubling to me about this issue is the fact that Michael’s incumbent sperm recepticle became unavailable, and subsequently inconvenient, so he located another, and lives with her, and has children (plural) with her. </p>

<p>Life goes on - fair enough. Perhaps no one can or should reasonably expect Michael to default to a monastic lifestyle. But his morals are very elastic. The very fact that he has aborted his marriage vows in one venue should disqualify him from exercising them in all others. He shouldn’t have a voice or a say in this any more, because it is very clear (at least to me) that his personal interests differ greatly from Terri’s. </p>

<p>Add on the fact that there is nothing in writing from Terri, and the matter becomes very troubling. How many of us in casual conversation have made statements such as “I wouldn’t wanna be kept alive like that” and the like, perhaps on multiple occassions, without ever really thinking through, in all seriousness, if that’s truly what we meant, and intended? </p>

<p>Anyone else curious why he does not simply divorce her?</p>

76

<p>SBmom, I do not think it is wise, or desirable, to attempt to sustain life against all odds. At the end of the day, I do think Terri’s condition is hopeless. I have enormous problems however with Michael’s right to decide - then, or now. I’m not sure the parents should decide either, however, if there is going to be an error, at least it will be in favor of life, and the federal courts will have a chance to review it. </p>

<p>There is zero harm in permitting Terri to live a little while longer while a review takes place; there is irreparable harm in the rush to starve her to death.</p>

77

<p>OK folks, first, this belongs in the cafe to whoever started this message (cafe= subjects like this that does not belong elsewhere). </p>

<p>Second, this woman is dead. D E A D- no amount of prayin will bring her back to life. Let her go to the heaven or fields of elysium or to meet with anubis for her heart to be weighed or become reincarnated or whatever you want to believe.</p>

<p>Third, regardless of wheter you think she deserves the right to vegetate away at the expense of taxpayers or her parents need to accept the facts, this situation was allowed to blow out of proportions when really one amendment holds the answer: the TENTH AMENDMENT.</p>

78

<p>WaHoo-</p>

<p>Guess you didn’t notice - this IS the cafe! </p>

<p>Seond, how do you define dead? I don’t think even pro-starvation folks believe she’s dead. If she were dead, there would be no need for this thread. She’s on a feeding tube (or was)…that’s it. She isn’t on artifical life support. She’s not dead. How did you arrive at that conclusion?</p>

<p>Your fast, erroneous assumptions and subsequent orders about where this thread needs to move are a great metaphor for what’s happening with Terry. Lots of rushing to judgement before understanding the baseline of facts.</p>

79

<p>Folks, there are a lot of things termed slippery slopes, but this one is straight down and greased up.</p>

<p>Terri did not leave written instructions. Because this is a fact, it is also fact that we cannot truly know her wishes. All we can do is try to put ourselves in her shoes, which quite frankly none of us can do. I am not divorced, thus I cannot claim to know how I would act or make decisions if I were to be divorced. How do you know unless you are in the exact situation, i.e. Terri’s exact level of consciousness? And once you start making these decisions for other people who can’t speak you’re going to start taking out a lot of people. </p>

<p>Someone said it’s not a religious issue, it’s a human rights issue. Please explain how those differ. Once you take natural law out of it all human rights become negotiable based on the particular culture you find yourself in, and are not part of a grand Truth. They’re malleable, bendable, and not Basic Human Rights as you are referring to them.</p>

80

<p>docmom, what does divorce have to do with it. Terri and her husband were not and are not divorced. </p>

<p>I don’t blend my rights as a human being with religion. There’s support to end her life under the guise of getting her to heaven - and those who support ending her life tend to want to point fingers at religion as the crux of the problem. Where she goes from here, nobody knows. What I do know is that nobody has the right to decide when I should die. </p>

<p>Do you know how many infants and children have to use feeding tubes? How many of them also have brain damage? Should we stop feelding them too? Terri is not brain dead, she’s brain damaged. Her body is able to sustain itself, except for nutrition.</p>