<p>If her parents had a heart, they would allow her to die with dignity.</p>
<p>What would Terri want for herself?</p>
<p>Guest View</p>
<p>Georgene Sklar</p>
<p>Special to The Augusta Free Press</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>I read Darlene Hughes’ op-ed (What about Terri Schiavo’s rights? Monday AFP), and I would like to pose a few questions. </p>
<p>First, you stated that it would be inhumane to starve Terri to death as we would consider it illegal to do that to an animal. Did you consider that if we had the ability to give lethal injections to humans as we so humanely do to our beloved pets, the judge would order that instead? All the judge has the ability to do is to remove artificial means of life support as Terri had told her husband she did not want. </p>
<p>How is Terri a victim? If she did not want to be kept alive by these measures, then her wishes are being acted upon by her husband. This would put her firmly in control of her destiny, not playing the part of helpless victim. As for turning care of her over to her parents, that does not follow in line with her desire to not be kept alive by artificial means. I can completely understand that letting go is excruciatingly difficult, but if that is what the person wanted, then those wishes should be put before the selfish needs of others who simply cannot accept reality.</p>
<p>For the first eight years of Terri’s condition, her husband tried all kinds of therapy to help her recover. Only when all was exhausted did he finally request that her wishes be honored and the feeding tube be removed. Since then, the court has appointed independent doctors to review Terri’s condition, as well as several independent researchers. All have come back saying that her condition is irreversible. Yes - medical advances are being made all of the time, but that does not mean that everyone must wait for some medical miracle to occur if it goes against their expressed desires.</p>
<p>As for Michael’s treatment of Terri, I find it interesting that her parents and friends had no problem with him whatsoever for the first eight years of her condition. Could this be because he was doing what they wanted? It seems as though the moment he wanted to carry out Terri’s wishes, he became Satan incarnate. In response to these allegations, the court made thorough investigations and came up with nothing. They also investigated his ability to be a proper guardian to her. Again, they came up empty. It all seems to be a smear campaign against him because he dared to defy her parents.</p>
<p>As for committing adultery, Michael met his fianc</p>
<p>If her husband had an dignity he would go dig a deep hole and jump in.</p>
<p><we do=“” not=“” live=“” in=“” a=“” nazi=“” state=“”>.</we></p>
<p>Yes we do or it would not take an Act of Congress to make judges do the right thing. I’m still not convinced that Terri would not want to be kept alive. Apparently she brings her family happiness so I really don’t care what Michael Schiavo thinks. Life or death - I choose life.</p>
<p>THis is all part of the right wing’s attack on the judiciary. Thank god the judge that said that gay marriage was legal in california was appointed by a republican otherwise reactionaries far and wide would be decrying the “activist judge”</p>
<p>"Apparently she brings her family happiness "</p>
<p>Well, I’m sure that the execution of the guy that killed jessica lunsford would give that family happiness, does that mean we should have congress pass a special law to kill people</p>
<p>btw, on a side note, notice how tom delay is suddenly in front of the cameras now that the issue has shifted from his illegal actions to the Schiavo issue. He is more that ready to take up the banner for the evangelicals so that he can continue his shady dealings. Indeed, republicans like Tom Delay are RENTED by corportations!</p>
<p>Bottom line: Get a living will. Who really knows what Terri wanted - people are relying on heresay as to what Terri wanted. Husbands come and go but parents will always want to do the best for their child. Now the courts are deciding who lives and who dies. The least they could do is give her an ice cube! Sheesh</p>
<p>Quote: "Husbands come and go but parents will always want to do the best for their child. "</p>
<p>Wow. That is certainly not true in our family. I have been married for almost 22 years. If I had to choose between my husband and my mother making decisions on my behalf, I would definitely pick my husband!</p>
<p>Listen, there is way too much propaganda here. </p>
<p>How many of you have read the court cases and time line?</p>
<p>Michael & Terri’s parents actually <strong>all lived together as a single family unit</strong> caring for Teri, for roughly a year following Terri’s initial coma. Okay? They all got along and worked together. At the point in time at which Teri was alive, well, and married, nobody in this family had a gripe with Michael-- not his care, not his authority to make decisions, not his bond with Teri. </p>
<p>They all tried caring for her at home for several months, but had to put her back in 24 hour care as she needed too much medical attention. Michael also intially flew Teri across the country for experimental care, seeking rehabilitation. He consistently visited, advocated on her behalf at the nursing home, etc. YEARS of this. </p>
<p>Michael & the parents evidently had a falling our over the parents wanting 50% of the insurance $ that was awarded to Michael (from a medical malpractice case against doctors who failed to diagnose Terri’s bulimia, which caused her heart attack, & subsequent brain damage & coma.) This started the problems between Michael and the parents. Okay, at this point Teri had been comatose for about 3-4 years.</p>
<p>3-4 more years go by… </p>
<p>SO: After 7-8 years of all of this, caring for her, visiting her, etc, Michael FINALLY becomes convinced it is hopeless-- and she is not getting better. He then petitions the court to decide whether or not it would be proper to allow the feeding to be discontinued, so she could die-- as he believed she <strong>would have wanted to.</strong> The parents fight against this plan. For the next 7 years, court after court concludes that this course of action <em>would</em> follow her wishes, as she expressed them to friends when alive. </p>
<p>BUT right, we do not have a written directive. We only have the testimony of her husband and her personal friends.</p>
<p>There’s all sorts of precedent. If someone is incapacitated, their next of kin speaks for them. How does a mother <em>know</em> whether or not her brian-dead three year old would “want” his organs harvested? Answer: she doesn’t. But she is presumed to be the best one to decide-- the one who knows and loves this child. Similarly, spouses are presumed to be the best positioned to make hard decisions for their incapacitated wives or husbands (even when they are alive). Do we amputate the limb? Do we do the hysterectomy? etc…</p>
<p>It is far too simplistic to say “choose life, err towards life.” What if, for Terri, it isn’t Life vs. Death but instead Torture vs. Release (or maybe even Blank vs. Blank?) None of us knows this. </p>
<p>Her parents do not want her to die. Of course they don’t. They love her. And if she were not married, they would be the ones to make this decision on her behalf. But she is married, and this decision-making responsibility is shifted to her husband. (Had her parents agreed with him, there would not be a case. How many other Teris have there been, disconnected from feeding tubes with no hoopla, because the parents agreed with the husband?) </p>
<p>7 years of court cases have found, again and again, that there is no reason to disbelieve him. </p>
<p>Like the mom and the three-year-old, this is a wrenching decision, and it is his to make.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>OK, I do agree that the whole fight seems pointless. Terri is not going to get better. BUT, starving a living, breathing person to death just gets to me. It would be different if she were on a respirator, appreared dead, and quit breathing after being unhooked.</p>
<p>It just seems to me like Michael would realize that when Terri, at the young age of 25, said to him that she wouldn’t want to be kept in a vegetative state, she didn’t consider the impact it would have on her parents. You do have to empathize with their having to stand by and watch their daughter starve to death. I just don’t understand why he’s being stubborn.</p>
<p>Tookie, my heart breaks when I think of one of my kids and having to “give up” on them. It would be horrible.</p>
<p>Our whole family had this talk tonight (minus the 2nd grader) and we all agreed on the standards we’d want observed if it ever happened to us. I would respect my child’s wishes. One is not obligated to persist in limbo to please someone else, even your parents; it is your life and your wishes should come first.</p>
<p>I agree with you that it feels weird to withold food, to think of any distress or pain involved in starving. Humane treatment would be to give mega morphine to ensure absolutely no pain, and no distress. We don’t do that in the US, even though it is done all around the world…</p>
<p>When my grandma decided to die, she had palliative morphine. She did not want food & water, and had, months earlier, adamantly refused the idea of tube feeding. She had morphine to ease her way. She had a very peaceful, easy death in her own bed and her own home with her family holding her, and it was a beautiful passing. Days earlier, when she was sentient we had all gathered and told her of our love for her. She smiled, and she loved us back, but-- she was ready to be done.</p>
<p>It made me much less afraid of death because I saw it could be okay to die, and not frightening for the one who was dying. I felt that, for her, death was like slipping into sleep after the longest day of your life… a welcome relief, a comfort.</p>
<p>Great posts, SBMom. </p>
<p>A few things. The legal standard in Florida is “clear and convincing evidence” for this procedure: it is not a presumption in favour of disconnecting the feeding tubes, nor is it a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. 51% chance that Michael is right). The court had to find this before it could make the decision that it did. </p>
<p>Such a very sad situation.</p>
<p>Wow…our family will definitely look into living wills now.
But I still can’t imagine not being able to have the freedom to give my dying child a drink of water.</p>
<p>Several reports indicated that her mouth would be kept moist to alleviate any discomfort. Doctors say that this is where any pain comes from. As it was stated earlier, the endorphins released actually create a feeling of euphoria.</p>
<p>How many of the doctors have actually experienced this? Have you heard the accounts of a woman who actually had this happen to her? She was in a coma to the point where they had given up hope for her and stopped the feeding tube. Strange thing, but she was actually fully conscious about what was happening and even more strange, she pulled out of the coma so that she can now talk about what it was like from a first person’s point of view. She said the process of dying like that was excruciating and a horrible way to die.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/23/schiavo/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/23/schiavo/index.html</a> </p>
<p>Appeals panel won’t order Schiavo fed </p>
<p>Parents had sought to restore feeding tube after lower court setback </p>
<p>Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Posted: 3:08 AM EST (0808 GMT) </p>
<p>“I’m begging you … don’t let my daughter die of thirst,” said Mary Schindler, Terri Schiavo’s mom. </p>
<p>ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) – A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals early Wednesday declined to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. </p>
<p>The vote was 2 to 1. </p>
<p>The brain-damaged woman’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, had filed with the appeals court Tuesday, after U.S. District Court Judge James Whittemore in Tampa, Florida, decided not to grant a temporary restraining order that would allow reinstatement of the tube. </p>
<p>The tube has provided the 41-year-old woman with water and nutrients since 1990. </p>
<p>In issuing their majority opinion, 11th Circuit Judges Ed Carnes and Frank Hull said: </p>
<p>“We agree that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims. We also conclude that the district court’s carefully thought out decision to deny temporary relief in these circumstances is not an abuse of discretion.” </p>
<p>Judge Charles Wilson, who said he “strongly dissented” from the majority opinion, said refusing the parents’ appeal “frustrates Congress’ intent, which is to maintain the status quo by keeping Theresa Schiavo alive until the federal courts have a new and adequate opportunity to consider the constitutional issues raised by plaintiffs.” </p>
<p>Continuing, Wilson said, the whole point of a law passed early Monday by Congress was to “give the federal courts an opportunity to consider the merits of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims with a fresh set of eyes.” </p>
<p>Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed Friday on the order of Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer, who ruled that he had no jurisdiction in the case. He said judicial doctrine bars losing parties from using federal courts to appeal state court decisions. </p>
<p>Both sides in the case – the Schindlers, and Schiavo’s husband, Michael – filed documents Tuesday with the appellate court in Atlanta. </p>
<p>“While time is of the essence here, there remains adequate time for this court to conduct an expedited and deliberate review,” Michael Schiavo’s filing said. </p>
<p>His lawyers also asked that if the appeals court ordered reinsertion, it also grant an automatic stay of eight hours so that Michael Schiavo could seek a review with the U.S. Supreme Court. </p>
<p>Attorney George Felos, representing the husband, told reporters that his client is by his wife’s side, saying, “That’s where he’ll remain until she dies.” He said Michael Schiavo also has given the Schindlers the right to visit the hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida. </p>
<p>President Bush has expressed support for the Schindlers’ fight, signing legislation allowing the case to be reviewed by federal courts. (Full story) </p>
<p>White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the Bush administration would have preferred a “different ruling” than Whittemore’s decision. </p>
<p>McClellan said the administration hoped the Schindlers find relief in the appeals process.</p>