Should Terri Schiavo live or die? [Archive]

tech4all

Mar 21, 2005, 01:33 AM

The problem is that we don't know what her wishes were, and if you were in her mind state would you want to be kept alive?

Yea that's the thing. It would be different if she would have given written consent or something that would have told her family/doctors her desire to live or die. I'm not sure if was possible for to do that. I mean was this condition a gradual thing that got worse or did it just happen all of the sudden? If it was a gradual thing to where in the beginning she was able to communicate she could have gave a "just incase" consent for this situation before it grew worse. But if it just happened, then she really had no chance to give a conscious wish to live or die. Hope that makes sense.

Would I want to be kept alive if that were me? That's a tough one to answer. I'm not sure what she feels. If she just feels pain and miserable, then perhaps it would be better for the tube to stay out. But if she feels no pain, but just has whatever sensation this complication gives, then perhaps they should put the tube back in. It's really hard to say if you're not the actual person.

MacNut

Mar 21, 2005, 01:40 AM

I think it was a sudden car accident but I cant be sure. The other issue here is who has the right to end her life, In theory she can stay in this state for another 50 years, Her husband is her official legal guardian so I don't see how her parents can go above him to the courts and now congress.

vwcruisn

Mar 21, 2005, 02:21 AM

The problem is that we don't know what her wishes were, and if you were in her mind state would you want to be kept alive?

fwiw, her husband has stated that she told him she didnt want to be kept alive on life support, however her family disputes this.

I can't imagine why her husband would make that up.

Lacero

Mar 21, 2005, 02:31 AM

Chaszmyr

Mar 21, 2005, 02:38 AM

There's no point being alive if you can't live; I think the merciful thing to do would be to let her die.

It reminds me of LD Value debate in high school... The age old issue: quality of life vs sanctity of life... Quality of life is the dominant value in my book.

Applespider

Mar 21, 2005, 03:11 AM

She should be allowed to die. Knowing that her husband was her legal next of kin, I'd imagine that she'd had that discussion with him. I know I have had it with my next of kin, along with asking them to ensure that my organs are donated if appropriate.

There's no chance of her recovering now after 15 years and is it right to use the resources that are keeping her alive when they could be used for someone who has more need of them? To those who say let her parents take care of her, that's still leaving the emotional burden of not yet being able to say goodbye on her husband and is likely to interfere with his new wife and family. I heard someone say (not here) that they thought it was appalling her husband had given up on her. I can't believe that sentiment. I know that if I was killed while my partner was still alive, I'd hate to think that he did nothing else but mourn me.

Blue Velvet

Mar 21, 2005, 03:28 AM

Let her rest... for pity's sake.

Xtremehkr

Mar 21, 2005, 05:08 AM

I don't know, there are so many more important things that ought to be the center of attention right now.

If I get too close I may never get the smell of political slime off me.

Symtex

Mar 21, 2005, 06:12 AM

I do not understand George W Bush involvement in this. His trying to pursue a politic agenda and using this poor wowan to pass his bill. he doesn't care about Mrs. Schiavo. Why does he care now ?

I think we should let her die. She suffer enough.

Thomas Veil

Mar 21, 2005, 06:40 AM

The public opinion against Congress' action is extremely high, as I pointed out in this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=116277) thread. In fact, public opinion is as close to unanimous as I've ever seen it. It's basically Congress, Bush & the evangelical fanatics vs. the entire rest of the country.

As to my own opinion...let the poor woman die in peace, and stop using her as a freaking political tool.

Evil bastards.... :mad:

iGary

Mar 21, 2005, 07:07 AM

Let her rest... for pity's sake.

Bravo.

Might I suggest this as a wake up call to those in the US that do not have a living will to draft one up if you do not wish to be kept "alive" like this for years on end.

What this woman has been doing for years is not my idea of living, personally.

My two cents.

miloblithe

Mar 21, 2005, 07:13 AM

I think it was a sudden car accident but I cant be sure.

"Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a chemical imbalance."

The chemical imbalance was brought on by her eating disorder.

My vote? Let her die, not that I think that I--nor anyone in Congress--should get a vote.

iGary

Mar 21, 2005, 07:30 AM

My vote? Let her die, not that I think that I--nor anyone in Congress--should get a vote.

Ditto.

Steroids, and people's right to die all in one week. Glad our representatives are focused. :rolleyes:

iSaint

Mar 21, 2005, 07:59 AM

The husband takes precedence over her parents. If Terri Schiavo said she would want to die in a situation like this, let us grant her wishes. What possible reason would there be to keep her alive in this vegetative state? If she does feel pain (from bed sores and general inactivity), and I do think she does but can't express it, the only merciful thing to do is let her go in peace.

This is the greater issue at hand. The husband had conversations with his wife and knew her wishes. The poor parents cannot let go. If she dies because the tube is removed, they will never move on with their lives; they haven't moved on now! This is the sad part of the case.

iGary

Mar 21, 2005, 08:53 AM

Well, our federl government got in the business of deciding people's fate last night.

She'll be kept alive.

They called the bill the "Palm Sunday Conmpromise" and quoted Pope John Paul regarding the bill.

EXCUSE ME, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?

I'm freaking sick over this.

bousozoku

Mar 21, 2005, 09:17 AM

She should be allowed to finish dying.

Keeping her in such a hellish existance is cruel. If those protestors care so much about their religion and believe that heaven is such a great place as they say they do, why would they deny her that?

When her mother kissed her the other day, she showed no signs of being aware. They've contended for so long that she can be rehabilitated--it's pretty obvious there is nothing left.

It's time for the politicians to get out of her life to do something that might benefit all of us.

redeye be

Mar 21, 2005, 09:26 AM

They should be able to euthanise (kill) her, if that is her wish.
Given that option is illegal in the states the next best thing is to stop feeding her (letting her die).

I do feel one should be carefull in determining the value of other lives.

Lyle

Mar 21, 2005, 09:50 AM

The question of her "right to die" versus her "right to live" is sort of a moot point since we don't know for certain what her wishes were (are). The husband says that she wouldn't want to be kept alive this way; the parents say that she would. I would have expected that as her guardian, the husband's word "wins" in this kind of dispute, but apparently the law is not so clear on that point.

Like most people who've chimed in here so far, I wouldn't want to be kept alive in this way either. But, as I also suspect is true for most people here, I don't have a living will that explicitly states that. Terri Schiavo is still a young woman, and she was fifteen years younger when she went into this state. I'm guessing that at the time, she figured she was too young to worry about something so morbid as having a living will.

What's really sad to me is that I'm less and less certain that any of her family members (on either side of the dispute) have Terri's best interests at heart anymore.

yellow

Mar 21, 2005, 10:19 AM

IMO, die.

and also IMO, this should be left to State Courts and NOT be up in front of the Supreme Court.

IJ Reilly

Mar 21, 2005, 10:34 AM

The courts in Florida have spent the last seven years hearing evidence on the medical issues and who has the right to represent her last wishes. They have consistently decided that her condition is not reversible and have sided with the husband on the custody issue. What is the argument for federal intercession? Beyond politics, none.

Congress and the President have done an outrageous, despicable thing here. Next time, it could be you or your family's most intimate personal decisions that could be turned into a political football. Don't think it couldn't happen. These people have no shame.

BTW, did we really need a second thread on this topic?

clayj

Mar 21, 2005, 10:49 AM

I'm a conservative, but I believe that she should be allowed to die. The reasons for this are numerous:

- When she got married, authority for decisions regarding her healthcare passed from her parents to her husband. He has been investigated and found clear of any wrongdoing, so there's no reason why he should not be able to make this decision. The parents have no legal say. Only an actual document from Terri Schiavo would be able to override anyone else's decision; since there is none, it's her husband's call.

- Conservatives usually believe in government butting the hell out of our personal lives. Yet in this case, they seem all too willing to tell this man "We respect personal situations, except when we don't agree with them." This makes me want to slap every single one of them and say, "What the hell's the matter with you?"

- Religious folks believe that she'll most likely go to Heaven... yet they insist on keeping her trapped in limbo, here on Earth. For crying out loud, let her die so that she can go to Heaven.

mischief

Mar 21, 2005, 10:53 AM

If I recall correctly her condition is a result of prolonged hypoxia (lack of oxygen) due to heart/respiratory failure brought on by some sort of poisoning. I recall something about her being found unconscious and not breathing by (her husband?) who then called 911, etc.

Brain dammage occurs VERY rapidly after respiratory and cardiac failure, It's actually quite remarkable that her heart didn't suffer more dammage and refuse to find a useful rythm.

My personal opinion on this one isn't comfortable for anyone involved except the patient.

So far as I'm concerned, maintaining her status is inhumane and incredibly ghoulish on the part of her care providers. This woman has been a source of ICU capital for them for over a decade... that's just pure profiteering.

However, I feel that starving her to death is also inhumane. For me the best solution possible is not legally on the table: Humane euthanasia. This woman deserves a peaceful, painless death.

Why do we deny to severely dammaged patients what we guarantee for our most despised felons? So far as I'm concerned a truely murderous sociopath is just as brain dammaged and irrepairable as someone who's lost enough brain function to hypoxia to reduce her beyond the level of any possible interaction, recovery or solace.

IJ Reilly

Mar 21, 2005, 11:00 AM

Thomas Veil

Mar 21, 2005, 11:06 AM

Well, our federl government got in the business of deciding people's fate last night.

She'll be kept alive.From my understanding, the bill gives federal courts the right to intervene in the case. That's not to say that (a) her husband couldn't challenge that on a constitutional basis, and (b) the federal courts will tell Congress to go **** off, they're not interested. I hope it's the latter, because I think that would be the easiest way of setting a precedent.

They called the bill the "Palm Sunday Conmpromise" and quoted Pope John Paul regarding the bill.Hmm...wonder what Joe Lieberman thinks about that? :rolleyes:

mischief

Mar 21, 2005, 11:13 AM

As was mentioned in the other thread, euthanasia is illegal in 49 of the 50 states, and our friends in Washington DC are trying to eliminate that option in the one state where it's allowed.

This brings up another question. I wonder how the people who put their faith in God's will can rationalize in their own minds keeping this woman alive through extraordinary medical means. If it had been a matter of God's will, Terri Schiavo would have died 15 years ago.

Precisely why I brought up the point that we execute convicted murderers by humane euthanasia and yet deny this option to terminal and veigative patients.

It's a double standard and a total sack of ****. There is no moral high ground in humanely executing as punishment while requiring excruciating deaths as medicine.

"Do no harm." For shame. :mad:

There is more bravery and humanity in painlessly ending suffering than in prolonging it in the false hope of recovery.

Equally:

There is no moral or ethical high ground in allowing a legal experts to determine either of the two examples' outcomes when BOTH are medical (neurological) issues that should ethically be judged by physicians who are then allowed to make ethical decisions based on minimizing suffering AND excersizing all possible means of treatment before choosing a legal option for euthanasia.

It really pisses me off how this culture's ethics are so damn ass-backwards in regards to pain, suffering, death and the justification for ending life as a form of treatment.

Moral cowardice is one of the most loathsome aspects of this country. People can't deal with euthanizing their cat when a car crushes 80% of it's body but they're more than willing to have someone else do exactly the same thing to somebody elses kid if his appeal process fails. Cowards. :mad:

Don't panic

Mar 21, 2005, 11:18 AM

just let her go already.

It's what she wanted, it's the reasonable thing to do, it's the law.
what else do you need?

This is not a battle to make her "live", it's a battle to prevent her from dying with dignity in the name of some reprehensible political views.

who would want to "live" like that anyways? to impose that on your family?
her parents "advisors" should be sued for causing unecessary pain and suffering to all parties involved and for the direct and indirect costs induced (medical and legal).

njmac

Mar 21, 2005, 11:26 AM

the NYT reported that she suffered a heart attack due to low potassium levels because of an eating disorder.

Don't let this woman suffer any longer.

The goverment getting involved in this is down-right frightening. there are people in this world who genuinely could use help from the government, but they will never see an act of congress on their behalf. sickens me.

zimv20

Mar 21, 2005, 11:28 AM

From my understanding, the bill gives federal courts the right to intervene in the case. That's not to say that (a) her husband couldn't challenge that on a constitutional basis, and (b) the federal courts will tell Congress to go **** off, they're not interested.

link (http://nytimes.com/2005/03/21/politics/21cnd-debate.html?hp&ex=1111467600&en=d959f74eb94c300f&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

Federal Court Judge Schedules Hearing on Terri Schiavo Case

WASHINGTON, March 21 - Hours after President Bush signed legislation early today that would allow a federal court to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, a judge in Tampa scheduled a 3 p.m. hearing to consider a request by her parents to reinsert her feeding tube.

(more)

mischief

Mar 21, 2005, 11:31 AM

the NYT reported that she suffered a heart attack due to low potassium levels because of an eating disorder.

.

Thanx for the clarification.

The irony of an eating disorder nearly killing her followed by a feeding tube keeping her alive but non-cognizant for 15 years is almost physically painful.

blackfox

Mar 21, 2005, 07:14 PM

You know, while obviously not surprised by the turn-of-events (sadly), I again have to lament the media attention allowed on this essentially private matter.

The resultant effect being that every spineless politician, political pundit/hack, tabloid jounalist and righteous-religious folks have come out of the woodwork in thinking that somehow their opinion on the matter is more educated, enlightened or relevant (and therefore supercede) those of the principals: namely, the doctor(s), the appropriate courts (unfortunately), the husband and the family who have personal knowledge of this situation spanning fifteen years.

In terms of government intervention here, it seems totally inappropriate and ironic, as noted by previous posters.

The fact that many people seem to not mind government meddling in personal, social issues as long as they appear to not be meddling with people's money, is as contradictory as it is ironic(as well as sad).

oh, as noted in the other related thread, I would like to see this woman's suffering end, preferably by the quickest and most humane way possible. Ultimately, however, it is the choice of those with the legal rights in this instance, which seems to be the husband and the medical field. They have long since made their choice, so let them execute it (poor pun).

Sun Baked

Mar 21, 2005, 07:56 PM

I have no problem with the government keeping her alive, as long as they are also willing to pick up the FULL financial burden.

I'm not talking about letting the usual medical system take care of it, but either Congress or the Senate to actually be forced to sit there vote on which program they'll be cutting to keep somebody alive.

And to make it even more personal, I'd actually like to see the a couple/few Senators or Congressman be personally responsible for them (ie, make the money come from their district so their political career is affected by these decisions.)

jefhatfield

Mar 21, 2005, 08:33 PM

i am a politically moderate democrat studying law so i could basically champion liberal causes that i strongly believe in (women's rights, civil rights, union causes, etc.)

i despise the religious right since my christian upbringing and bible college pretty much tells me that being merciless, racist, and ignorant (like much of the christian right) is clearly evil

but in some rare cases, i go against the grain of moderates and liberals...from what i have heard, from liberal talk radio (bay area, ca) and tv, terry is not 100% percent brain dead

while she is nowhere near her old self, i believe she should be allowed to live, especially if there is medical evidence that she is not suffering

i don't believe congress and george w. really have a right to chime in on this issue, but letting terry slowly starve to death seems obviously cruel (see mischief's above post)

clayj

Mar 21, 2005, 08:50 PM

while she is nowhere near her old self, i believe she should be allowed to live, especially if there is medical evidence that she is not sufferingPart of the problem with this is that she can't actually DO anything that you "allow" her to do, with one exception: she can be allowed to die. She's only alive because of constant medical care. If I had a feeding tube down my throat and you removed it, I (being in good medical condition) could get out of bed and feed myself, go to work, live life, etc. She, on the other hand, is utterly dependent on others for her mere survival, and there's no telling what her "life" is like (from her perspective). For her, life could be a virtual hell, in which she is fully conscious but completely unable to interact with the world... or there could be nothing going on except autonomic response. Based on what I've read, I'm inclined to believe the latter; her body is alive, but her consciousness/mind/soul is gone.

daveL

Mar 21, 2005, 09:11 PM

She's been dead for years, from a conscious perspective. Would like to exist in diapers for +-15 years? Please, let me die. Please.

iGary

Mar 21, 2005, 09:14 PM

I went to the Election Board and officially disbanded myself from the Republican party today. This was the last straw.

I'm officially a registered independent.

MrMacMan

Mar 21, 2005, 09:15 PM

conservatives still *still* say she has brain function (http://media.frc.org/frc.org-audio.mp3)

Thats the family council .mp3:
thats her, shes not aware of anything, just moaning, its just so sad.

let her rest.

She has not been alive for quite some time, and the gov't didn't need its say anyway, but the courts had their way and ruled, and we all thought it was over but NO, somehow congress believes that it has super powers and it is allowed to move court cases anywhere they wish!

ahh god.

vwcruisn

Mar 21, 2005, 09:33 PM

I went to the Election Board and officially disbanded myself from the Republican party today. This was the last straw.

I'm officially a registered independent.

thats good to hear.. maybe some good will come from all of this after all ;)

Thomas Veil

Mar 21, 2005, 09:51 PM

I went to the Election Board and officially disbanded myself from the Republican party today. This was the last straw.

I'm officially a registered independent.Woo-hoo! Good for you.

musicpyrite

Mar 21, 2005, 10:01 PM

Just let her go, god knows she's been through enough already.

And none of this ****ing 'lets remove her feeding tube and let her starve to death!' Give her some kind of sleeping medicine, then be done with it.

And **** the government for getting involved with **** like this.

Sorry for the vulgarity, but this situation just pisses me off to no end.

Edit: spot on Nermal, that was quick!

mactastic

Mar 21, 2005, 10:09 PM

Not cool...

Edit: Nevermind, the offending post is already gone.

IJ Reilly

Mar 21, 2005, 10:23 PM

from what i have heard, from liberal talk radio (bay area, ca) and tv, terry is not 100% percent brain dead

Of course not. If she were "100% brain dead" her heart would no longer beat. She is in a medically-defined state known as persistently vegetative, which means lacking all higher brain functions with no hope of reversal. Unless all of the courts in Florida have been completely wrong for the entire seven years this has been litigated, Schiavo did not want to be kept alive in such a state by artificial means (which is the only way a person can be kept alive in this state). If you're not getting this information in the Bay Area media, then things are even worse than I thought.

Lacero

Mar 21, 2005, 10:47 PM

Why do they let her starve to death? That is not very humane. Let her go to sleep by injection.

zimv20

Mar 21, 2005, 10:52 PM

Why do they let her starve to death? That is not very humane. Let her go to sleep by injection.
illegal in every state but OR.

clayj

Mar 21, 2005, 10:55 PM

Why do they let her starve to death? That is not very humane. Let her go to sleep by injection.See, the problem is that that's not legal... only one state (Oregon, I believe) has a euthanasia law for humans. The only legal option is to discontinue life support and allow her to expire naturally... which means death from starvation or (more likely) dehydration, resulting in organ failure after several days.

This all underscores the need for people to have living wills, and for legislatures to pass euthanasia laws that make sense and that can't be abused. If you make it clear that you want to be "put out of your misery" in the event of this sort of situation, you should have that option.

IJ Reilly

Mar 21, 2005, 10:58 PM

... yesterday my friend (lawyer) and I finished up my living will which clearly lists under which conditions I don't want to be kept alive (being paralyzed from the neck down is one of them or if I would be a vegetable) as well as that under no circumstances my body can be used for organ donations (I don't trust ER surgeons further than I can throw them). It also rules out any right of say for any of my relatives, parents, brother, future wife, kids. At this moment my friend as my lawyer gets full control to ensure that my will and mine alone gets executed. We have it notarized, he keeps one copy along with my will, I keep two, one on me and one among my documents at my house. It also states that he has to be notified in case of an emergency at the same time as my family. After this whole Schiavo fiasco I am not taking any risks anymore.
Regards,

Ahmed

Under the new Congress-decides-what-you-want regime, you have absolutely no guarantee that your wishes will be respected, whether they are written or otherwise. One of the facts that seems to escape most of the media accounts of this story is that the courts in Florida had decided long ago and repeatedly that Schiavo did not want to be kept alive in these circumstances. What she wanted does not matter one small iota to the people who are determined to keep her plugged into life support.

Clearly, expressing your wishes does not matter to either the Congress or the President. That's the truly scary part of this development and the one most people fail to appreciate.

IJ Reilly

Mar 21, 2005, 11:02 PM

See, the problem is that that's not legal... only one state (Oregon, I believe) has a euthanasia law for humans.

The Bush administration is working to overturn Oregon's Death with Dignity Law. Are we getting the full picture here yet?

atszyman

Mar 21, 2005, 11:16 PM

I find it somewhat ironic that the party that is passing these laws also wants to cut medicare and limit malpractice lawsuits, which I understand to be two of biggest sources of funding for keeping Mrs. Schiavo. It seems that they want to get the government involved in the moral aspects but pull the government out of the financial obligations, completely backwards from what I want my government to do.

I would not want my family to have to deal with the emotional or financial burden if I were ever to enter such a state. Once diagnosed as incurable I would like my life ended in the most humane way possible. I would also like it made clear that even if a cure were found the day after I had passed on that they should not feel any guilt or remorse since their actions were in accordance with my wishes.

I can understand the parents not wanting to let go, I don't think any parent is really equipped well to deal with the death of a child, you always expect that your children will outlive you. I don't even want to think about how I would handle a situation like that if it were my daughter, but I would like to believe that I could act in accordance with her wishes and have enough faith that her husband knew what her wishes would be. The fact that Mr. Schiavo has not just divorced Terri and let the family just take over should be some sign to the family that he sincerely believes that he is trying to carry out the wishes of the woman he loves.

Of course starving her seems cruel, especially since we have gone through all of the effort to find a humane way to kill death row inmates, but the best we can come up with to help someone who is suffering pass on is to let them starve.

zimv20

Mar 21, 2005, 11:21 PM

The Bush administration is working to overturn Oregon's Death with Dignity Law. Are we getting the full picture here yet?
let's examine the Big 3 of Death: abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia.

the common thread, from the neocon POV, is supposed to be respect for life, though it fails on 1 of 3 accounts. i suppose the argument for #2 is betterment of society; can that argument be applied to the other two?

my perception is that it has to do with lack of respect for the sentient being most affected: the mother, the convicted, and the afflicted, respectively.

so the full picture is: society (rather, government) knows better what is for individuals than the individuals themselves. hypocritical of the supposedly hands-off party.

IJ Reilly

Mar 22, 2005, 01:41 AM

Thomas Veil

Mar 22, 2005, 06:49 AM

I believe we've moved beyond irony and hypocrisy and straight onto outright contempt -- contempt for the law, contempt for our system of government, contempt for the rights of the individual, and to top it off, contempt for any standard of basic human decency.

Perhaps I'm overstating the case. I don't know anymore.No.

While FOX News reporters fall over each other trying to prove their concern for the life of Terri Schiavo, nobody is reporting about the cases in Texas where life support is being removed by hospitals over the objections of family members. The law allowing that to happen was signed in 1999 by then-governor George W. Bush.

Lest anyone thinks this is a case of Bush "evolving" in his opinions, just five days ago a Texas hospital removed life support from a baby over the objections of his mother. Yet Bush never made a peep. Neither did FOX News.

According to FOX, keeping Schiavo alive was so important to Bush that he flew back to the White House to sign a bill that Congress planned to enact just for that purpose (no coverage, of course, from FNC about why Congress is focusing on this state court decision involving a private, family matter). From an AP story, FOXNews.com reported:

During previous travels, Bush has had legislation flown to him overnight by military plane for his signature. But in this case, McClellan said that the fact that a woman's life is at stake made it necessary for him to travel to the bill. "Terri Schiavo's feeding tube has been removed and we stand with ... all those who are working to defend her life," he said.

So why does Bush think Schiavo's life is worth saving but the baby's isn't? Could it have something to do with finances? In another case of a Texas hospital trying to cut off life support over the objections of a family, The Houston Chronicle reports,

A patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile are two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support, the chief medical officer at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital said Monday. Dr. David Pate's comments came as the family of Spiro Nikolouzos fights to keep St. Luke's from turning off the ventilator and artificial feedings keeping the 68-year-old grandfather alive... (The attorney for the family) Mario Caballero said he believes the hospital wants to discontinue care because Nikolouzos' Medicare funding is running out.In case anyone needs to have it made clearer:

Bush signed a law which makes it okay to turn off life support for anyone who cannot pay.

It is just impossible to get too cynical about this administration. http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/yeahright.gif

Link (http://www.newshounds.us/2005/03/20/bush_hypocrisy_on_terri_schiavo_ignored_by_fox_the_real_journalism_network.php)

mischief

Mar 22, 2005, 09:31 AM

No.

In case anyone needs to have it made clearer:

Bush signed a law which makes it okay to turn off life support for anyone who cannot pay.

It is just impossible to get too cynical about this administration. http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/yeahright.gif

Link (http://www.newshounds.us/2005/03/20/bush_hypocrisy_on_terri_schiavo_ignored_by_fox_the_real_journalism_network.php)

My god.... I think I may have to vomit. A semester's worth of gruesome scenarios, pictures, etc in my EMT course couldn't do what W did with that legislation. Ugh.

clayj

Mar 22, 2005, 09:50 AM

Well, the good news now is that a Federal judge has refused (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7254897/) to order the replacement of the feeding tube, stating that he does not believe that the parents would prevail in a trial and that the Florida courts have provided plenty of due process and protection for Terri Schiavo up to this point.

IJ Reilly

Mar 22, 2005, 10:26 AM

The Texas law allows a hospital's ethics committee to decide whether a doctor's order to remove life support, over objections from the patient's families if need be, will be carried out. The only route of appeal after that is for the family to attempt to find an institution willing to care for the patient. I believe they have 14 days. Presumably, if the family has enough money to pay for the care themselves the appeal period is essentially moot. The law gives people with less assets decidedly fewer options -- which if you ask me, is perfect Republican politics. (Anyone who still thinks compassion has anything to do with it is deluding themselves.)

Is Bush's position now on end-of-life issues inconsistent with his position when he signed the Texas law? Not really. The politics are identical.

relimw

Mar 22, 2005, 12:47 PM

The other issue here is who has the right to end her life, In theory she can stay in this state for another 50 years, Her husband is her official legal guardian so I don't see how her parents can go above him to the courts and now congress.
Well, they have tried to force him to divorce Terry on grounds of adultry. Seeing as how he is living with another woman, and has had two children with the other woman while still being married to Terry. Which would allow them to then become her legal guardian. The question really becomes, does the husband really have Terry's best interests at heart, or is he tired of having to pay her bills and want the remaining cash left from her malpractice awards? (About $2million was award).

I found a good timeline (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#timeline).

atszyman

Mar 22, 2005, 12:53 PM

Well, they have tried to force him to divorce Terry on grounds of adultry. Seeing as how he is living with another woman, and has had two children with the other woman while still being married to Terry. Which would allow them to then become her legal guardian. The question really becomes, does the husband really have Terry's best interests at heart, or is he tired of having to pay her bills and want the remaining cash left from her malpractice awards? (About $2million was award).

I found a good timeline (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#timeline).

The family has offered to take over medical expenses and allow Michael to keep the trust fund and he has refused. I find it hard to believe that if he would turn this offer down if he were after the money.

Nor can they explain why, if he's such a scumbag, he refuses their offer to relieve him of financial responsibility for Terri and to let him keep her trust fund.

link (http://slate.msn.com/id/2115123/)

IJ Reilly

Mar 22, 2005, 01:08 PM

jefhatfield

Mar 22, 2005, 03:04 PM

Michael Schiavo's personal life and whether he is good or bad person in anybody's opinion is none of our damn business and completely irrelevant to the situation besides. I don't understand why anyone who doesn't have an agenda or isn't a reflexive buttinski would want to discuss Michael Schiavo.

Just consider this instead: If this situation should ever crop in your family, you could be exposed to the same character assassination efforts that have been focused on Michael Schiavo for the past seven years by people who are pursuing their own goals and don't give a rat's patoot about you. Have fun -- because it will a "golden rule" that you helped create.

i totally agree

and even though i am with the concept of keeping her alive, i have nothing in common with the ultra right wingers who want to use this case as a stepping stone for political gain

it is sickening how the religious right largely cares about an agenda and not about a person, people, or humanity

i do see that the political left has not used this as a political chess game as much, or really at all so i respect them for that

clayj

Mar 23, 2005, 07:08 AM

The latest (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7254897/): The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has also refused, in a 2-1 opinion, to order the reinsertion of the feeding tube. I guess this means that the only remaining appeal is to the US Supreme Court... and they ain't gonna touch this with a 10 foot pole.

Also, a woman was arrested yesterday trying to enter the hospice facility with a bottle of water intended for Terri Schiavo. What's next, an armed attack on the facility by those who are determined to keep Schiavo "alive" at any and all costs?

Lacero

Mar 23, 2005, 07:15 AM

I feel for the parents of Terry Schiavo and I can understand how they feel. It must be such a terrible time for them, knowing for certain their daughter will die and the miracle of a recovery destroyed. There's always a miniscule possibility she could recover, so the hope is understandably there.

However, 15 years is a long time and some weight has to be given to how long before someone can no longer go on. This is the right time for Terry to die with dignity. There comes the difficult process for the parents to let go and let her finally rest.

atszyman

Mar 23, 2005, 07:16 AM

Here (http://slate.msn.com/id/2115208/) is an interesting perspective from Slate. They raise some interesting points.

Lyle

Mar 23, 2005, 08:35 AM

Michael Schiavo's personal life and whether he is good or bad person in anybody's opinion is none of our damn business and completely irrelevant to the situation besides.Bingo. I keep hearing twisted justifications along the lines of: "Well, I wouldn't want to be kept alive this way, and I can't imagine that anyone would want to be kept alive in this state... but, because I think her husband's a bad guy, yeah, I think we'll keep her alive just to spite him." We're punishing her for (what are perceived to be) his sins. How is that in her best interests?

Lyle

Mar 23, 2005, 08:53 AM

Under the new Congress-decides-what-you-want regime, you have absolutely no guarantee that your wishes will be respected, whether they are written or otherwise. One of the facts that seems to escape most of the media accounts of this story is that the courts in Florida had decided long ago and repeatedly that Schiavo did not want to be kept alive in these circumstances. What she wanted does not matter one small iota to the people who are determined to keep her plugged into life support.

Clearly, expressing your wishes does not matter to either the Congress or the President. That's the truly scary part of this development and the one most people fail to appreciate.I am not arguing with you, because I may have misunderstood one of the fundamental points of the controversy. It's been my understanding from all the reporting I've seen that Terri Schiavo didn't have anything in writing (i.e. no living will) that specified what her wishes were; it's always been a "he says" versus "they say" between the husband and the parents. If that's the case, how did the Florida courts decide conclusively that she didn't want to be kept alive in these circumstances, other than taking her husband's word for it?

It seems to me that if Terri had had a legal document, in her own words (as Ahmed now does) that stated her wishes, this would have been a moot point.

skunk

Mar 23, 2005, 09:09 AM

It seems to me that if Terri had had a legal document, in her own words (as Ahmed now does) that stated her wishes, this would have been a moot point.
I think you mean the opposite of moot... :rolleyes:
But yes, living wills are a very handy thing.

Xtremehkr

Mar 23, 2005, 10:02 AM

Tom Delay described Terry as being a "gift from God" for Republicans.

Just how much further do they really need to go before their base gets a little suspicious of their actions and start to question how genuine they are about their intentions. Hmmm.

miloblithe

Mar 23, 2005, 10:14 AM

I think you mean the opposite of moot... :rolleyes:

Nope. He means moot. Moot means "not worthy of consideration or discussion because it has already been resolved or no longer needs to be resolved." Moot also means other things, surely, but his correct use of moot is obvious in context.

IJ Reilly

Mar 23, 2005, 10:28 AM

I am not arguing with you, because I may have misunderstood one of the fundamental points of the controversy. It's been my understanding from all the reporting I've seen that Terri Schiavo didn't have anything in writing (i.e. no living will) that specified what her wishes were; it's always been a "he says" versus "they say" between the husband and the parents. If that's the case, how did the Florida courts decide conclusively that she didn't want to be kept alive in these circumstances, other than taking her husband's word for it?

It seems to me that if Terri had had a legal document, in her own words (as Ahmed now does) that stated her wishes, this would have been a moot point.

Over the course of seven years of litigation, the Florida courts decided this issue consistently in favor of her husband. Living will or no, a determination was made in court after a fair hearing of the evidence -- several times. Enough is enough (or so I would think), but enough is never enough for some people.

This is why I ask whether a living will, in writing, will suffice to protect families from this grief -- now that a right to die case has been elevated beyond the doctors and the families, beyond the courts, and beyond even the state legislature -- to the Congress and the President. I don't think we've seen the end of this fight by any means. We're looking at a relatively small but disproportionally powerful group who are determined to eliminate, by any means necessary, our right to make this ultimate personal decision for ourselves.

To make matters even more scary, this group not only has the ear of the Republican leadership in Congress as well as the President, but they can make them dance like veritable marionettes.

skunk

Mar 23, 2005, 10:33 AM

Nope. He means moot. Moot means "not worthy of consideration or discussion because it has already been resolved or no longer needs to be resolved."
On the contrary, "moot" means open to argument.

Edit: but having checked at dictionary.com, it seems the opposite meaning can also be used. :confused:

clayj

Mar 23, 2005, 02:56 PM

And now the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has also declined to intervene... it's very rare for a full court to reverse a decision previously made by a 3 judge panel of the same court, so this is not a surprise. Next stop: SCOTUS.

I'd love to get in the face of one of these sanctimonious jerks, who have no standing whatsoever to protest, and ask them the following:

Me: "Do you believe in the sanctity of the institution of marriage?"
Them: "Well, of course I do."
Me: "Then shut the hell up."

I'm a conservative, but I cannot stand hyprocrisy.

puckhead193

Mar 23, 2005, 03:08 PM

BY saying let her die its a bit harsh... can't u just say let her be put to rest or taken out of misery.
Any way that being said, I don't know. She was sick for 15 years, I think her chances are slim, i think we should let her rest. The odds of her coming back to normal are very slim to none.
I know i woudln't want to live on a feeding tube for 15 years....

Lacero

Mar 23, 2005, 03:10 PM

I will pray for her and her family tonight and until she is at rest.

bousozoku

Mar 23, 2005, 03:25 PM

Our governor was on t.v. an hour or two ago saying that the legislature was looking at some way to "save" Terri Schiavo. This is the second case of their saving anyone, probably, in the history of Floriduh.

They can't save her or even help her but they can take advantage of political opportunities and waste time and money.

dsharits

Mar 23, 2005, 04:01 PM

She's been dead for years, from a conscious perspective. Would like to exist in diapers for +-15 years? Please, let me die. Please.
She is not dead, in a coma, in a persistent vegetative state or on life support. Read my other post here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1344620#post1344620). Also, be sure to check out the videos on terrisfight.org.

Xtremehkr

Mar 23, 2005, 04:56 PM

She is not dead, in a coma, in a persistent vegetative state or on life support. Read my other post here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1344620#post1344620). Also, be sure to check out the videos on terrisfight.org.

Why not research some sites other than those that support your position. If you would, you would learn about how her brain is liquid and her brain stem has been replaced by cranial fluid. Her brain is gone. The one Doctor that thinks he can rehabilitate her is a fraud and is not taken seriously by anyone except those who are using this for political gain.

23 Judges have now all made the same decision. The one video clip that is floating around is an excerpt taken from 6 hours of tape that you do not see. There are 6 tapes all together and that one instant was not repeatable or proof of anything.

You are being drawn into a political ploy. Just yesterday, they pulled the feeding tube on a newborn in Texas who was born with problems. Despite the mothers wishes to hold on a little bit longer.

All the focus is on this one case, even to the point where only her case matters.

Nothing has been said of the law Governor Bush introduced in Texas that allows Hospitals to make the decision after 10 days for economic reasons.

Nope, the only thing that matters now is this one, specific case. And it is only polling well amongst the part of the base who are most easily roused with religious rhetoric.

Quit being sheep and look at the whole situation. Even if Terrys body is kept alive, other feeding tubes will continue to be pulled all over Texas and in other states. Without Politicians firing up certain parts of their base, no one will care, no one will notice and you'll all be upset about the next issue the republicans want to make a big deal out of.

It just amazes me that some people cannot see the strings being pulled.

bousozoku

Mar 23, 2005, 05:10 PM

She is not dead, in a coma, in a persistent vegetative state or on life support. Read my other post here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1344620#post1344620). Also, be sure to check out the videos on terrisfight.org.

Sorry, but your undeniable evidence is definitely deniable. Random movement doesn't signify anything, especially since they took the only few minutes were anything like conciousness happened from those hours of video.

dsharits

Mar 23, 2005, 05:17 PM

There has been more than one doctor to say that she can be rehabilitated. Remember, this started 15 years ago, and neurological technology has grown significantly since 1990. Michael Schiavo said originally that he would do anything possible to treat her, he renewed his wedding vows, and even said that he wanted more money from the malpractice suits, because she might live longer than expected. He said and did all of this, yet he has turned down all requests to try new technology that could help her.

There are six videos, not one. Even if it is one portion of six hours, it proves that she is conscious and aware at least part of the time. Also, why is it that when asked if she was in pain after her tube was pulled, she moaned, instead of laying on the bed motionless as she would if she was in a PVS?

Yes, 23 different judges have made the same decision, each one working off the result of the previous ruling. That means that this case hasn't had a fresh start with all of the new evidence against Michael Schiavo that has surfaced in the last few years.

MattG

Mar 23, 2005, 05:18 PM

While I wish they would do it in a more humane way than starving her to death (although supposedly due to the state she's in, it'd be painless), I think it's time to let her go.

I'm really getting sick of the government's attempts to bypass her husband's wishes. They don't care about Terri and what's best for her, they just care about their cause. It's all for political gain, grandstanding.

1. Conservatives are supposedly for smaller government, yet we now have congress meeting to make a decision that should be made privately between the family/doctors.

2. Kind of going off on a tangent, but -- there are now 1500+ dead troops because of an unnecessary war and President Bush doesn't bat an eye, but he drops everything in an attempt to save the life of a woman who's been in a vegetative state for fifteen years. He has yet to visit the woman he's using for political gain as well...he's at his ranch right now; surely if it were that important, he'd take the time.

3. Bush and his supporters continue attempts to kill off stem cell research, something that could someday help someone in Terri's condition.

Terri's family and their supporters need to face reality: she’s gone, and what they’re doing is cruel. As for the videos that her family captured of her "responding" to people; give me fifteen years and a camera, and I'll splice together a video of my cat doing math problems. Tests have proven that her responses are random. They're doctored videos that her selfish family is using to invoke sympathy.

For crying out loud, let this poor woman pass on with what's left of her dignity.

dsharits

Mar 23, 2005, 05:24 PM

Sorry, but your undeniable evidence is definitely deniable. Random movement doesn't signify anything, especially since they took the only few minutes were anything like conciousness happened from those hours of video.
I'm sorry. When she was asked to open her eyes, she sat up and opened her eyes as wide as she could. That's like consciousness? Maybe you need to read the definition of unconsciousness.

[adj] *not conscious; lacking awareness and the capacity for sensory perception as if asleep or dead

IJ Reilly

Mar 23, 2005, 05:42 PM

If a hundred experts don't support your position and one does, the one who does is clearly right and the others clearly wrong.

So, am I a Republican yet?

zimv20

Mar 23, 2005, 05:55 PM

I'm sorry. When she was asked to open her eyes, she sat up and opened her eyes as wide as she could.
but when they handed her a questionnaire and asked her to fill it out, she checked "yes" to "Are you in a persistent vegetative state?"

it's all so very confusing.

btw, show me your unbiased source and i'll show you mine.

skunk

Mar 23, 2005, 05:57 PM

Am I alone in finding this thread faintly bizarre?

dsharits

Mar 23, 2005, 06:03 PM

but when they handed her a questionnaire and asked her to fill it out, she checked "yes" to "Are you in a persistent vegetative state?"

it's all so very confusing.

btw, show me your unbiased source and i'll show you mine.
If you want an unbiased source, try Glenn Beck. He was on Michael Schiavo's side to begin with, and he heavily supported her death, until he found out the facts. He's been on both sides, and he's heard every single argument for and against her death. When you find someone who was completely at one extreme, and admits that he is wrong on the radio after weighing evidence, that's the closest thing you'll find to an unbiased source.

skunk

Mar 23, 2005, 06:06 PM

What exactly is the Mormon take on this?

zimv20

Mar 23, 2005, 06:09 PM

If you want an unbiased source, try Glenn Beck. He was on Michael Schiavo's side to begin with, and he heavily supported her death, until he found out the facts. He's been on both sides, and he's heard every single argument for and against her death. When you find someone who was completely at one extreme, and admits that he is wrong on the radio after weighing evidence, that's the closest thing you'll find to an unbiased source.
please review the definition of unbiased.

Lacero

Mar 23, 2005, 06:11 PM

Exactly. This is the complete opposite of unbiased. If you want unbiased, listen to the judge.

dsharits

Mar 23, 2005, 06:11 PM

please review the definition of unbiased.
That's just it, you're not going to find a completely unbiased source in this case. They're either one way or the other.

dsharits

Mar 23, 2005, 06:13 PM

Exactly. This is the complete opposite of unbiased. If you want unbiased, listen to the judge.
Uh, in case you missed it, the judge is in favor of Michael Schiavo. :rolleyes:

zimv20

Mar 23, 2005, 06:13 PM

That's just it, you're not going to find a completely unbiased source in this case.
you provided an incredibly biased source. how about someone impartial, who doesn't know anyone in the family, rendering a purely medical opinion, sans emotion, of her movements?

dsharits

Mar 23, 2005, 06:16 PM

you provided an incredibly biased source. how about someone impartial, who doesn't know anyone in the family, rendering a purely medical opinion, sans emotion, of her movements?
Such as who? Michael Schiavo's doctors, the only ones that have said that she is in a PVS, and the ones that just happen to be paid by him?

zimv20

Mar 23, 2005, 06:24 PM

Such as who? Michael Schiavo's doctors, the only ones that have said that she is in a PVS, and the ones that just happen to be paid by him?
it's amazing to me that when presented with a population of some 6 billion people, you concentrate on those related to the case. after looking up "unbiased" (go ahead, do it now), review set theory.

finally, go back and read what i actually asked for -- an unbiased source to confirm your assertion that:

When she was asked to open her eyes, she sat up and opened her eyes as wide as she could.

iow, according to whom? you know the rules here -- you assert something, you have to be able to back it up.

mactastic

Mar 23, 2005, 06:24 PM

Such as who? Michael Schiavo's doctors, the only ones that have said that she is in a PVS, and the ones that just happen to be paid by him?

Or the parents, who are being paid by the Scaife's?

ThomasJefferson

Mar 23, 2005, 06:41 PM

My Grandpa lost interest in living about age 92. He just stopped eating one day. Good thing he didn't live long enough to have republicans chasing him with feeding tubes. He 'prolly would have shot one. As a four time Roosevelt voter, I am sure he would have.

'course, to demonstrate the value of life, he then would have to face the death penalty.

*whistle* :D

IJ Reilly

Mar 23, 2005, 06:41 PM

It's all a horrible conspiracy cooked up by Michael Schiavo, his doctors and (gasp!) the judge. I am so grateful to have had my eyes opened -- I mean, I was about to have some small faith our medical and legal systems, but you disabused me of that awful notion. Obviously the country will never be made right until the medical, legal and political systems are populated entirely by evangelical Christians who subjugate all of science and the law to conservative religious doctrine. Until then, we can never rest. I know that now. Thank you for making me understand.

Lacero

Mar 23, 2005, 06:44 PM

I wonder why Christians don't try to die sooner so they can go up to Heaven and live forever.

zimv20

Mar 23, 2005, 06:45 PM

'course, to demonstrate the value of life, he then would have to face the death penalty.

no kidding. imagine this:

pro-life protesters sneak into terri's room and insert their own feeding tube. the husband removes the tube and, two days later, terri dies. the protesters are charged with a misdemeanor, and the husband is charged with murder.

zimv20

Mar 23, 2005, 06:48 PM

I wonder why Christians don't try to die sooner so they can go up to Heaven and live forever.
my nephew, 5 at the time, announced to me, his mother and grandmother: "i hope i die soon so i can go to heaven."

i disagree w/ my sister's religious indoctrination of him, and to watch her and my mom scramble to disavow him of that notion was pretty amusing. of course, my nephew was displaying perfect logic, given what he was taught.

ThomasJefferson

Mar 23, 2005, 07:50 PM

bousozoku

Mar 23, 2005, 08:18 PM

I'm sorry. When she was asked to open her eyes, she sat up and opened her eyes as wide as she could. That's like consciousness? Maybe you need to read the definition of unconsciousness.

I guess it would be bad if I mentioned the millions of Floridans who voted in the 2000 election.

Lacero

Mar 23, 2005, 08:45 PM

I guess it would be bad if I mentioned the millions of Floridans who voted in the 2000 election.

No, it's payback. Somehow, that just came out wrong. ;)

bousozoku

Mar 23, 2005, 08:52 PM

No, it's payback. Somehow, that just came out wrong. ;)

We've been threatened in the past. :D

dsharits

Mar 23, 2005, 09:02 PM

I wonder why Christians don't try to die sooner so they can go up to Heaven and live forever.
You laugh now, but don't blame me when you suddenly regret saying this.

iGary

Mar 23, 2005, 09:05 PM

Kind of selfish being a good Christian all so YOU can go to heaven isn't it?

(YOU is non specific to everyone here, BTW.)

Hopefully tha appeal, appeal, appeal will get thrown out, too.

dsharits

Mar 23, 2005, 09:14 PM

Kind of selfish being a good Christian all so YOU can go to heaven isn't it?

(YOU is non specific to everyone here, BTW.)

Hopefully tha appeal, appeal, appeal will get thrown out, too.
No, it's not at all. We are also called to tell other people who will listen. If you want to reject it, that's your choice. Just don't criticize those who have weighed their options.

Lacero

Mar 23, 2005, 09:26 PM

No, it's not at all. We are also called to tell other people who will listen. If you want to reject it, that's your choice. Just don't criticize those who have weighed their options.

That's the problem with fundamentalist Christianity. It says that you need to accept Jesus as your savior or else you burn in Hell. So only Christians can go to Heaven? What about people who practice Buddhism, Islam or are just agnostic? Christianity says they will all burn in Hell?

mactastic

Mar 23, 2005, 09:42 PM

Boy this thread sure has taken a detour...

dsharits

Mar 23, 2005, 09:46 PM

That's the problem with fundamentalist Christianity. It says that you need to accept Jesus as your savior or else you burn in Hell. So only Christians can go to Heaven? What about people who practice Buddhism, Islam or are just agnostic? Christianity says they will all burn in Hell?
We don't make the rules, we just apply them. If I had my choice, everyone of all faiths would be admitted into heaven, but who am I to challenge God's authority?

daveL

Mar 23, 2005, 09:52 PM

Boy this thread sure has taken a detour...
No, not really. All zealots lack reason, by definition, and the Christian right seem to be vying for the head of the queue.

clayj

Mar 23, 2005, 09:55 PM

Trying to get the thread back on track here...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when God gave Man (Adam) free will, that was basically God's way of saying "I'm going to let you all make decisions for yourselves... you're not my puppets." Right? So, isn't it wrong for anyone to try to say that it's "God's will" for humans to act in a certain way? If God's will truly extends to keeping Terri Schiavo on this plane of existence, it seems to me that he'll see to it that she survives in the absence of artificial life support (such as a feeding tube).

Since no one can truly know what God's will is, I submit that perhaps His will was for her to die 15 years ago. Perhaps everyone who insists on keeping her alive, by any means necessary, are flying in the face of God.

mactastic

Mar 23, 2005, 10:08 PM

A new CBS poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/opinion/polls/main682674.shtml) shows a whopping 82% of Americans think Congress and the POTUS should keep their noses out of this matter.

It's killing the GOP, with 66% saying the tube should remain out now, and it appears that Frist and Jeb Bush are positioning themselves for '08 presidential runs. They need to prove their bona-fides to the American Taliban that is the religious right. But it likely will hurt them with the rest of the country, and I think it particularly hurts them among traditional conservatives who view small government as the bedrock of their philosophy.

Bush's approval rating is now down to 43% and his Iraq approval number has dropped to 39%. Social Security coupled with the Schaivo case are sapping his political capital.

And this is from a poll tilted towards making the GOP look good. Look at the numbers on the political affiliations of the respondants. 44% of them identify as Republicans, compared with 29% Democrats and 28% Independants. Imagine the numbers if the sample were a little more representative!

MacNut

Mar 23, 2005, 11:36 PM

Xtremehkr

Mar 23, 2005, 11:36 PM

To some extent, I think that the Republicans have become so confident they think that they can take anything and make it into a winning issue based upon the media influence they have attained.

In this instance I think they are sadly mistaken. Michael Schaivo has, in my opinion, has proven his dedication. He has given up 70% of any wealth he could have gained from the situation to pay for her care when there was hope and spent the other 30% on legal battles to grant her wishes when he came to the conclusion that all was lost and wanted to fulfill her desire not to be a vegetable.

He has further proven his integrity by devoting a significant amount of his life to her cause and has given me no reason not to believe that he is not fulfilling her wishes. Which falls under the sanctity of marriage and the responsibilities both good and bad that are taken on under that contract. There are people who are willing to offer substantial amounts of money to buy her from him, how do you think that she would be used after that? The possibilities are disgusting, and I don't doubt that she wouldn't be used that way.

We lose healthy people of every nationality everyday in Iraq (and it just happens to be the second anniversary of that dispute) and yet little attention is being given to the brain living people who are losing their lives there. Do they not matter as much as this woman does?

There is undeniable hypocrisy here. And hypocrisy is not a term that is held in high esteem for proven reasons. This can only lead to bad things, hypocritical people may initially get what they desire but in the end it is going to work against them. Otherwise, hypocrisy would not be a negative term and people would always say one thing and do another. Support of this is supporting a hypocritical platform on many levels. If you think that this is an example that will further your position and not lead to an eventual backlash against everything you say then you are doomed. Really, hypocrisy is only tolerated for so long.

atszyman

Mar 24, 2005, 12:10 AM

For everyone in here that says let her live she could still survive I ask, after 15 years of living like that lets say she is cured, wouldn't the memories of being in a bed unable to do anything haunt you for the rest of your life.

This has actually been on my mind for the past few days. For the sake of argument let us say that she is conscious but unable to communicate. Can anyone think of a worse situation to be in than to be fully aware and completely unable to communicate? What good is thought if you cannot communicate? I would give myself a month before I was stark raving mad and that is more than likely about 25 days too generous, she has gone through 15 years of this. There is a reason that sensory deprivation and solitary confinement are considered punishments.

For the sake of another argument let's say that she has no conscious thought at all. She's feeling no pain but also no emotion or thought process. Is there anyone here that would want to remain a financial and emotional burden on their family for 15 years when there is nothing left of what you used to be?

People like to site God's will. God does not interfere with man's free will. Man's free will is what led to the feeding tubes keeping her alive. If man had not interfered Mrs. Schiavo would have died 15 years ago, and based on the testimony of the doctors that know her best (not the ones making diagnoses from video tapes) the mind that made Mrs. Schiavo who she was did die 15 years ago.

Xtremehkr

Mar 24, 2005, 12:44 AM

But what of the EGKs that show her brain has liquified. Her brain stem has been replaced by cranial fluid, her cerebral cortex is gone. Consider the fact that the reasons 23 judges have decided in Mr Schaivos favor is that the overwhelming medical opinion has decided that she is brain dead based on the fact that her brain is basically gone. What of that? Why is this fact just completely overlooked?

Lacero

Mar 24, 2005, 12:53 AM

We don't make the rules, we just apply them. If I had my choice, everyone of all faiths would be admitted into heaven, but who am I to challenge God's authority?

Where were the rules during afro-american slavery and child labor?

IJ Reilly

Mar 24, 2005, 01:02 AM

Just to be precise, she is not "brain dead." If she were brain dead, she would at the very least be unable to breath on her own. What she lacks is higher brain function, a medical condition which was long ago given the rather unfortunate label of "vegetative state."

Xtremehkr

Mar 24, 2005, 01:28 AM

Yeah, there is a part keeping the organs working, if something else is feeding and taking care of them. If you want to describe that as being alive.

skunk

Mar 24, 2005, 01:46 AM

We don't make the rules, we just apply them. If I had my choice, everyone of all faiths would be admitted into heaven, but who am I to challenge God's authority?
Only following orders, eh? Where have I heard that one before?

Xtremehkr

Mar 24, 2005, 01:57 AM

When exactly did God get involved in this?

Just because a politician invokes the Bible, god is now involved?

Good grief, do you believe in god or the politicians that invoke god?

skunk

Mar 24, 2005, 02:01 AM

God seems to spend a lot of time talking to individuals around the world: you'd have thought he'd have his message straight by now.

Xtremehkr

Mar 24, 2005, 02:05 AM

Why does god seem to prefer ethically challenged politicians in America lately?

skunk

Mar 24, 2005, 02:10 AM

Market forces: they're the ones who need him the most.

Xtremehkr

Mar 24, 2005, 02:41 AM

I hear god is buying land in Midland, Texas is the new Jerusalem you know?!

mischief

Mar 24, 2005, 10:41 AM

You laugh now, but don't blame me when you suddenly regret saying this.

JC and I were having a good laugh over this misconception just the other day. (It took me a while to learn Aramaic but we eventually got to a midpoint... I could talk theology with him and he could get the sports scores)

Apparently it appears nowhere in any teaching that being a condescending zealot was required for admission to heaven/enlightenment/valhalla/etc. In fact, the application of ego in place of faith is most often seen as a sign that further time is needed before you can join the Holy Host.

This didn't come as a suprise to me as I once said the same thing to a doomed ancestor of his when I was here under the name Melchizedek. We came to the conclusion that Douglas Adams was the current Prophet and ended the day's outing with a good game of Grand Theft Auto (He found that one particularly funny.).

Come on people. Take yourself a little less seriously. Jeez. :rolleyes:

MattG

Mar 24, 2005, 10:45 AM

http://homepage.mac.com/mattgudites/davies2.gif

bousozoku

Mar 24, 2005, 11:40 AM

JC and I were having a good laugh over this misconception just the other day. (It took me a while to learn Aramaic but we eventually got to a midpoint... I could talk theology with him and he could get the sports scores)
...

Considering that most people think that Hebrew is the original language of the old testament, you may get some blank stares from that. :D

amin

Mar 24, 2005, 11:42 AM

I apologize for not having read this whole thread before posting, but here's my take.

First of all, as a physician, it is rare for me to see a case such as this. In my experience, the spouse speaks for the will of the patient unless the patient has legally designated another representative or a court finds clear and compelling evidence that the spouse is acting against the patient's good. This case simply does not appear to be one of those cases.

The truly surprising thing for me in this case is that so many people fail to see the ethical similarity between pulling a feeding tube and not placing one in the first place. Do the same people who feel that Schiavo is being brutally murdered feel that all patients who cannot eat ought to automatically receive a feeding tube? If so, we are brutally murdering patients left and right, and I see no reason to focus on Schiavo.

I am reassured that the Supreme Court has refused to hear this case. It's nice to see checks and balances work. The Florida court gave more than enough consideration to establishing that Mr. Schiavo was a dutiful husband. As far as I am concerned, that is the only question that needed to be answered to affirm his right to speak for his wife.

It offends me that so many politicians find us as a people to incapable of understanding the ethics of their attempted intervention. If we ought always to simply "err on the side of life" as our simple president put it, the implication is to universally mandate aggressive life support in all cases. If this is ethically correct, then shouldn't Mr. Bush's people be advocating for their values even if the economic ramifications would be politically unsustainable?

Finally, I'll give my opinion on how I would look at this if it were my private affair. Every neurologist who has examined Mrs. Schiavo feels it is extraordinarily unlikely that she is sensate. However, if she does have any discomfort secondary to starvation, she would likely suffer infinitely more discomfort with the years of vegetation. In any case, opiate medications can be effectively used to quench the discomfort of the dying. If my wife were in this state, I would have withdrawn nutrition years ago.

blackfox

Mar 24, 2005, 11:54 AM

Nice post Amin.

Off to work...new jobs...

IJ Reilly

Mar 24, 2005, 12:26 PM

Yes, well stated.

I think some people are entering into an unrecoverable intellectual graveyard spin on this issue. They're allowing their gut feeling that they're losing altitude to guide their reactions, instead of accepting what their instruments are trying to tell them -- that they're actually in a steep bank. So they keep pulling back harder and harder on the emotional yoke, which only tightens the bank and leads inevitably to the logical wings breaking off.

Maybe that's too much of a good aviation analogy, but it works for me.

Thomas Veil

Mar 24, 2005, 01:46 PM

amin

Mar 24, 2005, 02:07 PM

Thanks all. IJReilly, I think your metaphor works. The politicians are air control radioing warnings that the plane is losing altitude.

It's really irritating to turn on the news these days. I too find the parents understandable and the politicians offensive.

IJ Reilly

Mar 24, 2005, 02:08 PM

Well, you're saying that they're trying harder and harder to hold onto a fantasy that Terri will recover or is at least conscious in some way, rather than admit that she was lost to them a long time ago. The closer we come to the inevitable conclusion, the more frantic and unrealistic their arguments become.

Yes, you've got it mainly. They're allowing their feelings to overwhelm the facts, and the more they are faced with the facts, the more tenaciously they cling to their emotional instincts to avoid addressing them. In the end, facts can be ignored, but not denied -- and the very effort to deny them leads to a situation spinning out of control. That's when people get hurt. I think we're seeing that now in the desperate fabrications and the shrill personal attacks being leveled against everyone who believes in the rule of law and the sanctity of the individual.

Lyle

Mar 24, 2005, 03:29 PM

Every neurologist who has examined Mrs. Schiavo feels it is extraordinarily unlikely that she is sensate. However, if she does have any discomfort secondary to starvation, she would likely suffer infinitely more discomfort with the years of vegetation. In any case, opiate medications can be effectively used to quench the discomfort of the dying.Last night my wife and I were discussing this and she said she'd heard that Michael Schiavo (the husband) refused to allow the doctors or nurses to give Terri any kinds of drugs that would (as amin put it) "quench the discomfort of dying." Since it wasn't a MacRumors kind of moment, I didn't ask her for a link to back up that claim (;)) but I was trying to look into it today. Does anyone have a credible (or, at least, remotely credible) source that either supports or refutes this claim? If it were true, I'm just wondering why he'd object to that, even if (as amin noted) most doctors are of the opinion that she's not sensate.

P.S. I'm not talking about euthanasia, or lethal injections, or what have you; those issues have already been discussed earlier in this thread. I'm talking about whatever kinds of drugs that doctors would give to, say, a terminal cancer patient dying in a hospice. I understand that that's done on a regular basis and is not illegal.

IJ Reilly

Mar 24, 2005, 04:54 PM

You are wondering, like it's any of your business. I honestly don't mean to be insulting, but seriously, it is none of your business. Or mine either. Would you like perfect strangers discussing and debating each and every decision you might have to make at such a terrible time, and speculating about your motivations?

I thought not. A little golden rule goes a long way.

MattG

Mar 24, 2005, 04:57 PM

On a lighter note, does it make me a bad person for laughing at this?

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=464

brap

Mar 24, 2005, 05:12 PM

On a lighter note, does it make me a bad person for laughing at this?

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=464
The real tragedy here is her suffering is now Public Domain. Christ, what are her parents thinking?

MattG

Mar 24, 2005, 05:18 PM

The real tragedy here is her suffering is now Public Domain. Christ, what are her parents thinking?
Yup--the ironic part is that she's in this condition because she was bullemic, and the chemical inbalance caused her to have the heart attack. Obviously being bullemic, she was concerned about the way she looked. If she had any sense of how she's being paraded around on the news...

Xtremehkr

Mar 24, 2005, 05:31 PM

This may all come to an end here pretty soon. I wonder what the next big issue will be.

IJ Reilly

Mar 24, 2005, 05:36 PM

This may all come to an end here pretty soon. I wonder what the next big issue will be.

I predict: Blame, recriminations, denunciations, accusations, condemnations, and more character assassination.

mactastic

Mar 24, 2005, 05:39 PM

This may all come to an end here pretty soon. I wonder what the next big issue will be.

DeLay's ethical problems?

Xtremehkr

Mar 24, 2005, 06:06 PM

I predict: Blame, recriminations, denunciations, accusations, condemnations, and more character assassination.

Yes, those will certainly be apart of any issue that comes up and how republicans choose to try and win the issue.

Xtremehkr

Mar 24, 2005, 06:09 PM

DeLay's ethical problems?

I have a feeling that Mr Delay is going to fall hard. Remember that guy Trent Lott? He's going to feel popular compared to where Delay is going.

blackfox

Mar 24, 2005, 08:31 PM

This may all come to an end here pretty soon. I wonder what the next big issue will be.
I predict it will center around the rising gas prices. I have already seen articles about the viability of the larger SUVs with prices this high, and resultant articles questioning the safety and performance of fuel-efficient hybrids.

At some point the myth(s) perpetuated around the issue of personal freedom(s), as defined by consumerism, will collide with the reality that these choices have consequences, and require sacrifices.

That always goes over well. So I expect a lot of quick fixes proposed which will range from ridiculous to wishful to irrelevant to destructive. All will probably much less address, let alone solve the underlying problem, but will provide plenty of Capital, both political and otherwise to vested parties.

Look for ANWR, various ME political intervention scenarios/crises (possibly Venezuela), possible relief of gas taxes (on the State's dime, of course) and how this is not at all our fault and could not be forseen. Of course, every opportunity will be taken to blame the Liberals.

To name a few. Sure there will be some other great ones...

Just a guess. Yay America.

Ofiicially taken this thread OT. Apologies.

Punani

Mar 24, 2005, 09:41 PM

The real tragedy here is her suffering is now Public Domain. Christ, what are her parents thinking?I think her parents really wanted some attention given to their cause. Clearly they do not have the upper hand with the judicial process.

The problem is that once you get the media involved it no longer becomes a human issue. It really becomes a policy issue. Does any actually care about Terri Schaivo, Michael Schiavo, or the Schindlers? (I'm not saying that I don't care about the people involved, but it isn't a "care" that I would give to friends and family) I seriously doubt we'll remember their names a few months after this.

If there's one good thing that's come out of this is the interest in living wills that it has spurred. I hope that it will, at the very least, help people to understand that no matter how much someone thinks they know and love you, they may not know what you want to do in matters like this.

pseudobrit

Mar 24, 2005, 09:43 PM

I'm late to the game here, having spent the week in Florida, but here's my take:

-Most people I've seen speaking about Terri having hope of recovery or having consciousness either are ignorant of or ignore the medical facts of the case.

-The morons who tried to take her glasses of water should be charged with gross stupidity in addition to trespassing. They would have drowned her with the water.

-Every single pundit who I've heard pushing the "pro-[vegetable] life" stance has made a specific point of stating that they themselves would not want to live this way. It's almost like they're all reading from the same script. My problem is why all these people who wouldn't wish this "life" on themselves are so willing to impose it on a complete stranger.

-Not a single reputable physician has given her any chance of recovery.

Punani

Mar 24, 2005, 09:52 PM

One of the big arguments from the parents that I've heard in the news is that they believe Terri can be helped with therapy. Certainly I'd be welcome to that, but I think this excerpt from the Wikipedia article about Terri speaks for itself:

Most of Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed, replaced by cerebrospinal fluid. Dr. Ron Cranford, a neurologist at the University of Minnesota assessed Schiavo's brain function in 2001 as part of a court-ordered assessment. He was quoted in Florida Today as saying "[Schiavo] has no electrical activity in her cerebral cortex on an EEG (electroencephalogram), and a CT (computerized tomography) scan showed massive atrophy in that region."

About 70 to 90 percent of Schiavo's upper brain has been destroyed, and in addition there is damage to the lower brain, which controls functions such as breathing and swallowing. Three Florida neurologists viewed 12 of Schiavo's computed tomography scans on March 22. After viewing the scans, Dr. Leon Prockop (a professor and former chairman of neurology at the University of South Florida's College of Medicine) was quoted by the Sun-Sentinel as saying that Schiavo's is the "most severe brain damage as I've ever seen." Dr. Walter Bradley, the chairman of neurology at the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine, said that he "[d]oubts there's any activity going on in the higher levels of her brain."

In 2002, a trial was held to determine whether or not any new therapy treatments would help Schiavo restore any cognitive function. A new computed axial tomography scan (CAT scan) was done, as was an electroencephalogram (EEG). The CAT scan showed severe cerebral atrophy.

Five doctors were selected: two by Schiavo's parents, two by Michael Schiavo, and one by the court. These five doctors examined Terri Schiavo's medical records, brain scans, the videos, and Mrs. Schiavo herself. The physicians were divided in their conclusions. The two doctors selected by Schiavo's parents (one of whom was a radiologist, not a neurologist; the other of whom made several claims about therapies supposedly developed by him which the court found spurious) supported their conclusion; the two doctors selected by Schiavo's husband and the doctor appointed by the court supported Mr. Schiavo's position. Greer ruled with the latter that Mrs. Schiavo was in a PVS and was beyond hope of significant improvement.

amin

Mar 24, 2005, 11:47 PM

If there's one good thing that's come out of this is the interest in living wills that it has spurred. I hope that it will, at the very least, help people to understand that no matter how much someone thinks they know and love you, they may not know what you want to do in matters like this.

I agree that the one good thing to come of this is that more people are, for the moment, pausing to consider end-of-life issues. However, I don't think many people are capable of creating specific enough written directives. Such documents are full of relatively pointless clauses such as "if there is no chance of recovery" (no physician can guarantee such things). Therefore, I feel it is most important for people to at least legally designate a power of attorney to make decisions on matters that fall outside of their specific "living will."

Lacero

Mar 24, 2005, 11:56 PM

Don't panic

Mar 25, 2005, 12:19 PM

If I became a vegetable and did not make my wishes known, I would naturally assume my wife would be my voice in such matters. She has the legal, moral, and spiritual right to make her decisions for me. Not my parents, not my children, my wife and only her. I would not want government to interfere in the wishes of my family or my descendants.

amen to that. same here.

90% of young people consider their parents morons.
90% spend most of their life trying to avoid turning into their mother/fathers.
90% try to get out of their parents home asap.
on what ground people think that a life-loving, appearance-concerned, 21 years old would want the decision of whether to be kept alive in a vegetative state be taken by her parents rather than by the love of her life?

(yes I know the total is 270% and yes i totally made the numbers up so please don't ask for links.
The point is that you choose you spouse, not your parents, so it's more likely that your decision would be more in sinthony with her/his than theirs. Especially for someone in their 20s)

dsharits

Mar 25, 2005, 01:24 PM

amen to that. same here.

90% of young people consider their parents morons.
90% spend most of their life trying to avoid turning into their mother/fathers.
90% try to get out of their parents home asap.
on what ground people think that a life-loving, appearance-concerned, 21 years old would want the decision of whether to be kept alive in a vegetative state be taken by her parents rather than by the love of her life?

(yes I know the total is 270% and yes i totally made the numbers up so please don't ask for links.
The point is that you choose you spouse, not your parents, so it's more likely that your decision would be more in sinthony with her/his than theirs. Especially for someone in their 20s)
For your information, Terri happened to be seeking a divorce at the time of the initial incident in 1990. She came from a very close-knit family, and she and Michael even lived with her parents for some time after they got married, so none of the "statistics" would apply to her. She still loves her parents dearly, and she would absolutely not try to "turn away" from them or consider them to be morons, etc. Once again, you assume something to be true, and try to use it as evidence, even though it has absolutely no foundation.

MacNut

Mar 25, 2005, 01:30 PM

IJ Reilly

Mar 25, 2005, 01:52 PM

That's not the relevant question IMO. The relevant question is whether he would like to be forced to live in that condition when he'd stated his desire not to be. Another relevant question is whether he'd like to have people he'd never met use whatever means are necessary to insert themselves forcefully into what should be the most private, personal and painful decision any person could be called upon to make.

But I've asked that question already and no longer expect an answer.

MacNut

Mar 25, 2005, 02:04 PM

So in his mind its ok for this to happen to somebody he doesn't know but it better not happen to him.

zimv20

Mar 25, 2005, 02:19 PM

Terri happened to be seeking a divorce at the time of the initial incident in 1990.
source?

She still loves her parents dearly, and she would absolutely not try to "turn away" from them or consider them to be morons, etc.
source?

Once again, you assume something to be true, and try to use it as evidence, even though it has absolutely no foundation.
i see you know the value of having a source, but feel above having to supply one yourself.

Don't panic

Mar 25, 2005, 02:20 PM

For your information, Terri happened to be seeking a divorce at the time of the initial incident in 1990. She came from a very close-knit family, and she and Michael even lived with her parents for some time after they got married, so none of the "statistics" would apply to her. She still loves her parents dearly, and she would absolutely not try to "turn away" from them or consider them to be morons, etc. Once again, you assume something to be true, and try to use it as evidence, even though it has absolutely no foundation.

Apart from the fact that you missed the point, the "divorce" issue is completely unsubstantiated, and part of the massive character-killing lies-spewing aggression perpetrated on Michael Schiavo. All the documented evidence suggests that the two were very much in love and that he was devastated by her accident.
I have no reason not to believe that she loved her parents too (in 1990, now i doubt she can love, hate or feel any kind of emotions, given the complete lack of any brain activity), but that doesn't mean she would have chosen them over him.
i love my parents, but my wife is the person i would most trust in the world for any decision of this kind (otherwise I wouldn't have married her).

IJ Reilly

Mar 25, 2005, 02:58 PM

So in his mind its ok for this to happen to somebody he doesn't know but it better not happen to him.

Personally, I can't imagine anyone wishing this upon themselves, but I don't want to speak for him, so I asked the question.

dsharits

Mar 25, 2005, 04:47 PM

Let me ask you a question and be completely honest. Would you want to live like a lifeless vegetable for 15 years of your life.
As long as I'm not on life support, keep feeding me. Obviously, nobody, including Terri Schiavo, would choose to be handicapped over having a normal life, but there's absolutely no question if the choice is between living handicapped and starving to death. I've heard interviews with people that were in real comas, and they all said that they felt like they were trapped inside their bodies. They knew what was going on around them, but they just couldn't communicate. Doctors said that they had no chance of living apart from life support, but today they are alive and well. As for my sources for my previous statements, some of Terri's closest friends have testified that she was actively seeking a divorce, because she was not at all happy with her marriage. If you want to discount that testimony, then you also have to throw out Michael Schiavo's stance on her "wishes", because his story has fewer witnesses.

That's not the relevant question IMO. The relevant question is whether he would like to be forced to live in that condition when he'd stated his desire not to be.
Correct. If I had previously stated that I would not want to be kept alive in that position, it would be perfectly acceptable to kill me. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Terri did not want to live in her state. Michael Schiavo fought for a number of years to win a lot of money, and even wanted more than he got in case she lived longer that they expected. It just seems strange, to say the least, that he won the money, got engaged to another woman and suddenly "remembered" seven years after she "collapsed" that she mentioned to him one time during a movie that she would not want to live on life support (which is not food and water, by the way). I wonder why he wants to immediately have her cremated and destroy the evidence, I mean her body, so quickly. Hmm, weird, isn't it?

MacNut

Mar 25, 2005, 05:03 PM

Handicapped? she's a vegetable she cant feed herself or go to the bathroom or speak. For all we know she is in a living hell and just wishes everyday for someone to put an end to her misery.

Being in a coma and not having any brain function are totally different things, how long were your friends in a coma 15 years?

MattG

Mar 25, 2005, 05:04 PM

There is more to living than simply being alive. For her sake, I hope her death comes soon before Jeb does something sneaky.

MacNut

Mar 25, 2005, 05:09 PM

Correct. If I had previously stated that I would not want to be kept alive in that position, it would be perfectly acceptable to kill me. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Terri did not want to live in her state. What if you said to your spouse don't let me live but never put it in writing then you had a serious accident and your parents tried to keep you alive against your wishes would you be a little upset?

zimv20

Mar 25, 2005, 05:24 PM

As for my sources for my previous statements, some of Terri's closest friends have testified that she was actively seeking a divorce, because she was not at all happy with her marriage.

i'll try to explain this as clearly as i can. a source is something tangible, like a link to a factual story off the website of a reputable news outlet, that supports your assertions.

simply asserting them through hearsay is NOT A FRIGGING SOURCE.

"Feel free to provide authoritative references; in the meantime, you won't mind if we conclude that you're simply making this up." -- Ian York

IJ Reilly

Mar 25, 2005, 05:26 PM

No evidence? Three people testified to her wishes in court!

Oh, that's right. Bad people. Only bad people.

iGary

Mar 25, 2005, 05:29 PM

I wonder how many people who are apposed to this would truthfully answer yes to the following question:

Would you like to lay around for the rest of your life drooling all over yourself, laying in your own urine and feces and having no control over your body while trembling with convulsions?

That's quality of life!

Lacero

Mar 25, 2005, 05:34 PM

Let me ask you a question and be completely honest. Would you want to live like a lifeless vegetable for 15 years of your life.As long as I'm not on life support, keep feeding me.

Huh? Your statement made absolutely no sense. A feeding tube is not life support? What happens when you remove the feeding tube? Will she be conscious enough to eat on her own?

I'm sorry dsharits, up to this point, I cannot possibly hold validation for any of your prior statements and comments. You've proven you don't know what you are talking about.

dsharits

Mar 25, 2005, 05:39 PM

Huh? Your statement made absolutely no sense. A feeding tube is not life support? What happens when you remove the feeding tube? Will she be conscious enough to eat on her own?

I'm sorry dsharits, up to this point, I cannot possibly hold validation for any of your prior statements and comments. You've proven you don't know what you are talking about.
Several doctors and nurses have testified that she can swallow and eat without a feeding tube.

mactastic

Mar 25, 2005, 05:46 PM

Several doctors and nurses have testified that she can swallow and eat without a feeding tube.
Linkypoo? Was it the discredited doctor or the discredited nurse that said this?

iGary

Mar 25, 2005, 05:48 PM

The parents have filed a motion that she said "I want to live" just a few hours ago, and should be fed again. :rolleyes:

zimv20

Mar 25, 2005, 05:59 PM

Several doctors and nurses have testified that she can swallow and eat without a feeding tube.
SOURCE?

IJ Reilly

Mar 25, 2005, 06:05 PM

Then they should bring her some jello and a spoon and see what happens. Good grief, I wonder why nobody's thought of that in 15 years? No doctors, no lawyers, no family members, no nurses, no judges... It must be a vast conspiracy! Or maybe just a half vast conspiracy!

MacNut

Mar 26, 2005, 12:04 AM

You keep avoiding my question,Correct. If I had previously stated that I would not want to be kept alive in that position, it would be perfectly acceptable to kill me. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Terri did not want to live in her state.What if you said to your spouse don't let me live but never put it in writing then you had a serious accident and your parents tried to keep you alive against your wishes would you be a little upset?

dsharits

Mar 26, 2005, 09:11 AM

You keep avoiding my question,
If I didn't want to be kept alive, my parents would know about it as well, so that wouldn't be a problem. You are trying to push this question as if it is what happened in this case, which it did not. Michael Schiavo is the only one that was supposedly there when he claims that she told him her wish. Tell me this, why didn't he mention this "wish" of hers earlier in the case? Why did he wait until after he had won the money and after he was engaged to another woman? Why did this not come up immediately instead of seven years into the case? With all of those questions, you automatically assume that he is just a clean-cut guy trying to fulfill his wife's wish?

Thomas Veil

Mar 26, 2005, 09:19 AM

I think her parents really wanted some attention given to their cause."The cause" indeed. Bob Schindler has been going around calling this "judicial homicide" and talking about how the "liberal courts" are conspiring to kill his daughter.

It's both pathetic and infuriating. Pathetic, because it's obvious he's drifting further and further away from reality. Infuriating, because he's pandering to the phony liberal stereotypes that are popular with the looney right, including the idea that liberals dominate anything.

Meanwhile, for other people, the break with reason gets even worse:

Outside the Pinellas Park hospice where Schiavo lay, dozens of protesters, dismayed by the Schindlers' waning legal hopes, sang "Amazing Grace." Police arrested at least nine people who tried to enter the building with symbolic offerings of food and water.

The FBI arrested a North Carolina man for sending an e-mail offering a bounty of $250,000 dollars to anyone who would kill Michael Schiavo and $50,000 for killing a judge who has ruled in favor of the husband in the case.

The man, Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview, North Carolina, was charged with solicitation of murder and sending threatening communications and could face up to 15 years in prison, said the U.S. Attorney's office in Tampa, Florida.Link (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002/20050326/0712149544.htm&photoid=20050325PIN204D&ewp=ewp_news_0305terri&floc=NW_1-T)

mactastic

Mar 26, 2005, 10:05 AM

If I didn't want to be kept alive, my parents would know about it as well, so that wouldn't be a problem. You are trying to push this question as if it is what happened in this case, which it did not. Michael Schiavo is the only one that was supposedly there when he claims that she told him her wish. Tell me this, why didn't he mention this "wish" of hers earlier in the case? Why did he wait until after he had won the money and after he was engaged to another woman? Why did this not come up immediately instead of seven years into the case? With all of those questions, you automatically assume that he is just a clean-cut guy trying to fulfill his wife's wish?

Because for the first seven years HE WAS TRYING TO SAVE HIS WIFE'S LIFE. If I'd been in that situation I wouldn't have admitted even to myself that my wife might need to be let go in those first years. I would have fought just as hard for her as Michael Schaivo fought for his, not giving up until I had exhaustsed all possibility of recovery. That's exactly what Michael Schaivo did, even to the point of trying experimental treatments that offered little hope. Then, and only then, I would have moved on to fulfilling my wife's wishes.

How would you feel about a guy who in the first days of his wife's injury wanted to pull the plug? Would that have made him a better man in your eyes?

BTW, the money's almost gone. With money out of the picture, what do you now ascribe Micheal's evil motives to?

IJ Reilly

Mar 26, 2005, 11:32 AM

We can certainly see how important it's become to vilify Michael Schiavo. Over two dozen courts (including the US Supreme Court, four times) have never bought any of these ludicrous arguments, which only makes this character assassination even more of an imperative. No substantial argument remains, so vicious personal attacks are now the order of the day. Onward Christian Soldiers!

So, how would any of the people who've inserted themselves into the deeply private, personal affairs of this family (or defended these incursions to the hilt) feel if their lives were turned into a national media circus by people they hardly know? Might they not resent the exploitation of their lives and the most painful decisions anyone will ever have to make for political purposes? Even a little?

I've asked this question many, many times to no avail -- and I don't seriously expect an answer now. But I do think it's worth re-asking it, because the failure to address this issue goes straight to the heart of the fundamental hypocrisy at work here.

clayj

Mar 26, 2005, 01:20 PM

There is more to living than simply being alive. For her sake, I hope her death comes soon before Jeb does something sneaky. I think he already tried... the front page story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&ncid=2270&e=1&u=/krwashbureau/20050326/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_braindamagedwoman_seize_exclusive_wa) in the Charlotte Observer today described a potential standoff between the local police, who are enforcing the judges' orders, and a Florida Department of Law Enforcement team that was apparently going to try to remove Terry Schiavo to a hospital and resume feeding her, using some loophole in Florida state law that allows an agency to violate judicial decisions if an agency requests it. The FDLE guys called the local cops, and the local cops told them "you better have the judge with you when you get here, because that's the only way you're taking her out of here". The FDLE backed down.

vwcruisn

Mar 26, 2005, 05:02 PM

link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050326/ap_on_re_us/schiavo_hospice_chaos)

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - Jennifer Johnson, barefoot and in her pajamas, ran to her grandfather's bedside once a hospice worker said his death was moments away. She got there — one minute too late. Johnson said the chaos outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo is dying kept her from saying goodbye.

When Johnson arrived, a police officer demanded identification; she had none. And after a hospice employee cleared her, another officer halted her for a search with a metal detector.

The delays lasted three to four minutes — the last of her grandfather's life.

"It's a terrible, extra obstacle to put in front of a family. ... Everything is about Schiavo," Johnson said. "It's all about her and in my family's case, it cost us dearly."

...

Family members visiting patients must pass through a police checkpoint to park, then show identification outside the door before another security screening inside. They also must walk by scores of signs decrying Schiavo's "crucifixion," "torture," and "starvation," plus navigate around hordes of media who have been camped outside.

"To have to maneuver through all of this and have a hostile environment outside when all they want is peace and quiet and to enjoy those few days they have left with a loved one is a horror," said Dr. Morton Getz, executive director of Douglas Gardens Hospice in Miami.

Getz said many people with a family member in a hospice have to make the same excruciating decision that courts have made for Schiavo.

"It's causing a lot of grief and questions in their own mind on whether they did the right thing," he said. "It's unconscionable to have a family member to be near the end stages of life and to get there, you have to walk through signs that say, 'Murderer.'"

Most protesters direct their signs and their chants against the courts and Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, who insists she would not want to be kept alive artificially.

But walking through a hostile environment can only add stress to what's already an emotionally draining situation.

"It probably has the same psychological effect on the residents' families as it does on someone who is walking into an abortion clinic and facing signs and aggressive behavior," said Elizabeth Foley, a Florida International University law professor who specializes in bioethics.

horrible

cleo

Mar 26, 2005, 05:15 PM

Obviously, nobody, including Terri Schiavo, would choose to be handicapped over having a normal life, but there's absolutely no question if the choice is between living handicapped and starving to death.

This is an example of the rhetoric being used in this "debate" that is most offensive to me as a woman with a disability (spinal muscular atrophy (http://www.mda.org.au/specific/mdasma.html)) -- the use of the word "disabled" (or in dsharits' less enlightened words, "handicapped") to describe Terri Schiavo.

The disability rights movement as a whole opposes euthanasia; there is a fear that legalizing the right to die will lead to the proverbial "slippery slope" where people with disabilities who are unable to communicate and have no one to care for them will just be offed by the state. (In my opinion this is a completely unfounded fear, as states and countries that do legalize assisted suicide make it a *very* transparent process that cannot be abused easily.) The -- what do we call them? Pro-Schindler? -- people opposing Terri's death have co-opted this argument to play on emotions (I guess when you have nothing legal to back you up, emotions are all you've got). But there are a number of problems with applying this argument to this case:

1. This is not euthanasia. Euthanasia is when a terminally ill person chooses to end their life on their own terms rather than experiencing further suffering. Clearly that is not the case here, and so any judicial decisions will not be precedent for upholding actual euthanasia rights.
2. More importantly, Terri Schiavo is not disabled. She is in a persistent vegetative state -- even her parents held that position a few years ago (source (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050325/ts_usatoday/feudmaybeasmuchovermoneyasprinciple&e=4)). Her brain has almost entirely liquified. Painting broad strokes with the word "disabled" is disingenuous and perpetuates really crappy stereotypes about people who actually have disabilities but are, to varying degrees, functional.

Furthermore, dsharits, your "obvious" conclusion that anyone would rather be "normal" than "handicapped" is incredibly offensive (although I can't get too offended because it's so damned ignorant). Would just about anybody rather be functional than be a vegetable? Clearly. But again, that has nothing to do with disability. I am proud of my body, of who I am, and wouldn't want to be any other way than the way the Creator made me. If you have logical arguments to make, go right ahead, but if all you have is emotional plays that are at the expense of very much living people, save it.

_____________________
(The above is my personal opinion and in no way represents that of any organization that I represent.)

vwcruisn

Mar 26, 2005, 06:01 PM

Amid the pitched legal battle over Terri Schiavo that has been fought through his court, Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer has been under the protection of armed guards, and friends say his family also is protected.

Death threats have been made against him for allowing Michael Schiavo to remove the feeding tube that has kept his 41-year-old wife alive for the past 15 years...

irony?

cleo

Mar 26, 2005, 06:31 PM

Yeah, the irony knows no bounds. I think my favorite is the fact that the same people who scream and wail about "the sanctity of marriage" when the big bag homosexuals come running are now the same ones trying to destroy the rights and privileges of marriage by claiming that Michael Schiavo isn't a competent guardian and that the parents are better suited to making decisions about Terri's healthcare.

bousozoku

Mar 26, 2005, 06:57 PM

Don't you think that Michael Schiavo will die within a month of Terri's death? I can just imagine hearing that someone answered "God's call" to avenge her "murder."

IJ Reilly

Mar 26, 2005, 07:48 PM

It doesn't matter who gets hurt if the cause is righteous. This movement will crush anybody under its heel who makes the mistake of getting in the way, inadvertently or otherwise. They don't even bother to hide this fact anymore.

Lacero

Mar 26, 2005, 07:52 PM

Some of these nutbag Christians continually amaze me with their religious zealotry...

dornoforpyros

Mar 26, 2005, 08:02 PM

Lacero

Mar 26, 2005, 08:26 PM

However in regards to Terri I'm really not sure about this because she's not in the condition to tell anyone she wants to die. I mean if she were making the desion herself than yeah I say let her. But anyone else making the decision rubs me the wrong way.

Yes, she's also not in any condition to tell anyone she wants to live, either.
We are not making the decision for her, her husband is making the decision on her behalf. If anyone truly respects the sanctity of marriage, they should respect her husband's wishes. You're right, anyone else making the decision for her rubs me the wrong way. (ie. Christian zealots and Republicans)

IJ Reilly

Mar 26, 2005, 08:30 PM

although I personally think any person should have the right to die. I mean if a person is deeply depressed and suicidal and truly wants to die than as far as I'm concerned it's their business. Yes it effects the ppl around them and yes it's rather greedy to dump the burdon onto others. But at the end of the day if you can't stand life anymore than why should anyone else tell you that you have to live it?

However in regards to Terri I'm really not sure about this because she's not in the condition to tell anyone she wants to die. I mean if she were making the desion herself than yeah I say let her. But anyone else making the decision rubs me the wrong way.

You're basically setting up a condition where nobody's end of life wishes can be honored reliably, even if they've expressed them in a living will and granted someone durable power of attorney. Since it's impossible to anticipate every possible end of life scenario, room will always exist for someone to dispute both the individual's wishes in any given situation and their medical diagnosis.

Ultimately, a capacitated person will have make a decision to treat or not to treat based on what the ill or injured person said they wanted, either verbally or in writing, and how the doctors understand the medical facts. When you blow away all the dense fog created by the religious right wing, this is precisely Terri Schiavo's situation. The courts (many courts, actually) were satisfied that she'd expressed a wish not to be kept alive in this state, and placed the decision-making responsibility on the husband in accordance with Florida law. In each and every case of this kind, somebody has to make the ultimate decision, and by definition, it's not going to be the incapacitated person.

amin

Mar 26, 2005, 08:59 PM

although I personally think any person should have the right to die. I mean if a person is deeply depressed and suicidal and truly wants to die than as far as I'm concerned it's their business. Yes it effects the ppl around them and yes it's rather greedy to dump the burdon onto others. But at the end of the day if you can't stand life anymore than why should anyone else tell you that you have to live it?

However in regards to Terri I'm really not sure about this because she's not in the condition to tell anyone she wants to die. I mean if she were making the desion herself than yeah I say let her. But anyone else making the decision rubs me the wrong way.

No one is killing her. Let's be clear even if it hurts. Withdrawing a tube which has been placed through the body wall and stomach wall is ethically the same as not placing it in the first place. Not placing it in the first place is not a choice to kill. It is a choice to avoid what some people [have a right to] consider extraordinary life-preserving measures. If you could not speak for yourself, would you want to be supported by machines indefinitely? Would you wish for someone to speak for you to allow you to die? Can you understand why some people and their families might consider surgical placement of a gastric tube to be in the same overly-aggressive category as mechanical ventilation? These are private decisions we make when we weigh the whole situation. When we cannot make them, it makes sense for someone who would best know what we would want to speak for us. It is natural for this person to be the spouse.

Many millions of families have made and continue to make the same decision Mr. Schiavo has made. That our zealots fail to realize this or are not bothered by it in any obvious way is astounding to me.

In the years to come, many of these zealots will be faced with some really hard end-of-life decisions for themselves and their family members. I wonder how black-and-white they will see it then.

amin

Mar 26, 2005, 09:02 PM

You're basically setting up a condition where nobody's end of life wishes can be honored reliably, even if they've expressed them in a living will and granted someone durable power of attorney. Since it's impossible to anticipate every possible end of life scenario, room will always exist for someone to dispute both the individual's wishes in any given situation and their medical diagnosis.

Ultimately, a capacitated person will have make a decision to treat or not to treat based on what the ill or injured person said they wanted, either verbally or in writing, and how the doctors understand the medical facts. When you blow away all the dense fog created by the religious right wing, this is precisely Terri Schiavo's situation. The courts (many courts, actually) were satisfied that she'd expressed a wish not to be kept alive in this state, and placed the decision-making responsibility on the husband in accordance with Florida law. In each and every case of this kind, somebody has to make the ultimate decision, and by definition, it's not going to be the incapacitated person.

Excellent point.

Thomas Veil

Mar 27, 2005, 06:07 AM

IJ Reilly

Mar 27, 2005, 11:28 AM

In the years to come, many of these zealots will be faced with some really hard end-of-life decisions for themselves and their family members. I wonder how black-and-white they will see it then.

Exactly, and I think we know the answer already. (I presume your question was intended as rhetorical.) The article about the DeLay family linked in the other thread tells the tale in bold relief. We're being manipulated very cynically in this case, to the point where many people are prepared to accept the premise that removing a life-sustaining machine from someone who did not want to live this way is tantamount to murdering them. I urge everyone to think through these ideas, and try to place themselves either at the bedside, or better yet, in the bed, before they decide issues of right and wrong for other people.

MattG

Mar 27, 2005, 04:20 PM

On CNN's web site, there's a picture of some woman holding a sign that says, "Barbara Bush -- Are you proud of your sons now?"

Aren't these the people that elected them?

daveL

Mar 27, 2005, 04:59 PM

On CNN's web site, there's a picture of some woman holding a sign that says, "Barbara Bush -- Are you proud of your sons now?"

Aren't these the people that elected them?
I couldn't decide if she was for or against the parents' position. Is she saying "The Bush brothers failed to save Terri" or "Look at the political circus the Bush brothers brought upon this family"?

MattG

Mar 27, 2005, 05:04 PM

I couldn't decide if she was for or against the parents' position. Is she saying "The Bush brothers failed to save Terri" or "Look at the political circus the Bush brothers brought upon this family"?
The same thing crossed my mind, but being that she's standing by the woman praying and the guy next to her holding what appears to be a bible, I'd say she's for the parents' position.

iGary

Mar 27, 2005, 05:07 PM

On CNN's web site, there's a picture of some woman holding a sign that says, "Barbara Bush -- Are you proud of your sons now?"

Aren't these the people that elected them?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/LAW/03/27/schiavo/top.1525.schiavo.ap.jpg

She looks like she's a couple french fries short of a happy meal.

Thomas Veil

Mar 27, 2005, 06:10 PM

In the years to come, many of these zealots will be faced with some really hard end-of-life decisions for themselves and their family members. I wonder how black-and-white they will see it then.If you're thinking these people will be having some kind of moral epiphany, don't count on it. The conservative mind seems to have an infinite capacity for creating one set of rules for themselves, and another for everybody else.

cleo

Mar 27, 2005, 10:12 PM

This is possibly the most delusional thing I've read since this whole affair started: (source: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/27/schiavo/index.html))
Mahoney said the fact that Schiavo has survived nearly 10 days since the removal of the tube that has supplied her with nutrition and water indicates that she wants to appear before the House Government Reform Committee.
Whaaaa...?

In local news, because of the First Amendment and a bunch of religious nutcases, an elementary school down the street from the hospice is having to close and send its students elsewhere. (http://www.bn9.com/content/36/2005/3/27/75980.html)

Our local news just reported that today there were literally hundreds of protesters, many from out-of-state. It showed film of the hospice chaplain trying to get them to shut up... (paraphrase): "There are 67 people inside dying, and they're being scared to death by all the noise out here." Seriously, those people have no shame. I think they should all just be carted off (that, or Ms. Schiavo should be moved to Dick Cheney's undisclosed location).

mischief

Mar 28, 2005, 10:56 AM

So many zealots in one place......

Wouldn't it be ironic if one of these zealots put together a car bomb and accidentally took out their "allies" out front?

We could use a little more chlorination in the old gene pool. :rolleyes:

IJ Reilly

Mar 28, 2005, 11:12 AM

We could use a little more chlorination in the old gene pool. :rolleyes:

That's why I never wade in gene pools. You never know who's peed in it.

mischief

Mar 28, 2005, 11:16 AM

That's why I never wade in gene pools. You never know who's peed in it.

I was very choosy about who I wanted in my own Gene Jacuzzi.

pseudobrit

Mar 28, 2005, 11:41 AM

Wouldn't it be ironic if one of these zealots put together a car bomb and accidentally took out their "allies" out front?

I've been thinking it'd be infinitely more ironic if one of these nutbags snuck in with a cup of water, sloshed it down Terri's throat and watched in horror as she drowned (since she can't swallow).

Headline:
Right to Lifer Kills Terri

dsharits

Mar 31, 2005, 09:22 AM

Well, Michael Schiavo's murder is now complete (http://tbo.com/).

Taft

Mar 31, 2005, 09:31 AM

Well, Michael Schiavo's murder is now complete (http://tbo.com/).

Good.

Forgetting for moment the fact that your classification of Terri's death as murder is utterly laughable, I'm happy that Terri has finally found relief and has had her wishes granted. May she find peace.

Taft

Applespider

Mar 31, 2005, 09:44 AM

I'm relieved that she's finally at peace and this story, in which none of the parties involved look particularly good, can be laid to rest.

Lacero

Mar 31, 2005, 09:48 AM

Well, Michael Schiavo's murder is now complete (http://tbo.com/).How quaint. All the politicians and supporters who tried so valiantly to "save" her life will not remember her name in 2 years. She'll be all but forgotten except those closest to her.

clayj

Mar 31, 2005, 09:51 AM

Good.

Forgetting for moment the fact that your classification of Terri's death as murder is utterly laughable, I'm happy that Terri has finally found relief and has had her wishes granted. May she find peace.

TaftDitto that. Hopefully, the other good thing to come out of this whole tragic affair (the first being that she can now slip all earthly bonds once and for all) will be an increased awareness that people need to prepare for such events in their lives by setting up living wills and making sure that their loved ones very clearly understand their wishes. None of this would have ever been necessary if Terri Schiavo had written down what she wanted AND made sure that her interfering parents understood her wishes.

Lacero

Mar 31, 2005, 09:54 AM

I would classify keeping her alive for 15 years, indignitely kept alive by feeding tube unable to move or speak, as torture. Why does death always have to be viewed in a negative light?

mischief

Mar 31, 2005, 09:57 AM

Well, Michael Schiavo's murder is now complete (http://tbo.com/).

Slander. Lack of evidence. Zealotry.

Thomas Veil

Mar 31, 2005, 10:18 AM

Slander. Lack of evidence. Zealotry.I think dsharits will regret ever posting that sentence. That's the kind of thing that will come back to haunt you. Six months down the road, dsharits will be trying to establish his credibility in making some point, and people will say, "Aren't you the guy who said, 'Well, Michael Schiavo's murder is now complete'?"

scem0

Mar 31, 2005, 10:22 AM

I would classify keeping her alive for 15 years, indignitely kept alive by feeding tube unable to move or speak, as torture. Why does death always have to be viewed in a negative light?

This is my standing, too. If I was in a bed, in a vegitative state, for any more than 5 years, I think I'd be begging to 'die', although I'd consider myself to be dead already.

scem0

IJ Reilly

Mar 31, 2005, 10:28 AM

I think dsharits will regret ever posting that sentence. That's the kind of thing that will come back to haunt you. Six months down the road, dsharits will be trying to establish his credibility in making some point, and people will say, "Aren't you the guy who said, 'Well, Michael Schiavo's murder is now complete'?"

When I read that sentence, my first thought was, "Somebody murdered Michael Schiavo?" He's been receiving death threats, so it didn't seem like such a remote prospect.

Anyhow, I'm sure we can all calm down now and have an intelligent, open debate about the rights of individuals and families to make end-of-life decisions free from the meddling of politicians and political activists.

Yeah, right.

MacNut

Mar 31, 2005, 10:44 AM

So now Jesse Jackson needs to find another ambulance to chase. :mad:

iGary

Mar 31, 2005, 10:44 AM

Well, Michael Schiavo's murder is now complete (http://tbo.com/).

Puhlease. :rolleyes:

Thomas Veil

Mar 31, 2005, 10:50 AM

Well, as if this whole thing weren't already enough of a freak show, there's this (http://www.lifenews.com/bio867.html).

New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- CBS News is coming under fire for prewriting and posting to its news web site a story claiming Terri Schiavo had died.

The article, penned by Christine Lagorio, claims Terri's estranged husband Michael was with her when she died and was posted on the CBS News web page on Monday, according to radio talk show host Glenn Beck, who disovered it.

"Surrounded by stuffed animals and medical equipment in her small hospice room in Pinellas Park, Fla., Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo died TK," the story says.

"Known as Terri Schiavo, the severely brain damaged Florida woman spent her last months in the glare of the public eye as a few still images and several seconds of video of her repeatedly broadcast around the world," the story continued.

Lagorio wrote that after her death Terri "appeared made up and dressed" and claimed that Terri's estranged husband Michael "was at the bedside of his wife Terri when she died."

CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius told LifeNews.com that the story was "a draft that was stored on the web site" but not intended to be accessible to the public.

"All news organizations plan ahead for events that may happen. This draft story was never posted on our website, nor was it ever available via normal site navigation," she said.

Genelius said the news story was accidentally saved a portion of the web site accessible to search engines and she told LifeNews.com that CBS News "removed the story as soon as the error was discovered, and we sincerely regret any confusion that may have resulted."

Lori Kehoe, who monitors end of life issues for the National Right to Life Committee, told LifeNews.com she was amazed at the development.

"The fact that many have probably written the framework of press releases for Terri's death highlights the nature of this monstrosity -- the intent is not to relieve any of the burden from Terri but rather to make sure she dies -- and they wait with bated breath," Kehoe said.

"CBS should be ashamed but everyone else should simply take note -- mainstream media is again creating the news instead of reporting it," Kehoe told LifeNews.com.

Comments about Terri being "dressed up" after her death particularly outraged Kehoe.

"The media is just showing their true colors once again -- make Michael out to be the loving husband and talk about how nice Terri looks," Kehoe continued.

"[T]hat should help perpetuate the lie that death by dehydration is something other than cruel and hideous and further the myth that the loving thing to do is to plan your wife's death and wait with her," Kehoe told LifeNews.com.It's unfortunate that CBS accidentally posted this story where a search engine could find it, given CBS's already damaged credibility...but it's even more unfortunate that this Kehoe woman would try to twist the story to serve her own purposes.

The insanity continues....

Don't panic

Mar 31, 2005, 11:12 AM

Well, Michael Schiavo's murder is now complete (http://tbo.com/).

pure trolling. you should be ashamed of yourself.

MacNut

Mar 31, 2005, 11:12 AM

Well we should all learn something after the autopsy is performed.

VincentVega

Mar 31, 2005, 12:00 PM

Well, Michael Schiavo's murder is now complete (http://tbo.com/).

Worst. Post. Ever. You should be ashamed. Incidentally, shouldn't that be "Terri's Schiavo's murder is now complete"? Unless, of course, you are threatening her husband's life, in which case the FBI need to be notified.

I'm glad she's finally at peace now. Hopefully Michael and her parents will be allowed to commit her to the earth without hordes of press vultures and right-to-life whackos (mention no names) intruding into their lives and attempting to impose their flawed "ethics" and "principles" on the rest of us.

jefhatfield

Mar 31, 2005, 12:12 PM

everything i have heard in the media depicted the radicals as being for terri schiavo...from radical right winger terry to radical left winger jesse

but that is not entirely true...my wife and i are more near the center of the political spectrum and we supported her to live

to me, it's still watching somebody die (and very slowly) when something could have been done to keep them alive...euthanasia seems barbaric to me and not something that should be condoned by any political party...it's not about being a politcial issue, or it shouldn't be

MacNut

Mar 31, 2005, 12:12 PM

I am Catholic but am appalled at what these nut jobs have been trying to do over the past few weeks.

dsharits

Mar 31, 2005, 12:16 PM

bousozoku

Mar 31, 2005, 12:18 PM

I am Catholic but am appalled at what these nut jobs have been trying to do over the past few weeks.

You can be sure that god is ashamed as well.

MacNut

Mar 31, 2005, 12:18 PM

She did not feel pain, try watching a cancer patient suffer during the last days, feeling everything unable to eat, dieing a slow painfull death. Where is the support for these people. :mad:

MacNut

Mar 31, 2005, 12:24 PM

Everybody who is terminally ill should have the right to die. Not be forced to suffer.

dsharits

Mar 31, 2005, 12:27 PM

She did not feel pain, try watching a cancer patient suffer during the last days, feeling everything unable to eat, dieing a slow painfull death. Where is the support for these people. :mad:
If she didn't feel pain while starving to death, why did they give her morphine?

skunk

Mar 31, 2005, 12:30 PM

If she didn't feel pain while starving to death, why did they give her morphine?
So she wouldn't feel any pain. Isn't this a bit circular? :confused:

zimv20

Mar 31, 2005, 12:31 PM

If she didn't feel pain while starving to death, why did they give her morphine?
source?

(why do i even bother?)

MacNut

Mar 31, 2005, 12:31 PM

If she didn't feel pain while starving to death, why did they give her morphine?Pain and discomfort are different things. You don't feel pain if you don't eat your just weak. How can you feel pain if you don't have a mind to think with.

dsharits

Mar 31, 2005, 12:32 PM

source?

(why do i even bother?)
Source?!? It's been all over the stinkin' news!

MacNut

Mar 31, 2005, 12:34 PM

When I've been sick I didn't eat for a week, I didn't feel pain just weak. Your argument holds no water.

MacNut

Mar 31, 2005, 12:36 PM

DS besides the pain that you like to inflict on others, have you ever seen people in pain first hand or ever been in real pain yourself?

dsharits

Mar 31, 2005, 12:39 PM

When I've been sick I didn't eat for a week, I didn't feel pain just weak. Your argument holds no water.
This is not being sick and having no appetite. She was a perfectly healthy human being that was allowed to have no food or water for two weeks, not one. And yes, I have watched someone in real pain, and I have been in real pain myself. I know what it's like.

zimv20

Mar 31, 2005, 12:40 PM

Source?!? It's been all over the stinkin' news!
then you should have no trouble putting up a link to a reputable news agency. until you source it, i'll just assume you're making it up.

MacNut

Mar 31, 2005, 12:41 PM

HOW WAS SHE HEALTHY???? she was brain dead. is that what you call healthy being fed from a tube?

MacNut

Mar 31, 2005, 12:47 PM

I've watched far to many family members die from cancer, the last days weeks and even months can be the worst things to ever have to witness. They don't get feeding tubes or support from people with political agendas, They are just left to die a horrible slow death. If they were allowed to at least die in comfort then at least maybe they could have some peace during their final days on earth.

iGary

Mar 31, 2005, 12:51 PM

She was a perfectly healthy human being.

This is your idea of perfectly healthy?:

http://www.terrisfight.org/images/terrifrontpage.jpg

MacNut

Mar 31, 2005, 12:55 PM

This is your idea of perfectly healthy?:

http://www.terrisfight.org/images/terrifrontpage.jpgMaybe the delusion is worse then we thought.

dsharits

Mar 31, 2005, 12:56 PM

then you should have no trouble putting up a link to a reputable news agency. until you source it, i'll just assume you're making it up.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/27/schiavo/

Happy now? :rolleyes:

MacNut

Mar 31, 2005, 01:02 PM

The American Academy of Neurology issued a position statement in 1988 on the persistent vegetative state, declaring that such patients "do not have the capacity to experience pain or suffering."

On Saturday, Bobby Schindler said Terri Schiavo was "not dying peacefully and painlessly."

But George Felos, an attorney for Michael Schiavo, visited her Saturday and said she was "calm," "peaceful" and "resting comfortably."

I bet it was more to please the crowd and her parents then anything else.

dsharits

Mar 31, 2005, 01:02 PM

This is your idea of perfectly healthy?:

http://www.terrisfight.org/images/terrifrontpage.jpg
You know, Glenn Beck said this the best. He said that if she still looked as beautiful as she did before 1990, she would still be alive today. Since she looked like that person at the mall that you never really wanted to look at, or the one that your mother always told you to stop staring at, you have no problem with killing her. She looked undesirable, so she was undesired. Thank you for proving Glenn Beck to be perfectly correct.

zimv20

Mar 31, 2005, 01:03 PM

Happy now?
ecstatic, actually. now i can better assess your claim that terri was receiving morphine. witness:

"Terri is declining rapidly. We believe she has, at this point, passed where physically she would be able to recover," David Gibbs, the Schindler family's lawyer, said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

[...]

Gibbs also said Terri Schiavo is receiving morphine for pain.

it was the family's lawyer who said that, and, knowing such, i can adopt the appropriate level of skepticism.

do you see the difference between this and you simply asserting it as fact?

it would have been better if you'd said, "according to the family lawyer, terri was receiving morphine for pain." that removes all disingenuity from your post.

dsharits

Mar 31, 2005, 01:07 PM

ecstatic, actually. now i can better assess your claim that terri was receiving morphine. witness:

it was the family's lawyer who said that, and, knowing such, i can adopt the appropriate level of skepticism.

do you see the difference between this and you simply asserting it as fact?

it would have been better if you'd said, "according to the family lawyer, terri was receiving morphine for pain." that removes all disingenuity from your post.
There were actually a lot more articles on it being confirmed, but they have since been linked to news of her death. This was one of the only articles left that even mention morphine.

Xtremehkr

Mar 31, 2005, 01:12 PM

Ok, that was interesting. What is the next big deal going to be.

Feeding tube emergency media and political extravagances will probably die down in about a week and no one will care about the fact that situations like this occur all the time.

What do you think ds, will this still be a hot topic in a month or so? Will the crusade continue in order to prevent something like this from ever happening again?

What do you think the chances are of something else coming up soon that is going to be a politically motivated, media lead maelstrom of misinformation and malice?

Wanna bet that you'll be onboard for that one too?

Terri died of dehydration btw, not starvation.

The autopsy is forthcoming, which will keep this thing alive a little longer. But if you were to read the report and not the interpretation of the report from a biased source, it is likely to confirm everything that has been said here.

zimv20

Mar 31, 2005, 01:12 PM

There were actually a lot more articles on it being confirmed, but they have since been linked to news of her death. This was one of the only articles left that even mention morphine.
it doesn't matter how many articles mention it if they've all got the same source. confirmation would actually come from either the attending physician stating it or the representatives of both family's confirming it.

bousozoku

Mar 31, 2005, 01:13 PM

ecstatic, actually. now i can better assess your claim that terri was receiving morphine. witness:

it was the family's lawyer who said that, and, knowing such, i can adopt the appropriate level of skepticism.

do you see the difference between this and you simply asserting it as fact?

it would have been better if you'd said, "according to the family lawyer, terri was receiving morphine for pain." that removes all disingenuity from your post.

Considering the tone from all of the family's associates, it wouldn't matter if she had truly been in pain or not. They would have made sure the world "knew" that she was in pain.