Terri Shaivo thread

[JUGGERNAUT]

Dude offers $1 million to keep Schaivo alive

 

Wow.  Does this ever end?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He doesn't understand that stem cell research without cloning can not help Terri.

The advances he's talking about are likely to come from cloning. Unless we are willing to open that pandora's box not just for Terri but for all of mankind there is no real or tangible hope for her.

 

Her husband might want to rethink this a bit. It would be best for him to get a medical consensus opinion from futurists on Terri's condition. I'm throwing this out there because this decision has the potential to haunt him for the rest of his life. He would be better off to place that burden on the futurists than himself.

 

With every advancement in stem research & cloning technology around the globe (cloning is not going to go away just because the govt wants it to) the decision to end Terri's life will continue to resurface. It's not going to go away. Just like advances in spinal injury research will always bring to mind C Reeve. T Shiavo will always be mentioned in neural research.

[Texsox]

Wow, you have got real problems if the person you are married to, you can't trust to decide whether to keep you on life support or not.

There are various stages of divorce. Many of them occur while the people are legally married.

 

In decisions between life and death, I choose life.

[maggliopipe]

Given that it will take at least 20 yrs to realize cyborg Terri

would it not make more sense to simply clone her?  The cloned Terri would enjoy a better & fuller life 20 yrs from now.

 

u r FunNy.

 

There are those in the scientific community who believe human DNA contains information pertaining to memories passed down from one generation to the next.

 

that's a loose definition of the "scientific community". i'm sure they conduct well-funded research.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

If the parents want to flip the bill to keep her enduring all this then they can & should be able to have the opportunity. I am a proponent of a person choosing dignity with their death instead of being stuck in a cold, sterile hospital alone in the middle of the night enduring pain & watching their own blood pump through the veins they can see in their paper thin skin. If you really want to not endure all that, here's a real simple idea -- TELL EVERYBODY. That way there is no confusion.

 

I wonder how much of this court battle is the husband and her family trying to get control of the malpractice money that the heir will get after her death. Call me a cynic.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/102403terri.html -- Its from a conspiracy site so I don't know how accurate these videos are but if true, then this throws a whole new aspect into the case.

Edited March 19, 2005 by LowerCaseRepublican

[Rex Kickass]

There are various stages of divorce. Many of them occur while the people are legally married.

 

In decisions between life and death, I choose life.

 

 

I hate to say this, but it brings up the sticky question of what life is. I believe in the right to life, but I also believe in the right to die with dignity, if that was her wish to do so.

[Texsox]

My equally smarmy 2 word argument for spousal rights - especially as averse as I tend to be toward all the Bible claptrap: Genesis 2

 

Therefore a man foresekes his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

 

Marriage trumps blood.  'Cuz the Bible says so.

 

I agree that is God's word, and the husband should be making the decision. And because you were kind enough to being the Bible into the discusion, I am certain you would agree then the husband should be following . . .

 

Matthew 5:21 - Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

 

I'm not smart enough to really understand Genesis 2, but I do understand, Thou Shall Not Kill. This is so different from using extraordinary equipment like ventilators to keep someone alive.

 

So Jim, what happens when the hsuband isn't following God's word??

Edited March 19, 2005 by Texsox

[southsider2k5]

I agree that is God's word, and the husband should be making the decision. And because you were kind enough to being the Bible into the discusion, I am certain you would agree then the husband should be following . . .

 

Matthew 5:21 - Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

 

I'm not smart enough to really understand Genesis 2, but I do understand, Thou Shall Not Kill. This is so different from using extraordinary equipment like ventilators to keep someone alive.

 

So Jim, what happens when the hsuband isn't following God's word??

 

Is it killing someone when they couldn't survive on their own, and they had made the decesion that they didn't want artificial means keeping them alive?

[Texsox]

Is it killing someone when they couldn't survive on their own, and they had made the decesion that they didn't want artificial means keeping them alive?

 

That is a difficult decision, and I honestly am not 100% certain. But I do believe that *not* killing them, is easier to justify, than killing them. What have we lost if we allow the parents to keep her alive, receive therapy which she has been denied, allow her outside, which her husband has denied, allow her parents to take care of her? He can move on with his new life.

 

I do support someone's desire to die with dignity. Unfortunately in this case, there is no definitive written plan. And I wonder if mine differentiates between a feeding tube and ventilators, etc.

[JUGGERNAUT]

It's not over yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...oman_congress_8

This is expected to pass the Senate & the House & be signed into law by Bush. That will give Terri more time.

 

Is it better or worse for the nation to let Terri live? I think it's better.

There might not be any logic to it but sometimes the human condition needs to trump logic. I think this is one of those times. People are willing to shoulder the cost & work hard to try & improve Terri's life. That's a rare thing in itself.

[Texsox]

It's not over yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...oman_congress_8

This is expected to pass the Senate & the House & be signed into law by Bush.  That will give Terri more time.

 

Is it better or worse for the nation to let Terri live?  I think it's better.

There might not be any logic to it but sometimes the human condition needs to trump logic.  I think this is one of those times.  People are willing to shoulder the cost & work hard to try & improve Terri's life.  That's a rare thing in itself.

 

humanity is better served by allowing her parents to care for her and for her to live.

[Steff]

I wonder how much of this court battle is the husband and her family trying to get control of the malpractice money that the heir will get after her death.  Call me a cynic.

 

 

 

The money has already been paid out and most of it's gone. FWIU there's less than 20K left and that's going to be given to the hospis she's currently in. Michael also turned down 10 million.. IMO, that makes this not about $$ for him.

[Texsox]

The money has already been paid out and most of it's gone. FWIU there's less than 20K left and that's going to be given to the hospis she's currently in. Michael also turned down 10 million.. IMO, that makes this not about $$ for him.

 

According to a Fox News report, any medical malpractice suits will start after she dies. If I understood the report, there is also some death benefits.

 

But, just because there is possibly some money involved, I do not think it is fair to claim that is his motivation. I don't know him. I fear at this point it is him vs. the parents, and possibly neither side is being totally altruistic. Although, realistically look at their lives if she lives or dies.

 

Lives: He would have to get a divorce and then move on with his new family. The parents would be in a 24/7 care mode dedicated to her.

 

Dies: He could move along with his new family. The parents would grieve, and eventually, I pray, overcome the anger, pain, and resentment.

 

Again, I come out on the side of allowing the parents to continue to feed and care for her.

[Steff]

According to the web site run by her parents the malpractice suit was paid out in 1998, and since near $450K has been paid to medical facilities and to lawyers with fees in excess of $200K still due.

 

MHO, I think they should let her pass. Just basing that on what I would want. I, no matter how much my parents would want it, would not want to be such a burden. As well.. they are not medical professionals and could not care for me alone. The cost, I imagine, has got to be extreme.

[Texsox]

According to the web site run by her parents the malpractice suit was paid out in 1998, and since near $450K has been paid to medical facilities and to lawyers with fees in excess of $200K still due.

 

MHO, I think they should let her pass. Just basing that on what I would want. I, no matter how much my parents would want it, would not want to be such a burden. As well.. they are not medical professionals and could not care for me alone. The cost, I imagine, has got to be extreme.

 

I agree that I would not want to be a burden like that to my parents. I also watched my parents bury my little brother and I wouldn't want that either. If it was their wishes to keep me alive, I would rather they have the choice.

 

It's a shame that so many resources that could be used for her care, instead are being paid to attorneys.

 

She is in a hospice facility which is not as expensive as a nursing home and she does not require any extrordinary or specific medical care. She breathes on her own, heart beats fine on it's own, she just needs help eating. An issue that has not been brought up is care after the parents die. There is the possibility she could outlive them, that is unless the death penalty is carried out.

 

I am certain if it comes down to a money to keep her alive, the tens of millions of Americans that are praying for her to be spared death by dehydration, would come through and donate enough money to keep her alive.

 

And if they are going to allow her to die. At least make it as gently as we would a serial murderer, not slow and torturous.

 

And any guesses why the husband has denied any therapy? Denied permission for the hospice staff to take her outside? Denied any and all efforts to help this lady beyond what he is legally mandated to do?

[Rex Kickass]

He pursued an aggressive course of therapy for five years. With no improvement, and according to every medical professional who has reviewed this that I've seen, no chance of improvement.

 

If she's in a perpetual vegetative state with no hope of improvement, why would you try to get her further therapy?

[Rex Kickass]

Here's another case in Texas, except its the hospital that gets to pull the plug. Because the medicare funding runs out. Thanks to a 1999 law signed by then governor George W. Bush.

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/3073295

[Texsox]

He pursued an aggressive course of therapy for five years. With no improvement, and according to every medical professional who has reviewed this that I've seen, no chance of improvement.

 

If she's in a perpetual vegetative state with no hope of improvement, why would you try to get her further therapy?

I agree that some treatments have proven to be of no help at this point, but who would consider taking her outside as an aggressive course of therapy? I disagree that there is no hope for her improvement. Just look at her parents and the tens of millions of people who want her to not dehydrate to death.

 

There are medical experts on both sides with different opinions. Why are people so quick to want to see her die?

 

If she is in a perpetual vegetative state, then she isn't being harmed by the care. If she isn't in a perpetual state, and we stop feeding and giving her water, she will be harmed.

 

Who is harmed by keeping her alive? Who is helped by her dying?

[Rex Kickass]

Tex: I didn't make this judgment. Doctor after doctor did. Court after court did. I wish that the parties involved in this fight could get into a reasonable solution in either case instead of enlisting politicians to wrap themselves up in her sickbed for political gain.

[Texsox]

Tex:  I didn't make this judgment. Doctor after doctor did. Court after court did. I wish that the parties involved in this fight could get into a reasonable solution in either case instead of enlisting politicians to wrap themselves up in her sickbed for political gain.

 

I agree 100% with you. It is very unfortunate that we have to make this judgement. I hope we elected the types of people we would want making this decision for us.

 

I can not fathom standing by and watching a human being dehydrate and not give them water? We wouldn't kill a convicted mass murderer that way. Yet that is the fate that this poor woman is going through.

 

Miracles happen. Some doctors believe with continues therapy, there is hope. Keeping things as they were keeps her alive. Killing her helps no one except the person that wants her dead.

 

But, hey that's just the conservative in me.

[Rex Kickass]

But, hey that's just the conservative in me.

 

No. That's the human in you.

[YASNY]

I really am sympathic to all parties involved in this situation. Terri, of course, because of her condition. Michael and the parents because they and their motives are being debated by people, like us, who have no emotional investment whatsoever. Not only do they have a personal nightmare to live with, but they are under a microscope as they do. It must be a little slice of hell.

Edited March 20, 2005 by YASNY

[Rex Kickass]

From todays Washington Post article on the Schiavo thing.

 

In a memo distributed only to Republican senators, the Schiavo case was characterized as "a great political issue" that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006.

 

Another side question: Is it appropriate to obviate the constitution and erase a judicial decision because the Congress doesn't agree with it?

[Texsox]

From todays Washington Post article on the Schiavo thing.

Another side question: Is it appropriate to obviate the constitution and erase a judicial decision because the Congress doesn't agree with it?

 

Yes, that is our system. The legislature enacts laws, the judicial branch interprets them. When judges rule against a certain situation, enacting a new law is exactly what they should do. But only after screaming about activist judges for several days.

[Rex Kickass]

But you can't pass a law to retroactively change a ruling.

 

This bill would do just that. It would erase six years of legal proceedings and start with no history. It's as if the last six or seven years of legal wrangling to get this point would have never existed. If they'll do it in this situation, when else would they do this?

[Texsox]

But you can't pass a law to retroactively change a ruling.

 

This bill would do just that. It would erase six years of legal proceedings and start with no history. It's as if the last six or seven years of legal wrangling to get this point would have never existed. If they'll do it in this situation, when else would they do this?

 

But don't new laws always do that? They just enacted legislature to allow drilling in ANWR. That's been kicking around forever and with court rulings. Whenever a law is ruled unconstitutional the legislative branch has an opportunity to review and change the law to fit. This wouldn't change the ruling, it would require a new ruling.

 

Some want her to die, some to live. If they replace the feeding tube, both sides will eventually get what they want. One side will keep her alive and under the care of her parents, the pro-death crowd will eventually get their wish also.