Terri Shaivo thread

[LowerCaseRepublican]

ABC News reports:

 

ABC News has obtained talking points circulated among Republican senators explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited..." and "This is a great political issue... this is a tough issue for Democrats."

 

Sick, sick sick sick sick.

 

ABC Poll:

Do you personally have a so-called living will or health care proxy to deal with your wishes for medical treatment if you're unable to do so, or not?"

 

Yes 42

No 57

Unsure 1

 

As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be kept on life support. In cases like this who do you think should have final say, the parents or the spouse?

 

Parents 25

Spouse 65

Other 2

Neither 2

Unsure 6

 

If you were in this condition, would you want to be kept alive, or not?

 

Kept Alive 8

Not Kept Alive 87

Unsure 4

 

I'm with the 87 percent.

[Queen Prawn]

My parents have made each other and the three of us promise to not leave them on life supports if there is no chance for any improvement. To be honest, they don't want it at all for any reason. For my mom, it had to do with what happened with her parents.

[Texsox]

My parents have made each other and the three of us promise to not leave them on life supports if there is no chance for any improvement.  To be honest, they don't want it at all for any reason.  For my mom, it had to do with what happened with her parents.

 

This is a great time to clarify what life support means. Some consider a ventilator "life support" this is a feeding tube. I would not disagree with anyone who calls this "life support" but I could see some people not necessarily meaning a feeding tube as life support.

[Steff]

This is a great time to clarify what life support means. Some consider a ventilator "life support" this is a feeding tube. I would not disagree with anyone who calls this "life support" but I could see some people not necessarily meaning a feeding tube as life support.

 

 

Without it, does she die... ?

 

 

That's how I define LS.

[Rex Kickass]

Yes she would. Just so you are aware, the Republicans passed this bill and was signed into law after midnight.

 

I would like you to remember that the same people who are forcing this bill into law, supported and helped pass a Texas law in 1999 that allows insurance companies and hospitals to make PEG tube decisions over the wishes of family members.

[Texsox]

Without it, does she die... ?

That's how I define LS.

 

And I don't see how anyone could disagree. However, someone who is a paraplegic, also needs assistance to eat and drink. Did you consider Christopher Reeves to be "on life support"? He could not feed himself.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yes she would. Just so you are aware, the Republicans passed this bill and was signed into law after midnight.

 

I would like you to remember that the same people who are forcing this bill into law, supported and helped pass a Texas law in 1999 that allows insurance companies and hospitals to make PEG tube decisions over the wishes of family members.

 

You're suggesting there is some inconsistency here? Get the f*** out!

[Queen Prawn]

This is a great time to clarify what life support means. Some consider a ventilator "life support" this is a feeding tube. I would not disagree with anyone who calls this "life support" but I could see some people not necessarily meaning a feeding tube as life support.

 

This came up 2 years ago with my gramma. My parents consider both if they are what is primarily sustaining life for them.

[Texsox]

You're suggesting there is some inconsistency here?  Get the f*** out!

Wouldn't that be consistent? Aren't they taking the decision away from her husband?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Wouldn't that be consistent? Aren't they taking the decision away from her husband?

 

Not the way I understood the Texas issue. Yes, they are taking the right to decide away from family (birth or narriage), but they are NOT doing it to preserve the 'sacred gift that is life' and all that other drek being spewed now. The Texas laws let hospitals/insurance companies make the decision to pull the tube and end life support if they deem there to be no hope in a case - EVEN IF THIS IS AGAINST THE WILL OF THE FAMILY. The family does have 10 days from the time the hospital makes it's decision before they pull life support to try to find another facility that will take their loved one in - sometimes they find one and sometimes they cannot.

 

The point and the hypocrasy here is that, the express will of the family and the implied will of the vegetative patient mean very little in Texas as a result of Bush-sponsored measures. It comes down to $$ and the insurance companies being the ones to decide when it's time to pull the plug on a patient with no hope of recovery.

 

And in truth, I don't think the Texas situation is entirely abhorrant. Even if family cannot let go, there comes a time when teh insurance companies and hospitals SHOULD have a say in when to call it day. What is much more sickening is the political/moral grandstanding and using Terry Schiavo as a pawn in all of this because it's a rallying point for the Right-To-Birthers etc.

[Texsox]

Now I see how you were looking at this. I can definatlly see your point. What I think makes this case unique is the lack of a written document that proves what she wants and the finality of death. I know some are trying to link it with the whole pro life issue. It is interesting that many anti-death penalty Dems are on the let her die side.

 

It seems to me that she is getting a death sentance and we aren't even being as kind to her as we would a mass murderer. Dehydration (not starvation) is going to take her life and it will be a terrible death. I've read too many accounts of patients who Doctors said could not hear, in fact could. Patients who Doctors said couldn't feel pain, could.

 

If she is in as bad a shape as the pro-death crowd believes, she isn't in any more pain or suffering by keeping the feeding tube in place. If she is functioning at the level her parents are desperate to believe, she is not only not being harmed by the feeding tube, but any rational human would agree keeping her alive is the right thing to do.

 

The chart as I see it.

 

Husband's view:

Feeding tube: Waste of time

No feeding tube: quickens death

 

Parent's view:

Feeding tube: sustains life

No feeding tube: murder

 

Where does she lose by being kept alive? Where does she gain by dying?

Edited March 21, 2005 by Texsox

[Steff]

And I don't see how anyone could disagree. However, someone who is a paraplegic, also needs assistance to eat and drink. Did you consider Christopher Reeves to be "on life support"? He could not feed himself.

 

 

Good grief..

Christopher Reeve could communicate. And while Terry makes noise and appears to look at people when they talk to her.. there is no evidence that she has any ability to communicate nor any proof that she can remember things for more than 5 minutes as that part of her brain is liquid.

[Texsox]

Good grief.. 

Christopher Reeve could communicate. And while Terry makes noise and appears to look at people when they talk to her.. there is no evidence that she has any ability to communicate nor any proof that she can remember things for more than 5 minutes as that part of her brain is liquid.

 

The point I clumsily was trying to make is a feeding tube may or may not be considered a life support device depending on circumstances and to be careful when writing a living will. Likewise, someone in a coma would also need a feeding tube. A narrowly defined living will may not reflect your wishes.

 

I believe the totality of the person is needed to determine when a feeding tube is considered live support.

 

I 100% would respect her wishes to not be kept alive in the state she is in, if she had clearly stated those wishes. Absent of any written statements by her, I do not see any harm in keeping her alive.

[JUGGERNAUT]

It's all in the hands of Clinton appointee Whitemore. He is the Federal Judge who is going to rule on this today. Why?

 

Because a bill that passed unanimously in the Senate & overwhelmingly in the House was signed into Law today by Pres Bush. It's not a simple law by any means. The gist is that in the absence of a living will and when a states judicial branch is at odds with it's executive & legislative branches motions can be filed in Federal court & trump the state's judicial ruling.

 

Whitemore will decide whether Terri continues to live or dies.

 

Generally speaking what we have this year is a GOP agenda to erode power away from the judicial branch of states. Eariler this year it was the effort to consolidate personal injury, liability, & malpractice suits from state courts to federal courts in an effort to lower the damage amounts.

 

I don't necc have a problem with that because I generally place greater importance on the common good vs the selfish needs & wants of individuals. But I do find it a dangerous precedent when they do it piecemeal pertaining to special interests and legislative agendas.

 

If the general problem is that too much power is wielded from the bench these days then you can easily weaken that power with term limits & more elections of judges at the state & federal level. The state constitutions control these parameters for non-federal judges. That is protected in the US Cons. But the appointment process or term limits can't be changed w/out a Cons amendment for federal judges.

 

This is one amendment that is long overdue. In the modern age there is no such thing as a impartial judge. We don't live in a nation that foster's impartial decision making. We are a very divided nation when it comes to social issues. It's unlikely any appointment will ever include a person who has not taken a stance or a side in their lifetime.

 

USSC Ruth Ginsberg advocates lowering the age of consent to 12. She believes it's perfectly acceptable for 12 yr old girls to have relations with male adults. That was apparent in the stances she took prior to her appointment. The GOP must have fallen asleep then or they made a deal with Clinton. But she's a perfect example of impartiality being non-existant .

 

It's high time for some accountability in the judicial branch. There simply is no excuse for lifetime appointments given the vast numbers of qualified individuals in the legal profession today. Again if you look back through history the number of lawyers/per person ratio in the nation has grown rapidly as well.

 

The US Cons should be amended such that Federal judges serve no more than 8 yrs. At which time they need to be reappointed to retain their seats. Since the appointments are driven by the executive branch & approved by the legislative branch the will of the people plays a role.

With term limits there is accountability. That accountability exits at the lowest level of government where the people choose whether to retain or boot out a judge when the term has expired. It's high time something like that exists for the Fed.

[Texsox]

I was listening to Hannity this afternoon and he had a "Noble Award Nominee" Doctor who has spent 10 hours with her and he claims, she can follow objects with her eyes, moves from side to side. He claims will therapy she could be walking and functioning. This seems way optimistic to me based on what other Doctors have reported.

 

He did mention some other things and a couple things that seem wrong to me.

 

Every time a nursing home suggested therapy, the husband would move her to another home. If there is no hope, why was she moved from home to home?

 

Two nurses have signed affidavits that she has chewed and swallowed food on her own. When they mentioned it to the hubby, he moved her to another facility.

 

He is living with and has two children by another woman. Why doesn't he just let go, and allow her parents to care for her? That still makes no sense to me.

 

She suffered through several infections and he would not authorize even giving her antibiotics.

 

He would not allow the facility to take her outside? What harm could there possibly be in taking her outside? Was he afraid she would run away?

 

I am rapidly losing any sympathy for this guy. I know the parents are probably clinging to too small a hope, but this guy seemingly doesn't care. I hope this hasn't turned into a pissing contest on this guy's part.

 

It feels weird way over here with the GOP I feel like I crashed a party and I'm waiting to be kicked out.

[Rex Kickass]

If that's true, why is the court finding him to be more than acceptable as a guardian time and time again?

 

Edited in: I was gonna leave it here but something here is really bothering me. Why the hell are the people involved being demonized? Neither side is blameless, but it sounds like the parents are out to do this guy in. And so are the folks on the right, apparently, like Sean Hannity and his "Nobel caliber doctor." That s*** just makes me sick.

 

First people grandstand on the sickbed on a vegetative woman, then they destroy the life of the husband who spent 15 years caring for her, and then they ignore the dozens of others of cases like this where the decisions are being made by hospitals and insurance companies. Or even worse, sign bills enabling that into law.

 

Maybe if we pulled the feeding tube from some of these politicians' wallets, they would actually care about everyone equally.

Edited March 21, 2005 by winodj

[JUGGERNAUT]

I was listening to Hannity this afternoon and he had a "Noble Award Nominee" Doctor who has spent 10 hours with her and he claims, she can follow objects with her eyes, moves from side to side. He claims will therapy she could be walking and functioning. This seems way optimistic to me based on what other Doctors have reported.

 

He did mention some other things and a couple things that seem wrong to me.

 

Every time a nursing home suggested therapy, the husband would move her to another home. If there is no hope, why was she moved from home to home?

 

Two nurses have signed affidavits that she has chewed and swallowed food on her own. When they mentioned it to the hubby, he moved her to another facility.

 

He is living with and has two children by another woman. Why doesn't he just let go, and allow her parents to care for her? That still makes no sense to me.

 

She suffered through several infections and he would not authorize even giving her antibiotics.

 

He would not allow the facility to take her outside? What harm could there possibly be in taking her outside? Was he afraid she would run away?

 

I am rapidly losing any sympathy for this guy. I know the parents are probably clinging to too small a hope, but this guy seemingly doesn't care. I hope this hasn't turned into a pissing contest on this guy's part.

 

It feels weird way over here with the GOP  I feel like I crashed a party and I'm waiting to be kicked out. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're last line had me

 

I was reading more about what was & was not admissable in the courts during the 10 rulings by the 19 other judges & I am disturbed by a general direction from the court.

Putting aside Terri's condition, it seems to me the court had a negative reaction to her being Catholic. Part of the testimony to refute his assertion that she wanted to die in these circumstances included interviews with people who knew her both in the family & in the church before she married him. Those interviews clearly define her as being pro-life in the religious sense. I say this because as you know I'm pro-choice but lean more towards pro-life. Terri was fully pro-life. The court seemed to ignore this entirely.

 

As for some of this testimony as to what she can or can not do or whether therapy can help there is a limit to what our modern science can answer. We have only begun to map the functions of the brain & we all know that short of exploratory surgery brain scans can only tell you so much. If much of her damage is on the surface it could be an entirely different story underneath. We don't have the technology to probe deeper with scans but exp surg would tell us that.

 

Of course I just opened yet another can of worms in this case which is why it's better to error on the side of life. If Terri were to die as a result of court action Terri's family & the court of public opinion would likely demand an autopsy to see exactly how bad the damage really was. If it turned out to be less than what was expected the door opens for a wrongful death suit. The state of FL, USA, & possibly Michael & his attorneys could be named in the suit for suppressing evidence that pertained to her condition & was closely aligned with what the autopsy would reveal.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The latest.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/us/ass...amaged_woman_19

On the one hand we have Terri's pre-sumptive civil right to die.

On the other hand we have Terri's religious convictions.

 

I say pre-sumptive right to die because it is an inconclusive right. Terri

did not leave a living will nor did she leave an other conclusive indication she wanted to exercise her right to die.

 

Terri's religious convictions are not pre-sumptive. They are supported by testimony from Church & family members. Before suffering the damage Terri was a regular Church-goer & close to her family in that regards. As a practicing Catholic there is nothing pre-sumptive about her willingness to exercise her right to die. It's clearly a sin in the Church & Terri took that seriously.

 

So what you have here is a case of the most convincing argument for Terri's willingness to live expressed by her religious faith & the most convicing argument of Terri's willingness to die expressed by her husband's testimony. A lifelong commitment to practicing her faith vs a moment in time by her husband. Which is more credible to you?

 

This in my opinion is what has plagued this case from the start. The court is essentially ignoring any testimony relating to her practice of her religion.

That might sit well with some of you but it most certainly doesn't sit well with those of us who are religious.

 

Suppose instead that Terri was an avid poker player & expressed her right to live in these circumstances with other poker players. Do you think the court would rule that testimony inadmissable?

 

It appears U.S. District Judge James Whittemore is leaning towards letting her die. He does not believe that the states pre-sumption of her expressing a right to die violates her religious rights despite the knowledge that expressing that right amounts to commiting a mortal sin in her religion. On that basis he does not believe testimony pertaining to her religious convinctions or practices is sufficient to challenge Michael's guardianship & thus Michael's assertion of her wanting to die. That is where he stands right now.

 

I do not know if Michael is religious or Catholic but I certainly would say

that before a so-called impartial judge who is weighing these two sides that would certainly have a bearing on the case.

 

I can guarantee you that if Terri is allowed to die the Democrats will suffer in the upcoming election. Terri's death will be blamed on the party that seems hell bent on eroding religious rights in America. If you thought gay

marriage was a galvanizing issue for GOP you ain't seen nothing yet.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I mentioned the possibility of suffering & found this:

A leading nuerologist said the timing of her death will depend on how well she was hydrated before the feeding stopped & whether her doctors give her painkillers in intravenous fluids to prevent possible suffering.

 

The nuerologist did say that even persons in persistent vegetive states can experience pain during starvation.

[jackie hayes]

I mentioned the possibility of suffering & found this:

A leading nuerologist said the timing of her death will depend on how well she was hydrated before the feeding stopped & whether her doctors give her painkillers in intravenous fluids to prevent possible suffering.

 

The nuerologist did say that even persons in persistent vegetive states can experience pain during starvation.

Where did you find it? First reason to question it is that they can't even spell neurologist.

 

In general: So where are all the laws from Congress requiring that we 'err on the side of life' -- not business, or politics? And since there's so much evidence that this woman is recoverable, can someone tell me why the state court is so corrupt that it appointed physicians that all came to the conclusion that the woman is not?

 

Whether you like the law or not, the court did its job, the correct decision was made, and this should be over, except that some parasites in Congress wanted to make a point without taking any real position. This is one of the most disgusting episodes in American politics in decades.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Where did you find it?  First reason to question it is that they can't even spell neurologist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/US/ass...ce_050321221637

Near the end. I probably had a typo when paraphrasing it. I don't pay particular attention to typo's on a sports message board. Sorry.

 

As for the case itself whether she is or is not in a persistent vegetable state for me is irrelevant. For me what's at issue is whether the courts ignored her religious practice in determining her will of life. Based on what I've read it certainly appears that's the case. We have Michael's word that she expressed a right to die with respect to that will. We have her families word & that of the members of the church she attended regularly that she expressed a right to live with respect to that will.

 

If I were representing the Schiavo's that would be my case. Not that her religious rights were violated but rather her religious practice was ignored in determining her will of life. The appeal would be based on testimony that evidence pertaining to her religious practice was not admitted by the court in defense of her right to life. This includes testimony of church members that she expressed a right to live as well as pro-life rallies her & her family took part in. It's common knowledge that those who participate in pro-life rallies do not support right-to-die as a living will choice.

 

On the subject of her condition (since this will undoubtedly play a role in any wrongful death suit) there is this link referring to surgeon Dr Bill Frist:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../ts_csm/atube_1

Lawmakers who are likewise Physicians like Senate leader Bill Frist in both the House & Senate disputed the attending physicians' claims that Mrs. Schiavo was in a "persistent vegetative state."

 

Frist added ""From a medical standpoint, I wanted to know a little bit more about the case itself. Scores of neurologists have come forward and said that it doesn't look like she is in a persistent vegetative state.".

[Rex Kickass]

Wasn't Bill Frist also the one who thought you could catch HIV from a teardrop?

[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?

 

How is she being harmed by keeping her alive? Who benefits if she is dead? The very person who had the final say. That seems a perverse situation. This isn't a grieving spouse, weeping at her bedside. This is a guy who goes home to his common law wife and kids, while the parents mourn. I wonder if he will even allow them at the funeral. He had them barred from her bedside.

 

From what I've heard, whenever she started to show signs of improvement, he changed therapists and treatments.

 

If he cares about her so much, why is he living and making babies with someone else? We're looking at a guy who is planning a wedding for 5 minutes after the funeral v. parents who desperately want to care for their child. As a parent, I can truly feel their pain and it is an easy opinion for me. Ask anyone who has had children, you do not realize the bonds until you see them, or feel them kick.

 

Again I ask. Eventually she is going to die, how is she harmed by delaying, if she is as bad as he claims. And how does she benefit? He should walk away, get divorced, and allow the parents to care for her. The government should never decide death for one of it's citizens.

 

It is far easier for me to sympathies with the parents then a man who went ahead and started a new life. Her parents are willing to take the burden from him.

 

Some would call it grandstanding, and there are some people who probably are, but for many in this, they are trying to save her life. And among the people who would prefer to see her die, some of those are grandstanding as well. And death by dehydration is a terrible way to die. We treat stray dogs and mass murderers better.

 

Opening up another can of worms. If the kill her crowd wins, let the poor woman die a peaceful death by lethal injection. Most people would at least give a stray dog a bowl of water.

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.responseunlimited.com/datacard.lasso?list=2968

 

"I'm often asked whether you have to use IV feeding to sustain somebody who is in a terminal coma. Not only do I believe there is no obligation to do it, I believe that imposing those treatments on that class of patients is wrong. There is no benefit to the patient, there is great expense to the community, and there is enormous tension on the family."

 

Gerald Kelly, Theological Studies 1950.

[Texsox]

http://www.responseunlimited.com/datacard.lasso?list=2968

Gerald Kelly, Theological Studies 1950.

I can certainly understand that view, in fact I agree that is the worse case scenario. But notice there is not harm to the patient. He mentions no benefit. So worse case there is no benefit to her in keeping her alive. What is the worse case scenario to standing by and allowing her to die?

 

Again, what is the benefit to Terri in allowing her to die?

What is the potential harm in allowing her to die?

 

I have yet to hear anyone describe a benefit to Terri in allowing her to die?

If there is no benefit, but a slim to no chance of a brilliant and miraculous upside in keeping her alive, isn't the safest route choosing life? Don't we want our government to choose life for it's citizens?