Terry Schiavo Case

**ksquared** · 03-30-2005, 03:21 PM

Right, all the judiciary and medical personnel associated with this decision are Nazis. As are the majority of Americans who believe the woman and her husband have the right to end intrusive and futile treatment.

I’m not convinced that this decision is being made by “the woman and her husband”. The decision is being made by her husband and her husband alone. I’m not sure anyone can say with 100% certainty that this is what Terri would want. Her parents evidently think differently (and yes I know that her husband knows here best after all they were married for + years which certainly negates all those years she spent with the parents, etc., <her current condition>) My point is Terri is unable to clarify her wishes at this time.

Nor am I convinced that the majority of Americans believe Terri’s husband has the right to make Terri’s decision for her, which is how the question is always presented.

But what we can all probably answer is what would we want done if we were in Terri’s situation. This is the "hidden" 2nd part of the question that I beleive most Americans are answering “yes” to.

Most Americans would say they want the right to refuse intrusive and futile treatment. And most would agree that if they “themselves personally” were in a PVS that they would not want a feeding tube used to prolong their lives. So this really has nothing to do with “the husbands right to decide”.

If the roles were reversed and the husband <was> the one wanting to keep Terri alive and it was the parents and the rest of Terri’s family who wanted the feeding tube removed, would we still be defending his right to make Terri’s decisions. I suspect not. We will support the side that best reflects our own personal views and desires. In other words, what we would want to happen to us if we were Terri.

The problem is, we are not Terri. Just because we can’t measure whether she is in fact “still in there”, doesn’t prove that she isn’t. All it proves is that according to today’s technology, it doesn’t appear that she has functioning thoughts and feelings. Unless we can find someone who have been in this state to discuss it with us, we really can’t know.

Perhaps the real question that needs to be asked is “if a person is in a PVS and hasn’t left written instructions, should we make the decision to remove life support (in this case a feeding tube) even if it means going against the families wishes?”

**shanbaum** · 03-30-2005, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by ksquared

I’m not convinced that this decision is being made by “the woman and her husband”. The decision is being made by her husband and her husband alone.

The decision to order the removal of the feeding tube was made by the sovereign power of the State of Florida, not by "the woman and her husband", nor by the "husband alone".

**jediron1** · 03-30-2005, 04:41 PM

Spexvet

I apologize if you feel insulted.:cheers:[/QUOTE]

I was not insulted in least bit! What has got my blood boiling is the insensitive
attitude of members of this optical community.

Robert says:"Terri Schiavo died fifteen years ago."

Then you have chm2023 say:
As are the majority of Americans who believe the woman and her husband have the right to end intrusive and futile treatment.

What I believe is they are straving a poor girl to death. You can cut it anyway you want, stravation is stravation, willing or not and it's not a nice thing to do to another human being. Just look at those poor kids in the Sudan. And Shanbaum your right it was done by the state of Florida!

**Robert Martellaro** · 03-30-2005, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by jediron1

What has got my blood boiling is the insensitive
attitude of members of this optical community. Robert says:"Terri Schiavo died fifteen years ago."

According to the doctors she flat-lined and has a brain that looks like a donut. There's a Monty Python sketch about a guy trying to sell a dead parrot. Check it out.

What I believe is they are straving a poor girl to death. You can cut it anyway you want, stravation is stravation

Her heart will stop because of complications from dehydration. She is not starving. You are recieving bad information.

**ksquared** · 03-30-2005, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by ksquared
I’m not convinced that this decision is being made by “the woman and her husband”. The decision is being made by her husband and her husband alone.

Originally Posted by shanbaum
The decision to order the removal of the feeding tube was made by the sovereign power of the State of Florida, not by "the woman and her husband", nor by the "husband alone".

Courts at both the state and federal level have upheld Michael Schiavo's right to disconnect the feeding tube keeping his wife alive. The decision to actually remove the feeding tube was made <by> her husband and her husband alone.

**jediron1** · 03-30-2005, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro

According to the doctors she flat-lined and has a brain that looks like a donut. There's a Monty Python sketch about a guy trying to sell a dead parrot. Check it out.

[color=darkred]Her heart will stop because of complications from dehydration. She is not starving. You are recieving bad information.

Your sacrasm begets you. The feeding tube was removed. Feed as the meaning says means supplying nourishment to the person or animal so your permis of heart complications is flawed, as usual.:hammer:

**Robert Martellaro** · 03-30-2005, 08:34 PM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/schiavo2.htm

**shanbaum** · 03-30-2005, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by ksquared

Courts at both the state and federal level have upheld Michael Schiavo's right to disconnect the feeding tube keeping his wife alive. The decision to actually remove the feeding tube was made <by> her husband and her husband alone.

Sorry, you're completely wrong. The court ordered the removal of the tube, having found that this is what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted under the circumstances.

You can read some of the case documents here:

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/li...avo/index.html

**ksquared** · 03-31-2005, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Shanbuam
Sorry, you're completely wrong. The court ordered the removal of the tube, having found that this is what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted under the circumstances.

Not completely. The stimulus for my post was a statement that I keep hearing over and over that the majority of us believe that the woman and her husband have the right to end intrusive and futile treatment. The point I was making was that the husband in this case was the one making the decision since Terri is unable to clarify her wishes at this point. “In May 1998, seven years after Terri's collapse, Michael Schiavo filed a petition to discontinue life support for Terri Schiavo.” This was his decision to do so, not the courts, not the parents, but his alone.

However, you are correct that the courts had the final say in the matter, ruling in favor of the husbands petition and ordering the feeding tube removed. My statement regarding the “actual” removal was inaccurate. After doing some furhter reading I also found that now Michael Schiavo doesn’t have legal standing to overrule the courts legal detemination. Thanks for the stimulus to dig a little deeper.

Petitioner: Michael Schiavo
Excerpt: 5 years have passed since the issuance of the February 2000 authorizing the removal of Theresa Schiavo’s nutrition and hydration and there appears to be no finality in sight in this process. The Court is no longer comfortable in continuing to grant stays of pending appeals of orders…..
Ordered and Adjudged that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo shall cause the removal of the nutrition and hydration from the ward Theresa Schiavo at 1:00 PM on Friday March 18,2005.

**chm2023** · 03-31-2005, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by jediron1

First of all if your going to state my position at least state it from what I said
and not from what you believe I said.:finger:
I never condemned the man for what he did, I said: ( "I think his concerns are elseware" is a far cry from the way you misinterepted mine )I just pointed out that maybe his sympathies and choices are being tainted for his concerns
are elseware.:hammer:

From where I sit, this is a judgment on the man--assuming you know his motives, suggesting money may be behind his decision.

**chm2023** · 03-31-2005, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by ksquared

Not completely. The stimulus for my post was a statement that I keep hearing over and over that the majority of us believe that the woman and her husband have the right to end intrusive and futile treatment. The point I was making was that the husband in this case was the one making the decision since Terri is unable to clarify her wishes at this point. “In May 1998, seven years after Terri's collapse, Michael Schiavo filed a petition to discontinue life support for Terri Schiavo.” This was his decision to do so, not the courts, not the parents, but his alone.

However, you are correct that the courts had the final say in the matter, ruling in favor of the husbands petition and ordering the feeding tube removed. My statement regarding the “actual” removal was inaccurate. After doing some furhter reading I also found that now Michael Schiavo doesn’t have legal standing to overrule the courts legal detemination. Thanks for the stimulus to dig a little deeper.

Petitioner: Michael Schiavo
Excerpt: 5 years have passed since the issuance of the February 2000 authorizing the removal of Theresa Schiavo’s nutrition and hydration and there appears to be no finality in sight in this process. The Court is no longer comfortable in continuing to grant stays of pending appeals of orders…..
Ordered and Adjudged that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo shall cause the removal of the nutrition and hydration from the ward Theresa Schiavo at 1:00 PM on Friday March 18,2005.

I think that the court decision to remove the tube renders moot the issue of who is the guardian; people keep suggesting Mr S simply hand over the guardianship to the parents and walk away (which ignores his main concern so it's a silly argument); I believe were the guardianship given to the parents, it would not change the decision.

Mr S?

**fvc2020** · 03-31-2005, 10:42 AM

I just heard that Terri has passed in to a better place. Maybe we should end this on that note and let her go in peace

Christina

**jediron1** · 03-31-2005, 07:13 PM

fvc2020]:
I just heard that Terri has passed in to a better place. Maybe we should end this on that note and let her go in peace

Christina

I second Christina's motion. Lets end it here!

**chm2023** · 04-01-2005, 10:19 AM

I too believe she has gone to a better place. Just think it would have been more reasonable and merciful to have let her go 15 years ago. Interesting to see how the Holy Father is handling his impending death, apparently has given orders that he is not to be taken to the hospital, no intensive care or extraordinary measures. I hope he goes soon and peacefully, his illnesses have been sad to observe, really think someone so vital must suffer terribly when their body fails them like his did.

**EyeManFla** · 04-01-2005, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by jediron1

EyeManFla said:If 15 years is not enough, what is? I believe that many people in the Pro Life movement have the best of intentions. But we all know about good intentions, don't we?

So are we to strave her to death? That seems like cruel and harsh punishment
for anyone. If you want to end this like you seem to be saying and like chm2023
then give her lethal injection. At least this way it's fast and she, we hope does not feel a thing. I don't understand the crowd on this board, wanting to strave
a person to death, this goes beyond me! :finger:

I'm not thrilled about the way she died either. However, lethal injection is just as wrong as invasive life saving proceedures. You are still playing God!

**jediron1** · 04-02-2005, 08:28 AM

EyeManFla]I'm not thrilled about the way she died either. However, lethal injection is just as wrong as invasive life saving proceedures. You are still playing God![/QUOTE]

I was not trying to play GOD. I was just suggesting maybe a more humain-way
to pass on. And in no way do I support Dr. Death (Kavorkian). I just thought
in a case like this what is more human to take the feeding tube away or give her an injection and let her slowly slip away. Either way I don't like it.

**ken@foothills** · 04-06-2005, 04:44 PM

The sad part of this whole story is these two groups of people could not sit down and agree on her caregiving, and now even in death they are fighting about the disposal of the body.

**Uncle Fester** · 04-06-2005, 10:23 PM

Personally I believe Terri's soul long ago left her physical body and has moved on to a higher plane we cannot comprehend and take as faith a place we call Heaven. God rest her soul!

Like my youth generation's "right to die" battle with Karen Quinlan, I think this argument will go on for the forseeable future, as it should because I also believe that is why these tragic events happen. Courts of Law, not Congress, will and should decide family disputes.

Here's a question for all the right-to-lifers out there:

Each and every year-

Several hundred fetuses will, in the last trimester, be found to have the same EEG as Terri (brain STEM activity only). Currently the mother can terminate the pregnancy. Should we taxpayers pay to bring this fetus into the world, use any and all (even extreme) medical measures available to keep it viable and nourish it until it dies a "natural" death?

How about a prison convict in the same condition?

I know this is mercenary but I'd rather my money be spent on the cognizant .

Fester

**Spexvet** · 04-07-2005, 08:26 AM

Don't lose sight of the issue, here. All the court cases were not about "what should we do with Terri?" The battles were about "who determines what will be done with Terri?" The law in Florida clearly states that it is the HUSBAND'S decision. When there is no husband, it becomes the adult children's decision, then the parents, then adult siblings. The Schindlers tried to circumvent the law. THEY brought in the judges, not Michael (for all of you litigation-haters, it was the right wing conservative republican right-to-lifers who sued first, as they did in the 2000 election). The courts merely ruled that Michael was legally correct in his actions, over and over and over again. While we may disagree with one side or the other, it just doesn't matter. It was Terri's husband's decision, and only his decision.

Sorry, I'm feling a little fiesty today.

**chm2023** · 04-07-2005, 10:27 AM

I'm starting to feel a little less compassion toward the Schlinders. First, they and their surrogates continue to imply that cremation is not in keeping with accepted Catholic practices, wrong. Then they never miss an opportunity to rip the husband; I have not heard the husband or his spokespeople do the same to the Schlinders. I'm gettting that 15 minutes of fame feeling about these folks, would you not think they would be looking for some privacy about now?

**fvc2020** · 04-07-2005, 02:59 PM

Since we can't seem to let this die a quite death, I want to say one small little thing. This case wasn't about who has a say in dying, when, and how. It was about the correct way to establish how you as a person wants to die. Living wills need to be written and honored. Her parents were concerned about whether or not Terry had declared to anyone that she didn't want to live the way she was. Unfortunatly she had nothing written down. It came down to he said she said. Michael vs her parents. As for Congress, all they did was pass a bill to make sure Terry had due process, that's it. For those out there remember it wasn't just a bill from the Republicans it was a joint effort:o As for the comment about brain stem activity of 3 trimester babies, unless you can prove nothing else is going on, no one has the right to say that baby won't change and get better. If we're going to go along those lines, who can say what quality of life is. You or me, government etc. Should we be elimnating those we don't think have the quality of life we think they should? this a slippery slope and one no one should have to go down.

Christina

**Monkeysee** · 04-08-2005, 09:58 PM

Terri Schiavo Dies Of Embarrassment
PINELLAS PARK, FL—Terri Schiavo, the shy woman whose self-image issues put her in a 15-year coma, died of embarrassment Thursday, the eyes of the entire world fixed upon her. "Terri, who had been extremely reserved before her debilitation, found herself trapped at the center of an epic legal battle that became the focus of the nation," said Dr. Kyle Williamson, who treated Schiavo several years ago. "The involvement of President Bush, Congress, and numerous church officials further complicated what might have been a simple right-to-die case, and made Terri's weight issues and family difficulties public knowledge. She finally succumbed to the embarrassment last week, at age 41." Specifics of Schiavo's dying breath and photos of the woman in her self-conscious 20s have been appearing in newspapers worldwide since her death.

**Cindy Hamlin** · 06-15-2005, 09:42 PM

The autopsy results are in and maybe now she can rest in peace!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...chiavo_autopsy

The autopsy showed that Schiavo's brain had shrunk to about half the normal size for a woman her age and that it bore signs of severe damage.
"This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons," said Pinellas-Pasco County Medical Examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin, who led the autopsy team. He also said she was blind, because the "vision centers of her brain were dead."