Schiavo case

[Coral Rhedd]

She isn't on life support. The "tube" is a feeding tube which gives her nutrients a few times a day.

 

Thats why its not a matter of just letting her die.

 

Florida law allows the removal of sustenence, seeing it as a form of treatment. She is not eating as a normal person would. By law, a person has a right to refuse all forms on medical intervention. If you were hospitalized for any physical illness, you could at any time demand the termination of treatment.

 

Advance directives are ways in which people say in advance of illness what treatment they would or would not accept. The courts have held that Terri Schiavo made statements to her husband and others in advance of falling ill that she would not want to be sustained by such supports. So yes, according to current law, it is just a matter of letting nature take its course without treatment. Her heart will stop working. Her brain ceased to function long ago. What people cannot understand is that modern medicine has made it possible for "death" to be a long lingering process rather than a single event.

 

If the heart stops, the brain is deprived of oxygen and brain damage can occur. The heart can then be started again by medical intervention, and kept going indefinitely. But if all meaningful activity has ceased in the brain, what is the point? Schiavo suffered brain damage that put her in a Persistent Vegetative State. Doctors who have examined her have said this repeatedly. Just how many people do you want to keep alive in this state? Hundreds of thousands? This is possible. Is this what we want?

 

If public resources are used to keep these "living" dead alive, how many children will lack medical and proper nutrition because of it? Everything about this case has been an appalling waste of resources: time, effort, money, emotion. It is ghoulish.

[Coral Rhedd]

Thankfully other peoples right to life are not subject to your opinion.

I would respect your position more if you had formed your opinion' date='based on full knowledge of the facts.However you had not done this and i allowed it to annoy me.

If you/anyone else are really interested in Terri's case and not only your opinion(or bickering with me),perhaps a start should be the Terri Schindler-Schiavo foundation.

 

http://www.terrisfight.org/[/quote']

 

It is amazing that you charterized the impartial site I linked as rubbish and you present your link as evidence. They are selling CDs there for heaven's sake. It is blantantly political and religious in tone and slant, it links to sites that are extremely rightwing and oppose reasonable assisted suicide.

 

You call exploring this site research! Absurd.

 

Guess what? The United States is not run by religions.

[Newtonian]

All things aside, it doesn't matter what's best for her[/b']. What matters is that Terri clearly indicated what her wishes were if she were relying on life support (her feeding tube is considered life-support by florida law), and her choice has been verified and respected by several courts.

Newt Quote:

I contest that whats best for her is of the utmost importance.

 

You're not making much sense. You say you want personal autonomy, but then you say that it doesn't matter what she wants, what's best for her is what's most important. In other words, if a bunch of lawyers and senators decide that it's not best for her to die, then their opinion stands

Pardon.. im not making sense? I responded to your opening sentance!

You saying it didnt matter what was best for her.Where do you read into that it doesnt matter what she wants.Im saying a whole bunch of lawyers/judges should have no say whatsoever!BTW its you who are in favour. You contradict yourself.Firstly you keep insisting its up to the courts to decide and stand by their opinion to let her die,then you say if the courts decide she should live you dont like the fact that their opinion stands ???

Added to that you basing an opinion on hearsay(he said she said we seen a documentary etc)the facts are you dont know what her wishes were.Youdo not know that Terri is in a PVS.Certainly for most of the last decade her symptoms have not fitted PVS.Several neurologists have testified that tests need to done to confirm

her state.At every step its Michael who has stopped her medical care.

You're telling me you don't want your lifelong partner to have that right?

How can you class Michael Schiavo as her lifelong partner!!

But to answer you, too damn right i dont if they have a new family and children.If my partner breaks our vows of sickness/health moves on and has a new partner and children.I have an ex-partner and i certainly dont want them making life/death decisions for me.That priveledge would be my immediate family,mother/father.

So the family is now the medical professional? Please. Families see "signs of life" in PVS patients all the time. Sometimes patients do thinks that they used to do when they were alive, and it gives false hope to the family. This is simply a family that can't let go.

Are you serious,you believe over the last decade that her families hurt and anguish in fighting for her life.Has been some sick self delusional form of not letting go!

You have issues my friend.

Medical opinion changed as her brain decayed. She went from 'possibly rehabilitable' to 'unrehabilitable'

I agree in so far as at the time it was only opinion.Not fact.It does not detract from the fact that in the early stages Michael stopped all medical care and appealed to the courts to kill her.He did this without any proffesional medical assessment of her neurological state.Your posts seem to indicate your not bothered in her true medical condition and it isnt of importance.The spouse decides.

What's his motive then? MONEY? Is that why he turned down 1 million and then 10 million dollars to 'walk away'?

Erm at this stage would you seriously expect him to take the offer of money' date='be honest?

Its evident and documented in the first few years of her illness,at the malpractice hearing he sued for her medical care.By then some had diagnosed PVS(though not confirmed).He did not make mention her wishes to be allowed to die.If he had no award for medical care would have been given.As soon as the award was banked however he destroyed her cats,melted down her engagement/wedding ring.Deliberately went on a crusade to end her life without a full diagnosis and stood to inherit her $750,000.And you are not a tad suspitious of his motive or actions.

 

Terri clearly indicated what her wishes were if she were relying on life support (her feeding tube is considered life-support by florida law),

We wont continue with just what her wishes were as we just dont know..But being fed by a tube is just that,NOT life support.If thats the law in Florida,was it written in Disneyland?

The real point is there are alot of patients being fed by tube,if their illness is such they cannot physically eat.Patients in coma are fed this way among others.Should their tubes be taken out.If so that American whom has been in a coma for 19 year wouldnt be here now would he.

 

To be fair please read the information i gave a link for at the Terri Schindler-Schiavo foundation.

 

 

No, it means the courts choose. No doctor has had any say in whether she lives or dies (other than testimony).

Are you still clinging to this line,dont you realise you are agreeing the doctors do choose,they make a recommendation,the courts give the nod.And you dont think this is dodgy ground.

you said If everyone made decisions based on the beliefs of parents we'd be in a mess. i ask you to consider the fact remove those messy family decisions.And they would not be any coma patients waking up 19 years later would they..hospitals need beds,have fixed resources..do you see what would happen!

[Lance]

Oh, I didn't realize Blike already mentioned that the tube really is life support in Florida. Whoops!

[Pangloss]

Relgious extremism is also a form of life support in Florida.

 

As is Bush Bashing.

 

(grin)

[Newtonian]

If public resources are used to keep these "living" dead alive, how many children will lack medical and proper nutrition because of it? Everything about this case has been an appalling waste of resources: time, effort, money, emotion. It is ghoulish.

Glad your not in charge of hospital care.You equate life with money?

I think you would be shouting loudest if a hospital cannot treat your broken leg,"hell why is that surgeon spending his time on that cancer patient,they are probably going to die anyway"

ghoulish Coral ghoulish

It is amazing that you charterized the impartial site I linked as rubbish and you present your link as evidence. They are selling CDs there for heaven's sake. It is blantantly political and religious in tone and slant' date=' it links to sites that are extremely rightwing and oppose reasonable assisted suicide.

You call exploring this site research! Absurd.

 

Guess what? The United States is not run by religions.[/quote']

What?

This site was the first i came across with factual data.You know what facts are? you post merely opinion off the top of your head.

Its unimportant wether its religious or not,it gives reference to a history of claim/counter claim.As well as medical data.

I gave this link as something to which one could look at the facts before making their own search.

The only absurdity is your attitude,your so bone idol you would rather read a daily newspaper and spout anything in your head at the time.Than research the case itself.I suppose you watch judge judy and think she is our moral guidence.

editFor some more facts why dont you try wikepedia,or does that site have religious undertones and not meet your approval.It gives both sides,and upholds factual consistency with the site i offered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

[YT2095]

I`ve just stepped into this thread, and haven`t read any of the prior posts in detail, my opinion is that I`m against killing her (and starving to death is a dreadfull way to die anyway!).

 

as for her husband, he should divorce her, and be allowed to without fear of looking bad. she got striken with this at age 26 and is now 41, that`s a LONG TIME! for this guy to be putting his life on `hold`.

 

he should "let go" and find his own life, and at the same time her family should really be thinking about what SHE may want (or have wanted) instead of what THEY WANT.

 

I am against killing her though.

[Aardvark]

What is wrong with aethetics? If we believe that she is essentially already dead, there is no[/b'] moral issue. T

 

Actually, it is important. For moral decisions to be based on aesthetics is seriously wrong.

 

It seems that the decision on whether to end her life is largely based on the fact that simply removing a tube is clean and easy. If the only way to end her life was messy then it strikes me that a lot of the support for this action would immediately fade away.

 

Taking life and death decisions on the basis of squeamishness is a matter of sentimentality, not morality.

 

 

The big impasse here has nothing to do with method' date=' and nothing to do with her parents or her husband and their turmoil. It is simply that some of us believe she is actually alive and others of us do not.[/quote']

 

If you believe that it is nothing to do with the method then would you agree that their is no moral difference between cutting her throat with a knife and pulling her tube?

 

I'd appreciate a straight answer to that question.

[Aardvark]

Although you attempt to shock us with the stark, deeply unpleasant reality of your objections, surely you must recognize that many people, even on this forum, are willing.

 

Firstly, i haven't made any objections.

 

Secondly, if you are willing to recognise the reality of the situation then perhaps you could actually answer my question rather that evading it?

[Cadmus]

would you agree that their is no moral difference between cutting her throat with a knife and pulling her tube?

 

I'd appreciate a straight answer to that question.

From her perspective, there is no moral difference.

 

From the survivor's perspective, there might be a difference. Before launching into my opinion of the nature of any difference, we will have to quibble over what you mean by your question. I personally do not spend a lot of time disucssing behavior in terms of "moral" behavior and "moral" differences. You are demanding a response that discusses "moral differences". How can I answer your question, as I really have absolutely zero idea what "moral" means to you. Either ask your question without the word moral or tell me what the phrase "moral difference" means to you. The last thing I want is to answer your question based on my meaning and then have you carp about how that is not what moral means in your mind.

 

I have absolutely no idea why you are asking this question, and I get the feeling that it is a highly loaded question, revolving around you use of the extremely subjective word moral.

[Aardvark]

personally do not spend a lot of time disucssing behavior in terms of "moral" behavior and "moral" differences. You are demanding a response that discusses "moral differences". How can I answer your question, as I really have absolutely zero idea what "moral" means to you. Either ask your question without the word moral or tell me what the phrase "moral difference" means to you.

 

If you wish me to rephrase the question i shall do so.

 

If ending her life by removing her tube is the correct action, would ending her life by another, less aesthically acceptable method, such as cutting her throat, be similiarly correct?

 

 

The last thing I want is to answer your question based on my meaning and then have you carp about how that is not what moral means in your mind.

 

That's not going to happen. Kindly limit your critisicms to what i have actually written.

 

I have absolutely no idea why you are asking this question, and I get the feeling that it is a highly loaded question, revolving around you use of the extremely subjective word moral.

 

 

The reason i am asking this question is to highlight the reality of the choices available. It is to strip away comforting euphurmisms which enable people shy away from the truth of their actions. It is clear that pulling a tube is clean and easy. My question is attempting to uncover whether that is a factor in peoples postions on this matter.

 

Are people more likely to support ending this life because it will be done in a way that seems so tidy and easy? Are people allowing their views on this matter to be distorted by sentiment.

 

With matters of this import, i believe we have a duty to be brutally honest with ourselves about why we should take certain actions.

 

Perhaps you would care to answer my rephrased question if it is not too 'highly loaded' for you?

[Cadmus]

If ending her life by removing her tube is the correct action, would ending her life by another, less aesthically acceptable method, such as cutting her throat, be similiarly correct?

Since you have taken the time to rephrase, I will try to respond to your question.

 

First, a slight quibble over your use of the word correct. I do not think that pulling the plug is the optimal way to let her die. There are numerous ways that are preferable. This option seems optimal only in light of the unfortunate restrictions against active euthanasia.

 

Your alternative to this passive method of euthanasia is active euthanasia. I prefer that active methods be made available. Of all of the active methods of euthanasia that I can think of, cutting the throat is far from optimal. It is not the cleanest or the quickest. That being said, if the governent were to sanction active euthanasia, and if it were to sanction cutting the throat as a means to achieving this, and if he were to select the method that you recommend, then I personally would not raise an objection.

[mustang292]

Just posting my opinion here. Regardless of the decision, it is truly inhumane to let her die via starvation.

Second, I understand that the doctors have said she is a permanent vegetable, but they have been seriously wrong before.

Third, her husband should have been allowed to divorce her and let her family take on the burden since they are the ones fighting for her.

We are trying to make a decision for her because she can't. It's bound to bring contraversy. I don't believe I would like to live like that, but I also wouldn't want to die of starvation.

But Because she did not have a Living Will though, then we must assume that she would naturally choose to live.

[Cadmus]

Just posting my opinion here. Regardless of the decision, it is truly inhumane to let her die via starvation.

I disagree that this is even relevant. Anyway, I think that you can blame the right to lifers for this inhumanity, as it is they who have helped to criminalize more humane methods of active euthanasia.

 

Second, I understand that the doctors have said she is a permanent vegetable, but they have been seriously wrong before.

Do you have anything specific in mind to cause you to make this statement?

 

Third, her husband should have been allowed to divorce her and let her family take on the burden since they are the ones fighting for her.

I doubt if he was ever disallowed to divorce her. Are you suggesting that he be forced to divorce her?

 

We are trying to make a decision for her because she can't.

I disagree. We are trying to discuss what we think the decision makers should take into account. No one on this forum has any real say in the decision.

 

But Because she did not have a Living Will though, then we must assume that she would naturally choose to live.

Speak for yourself please. You are entitled to make that assumption, but "we" have no such requirement.

[mustang292]

Wow Cadmus. Did I hurt you in some way? LOL. Do you break everyone down like that? By the way. Yes, One man after 19 years came out of it. and Just recently another woman after 20 years just came out of it. And 3rd a woman who (didn't catch her name, but she was on TV today) was claimed to be a permanent vegetable by doctors finally came out of it after having a surgery. She has now completely recovered and written her own book. She states that she was completely aware the whole time, but she was just unable to speak or move to let anyone know.

 

I take back the "we" word for you Cadmus. I was referring to the fact that Congress stepped in and they are voting for "us" which is "we". So yes, "we" decided in favor of life for her. However the Fed Judge didn't.

[john5746]

I take back the "we" word for you Cadmus. I was referring to the fact that Congress stepped in and they are voting for "us" which is "we". So yes' date=' "we" decided in favor of life for her. However the Fed Judge didn't.[/quote']

 

His point I think is that "we" or Congress have no business doing this. Congress is there to make law, not settle cases. If we want to pass a law keeping ALL people alive at any cost, unless they have signed something saying they prefer to die, then they should vote on that. Not on an individual case that gets alot of Press.

 

You won't see Congress deciding if Michael Jackson is guilty or if Barry Bonds took steroids.

[mustang292]

Congress didn't settle any case. As you can see, the Judge said no.

[Cadmus]

We are trying to make a decision for her because she can't.

 

I take back the "we" word for you Cadmus. I was referring to the fact that Congress stepped in and they are voting for "us" which is "we". So yes, "we" decided in favor of life for her. However the Fed Judge didn't.

I must admt that when you said "we", I thought that you meant we. I did not realize that you consider Congress butting in for obvious political brownie points on a single case where 2 dozen judges had already weighed in over a decade, against the wishes of well over half of the population according to all of the polls mentioned on news channels as being what you meant when you said we. Perhaps in the future you might avoid the word we when you don't mean you or me.

 

p.s. Please excuse me if this hurts you in some way.

[Coral Rhedd]

I must admt that when you said "we"' date=' I thought that you meant we. I did not realize that you consider Congress butting in for obvious political brownie points on a single case where 2 dozen judges had already weighed in over a decade, against the wishes of well over half of the population according to all of the polls mentioned on news channels as being what you meant when you said we. Perhaps in the future you might avoid the word we when you don't mean you or me.

 

p.s. Please excuse me if this hurts you in some way.[/quote']

 

Ouch! That hurt even me and I am standing some distance away. Remind me not to annoy you Cadmus.

[Pangloss]

This isn't particularly relevent to the case, but in terms of the politics involved it's amazing that poll after poll after poll on this has come back so overwhelmingly opposed to this intervention by congress. They range from a low of 61% (Fox) to 71+% (ABC) to a high of 80-85% in some of the informal Internet polls on affiliate web sites and, MSNBC, etc. But whatever the number, it always comes down to the same thing -- House Republicans *badly* overestimated the support they'd have on this.

 

As I say, it doesn't have any particular bearing on the case (or whether or not they should have intervened), but it's interesting from a political perspective, and it's interesting as a counterpoint to the consistently held popular view that America is "ultra" or "religiously" conservative.

 

Here are a few I googled up pretty quickly:

http://www.nbc5.com/news/4305967/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=&dppid=65194#

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=599622&page=1

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149433,00.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/21/215310.shtml

http://selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?f=33&i=119843&t=119843

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050316235609990012&ncid=NWS00010000000001

[Tom Mattson]

You must want to see a lot of people arrested. There are many outdated laws on the books in many states.

 

No' date=' I want to see the Schindler family do something through conventional legal means, rather than getting the Federal government involved. What I've described is feasible, and I wonder why it wasn't done.

 

IMO, adultery is a family matter between a husband and wife and not a matter for governments to criminalize.

 

Well it is a crime, your personal opinion notwithstanding.

[Pangloss]

For those who might have missed it, the federal appeals court denied the appeal this morning, and the feeding tube remains removed. 19 judges have now ruled in favor of the husband.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=606647

 

The Schindlers have announced they will appeal to the Supreme Court. But this would be their second appeal to that body, and it seems unlikely that this one would be any more likely to succeed.

 

What happened the last time we were in this position (yeah, we've been here before -- twice) is that the Florida legislature passed a rather obviously flawed and nonsensical law, which got the feeding tube reinserted but which was struck down by the state supreme court. Various groups are pressuring Governor Bush to do the same thing all over again. He's currently pressuring the state legislature to step up and pass yet another new law that would make removing feeding tubes illegal in Florida. The state house passed week but the senate held back, fearing another loss on constitutional grounds. They're about nine votes away from making that happen.

 

I think this has played itself out and will end, but I've been wrong about this case before. We'll see.

[Coral Rhedd]

Glad your not in charge of hospital care.You equate life with money?

I think you would be shouting loudest if a hospital cannot treat your broken leg' date='"hell why is that surgeon spending his time on that cancer patient,they are probably going to die anyway"

ghoulish Coral ghoulish

[/quote']

 

I bet if I searched your previous posts I could catch you ranting about the proper use of government resources. Reread what I wrote. There are children without medical care in this country who desperately need it while an absurd amount of money is spent keeping a woman alive who isn't really, by any decent definition, alive.

 

What?

This site was the first i came across with factual data.You know what facts are? you post merely opinion off the top of your head.

Its unimportant wether its religious or not,it gives reference to a history of claim/counter claim.As well as medical data.

 

The site you gave is a clear propaganda site for the Schindler's and "right-to-life" causes. I don't get my information from such clearly biased sources.

 

I gave this link as something to which one could look at the facts before making their own search.

 

What you call "facts" are clearly one-sided. As someone who once worked in the newspaper business, I prefer my information to be as objective as is possible. Call me old-fashioned, but there are huge differences between a news story and an editorial.

 

The only absurdity is your attitude,your so bone idol you would rather read a daily newspaper and spout anything in your head at the time.Than research the case itself.

 

Daily newspapers used to be the backbone of intelligent information in this country before they were infected by the desire to pander to their readers with stories more closely related to gossip than fact. Perhaps you are too young to remember this.

 

I suppose you watch judge judy and think she is our moral guidence.

 

If this is someone on television, I don't watch television. I believe I have stated that elsewhere on this site.

 

editFor some more facts why dont you try wikepedia,or does that site have religious undertones and not meet your approval.It gives both sides,and upholds factual consistency with the site i offered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

 

I went to this link and read it. It is acceptable. However, it did not change my mind. The character, or lack of it, of Terri Schiavo's husband has nothing to do with the fact that I think "Terri's Law" is an improper venture of the Legislative Branch into Judicial territory.

 

BTW, you should learn to spell idle, guidance, whether, it's and many others, but I am too bored with your ranting to look back at your other posts.

[Aardvark]

There are children without medical care in this country who desperately need it while an absurd amount of money is spent keeping a woman alive who isn't really, by any decent definition, alive[/b'].

 

Coral Rhedd, Cadmus gave me a interesting reply to my question concerning the methodology of ending this womans life/existence. He agreed that once you have decided on the logic of killing her then the exact method is not an issue (i paraphrase, apologises to Cadmus if i have mistaken his position at all). But, he also pointed out the difference between so called 'Passive' euthanasia and 'active' euthanasia.

 

This is part of the distinction i am trying to understand and highlight. It seems that many people are more comfortable with an act of euthanasia when it seems to be cleaner and tidier, for example, pulling out a tube. And the term 'passive' euthanasia seems to be another example of 'distancing' for the consequenses of the act. I doubt public opinion would be nearly as strong in support of ending this life if that entailed more than pulling a tube. Even if it meant smothering with a pillow or a lethal injection i think public support would drop sharply.

 

In matters of this import i think it is necessary to be absolutely honest with ourselves. If we think it is best that someone should die, perhaps because for all intents and purposes they are not meaningfully alive in our opinions, then we have to recognise that by our actions we are actively ending that life. That their is no difference between 'passive' euthanasia, pulling a tube, or smothering with a pillow or cutting a throat. It is the same.

 

If we can understand and accept that then we can make the decision honestly and clearly, not clouded in a fog of sentiement and euphamisms.

 

Please note that i am not arguing against the ending of this ladies life. I am arguing for clarity in understanding the implications of the decison.

[Coral Rhedd]

Coral Rhedd' date=' Cadmus gave me a interesting reply to my question concerning the methodology of ending this womans life/existence. He agreed that once you have decided on the logic of killing her then the exact method is not an issue (i paraphrase, apologises to Cadmus if i have mistaken his position at all). But, he also pointed out the difference between so called 'Passive' euthanasia and 'active' euthanasia.

[/quote']

 

You would be referring to Cadmus' post #87 I believe. I agree with his statements in that post in their entirety.

 

This is part of the distinction i am trying to understand and highlight. It seems that many people are more comfortable with an act of euthanasia when it seems to be cleaner and tidier, for example, pulling out a tube. And the term 'passive' euthanasia seems to be another example of 'distancing' for the consequenses of the act. I doubt public opinion would be nearly as strong in support of ending this life if that entailed more than pulling a tube. Even if it meant smothering with a pillow or a lethal injection i think public support would drop sharply.

 

Yes, I believe in active euthanasia. The same kindness and courtesy that I would grant to my dog, I would also grant to another human being. I would hope in some circumstance that such kindness and courtesty would be granted to me.

 

I think that this was where you were trying to get to with your reference to thoat-cutting, was it not?

 

I lived on a ranch for many years and saw animals slaughtered by that method. It is not a pretty sight, but the animals suffered little and far less than they would have if starved, notwithstanding that I believe Terri Schiave will feel nothing. It has also been explained to me by an oncology nurse that, even with consciousness, as the patient's body begins to shut down death is quite painless. Since neither I nor she has not actually experienced such a death, I cannot vouch for her opinion.

 

I know I am venturing into an area that will disgust and frighten some people, but blood is clean and hypocrisy is not.

 

In matters of this import i think it is necessary to be absolutely honest with ourselves. If we think it is best that someone should die, perhaps because for all intents and purposes they are not meaningfully alive in our opinions, then we have to recognise that by our actions we are actively ending that life. That their is no difference between 'passive' euthanasia, pulling a tube, or smothering with a pillow or cutting a throat. It is the same.

 

Morphine is not used more often, I think, because of we have more squeamishness about people actually enjoying themselves than we do about death. Some people seem to think that death should be a "true," possibly positive, wholly natural spiritual experience. I say that if we can ease someone on their way, we should. Any other action, connotes tyranny.

 

Should we use active euthanasia when the person indicated such a wish in an advance directive. Of course we should. Any other action connotes cowardice.

 

If we can understand and accept that then we can make the decision honestly and clearly, not clouded in a fog of sentiement and euphamisms.

 

Please note that i am not arguing against the ending of this ladies life. I am arguing for clarity in understanding the implications of the decison.

 

Noted.