I agree. While I agree with Blackie, I kinda have a hard time on the "10-day stravation" period thing. Personally, I would not want to live if I was in her state, but I would prolly want to die in a less painful, and a quicker time period. But this debate just opens a whole new debate.

dola..
The Husband and family will be on Larry King Live tonight.

So why not just hand her off to her parents? He's moved on, she "ceases to exist as a cognitive human being". Why not be done with it all. Why does he care so much about Terri's final wishes now? He didn't after her accident.


He could have walked away from this the moment he had a falling out with Terri's parents. He could have requested they take over as guardians, petitioned for a divorce and been done with it. He chose not to. Why? If he so badly wants to move on, that would have been the easiest way. I question if that's what he really wants.


So non-Christian think it's ok to starve a woman to death because someone said she didn't want to live like this? I don't think so. That's why I disagree that it's a right vs. left issue.


Watching someone starve to death, becuase you want to "move on" is murder. You can put all the spin on it you want, but it's still murder.

Terri herself said she didn't want to live like this. That's not just a "someone"...

According to her husband, who is now in love with another woman. Her parents disagree that these were her wishes, and even her friends couldn't definitively say what her wishes were either way.

So it's his word against theirs.

So, say hypothetically that it could be proven that it was Terri's wish not to be kept on a feeding tube, you would be alright with that?

Um... probably because he wanted to see if she could come out of it. When it was apparent she wasn't, he did what Terri wanted.


So if you were in a marriage and your spouse became a druggie and couldn't support himself, do you think getting a divorce, which would lead to him starving to death would be murder on your part? Yes or no?

Who's paying to keep her alive? The husband has been paying through the nose. It's easy for the parents to say she should live when they don't have to bear the burden.

I don't get this at all. Yes, the sanctity of marriage would be key to these people. (I tried to make this point with regard to abortion, but here we go again...) However, in the "hypocrisy" claim, one thing is getting missed: the people vehemently protesting see this as a murder. Not a mercy-killing, not euthanasia--but murder. To those who are protesting, it is no different than if he went into her room and smothered her with a pillow, or shot her, or stabbed her. So, arguing that they're hypocritical because they want to stop a murder just doesn't hold water. If you want to argue something, argue the way they see it, not that it is hypocritical. That just doesn't hold water.

I don't really have a strong dog in this fight, as I can see both sides:

1. Given this set of circumstances, I wouldn't ever consider doing what the husband is doing, (unless her family is just flat-out lying about her responsiveness). From everything I've read and heard about this situation, it appears to be quite different than the conversations that SWMBO and I have had about this sort of thing. We've both said to one another that we don't want to remain on life support if we're clearly not here mentally any longer. That doesn't appear to be the case at all here (again, given what I think is true.). Therefore, given this set of circumstances, I stick to my marriage vows.

2. I can understand how someone would want to just move on from this situation. It is beyond merely being an "inconvenience," as I believe someone said. I would imagine the husband believes (or has convinced himself) that he would be honoring her wishes by removing the feeding tube. I don't think he's an evil guy with murder at his heart just waiting to get rid of her.


All that being said, I do believe that removing the feeding tube is probably inhumane. I further agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that more than anything else, this tragic situation highlights the extreme importance of having a detailed living will. It is a no-win no matter what happens in the next ten days.

Hey, hey, hey. The drug use was never proven :p

Yes. I would not want to force her to live on a feeding tube if she didn't want to. I don't think this has been proven, other than in a he said/she said manner. I think the state made a mistake giving the testimony of the husband more weight.

In situations where the wishes of the party are unclear, like this one, I would prefer the law default in favor of life, not death.

Thank you for proving how unable you are to articulate your position on this issue.

1. Actually, his REFUSAL to hand the responsibility tells me that he really did love his wife. It was his responsibility. It was his wife. And he wants to make sure her wishes are carried out. He wants her to go and lay her to rest.

Have you demonized this guy so much that you think he's just hovering over her bed and wants to kill her for spite? That's pitiful. If he didn't give a rats' ass, he could have taken an offer of $1 mil to walk away and get divorced. He DIDN'T take the easy way out and he should be respected for it.

It's interesting that my situation is much like his. My wife has told me she wouldn't want to live like that. But there's nothing signed and her ultra-religious family would never believe it. I'd hold out hope - but eventually, reality would probably set in. And I'd want to see it done under the terms that my wife had said to me. God forbid, but if I had that situation I would want to ensure that she was laid to rest. After all, I love her and owe her that respect. That's why I wouldn't walk away either, but I would eventually pull the plug.

That's a very good point. If he was a money-grubbing leech who didn't love his wife, why would he turn down the $1,000,000?

I've heard he was offered $10 million, any truth to this? Just curious, where would the money come from? I find it odd that a person could "buy" the care of the other.

I get the impression that the $1M (or $10M, depending on who you listen to) was a poorly-disguised attempt to expose him as a money-grubber. I have a strong suspicion that his turning it down doesn't prove anything. He could have been aghast at the offer, or he could have been simply wily enough to know that he was being set up.

If this was a real offer, then how do we know about it?

Actually, I heard $5m from his lawyer, but the $1m is the highest public award so I was conservative. Either way, it points out that either he's:

1. Truly following the wishes of his wife out of love and respect for his (brain-dead) wife so he can lay her to rest.

2. A pathetic, deranged, lunatic, demonic (did I leave anything out?) killer who has waited 15 years and spend a ton of money in court just so he can pull he plug on his wife and dance on her grave.

Which one seems more likely?

3. Smart enough to know that the offer was merely meant to "expose" him.

Nice phrasing there...kind of like the "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

"The offer wasn't real or it was a setup, you choose."

Edit: With all of the interest in this case, is it reasonable to believe that at least one substantial, legitimate financial offer has been made for him to walk away?

I'd bet my next paycheck on it as it's by far the most probable scenario.

Well, the proceeds from a medical malpractice lawsuit and associated punitive damages are keeping her medical bills paid. There's just too much irony here I don't know what to do with it--if the Republicans had managed to put a cap on medical malpractice then as they so badly want to do now, Terri Schiavo would already be dead!

Anyway, that money is almost all gone. Farrah suggests that the parents would pay for Terri's care if the husband ceded guardianship, though she still hasn't answered me as to whether the parents really do have the assets to assume that burden for 40+ years. So I would have to assume that the good taxpayers of America would have had to foot the bill if the feeding tube would have stayed in.

If that were the case, I really would consider making a tax-deductible donation to the hemlock society for the couple of cents or whatever my share of the bill would have been...

Sorry, I didn't make my point clearly enough, apparently.

Suppose that some well-meaning person or group of persons DID actually get together $1M and offered it to him. How could HE know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was a legit offer? He'd be taking a *huge* risk if he indicated in any way that he'd accept money. I'm saying that it is likely that he's doing what he believes to be her wishes. However, even if his motives in this are way less than pure, it would *still* be incredibly stupid for him to make any indication that he was even considering accepting a payoff.

Oh yeah...

how many people think that feeding tube is going back in and back out at least once or twice more before all of this is resolved?

Why isnt he okay with letting the parents take care of her? They seem to be willing and/or able. The fact that he is in a new relationship with children would indicate a break of marital vows. If she is essentially dead to him, why cant he just divorce her and let her parents deal with it. Its pretty fucked up they are just gonna let her starve to death over 10 days.

I think I've articulated my position very well. Simply because you disagree doesn't mean I haven't. I've even ignored your comments about the Christian Conservatives thinking we were having a good discussion, and that would take this in a bad direction. I hope our discussion can continue without you trying to put me down again.


If it was his responsibility to make sure her wishes were carried out, and if he truly loved his wife and wanted to honor those wishes, why didn't he do so right away? Maybe he wanted to see if she got better - ok maybe. That sounds reasonable. Did he get her therapy during that time? Take her to the Mayo Clinic to see the best in the medical field? In those three years 1990-1993, what did he do to help her get better? From what I've read, he didn't exercise all the options available. Why? There could be a very logical explanation, but in its absence it looks suspicious.

He approached the family about removing the feeding tube. He still waited to carry out her wishes even after her family disagreed. He waited, and that raises questions. Compound that with his actions outside this case, and in the rest of his life I'm suspicious.

As an aside - I doubt Terri's wishes were to starve to death so he's really not carrying out her wishes. He's just helping her die.


I haven't demonized anybody. I didn't need to. His actions speak for themselves. You made the point that there was nothing wrong with wanting to move on. I agreed - but raised the point there were other options, other than the starvation of this woman, to make that happen. He chose not to. I wonder why, because I question if he could have the best interest of his wife at heart when he's invovled with another woman. That's not accusing him of wanting to kill her for spite, that's questioning his judgement.

He's not a stupid man. If he took that $1mil to walk away now, if it was even a legit offer, after all the publicity this case has gotten, he'd never be able to live a normal life again. He has no choice now but to see this to the end.


Then wouldn't you want to avoid a situation like this by having her wishes in writing, prepared by a professional? Especially if there's a chance her family wouldn't believe it.

Well, if he thinks that he's doing what she wanted, then he wouldn't turn her over to someone who has clearly stated a desire *not* to do what (in his mind) she wanted.

Like I said, this is just an awful set of circumstances.

Come on, Skydog. Do you think that they couldn't investigate/negotiate an ironclad offer using 3rd party lawyers without revealing he'd take money? That would be child's play! That kind of stuff is done every day.

If it were me, I'd be afraid that, with all the publicity and reporters involved, I'd be found out.

Yeah, i agree that either side could have points, and it is a bad set of circumstances. I would just think that erring on the side of caution(i.e. the side of life) would be better. Especially when she doesnt have a living will.

I don't know if her parents have the assets to take care of her for the next 40 years. Do you have the assets today to take care of yourself and your family for the next 40 years? I know I certainly don't. Doesn't mean the taxpayers will be paying for my family either - I'll find a way to provide for them. Just like I'm sure her family would.

Just to lighten the mood, a protestor:


something tells me she wants a little life in the mouth... but it would probably be bettered served to put the life somewhere useful...

Hey - just butting in here to make a case for folks with Down syndrome...

Your comment is troubling because most 36-year olds with Down syndrome are smart enough to open the door and go make themselves a sandwich. Adults with Down syndrome hold jobs, get married, even buy houses (in several cases).

Without commenting on the specifics of this case, just felt a public service message about the potential intelligence and independence of folks with Ds is fairly remarkable but often ignored in favor of stereotypes.

Anyway...

I think the problem here is one half sees taking the tube out and letting her die as a murder, while the other half sees keeping her alive with a feeding tube as prolonged torture without hope of an end, both for her and the husband.

I'm sorry, but Farrah has shown in this thread that she cannot think rationally on this issue. Her arguments are all based on inflaming emotions and making this guy out to be a bastard and pointlessly holding out hope for magical fairies to come in and give this woman her brain function back. Just as Dr. Kevorkian was probably a poor choice as an advocate for assisted suicide, she is a poor advocate for keeping this woman alive. Maybe the right person could help persuade me that this woman should not be allowed to die, but Farrah's arguments only serve to push me farther from understanding her side of the issue, especially when she throws in generalizations like "I don't trust men" into her arguments.

Suspicious? No, the very logical explanation is that he followed his doctor's advice! In addition, it's not like moving her is easy in any way. In fact, moving her may have presented a greater danger. Also, how did 1998 become 1993 all of a sudden. Remember, it's eight years before he petitioned the court.


Are you now stating fact or fiction? Where did you get that he waited after her family disagreed? We do know there was a dispute in 1993. It was over the malpractice money and their subsequent petition to be the guardians of Terri. It was not over the removal of the feeding tube.

He waited until 1998. Perhaps that's when he finally gave up hope. Perhaps there was some new diagnotic test that said she wasn't going to get better. Eithe way, that's when he petitioned the court. Heck, he may have not honored her wishes by filing sooner. But we'd have the same exact scenario - only he'd be even more demonized because it would look like he was rushing to kill her.


Which, according to him, IS carrying out her wishes! Something that no one else has been able to find any real evidence to the contrary.


You have demonized him. You doubt his every move. You absolutely decline to take the most plausable explanations and in turn seem to want to cast aspersions at everything he has done.

To you, this guy must be the biggest idiot in the planet. He wants to off his brain dead wife for money. But he waits for 8 years to file the papers, turns down huge monetary offers to step aside, spends all of his money on attorneys, spends 7 more years in court and incurrs the wrath of a vocal minority of the nation just so he gets to do it. I mean, this guy must be an absolute moron!

That's the only way the facts fit your scenario.

As an aside, do you think he's going to be able to lead a normal life now? In fact, taking the money (privately, of course) and then turning her over would make this all go away and enable him to lead a normal life. And yes, there are ways to set up such an arrangement so no one finds out.


No. It's a personal matter and she knows my wishes and I hers. That's good enough for us...and we'd rather not even think of the possibility. Making out a will is hard enough.

Ah, therein lies the problem with medical treatment in America. You're asking why he didn't exhaust every possible medical solution available. Well, he probably did, but with the caveat that he exhausted every possible solution available that could be afforded. And what solutions were available? You speak as if there's some "miracle doctor" that he didn't consult. What are you suggesting?

For someone who "always takes the optimistic view" you're certainly very pessimistic about Michael Schiavo.



As I said before, it would not surprise me if, during this 5-year period, he attempted to convince her family of her wishes. Are you saying that attempting to convince someone, in their own time, as opposed to immediately circumventing them via the courts is not compassionate?

I see a man struggling with the conflicting desires of his incapacitated wife verses those of her family. You apparently see a devious, but rather inept murderer and philanderer intent on extracting maximum suffering from everyone involved. So much for the "optimistic side", eh?



Give me a break. Assuming Terri's wishes were not to live, I think we can reasonably assume that, of course, she'd want a quick and painless method of death. Unfortunately, self-righteous people in this country don't want that to be an option for people.

I think you make an excellent point in your first paragraph. But of course I'm going to have to disagree with your second pragraph. :p

Just like a woman! :p

Just blame it on the hormones. That's what I do.;)

I don't think the guy is wrong for going and having sex with another woman and having kids. His wife will never recover and is a zombie... I don't know what all this talk about a living will and her last wishes. But if she really loved him she would have wanted him to move on and live his life.

That seems like a rather dismissive response to a real practical issue. Don't you realize that you are one catastrophic illness or accident away from being completely wiped out financially?

If the parents say they will be able to take care of her financially, they had better be able to back it up--especially when the costs are no longer hypothetical and are a reality they would have to deal with in the here and now...

Is this the chick who was bitten by Jake Roberts snake Damien? I thought it had been devenomized?

I've said it before, but that won't stop me from saying it again. I don't think the Republicans have been this wrong about an issue since Elian Gonzalez.

I think the overwhelming majority of us would be doing exactly what the Husband is doing if our spouses had made it clear to us that they didn't want to be kept alive in such a condition of diminished capacity. I think it would be unconscionable not to do what he is, under those conditions.

In these cases it is the spouse's choice, not the parents. It is too bad they don't agree, but they really don't have a say. She left them, and became his wife.

As for your opinion on this Farrah. Yes you have made it clear. You really just haven't actually articulated what it is that would make him want to let his wife die, other than his assertion that it is what she would want.

I agree with Blackie, that he is persevering through much adversity, to carry out his wife's exact wishes.

What other motives explain his actions?

::claps::

Apparently not.

I was just throwing it out there to get people thinking. I believe that this could cause a slippery slope. There will be some people who will use this case as a means to murder someone with limited brain function. I wouldn't be suprised to see someone go to court over someone with MS ,Down's Syndrome, or any other disease.

Down's syndrome, like other genetic disorders, have a wide range of severity. My uncle has the mind of a nine year old. When my grandmother passes away, he will likely be cared for by my aunt.

Could he take care of himself? I think he could, but doctors at the time didn't have the information like now about the disorder.

The family has tried to convince my grandmother to place him in one of those workshops to help develop his skills, but she won't have any of it.

This is the same stuff Schaivos brother is constantly talking about, and of course that her husband is responsible for her condition.

This MS angle is a very extreme example of what "horrible" consequences will come if Schaivo dies. Do you think Doctors all across the world are going to unite and decide to lower their standards? Because, they are the ones who have the final say on whether or not they die. So regardless of what people try to do with much lesser versions of Terry Schaivo, the Doctors are still going to maintain the same standard.

If the husband were responsible, through some criminal means, why has nothing turned up after all these years? Has he ever been arrested or detained? One would think, with such a high profile case as this, that they would have taken a hard look at everything and given it a shot if they had any sort of evidence to run with at all. That's why I have a hard time buying the idea that the husband did this to her with criminal intent. Either he's of a brilliant criminal mind, or this claim would seem to have no substance.

The fact is...she did not bother to create a 'living will' or 'order of power of attorney' to designate someone other than her husband as the decision-maker over matters like this. No one has, apparently, been able to make a sound and convincing argument to remove that power from him. What's the lesson to be learned? If you are an adult, you had better decide what you want done and get it in legal writing before it is too late...or else trust that your next-of-kin (spouse, if you have one) is going to make the right decision. For me, that's the end of this story.

I was discussing this with my mother and something came up that I haven't heard even mentioned. If I was her father and truly was thinking about what was best for my daughter I would see two options:

Option one would be purchasing a gun and shooting him in order to remove him as the next of kin. It would then become her mother, as I would be locked up. I couldn't do this as he may be doing what he truly believes is right, and it would leave his children without a father.

Option two would be what my choice would likely be. My daughter would only suffer while starving to death. I think I would kill her by poisoning her. It would be very difficult, but I would probably do it just to end her suffering. She would die anyway. The difference would be that this would be quick and painless.

The fucked up thing is that in this nation I would be charged with murder. If you shoot a man who just jumped off a building and he dies before hitting the street it is considered murder. Same thing here. In court it is more humane to let someone starve to death over two weeks than to kill them quickly, even to end their suffering.

I guess this must be a job for federal courts: (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7951146)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In an effort to intervene to keep alive a severely brain-damaged Florida woman, federal lawmakers agreed on Saturday on a compromise bill aimed at restoring her feeding tube and pushing the right-to-die case back into court.

The deal was reached just 24 hours after doctors acting on a Florida court order removed the feeding tube that has kept Terri Schiavo alive for the past 15 years.

"We are confident that this compromise addresses everyone's concerns," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, told a news conference. "We are confident it will ... restore nutrition and hydration" to Schiavo.

The House will meet on Sunday afternoon in a special session to consider limited legislation passed by the Senate that would allow a federal judge to rule on whether withholding food and water from Schiavo violates her constitutional rights.

Earlier on Saturday, Schiavo's husband, who has fought for her right to die and has been backed by courts in a seven-year legal battle, assailed Republican congressmen for their last-minute attempts to keep her alive.

"SHAME" ON CONGRESS

"They should be ashamed of themselves," Michael Schiavo said in an interview with the CBS "Early Show." "Leave my wife alone. Leave me alone."

Underscoring the bitter family dispute that widened into a highly public right-to-die case, Schiavo's mother urged politicians in Florida and Washington to work to keep her daughter alive.

"My daughter is in the building behind me starving to death. We laugh together, we cry together, we smile together, we talk together. She is my life," Mary Schindler said.

Schiavo, now 41, has been fed through a stomach tube since a heart attack starved her brain of oxygen in 1990, leaving her in what the courts declared was a permanent vegetative state.

The dispute between Terri Schiavo's husband and her parents, who have argued she responds to them and could improve with treatment, has galvanized activists on all sides of the right-to-die issue. Courts have accepted Michael Schiavo's stance that she would wish to die.

Schiavo, whose feeding has twice been halted and resumed in the past amid legal wrangles, was expected to survive for up to two weeks without the feeding tube. The White House said Saturday that President Bush supported the latest efforts by lawmakers.

COURTS PREVAIL

"We're supportive of efforts by congressional leaders. We remain in close contact with Congress, and the President is being kept apprised," said White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo.

The congressional move came after an emotional appeal from Schiavo's mother.

In a brief statement around noon before visiting her daughter at the hospice where she has lived in recent years, Mary Schindler appealed directly to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and President Bush to help keep her daughter alive.

The congressional efforts came after bills passed earlier this week by the House and Senate were vastly different in scope and the two sides were unable to reach a compromise.

Schiavo's feeding tube was removed on Friday afternoon after a congressional effort that stalled in court.

Republican congressional leaders sought to block the court order to have the tube removed and keep the tube in place by subpoenaing Terri Schiavo to appear before hearings and committees this month. The move would have granted her protection as a witness in a congressional inquiry.

But the Florida state judge in the case, Circuit Judge George Greer, rebuffed the effort and said his order for the tube to be removed should go ahead.

Congressional lawyers appealed Greer's decision before the Florida Supreme Court, which rejected it. Later on Friday, the House Committee on Government Reform made an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to have Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted, but that application was denied. (Additional reporting by Robert Green in Pinellas Park)

lets put this in the federal courts, but lets keep gay marriage out. Nice to see they now care about constitutional rights.

Once again, I'm wondering how legal this new Congressional attempt is. Can one of the lawyers on the board explain how this would jive with the concept of "ex post facto"? I thought if something has already happened, then a law can't be passed making the act that happened in the past illegal, or against the new law.

I would just like to add that she has been in this condition since 1990. Let me repeat that, 1990. That will be 15 years that she has been in this limited state of living. I think that after that amount of time, someone will show signs of recovery. According to many people, she has not. Her parents for years have gotten doctors to test/check her condition and most have said she is not responding to any kind of communication. Countless doctors have said that she is not aware and will not get any better.

Now regardless of that information, I can not even imagine being trapped inside a non-reponsive body for 15 years. I also do not think that removing the feeding tube and having someone starve to death is a good way either.

There are no winners in this debate. You can not fault the parents for holding out hope, and you can not fault her husband who after 15 years is in love with another woman. This is life, and its private, and I think all government intervention should be eliminated.

First, most of the doctors on her case said she wouldn't live for more than two or three years in her state. Obviously, they were wrong. Second, the husband never mentioned her desire to not to be kept alive in such a state (at least publically) until he filed the petition to have her feeding tube removed. There was nothing in writing, so it was just his word vs. the family's word -- who said that he had never mentioned this wish to them prior to filing the petition. Also he was already shacking up with his new girl when he filed the petition, so obviously he had already "moved on" with his life.

There has been a lot of innuendo going back and forth. One of the recent wrinkles are insinuations that the husband might have had something to do with the wife ending up in her current state (foul play?).

Personally, if my wife's family were so adamant to keep her alive, I'd walk -- even if it were her wish not to continue in such a state. I'd simply tell them, "she said she didn't want to continue in such a state, but I'm giving her to you and walking away. Hopefully if and when you exhaust all hope, I pray you'll do the right thing."

Some of you are fond of ridiculing Christians, but what I find trully chilling are those of you who appoint yourselves judges of what constitutes an acceptable "quality of life," find her state lacking, and are all for starving her to death....not a very humane way to let someone die IMO. You don't want the fundies trying to force their beliefs on you, but you seem to have no problems with the state taking the life of an innocent since it jives with your personal view of morality.

By the way, just in case anybody really thinks the GOP really cares about the issue and Democrats are in league with Satan...



Then again, considering the fact that some of the millions of Americans living in poverty die of preventable diseases every fucking day, I find myself once again depressed and disgusted that the only time the Congress is able to do something with any degree of haste is when it's on the cover of People Magazine.

But Tom DeLay wants to shuck and jive for the far religious right, while advocating insane cuts to programs keeping kids healthy and safe. It's what the Republicans do.

After all,cutting Medicare is just fine, but letting one women die because she's in a condition that would make EIGHTY SEVEN PERCENT want to be let go.

Some of us are fond of ridiculing self-appointed moralists, who are Christians in this case. The state is not taking the life of an innocent - what they are doing is letting a husband follow his wife's wishes. The fundies are trying now not only to legislate how people live, but how they choose to die.

Yes, the Republicans suddenly think it is okay that the American taxpayer will have to foot the bill for someone who cannot support herself, as long as it happens to be Terri Schiavo. Everyone else on welfare or on medicaid--not as much compassion for them...

This is a very tragic case, but I do find it amusing that Terri Schiavo is still alive today in no small part because her medical bills are paid by--the proceeds from a malpractice lawsuit award and associated punitive damages. And of course, that is a big Republican issue today--capping malpractice awards.

Makes me wish we had a "Moderate" party, I'm Republican for the financial "way", but they seem to be throwing that away and the Religion is driving me left.

:rolleyes:

Excellent post. Spot on.

Just curious,
If this happen a year ago in the heat-up of the election race, (not the many times they've battle, but this last, media-intensified, congress round), would this been a big campaign issue?

I'm not sure either side would want to touch this one in an election year. Schiavo's actual state is a source of controversy, as we've seen on the board--the Democrats wouldn't want to open themselves up to a "right-to-life" line of attack. The case would also be open to more scrutiny as to how it is used politically. For example, the Republicans wouldn't want to press the case too hard, as they would leave themselves open to the associated malpractice and medicaid issues mentioned earlier...

These people are nuts, and the republicans are a bunch of lackeys. This whole thing is a farce.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/18/na...d-schiavo.html

Ah, Operation Rescue. Ya' know, us liberals may have to deal with wacky leftists, but at least we aren't in political cahoots with a group who gave a wink and a nod to abortion clinic bombers.

So would they consider abortion clinic bombers and assassins terrorists or freedom fighters? :)

They consider them good christians.

Nah, you get the group who gave the wink and a nod to eco terrorists. :)

Far right and the far left are very scary places to be. Hope I'm never classified as either.

Pray tell ?

You might fault the husband for not divorcing her and washing his hands of her, although I'm not sure that simplistic solution would actually leave him free of the matter.

I've read that you can't just divorce something for being in the state she is in? Is this true at all?

I'm sure it depends on the divorce laws in the state in question.

Yeah, but every state has no fault divorce and ex parte divorce.

Not going to step into this debate, as I already argued it over with my father last night, but I was reading through this thread and thought, y'know, that's a particularly unfortunate sentence right there.

I think if you read it over, you'll see what I mean.

The law does not allow her any other way to die, other than to be assisted indefinitely (until her organs fail). If there were any other way to legally do it, I'm sure those options would have been considered. Don't you? Starvation is not a choice that was made, it was the only choice offered.

They could legally challenge his right to make this decision, but apparently that has failed over and over again. So, when failing in every reasonable legal challenge, they decide to change the rules. If the man was truly not competent to make this decision, or she had expressed any legal wish that he not be allowed to make this decision, we wouldn't be at this point.

The Libertarian Party may offer more of what you seek. More conservative fiscally than the GOP, and often more liberal socially than the Democrats... Not exactly "moderate" I guess, but a mix that I can live with.

Bottom Line..

Would ANY of you want to be left alive in the state She is in?

Simple yes or no answer will suffice

Can you honestly answer that question without ever being in "her state?" I've heard people say they would rather die than lose a limb, or go deaf, or go blind. Yet, many that made such statements finds they can live without a lot of things just to be able to live.

So, let me answer your question this way: as I sit here, healthy and not really in fear of being in her condition, I say "no" I wouldn't choose to live in her condition. But if I were actually facing the choice of death over life, I might just change my vote.

If i could not support myself, and have to be fed through a tube for the rest of my life.. i'd say no..

If it was a workable condition then yea of course..

Guess what i really should ask if "If your significant other was in a similar state to Terry, would you want the plug to be pulled?"

That is a agonizing decision in itself.. What really bothers me about this case though.. is the FIVE years where nothing happened.. 93-98.. Its obvious to me that Terry's parents are rich if they are wanting to keep her alive like that.. Maybe thats part of the reason the husband wants her tube pulled? he stands to inherit some money? house? etc?

And as far as him having 2 kids/dating another woman.. its a bit scummy i agree, but he does deserve to move on, and has tried to.. with his wive's parents blocking him.

I can say, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that not being able to communicate in any method or do anything at all, would be such torture that starvation would be a worthwhile escape.

I wish I had read Johnny Got His Gun, but I've only seen the movie. I'm reminded of how he welcomed his breathing tube being closed and the feeling of death coming, because it was far better than being trapped in what was left of his body. I'm thinking my response would be of a similar nature.

Even if he were to inherit something, why should that immediately bring his ethics into doubt? If his decision were somehow criminal in any way, wouldn't that have come out by now?


It is easy for us to say, having not faced this situation. I wonder if mental health professionals would say it is far better to try and move on like he has rather than be consumed by her condition everyday for the rest of your/her life, especially when her family calls in politicians to change the rules everytime you try to let nature take its course.

If the parents felt this strongly about these sorts of matters, why didn't they press their daughter to grant them power of attorney and name them as the only ones who could make this decision. As far as I know, you could and should have got into those sorts of discussions even back when she was healthy and well. Neglecting to cover these matters is irresponsible and sometimes you have to pay a heavy price for that neglect.

She is responsive, and she is able to laugh. That is what makes this case unlike many others, and makes me wonder if Medicine has a good definition of vegetative state.

Obviously this has not been a compeling legal argument to date. Surely this is a tricky situation, but all of this could have been avoided with one visit to an attorney's office. She didn't do it.

Right, and I agree that the husband has the right to make the desicion. It isn't the desicion I would make, though.

I was reading up on this just now.. i was shocked to find out that Terri's anorexia/bulemia caused the imbalance that cut off the blood flow to her brain?

is this right or just some internet hyperbole?

I have read 'theories' about it, but don't recall finding anything concrete that proved a link.

It's a tough situation to be in. I don't envy anyone's role in this whole scenario.

I don't really agree with some of the questions brought up about money by some in this thread. He was offered a million dollars recently to walk away. If he doesn't stand to inheit more than a million from her death, and he is all about the money, why wouldn't he take the money and head for the hills?

Simple, He would be crucifix'ed in the media for selling out.. imagine the dating life after that

"Hey, aren't you the guy that sold your wives guardianship for 1 million?"

Maybe the woman he is already with would marry him and they could disappear from public life for years in a small town. A million dollars would last a long time in a small town up in the mountains.

Teekek, some people just don't respond to logic on this issue.

They'll take half-truths, twist every issue, make insinuations regarding motives, see shadows in dark corners and will moralize endlessly to avoid facing the cold, hard facts.

1. Every independent doctor agrees that she is functionally brain dead and will not get better.
2. The courts have ruled, repeatedly, that because she is in such a state, her husband can make the decisions for her.
3. Her husband believes that she would rather die than live like this.
4. There is no evidence, by words or actios, that her husband is anything but honest in this belief.
5. The established law says the husband can have the feeding tube pulled.

Actually, what frosts me most is really two issues. It's not the law surrounding the case, but:

1. This is a private, legal family matter that some groups continually feel the need to interfere in. I am not making this a Christian issue. I am saying that the continual interference from a segment of the political/religious spectrum: ultra-conservative Christians (virtually all right-wing Republicans) is evidence that that group will not be happy until their moral/value system is imposed upon everyone else, either by threat or by law. I hope those of a more moderate position - Christian or otherwise - realize the inherent danger of letting a political system become hijacked by religious extremists.

2. The absolute and complete public demonization of the husband's character by those who don't agree with his position. It is character assassination at its worst. Others who have posted here on this issue prove this point.

They continually cast aspersions, see conspiracies and post half-truths and outright lies to make this guy look like Ted Bundy. When presented with the logical choices to the typical questions: why did he wait 8 years to appeal to the court to remove the tube, why didn't he take the money, why didn't he just walk away, etc. Every logical, reasonable and likely answer is casually dismissed and instead dark, sinister motives lurk behind every move. Now we even hear in dark, whispered corners that he had something to do with his wife's death. People should be ashamed of themselves. Yet no one has been able to produce a SHRED of evidence that he's anything but a normal, average guy doing the right thing and carrying out his wife's last wishes after a tragedy befell his family - before he goes on with life.

I cant believe the guy above threw out the "the husband might've had something to do with her being in this state" card.

You see, if the soapboxer doesnt get his way immediately, apparently, some book he reads a lot, tells him to start making shit up until he wins.

For purposes of keeping the conversation constructive, I'd take out the "his good book" comment. It's an unnecessary jab.

But it is amazing how many people keeping saying/posting sly insinuations and outright character assassinations on the husband to desperately try to support an entirely untenable position.

better? ;)

Yep. :cool:

She has no higher brain functions. She shows only the most basic reflexes such as orienting towards a sound. These reflexes requires only that the brainstem be intact. A CT scan some years ago shows that her cortex has completely degenerated as a result of the trauma. Her body is able to be kept alive vwith medical intervention, but everthing that she was is gone.

In 1999, while he was Governor of Texas, Bush signed a law that allowed life support to be removed if a doctor thought it was best, even over the objection of the parents. What caused the sudden and complete change of mind (aka flip-flop)?

hxxp://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html

I guess he CAN change his mind but others can't?

Anyone want to tell me why we shouldn't move towards a more direct democracy? Please don't tell me that politicians are better then we are. I know we have some extreme (left and right) people among us in the voting mass, but the majority would have alot more say then the extremes.

Thank god for the Supreme Court.

guess it only continues to prove the GOP will do and say anything to quarantine the religious vote for themselves.

First of all, I'd like to say I'm not particularly comfortable with removing the feeding tube as a way to let her die. However, I thought this article made a lot of good points, and in particular, the points about how many times courts have looked at the evidence, and have invariably come to the same conclusion about the facts concerning Schiavo's state and her wishes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7231440/

After reading through this entire thread, I have this question...have any of you been personally involved in removing someone from life support? Have you stood there and watched as the doctors removed the tubes and turned off the machines? I have. My grandmother was removed from life support...and it was the most peaceful thing I have seen. There was no suffering, no gasping, nothing. As the body functions decrease, the doctors increase the amount of morphine to make sure there is no suffering. I am quite sure the same measures would be taken in this case. As the body dehydrated and began to shut down, medications would be given to ensure that she simply slept and didn't wake back up.

I agree that starving someone to death is horrible, but I just don't see the "torture" being a valid argument in this case. Yes, it's going to take 10-14 days, yes, it's sad and horrible and there is no easy answer, but someone has to make the decision...and whether you agree or not, it's the decision of Terri's husband, Michael. The government should not be involved. I am sure her parents and family are grieving, but they need to accept that this is not their decision to make.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...1&postcount=84

Big difference between someone on life support and Teri's case. That what makes Teri so tricky and confusing.

Edited: I agree with you it should her husband's decision, and the gov't should not be involved. I think if the government can "win" this decision, then I'm not sure when we will step up and stop the government from taking away any of our freedom and choice.