I am not saying there isn't.

I was simply trying to point out that it is very unlikely that she will suffer at all during the process. A lot of people are saying that it's "inhumane" to let someone die this way, and I was trying to point out that the doctors will make sure that there is no pain and that she is not conscious during the process.

Here is your comment:



Here is Blackadar's comment:



If you are so enligthened as you claim yourself to be then you shouldn't have any problem figuring out what is wrong with your statement.

Ok, sorry about the misunderstanding.

Ive seen a few people say this, but I dont see where they get this misinformation?

There is a reason why were having this debate, legally the doctors and her husband have the right to take her off of LIFE SUPPORT. In every medical and legal sense, they are removing her from LIFE SUPPORT. That is the very definition of whats going on here, you cannot say its anything other than LIFE SUPPORT, once youre medically considered in a "vegetative state" all forms of support (oxygen, food) are legally and medically considered LIFE SUPPORT.

Congress Update
 

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20050320/pl_nm/rights_schiavo_congress_dc&printer=1

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress on Sunday put off action on a bill aimed at prolonging the life of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo, in the face of anticipated objections from at least one Democrat that could temporarily stall the measure.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, convened the House in rare Sunday session, but immediately recessed it until further notice.

Guess they should have worked to push through the fillibuster bill a little harder.

Joking, right?

From what I've read of what Congress is planning on doing, it is just a huge political grandstand. They aren't going to pass any laws or make any decisions on the matter. They were just going to pass a resolution to have a federal court review the case. Which I thought had already been done, since the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. So however the situation ends, they can claim that they at least tried. What a waste of effort and hot air.

Sounds like business as usual.

no offense, but its not applicable. It doesn't matter how me, you, the parents, the husband, or the legislators feel....its about what she wants and the law states that the husband can determine that IF he had been given orders or desires regarding such matters. Thats it, case closed IMO

I agree with you, it's completely his decision. The only reason I made that post was because I saw alot of comments about the "inhumane" way of killing someone, that it would be better to suffocate them with a pillow, etc...I was just trying to point out that as inhumane as it sounds, there are steps taken to make sure the person doesn't suffer during the process. I was trying very hard to keep my personal opinion out of it, but I guess I didn't do a very good job :)

You may find the writings of the Founding Fathers (letters, books, Federalist Papers) to be an interesting read. There was much discussion about avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" when framing the Constitution. Although this is up for debate (as is all of the Constitution, generally), it is generally thought that the Framers of the Constitution tried to write a document that would keep the majority from running roughshod over everyone.

Thus the idea of avoiding direct democracy.

I'm not saying they're right or they're wrong, merely that it's an interesting concept that deserves thought when looking at our legislative process.

Yes. Twice. My Father and my cousin, and both times it was primarily on my say (my sisters didn't have the strength with my father, and my Aunt just couldn't do it with my cousin). It is a very hard thing to do, but not one I regret in either case. Niether of those times were like this, though. They were in comas, and there was no hope of recovery. I couldn't have done it either time if they were in Terry's condition.

edit: And it wasn't a situation were we removed the feeding tube. We removed breathing apperatus and medicine, and nature took its course. If it had been a feeding tube situation, it would have made the desicion much harder and I don't know if could have done it.

I can "logically" access that, but there is no way that I could starve someone to death that is as apparently cognative as she is. That is me personally, but as I've said else, the husband has the say here.

I have a question:

I've taken my fair share of psychology classes adn have studied sleep patterns and dream states. I've never really studied the people who are in comas.

Of the few who have "woken" up, what did they remember about their sleep? I know some have said they heard their people around them talk, but I'm curious about anything else.

I feel badly for anyone involved in this case. If something like this happened to the girl I married, what would I do? If she told me her wish was to die, I'd probably find a way to honor that wish. If I were her parents, what would I do? Could I just "let her go?"

Just frightening to think about.

I don't think the government should step in though. Let the courts do their jobs and go from there. The family has had more than enough time to prove their case. They've lost pretty much everyone. With or without the help of the senate, I don't think this changes.

Congress says hold on:


I bolded the part I found most idiotic. Who the fuck is Tom DeLay. I seriously have no respect for that fucktard.

I wholeheartedly concur. Here's another sage quote from Mr. DeLay:

"Time is not on Terri Schiavo's side," DeLay said. "The few remaining objecting House Democrats have so far cost Mrs.Schiavo two meals already today."

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050320/ap_on_go_co/schiavo_congress

Tom DeLay is a reprehensible asshole for making those insinuations. But then again, I didn't need to see that comment to know that about DeLay - this is just more evidence.

Yeah, it is an interesting debate. But remember, this was way back when don't have the education and deeper understanding of life and the world around us. Switzerland seems to keep itself in check with it. It's not a perfect system, but for a very divided country such as Switzerland, it's pretty sound.

I see that one lady brought up Bush's 1999 bill he passed in Texas. In Teri's state, they say that her laughing/smiling, limited response, is normal?

Let's be clear on this point - this activity is being alleged by her parents and siblings, who all have a stake in painting a picture of Teri as being as aware of her surroundings as possible. I haven't seen any independent verification of the extent of these claims, and it seems highly likely their claims are exaggerated descriptions of behavior that is not higher brain function but base-level brain functions.

I completely agree with you. I was just asking if these were actually normally in her state? Also, they only show the one video (with about a minute of footage) whenever they show her on tv.

Apparently, yes.


http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html

Its not like DeLay's short of morals...i mean look. He's been investigated numerous times for things like skimming money from campaign funds, taking money from special interests, etc. AND then he tries to propose legislation making it MORE difficult to investiagte legislators....gee, i wonder why. What a prick.

Here's an interesting article from the Tampa paper about the videos of her that are going around. Evidently, the ones the family are showing are only about 5 or so minutes of over 20 hours of tape. The rest of the time she is as you expect.

hxxp://www.tampatrib.com/MGBQ67CTI6E.html

Dola,

Here's an excellent article that pretty much sums up how I feel about DeLay and his insertion into this issue:

hxxp://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nyhen204182572mar20,0,5541860.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

De Lay is scum of the highest order. Then again, he keeps getting voted in- which is disheartening at best.

My wife just confirmed to me (and I to her) to remove machines and such when the doctors say there is serious brain damage or no brain activity, but under no circumstance to remove a feeding tube. I wonder if an internet post is a legal document? :)

unless your wife's maiden name is Marge Bouvier, I don't see a problem... :D

Well, he is far from the only random idiot that gets voted in year after year on either side of the aisle. See Kennedy, Ted.

Kennedy is no angel, but he's nowhere near the level of scumbag that DeLay is, and he's hardly an idiot.

Really? A guy who got off on at least Manslaughter charges because his name was Kennedy? Depends on how you look. They both are scummy idiots to me.

That was certainly a low-point in Kennedy's career (whether he was guilty or not), but I look at the comparison as one major mistake vs. a pattern of disgusting actions.

I'll leave it at that as I don't mean for this to turn into a Democrat vs. Republican debate of who has the scummiest politicians.

Wow, that is a frighteningly apt description of me during lecture some days..

Actually my point was they both do, not that one is "scummier" than the other.

Congress passed a bill early this morning, and Bush signed it, which allows Terri's parents to appeal to a Federal Judge to have the tube reinserted.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7212079/?GT1=6305

I would imagine that out of all the people that are posting their outrage in this thread, that none of you are doctors, confidants of Terri's parents, or one of 16 judges or whatever that heard this case. So why is it you feel that this condition isn't as bad as independent doctors have told court? Or why do feel the need to vilify her husband when 11 courts have found that he DOES hold her interest in heart and her parents are the ones with different motives? No it's not a fun way to go, but independent docs have said there is no chance of recovery...heck it's been 16 years and she has limited function (even though you non-doctors seem to believe you know what makes for a vegetative state). I'm fairly confident if 16 judges have said the initial ruling was correct, and the judges have also struck down unconstitutional measures to avoid her wishes that the case has been thoroughly covered. So what good does making it a federal case then? What will they all do when the federal court upholds the state courts and the supreme court strikes down this new law?

I am not sure if that post was directed at me because I posted the article about Congress, but I was just updating the thread with the newest developements. I said in an earlier post that I didn't think it was the place of the government to be getting involved in this, and for the record, I am very disappointed in Pres. Bush for signing the bill.

Hey moron, how about reading my posts for a change? I keep up with the news on this, and that is one of the issues that has come up recently. Not something "I'm making up." Just reporting what has been in the news down here. Like others have said, if quality of life was such an important issue to both of them, they should have visited a lawyer's office -- then this whole situation would be a moot point.

Fox News don't count.

Such an amazing reparteé :rolleyes:

Actually anyone would have recieved manslaughter for that. When drunk drivers kill others, they are brought up on manslaughter, not murder.

Now you've upset me, you've made me defend a Kennedy :p.

Well, two points here:

1. You're assuming we have "education and deeper understanding of life" amongst the U.S. populace now.... ;)

2. For the FF, the "tyranny of the majority" wasn't necessarily about the "unwashed masses". They had already addressed the "unwashed masses" by restricting the voting franchise. Their concept of avoiding "tyranny of the majority" still applies today. It's why they made the House based on population numbers, but the Senate consistent representation amongst states. In theory, the high-population states couldn't always get their way over the low-population states, and vice versa.

Fuck you, Tom DeLay, fuck you.

Wow it's true, the Republicans will *terrorism* use ANY opportunity *terrorism* to mention terrorism!

Republicans practice legislative terrorism.

Hey, that's kind of fun! :D

I don't have a lot to add about the substance of this issue -- but the politics of it fascinate me.

As nearly as I can tell, this is a matter about which reasonable people might be very conflicted. "Right to die" issues are complicated enough, but this particular story -- as best as I understand it, and I have made no special effort to educate myself, I confess -- seems even more troubling. The medical perspective is either ambiguous or is being painted that way -- whether she actually retains any degree of consciousness is perhaps up for debate. And the trail back to her own wishes, if that's what we'd want to follow, is regrettably not as clear as we'd like. Further, the current involvement of the federal government is potentially troubling as a matter of state's rights, or at least some would argue as much.

You would think that with so much to consider... so many complicated issues to try to weigh... that people would be all over the place on this. People's faith, perhaps their own life situations, any number of things ought to guide them in reaching a conclusion about what is the best ting to do here. This just seems to me like a classic case of "you're on your own with this one."

But what do we see instead? Almost perfect allegiance to pre-ordained party positions. Republicans screech that she must be saved, make every effort to deny evidence about what her actual wishes may have been, and are enthusiastic to buy all the innuendo about the husband, and in Congress, the GOP is basicaly in lock-step. Democrats, on the other hand, cry foul over any intrusion of her family (as if there is no place at all for their wishes or beliefs to even be considered), claim that Terri's wishes are all that matters even in the face of all the apparent blurriness in this case (which they prefer to ignore), and in Congress they line up to oppose the delaying measure.


I am generally worried about top-down thinking in politics -- people who decide their opinion on political issues based on what their party says, rather than the other way around. I worry even more about people starting to make similar judgments about matters of fact, rather than opinion. This particular issue might mark an example of yet another level of this -- when the matter becomes more complicated, people just decide not to give it any thought, and instead decide to delegate their thinking to the people they have decided to support politically. I hate to be guilty of the much-maligned "slippery slope" argument here... but this sure seems like one.


I, myself, am a pretty strong supporter of the principle of the "right to die." This particular case poses a challenge to those beliefs, in my mind -- maybe I'm just falling for claptrap spouted by those who are trying to make this case harder than it really is, that remains a possibility. But I am rather unnerved by those who seem to have etched this whole issue out so clearly, and so in keeping with their previous political disposition, that there's no room at all to even hear what someone else has to say.

It's a complex issue. Too bad the rhetoric seems basically the same as on everything else.

Yup, this has to be the work of Osama (from his cave) and Saddam (from jail). :rolleyes:

I really don't think public opinion is anywhere near as divided on this as the Republicans are making it seem. As for Congress, I'm had been thinking that it was only a relatively small number of Republicans that were making this noise. Then I see that they sneak in a bill in a late Sunday session. So how many Congressmen does it take to pass a bill? I'd really like to know if the party I'm considering switching too(officially) is trying to send itself to hell in a handbasket.

It is a very straightforward matter. It is the husband's choice.

Coupled with Constitutional terrorism.

Actually, it is fun.

George Bush is a Constitutional terrorist!

Terrorist!
Terrorist!
Terrrrrrrrrrrrrorist!

Funny, I keep saying the same thing about Teddy Kennedy.

What, you want a cookie or something?

It seemed that the dems had the more sound arguement last night on c-span. The Republicans just went into Party platform mode. Doesnt the bill create a constitutinal crisis though?

Why not let the husband put a couple of bullets in her head? It might be a little more messy than letting her starve to death, but it would achieve the same goal much more quickly.

Besides, who wouldn't consider such an act a bonafide "mercy killing?"

Just wanted to give props to a good post here.

Not so much on this matter, but on many others, I find myself slipping into the "I am against whatever the neoconservatives are for and vice versa" trap. It's easy to do, and something against which I need to fight.

I'm am curious, how many times can we take something to court? I know you can keep going up all the way to the US Supreme Court to appeal a lower court decision, after that, your out of luck, correct?

i am not trying to sound insensitive but if they remove her feeding tube...do they have to like bring out a plate of food, in a just in case, kind of scenario. What if by some crazy twist of fate, she could feed herself at some point but the food isnt there? I dunno....its a weird situation I hope no one has to be in.

I DO NOT LIKE Congress getting involved or any Pol. for that matter in this, but my brain is getting kind of twisted in this.

I'm going to shut it down now as Im not sure how I feel about this, today.

Well, it's a good thing for Republicans that Terri Schiavo isn't from TEXAS.


-----
George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

-----

Baby born with fatal defect dies after removal from life support
By LEIGH HOPPER
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive," Wanda Hudson told reporters afterward. "This hospital was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months .... They made a terrible mistake."

Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.

"This isn't murder. It's mercy and it's appropriate to be merciful in that way. It's not killing, it's stopping pointless treatment," said William Winslade, a bioethicist and lawyer who is a professor at the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. "It's sad this (Sun Hudson case) dragged on for so long. It's always sad when an infant dies. We all feel it's unfair, that a child doesn't have a chance to develop and thrive."

The hospital's description of Sun — that he was motionless and sedated for comfort — has differed sharply from the mother's. Since February, the hospital has blocked the media from accepting Hudson's invitation to see the baby in the neonatal intensive care unit, citing patient privacy concerns.

"I wanted y'all to see my son for yourself," Hudson told reporters. "So you could see he was actually moving around. He was conscious."

On Feb. 16, Harris County Probate Court Judge William C. McCulloch made the landmark decision to lift restrictions preventing Texas Children's from discontinuing care. However, an emergency appeal by Hudson's attorney, Mario Caballero, and a procedural error on McCulloch's part prevented the hospital from acting for four more weeks.

Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.

Texas Children's said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but none would accept Sun. Without legal delays, Sun's care would have ended Nov. 28.

Sun was born with a fatal form of dwarfism characterized by short arms, short legs and lungs too tiny to sustain his body, doctors said. Nearly all babies born with the incurable condition, often diagnosed in utero, die shortly after birth, genetic counselors say.

Sun was delivered full-term at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, but Hudson, 33, said she had no prenatal care during which his condition might have been discovered. He was put on a ventilator while doctors figured out what was wrong with him, and Hudson refused when doctors recommending withdrawing treatment.

"From the time Sun was born ... he was on life support because his chest cavity and lungs could not grow and develop the capacity to support his body. He was slowly suffocating to death," Texas Children's said in a statement today.

Texas Children's contended that continuing care for Sun was medically inappropriate, prolonged suffering and violated physician ethics. Hudson argued her son just needed more time to grow and be weaned from the ventilator.

Another case involving a patient on life support — a 68-year man in a chronic vegetative state whose family wants to stop St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital from turning off his ventilator — was supposed to be heard today by the Houston-based 1st Court of Appeals.

But in a procedural switch, the case was transferred today to the 14th Court of Appeals, which promptly issued a temporary injunction ordering St. Luke's not to remove the man's life support, much as the 1st Court did Saturday. No hearing date has been set.

its definitely hypocritical no doubt.

Yeah, it sounds like the operative phrase in that Texas law is "could not pay". It's just crazy that the Republicans are supporting futile care for Schiavo when they are also trying to take away the very streams of support families need in this situation:

- the cutting of Medicaid funding (this is how Schiavo's care will be presumably paid
for if the tube stays in)
- pushing tort reform that would cut the malpractice awards (like the one that is
providing for Schiavo's care right now)
- passing the bankruptcy bill that will make it nearly impossible for families to start
fresh from the crushing medical bills they face

As for the case itself, I can certainly see where the debate comes from. The removal of a feeding tube is certainly not the most humane solution to this case. But the naked politicking on the part of the Republicans, especially when their position is built on a foundation of hypocrisy, is just disgusting and outrageous...

This case is a special because of the bills/laws that Congress passed/is passing/will pass. I really don't know all the ins and outs of how the recent legislation changes things.

But, generally, here is a quick primer. There are some exceptions to that which I am about to lay out, but I am trying to keep it simple.

If your case involves federal law, you can bring it in state or federal court. If you bring it in federal court, then the trial court (federal district court) hears it first. Then you have an appeal of right to an intermediate appellate court (circuit court of appeals. This is what the infamous 9th Circuit is). That court HAS to hear your appeal if you take it. Then you can apply for discretionary review in the Supreme Court. They don't have to hear your case. Once 1.) The time for asking the Supreme Court to hear your case is over, or 2.) The Supreme Court says that it won't hear your case, or 3.) The Supreme Court hears your case and makes a decision, then your case is "Final."

If you bring your federal law case in state court, then the process goes State trial court--->State intermediate court of appeals-->state supreme Court-->U.S. Supreme Court. Once 1.) The time for asking the Supreme Court to hear your case is over, or 2.) The Supreme Court says that it won't hear your case, or 3.) The Supreme Court hears your case and makes a decision, then your case is "Final."

If your case involves only state law, then the process goes State trial court--->State intermediate court of appeals-->state supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court CANNOT hear issues of state law (be careful, though. It CAN hear the argument that a state law violates the Constitution or Federal Law. That is considered a federal law case).

Once you go through the above process and have a "final" judgement, the full faith and credit clause to the constitution prevents someone from going to another court to relitigate the same issues. If I have a final judgment from Mississippi, then you cannot go to Nebraska to get it overturned. The 50 states and the feds all respect each others decisions. If they did not, people would go from court to court suing until they got a good decision.

Finally, there is some complexity as to what the final judgement contains. Basically, a final judgment from a court systems precludes litigation of any other issues related to the same "nucleus of operative fact." This gets hard in a hurry, and its probably best to leave it with your gut instinct.

Oh, and there are some methods for reopening "final" cases, but they are used rarely and generally only for things like one of the parties hiding evidence from another party and the fraud was not discovered until after trial.

This site seems to be a good, balanced page, that gives the facts of the case from the beginning, and doesn't favor one side or the other. It's almost like a "snopes", in that it addresses alot of the questions, rumors, and other stuff going around. I found some new info in there I hadn't heard before.

hxxp://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Where did you hear the rumor that the husband might've been involved. Considering your other comments I wonder if it wasn't "fair and balanced" or perhaps just fit in nicely with your deck of cards.

I'm late to the fray here and I'm sure this probably was brought up in one of the past 261 threads but why is it so important for Terri to die?

Her parents are willing to take care of her, people have offered money to help pay for her care (and to her husband if he'll just go away) and the husband has obviously moved on by fathering children with another woman. So I guess the question I have is what I stated first - why is it important that she dies?

I read the beginning of the thread and it seems there's the usual expected backlash against the republicans for abusing power and the religious for wanting life preserved and I'm all for the gov staying out of personal affairs but why should her husband get to decide she dies when her family is willing to take care of her?

The husband does not strike me as sincere - his wife is alive - despite the fact that she can only be fed with a tube or perform many other functions, she is alive. She breathes on her own, she responds to people and she can make noises like laughing. She's not the same woman he married but she is alive and they are married yet he went out and started a new relationship and had children with another woman.

He has moved on with his life - he obviously no longer sees Terri as his wife if he's with another woman so why not just let someone who does want her alive and does want to care for her take care of her? I'm not saying he should have to stay and take care of her in this state for the rest of her life and not live his own life - that's his own choice to make but he's chosen to move on and live his life - why should he have any stake in what happens to Terri now? Why should Terri have to die now when there are people willing to care for her and pay for that care?

Well, therein lies the problem. It's not important that she die, it's important her wishes are carried out. Plenty of judges have heard from both sides and decided that her husband does represent her wishes, and not her parents. Independent doctors have also testified that there is so direct response to people, places, etc...You just have anecdotal evidence that her parents tell you she laughs when they say things, etc. If you read the NIH definition of persistive vegatative state, it says somewhere that there can be lower brain functions, like laughing, reaction to light, etc., but these are not necessarily in direct response to a given stimulus (something to that effect).

So it's not important that she die, per se, it's just important that an individual's wishes are respected when just about all courts decide based on presented evidence that those were said individual wishes. Whatever her family said, the courts decided that they did not represent her true wishes. Whether or not he moved on is of no concern. It doesn't affect what he wants, as he could continue to move on if she were just sitting in a hospital for the next 40 years. People are only using this as a way to vilify him to support their positions. To me, the fact that he's spent so much time and money on pursuing this influences me in the other direction, that he really does care about her wishes.

Gary, you want to control how people die, and now you want to control how they live as well ? 11 times a court has rules that he represents her wishes- why is that point so hard to get across ?

Sorry if this comes off as rude Gary, but have you read this thread at all? Your questions have been answered multiple times.

To summarize, the husband is acting on what he says were his wife's wishes to not remain living in such an incapacitated state. As for the talk of her "responsiveness", that's in serious doubt and not supported by independent court-appointed doctors. What is being described (and likely exaggerated) by her family is standard random activity and not evidence of any higher-level brain function.

What do you mean I want to control how people die or live? I believe that human life is the most precious thing on this earth - Terri is alive and her being kept alive is not going to hurt anyone. Her husband doesn't have to care for her or pay for her care - there are people willing to do that and just allow him to move on with his life and never have to worry about it again. It's not like she has been in a coma for 15 years. She may need a great deal of care but she is still alive.

You can line up 100 courts and to me what they say is irrelevant IMO in this case. Terri's wishes are not known. I agree with the others that have said this is the prime example for having a living will - but there was none so we do not know Terri's wishes. We know what her family says and we know what her husband says.

What if her husband is lying? What if she made an off the cuff remark 20 years ago to the effect of not wanting to be kept alive if something were to happen to her but wasn't serious? What if she's fought to stay alive for 15 years like this and feels that she still wants to live?

Look, I'm not saying that the court should force her husband to stay with her, incur all medical bills and basically ruin him financially just so she can live. If the husband wants nothing to do with her, fine. But as long as she has people who are willing to pay for her to remain alive then what's the problem? If there's a living will, concrete evidence, that she does not want to be kept alive in a situation like this then I say fine, that's her decision. But we don't know her decision and I feel that in that case, since there are people willing to pay for her care and that the burden for that is not falling on anyone who doesn't want that burden, then what's the harm in keeping her alive?




No, I did not read 261 posts looking to see if what I said was posted. I was simply looking to join the discussion now.

But what if there isn't anybody willing or able to pay? That's a real issue for other families without the fame of the Schiavos...

Hi Gary,

Here is a good website that has the facts, and only the facts about the case. It doesn't favor one side or the other. It addresses many of the questions and/or concerns you mentioned.

hxxp://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

The harm is that, as far as anyone knows, it was not her wish to be kept in this state. You talk as if there's no harm in keeping her alive so long as someone can foot the bill; what about the harm to Terri herself? How do you know that her continued existence isn't torture for her?


Well, maybe you should read up before you jump in to a conversation this late.

Well that's a different story - I'm not after socialized healthcare and let's tax people to death in order to keep people alive as long as possible. Its unfortunate but there are many people in our country that cannot afford treatments for their illnesses and that really sucks but you can't force people to pay for other people's care.

In this case there are willing caretakers and people willing to put up the money for that care. As long as those exist then why should she have to die when nobody knows for sure what her true wishes are? That's my only point here.

There's your problem - nobody knows what she wanted. How do you know she doesn't cherish each day she wakes up now? How do you know that she doesn't desperately want to communicate to the world that she wants to live? Nobody knows so why not error on the side of caution? She's lived like this for 15 years - maybe she has resigned herself to the fact that this is her life now and she cherishes the fact that she has life.

She might not want to live but I think that if she didn't want to live she wouldn't have survived 15 years the way she is and I can't think that anyone would want to be starved to death.


Sorry, I spent my weekend doing something other than reading the forum. Next time I'll ask for your permission to post in a thread even when I clearly state I did not take the hour or two to read through it but simply wanted to be part of the discussion.

I think these two statements are critical and illustrate the misconception that most people have about her condition.

Terri condition is far, far worse than a coma. Basically the difference between a coma and a persitive vegatative state is where the damage is. The brainstem has several several important functions. It connects the brain to the rest of the body, controls the general arrousal of the cortex (higher brain structures), and controls heart rate and respiration. Patients in a coma have damages to the structures underlying either of the first two functions. They are unconscious and thus completely unresponsive. Structures that control basic life support functions must be spared in patients in a coma which is why they are relatively infrequent (at least long ones). Patients can suddenly come out of comas and lead relatively normal lifes becuase their cortex is spaired.

A persistant vegetative state is caused by damage to the cortex which is involved in all higher functions including communication, emotion, memory, controlled movements, etc. Since the brainstem is spared, the patient can often be kept "alive" with minimal medical intervention. However, damage to the cortex is irreversable. There are no cures. Terri had a CT scan which showed that her cortex was gone. Neurons are very fragile cells and will die very quickly when they are deprived of nutrients or signals from other neurons. There is nothing left to help via therapy. Terri's body can continue to survive however, her brain is gone.

Everything Terri has done for the past 15 years (responding to stimuli, uncontrolled movements, smiling, crying etc) are very simple reflexes that are controlled largely by the brainstem or spinal cord and not by her cortex.

I won't sit and say that I think it's okay that he did this without just divorcing her. Seems to me that he wants to move on, the parents said they wouldn't begrudge him for doing that, but he seems to want to end this.

It just seems a bit off to me, like something else is going on that we don't know about.

Gary, the point is that the same points you dredged up have already been discussed - in length - in the preceeding pages.

Joining the discussion is fine. But it seems discourteous to ignore 5 pages of valid, thoughtful discussion and start asking the same questions or proposing the same points that were previously discussed. If you can't bother to read the thread, why bother to post at all?

Well after 200 some posts seriously, are there going to be groundbreaking original posts? How exactly should I join a discussion then if what I have to say or want to discuss is already brought up? I posted because I wanted to discuss the issue with people who were reading it now and could reply now while I was reading the forums - if I wanted to simply read what others said I would have spent two hours reading the thread. If people already said their piece then that's fine - nobody had to reply to me. I could have started my own thread but that's not proper protocal either.

And your problem is you think you know better than her husband what she would want. Nobody knows what she wanted? Not even her husband?

If you were to work through this whole history of what has happened logically, there's no reason to think that Michael Schiavo would have taken this path of action unless he was certain this was exactly what Terri would've wanted. Not unless you believe some conspiracy theory about him being the reason she suffered this condition in the first place.

If you were willing to read this thread, you'd find some excellent summaries of the situation posted by Blackadar.

As for her living 15 years in this state, all that proves is that the base-level functions of her brain still work, but we knew that already. Since there's no evidence of higher-level brain function, it's a real stretch to imagine that there's some conscious thought driving her continued existence.


I could care less whether you prefaced your initial post or not. When you come into a thread this far in without having read most of it and pose questions that have already been debated endlessly, why should you expect any other response?

So you consider your time more precious than the rest of us? Some of us were willing to read through the thread and actually get up to speed on the debate. If you're not willing to do so, then I'm not sorry for denigrating your refusal to do so. It's a matter of courtesy.

I think there is an excellent chance that her husband doesn't know what she wanted. Be honest - how many married couples have sat down and discussed in 100% seriousness what they would want done in a case like this? I know that my wife and I have not discussed something like this but certainly based on this case we will get a living will made. I can't believe that my wife and I would be the only married couple on earth not to seriously discuss what we would want to happen to us if we were in a situation like that. My stance is that there is no proof that she ever expressed her wishes for this type of situation so why sentence her to death if there are people willing to care for her and pay for her care even if one of those people is not her husband or estranged husband or whatever you want to call him.


Well apparently you cared enough to respond a couple of times. I wanted a conversation with people on this matter - whether I choose to read 250 posts prior to making one is up to me as it is up to you whether you choose to respond to me or not. If you have debated the quetions endlessly then why waste time replying to me? I have not debated the issue prior to now so I chose to start now and debate with anyone willing to do so.

Hi Gary,

not sure if you saw the link I posted earlier in reponse to your first post, it explains a lot better than I can this very point. The judges did not base their decision based on only the testimony of the husband. Other people testified that they too heard her make statements that she wouldn't want to stay in the state she currently finds herself in. Based on Florida law, the presumption is to keep someone alive, unless overwhelming evidence is shown to prove otherwise. I would assume that this legal level of burden has been proven, based on the rulings of every level of court system in Florida, and the refusal of the United States Supreme Court to overturn the rulings of the state judges.

So you know better than Michael Schiavo whether they discussed this or not? You claim there's no proof she wanted the right to die. Well, there's no proof she wanted to live in this state either.

And you keep assuming that staying alive in this state is the best option. Well, not if that's not what she wanted, and the person who was in the best position to know that has claimed she did not want to live in this situation. For all you know, this existence is torture for Terri Schiavo.

To me, the big issue here is way Congress is attempting to get involved in matters of individual rights and how they are trying to supercede the authority of the state. I also find huge irony in the hypocisy the Republican Party arbitrarily deciding when it's OK for the Federal Government to supercede State's Rights when it suits their political interests (i.e. appeasing the conservative christian faction of their base) while talking up State's Rights in other areas where they stand to gain.

But in your recent comments about the case, you say that Schiavo is being condemmed to a death sentence. In your response to my post, you say that, for other cases when there is no money for care, too bad. Is Terri Schiavo more worthy of life because it is likely that, due to the publicity, her care is more likely to get funded by private donors?

This is why the Republican handling of the case is so onerous. If they really cared about seriously dealing with all the issues of futile care head on, the Senate would have passed the version of the bill opening the federal courts to all cases similar to the Schiavo one. But the bill they passed is only applicable to the Schiavo case. This suggests pretty strongly to me that they are using Schiavo as a political tool, but are being careful not to open a can of worms in pushing the futile care issue too hard--they have to know that a "presumption of life" policy in futile care cannot be tenable if the Republicans are not going to support it by increasing the funding of medicaid and make it easier for families to shoulder the costs. I just don't see the Republicans being willing to put their money where there mouths are.

Last post on this issue before I let it die.

If you wanted a conversation on this matter, then why don't you READ the conversation? The "debate" as you framed it has been laid to rest - every single one of your points has already been discussed (and generally refuted). As it stands now, you post appears to be oblivious and frankly, not just a little bit discourteous to the rest of us who have put forth some pretty intelligent discussion over the last few days.

You want to "debate"? Then bring some new discussion points to the table or refute past points. Or should we just delete this thread and start over because you've just arrived?

Maybe the reason people are getting annoyed with you is you appear to be totally ignorant about this case, and if you read this thread or (even better) read up on the case elsewhere you could at least make a halfway intelligent comment based on the actual facts rather than hypotheticals and your irrelevant feelings about what you would do in such a situation, etc.

This issue was litigated extensively and it was proved, by clear and convincing evidence, which is a highest burden of proof in civil court, that it was not her wish to live in this condition. It was proved through the uncontradicted testimony of her husband, her sister-in-law, and her friends.

You might not like the facts, but at least make a little effort to learn them before engaging in redundant, ignorant babbling.

I'm not disputing that - I don't know her wishes but I also think that its reasonable to assume that nobody else may have truly known either. The only way her wishes are truly known is if she records them somewhere - anything else is pure heresay whether its from her husband, her family or anyone else regardless of which side of the fence they are arguing.


Well I stated earlier that if it was in fact her wish not to be kept alive by any means in the event of something like this then there would be no issue here. I can't say someone should be forced to live in a condition they do not want to live in nor would I try to. Yes, her existence could be torture but maybe its not torture at all. Maybe she is at peace with her existence. Do you know for a fact that her existence is torture for her? You don't and neither does anyone else but Terri.


To me, that's a different debate. This is not political to me - I don't think Congress should have to intervene in situations like these or waste taxpayer time and money on things like asking baseball players if they took steroids. In fact Congress wastes its time and money more often than not whether its democrat or republican. The sole issue with Terri is one of preserving human life when possible.

You have made excellent points that I do not know what Terri wants - the fact of the matter is that nobody knows FOR SURE what Terri wants because she never recorded it. But I think that in her case where she has people willing to pay for her care and not burden you or me with the costs of doing so then why should death be chosen over life when NOBODY knows what she wants. It's not like her family is asking the state to pay for her to be kept alive - they want to care for her and pay for her care - who is her husband or a judge to determine that she should just starve to death instead of letting people who want to and are capable of caring for her do so?

Maybe it was her wish to not be kept alive in this state - but maybe it wasn't as well. Unless there's concrete proof of her wishes how can you sentence her to die?

Hopefully you've read the above posts, but it's not just her husband claiming this is what she wanted, and this point has been put through a severe legal test and consistently passed.

If the above posts don't address your points then I don't know what will. This wasn't some arbitrary decision by Michael Schiavo, and a rational, logical look at this case can't lead to any other conclusion but that he strongly believes this was what she wanted - why else would he perservere through the abuse he's taken in forging relentlessly ahead on this issue?

I will agree with you that hopefully this case makes it crystal clear to everyone that to avoid this kind of mess, a living will should be created stating your wishes. At the very least, make it clear to all your family and friends your position on this matter.

That's a good point and I would say more worthy - no, more likely - yes. Who's children are more likely to get into Harvard and have a fantastic job when they come out of school? Those from a middle class working person like myself or those from a prominant political figure? It's a no brainer. That doesn't make it "right" but it is how it is. Terri would be fortunate enough to have her care paid for by private donors because of the publicity while other families are basically forced to stand by and watch a loved one die because they cannot afford the care.

As for how the Republicans are handling it - again, it is what it is. Name one thing that is not done in the name of politics from a political group? Every decision made by an important political figure or party has some type of political motivation - they all result in throwing a bone to some group they are trying to appease. The republicans are guilty of it, so are the democrats. To me that's not as important as the issue itself which is whether or not a court should sentence someone to die when there is no physical record of her wishes and there are people willing to pay for her care.

I believe that you are correct in that we don't KNOW beyond any sort of doubt that her husband isn't lying about his wishes. The point is that society and the courts have pretty well laid out the fact that it is entirely his decision. He doesn't have to prove anything. He is her husband, her life is in her hands. He says he is trying to do what she would want done. No one is in a better place to make that call than him. Not even her parents. If I were in that condition, I know I'd want my wife to be able to make the call on what to do. The way the laws of this land work, she has that power. Well unless someone made it out to be a "right to life case".

It is for this very reason that there are laws on the books and judicial guidelines to follow. I have not read the transcripts of each of the judicial hearings in this case. But if there have been, I believe, 10 seperate hearings, and in every instance the judge has come to the same conclusion, that she wouldn't have wanted to continue living in her current state. I have enough faith in our justice system that the legal decision that most closely resembles her wishes has been made.

This is wasn't simply one judge taking a statement from the husband, and a statement from the mom and dad. This has been a long string of legal hearing and decisions, and each step of the way, the husband's version of his wife's wishes has been the prevailing version.

Actually that's not exactly correct. They way it works under Florida law is when there is no written document laying out her wishes, the next-of-kin can petition the court. There is a statutory presumption in favor of life, meaning it is presumed that the person would want his or her life prolonged. This presumption can be rebutted if the court determines there is clear and convincing evidence that the person would not want his or her life prolonged. In this case, there was a trial on the issue and the court heard and considered all evidence on the issue and based on the uncontradicted testimony of numerous people it was determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that her was was to die in this situation. This decision was appealed and every appellate court also reviewed the evidence on which the trial judge made his determination and affirmed that the trial judge made the right decision.

But this is a huge part of the debate. You are taking the rights, freedom of choice, and our trust in what I think is one of the strongest things we have (our medcial field), and giving it to the government and politicans who are speaking on behalf of the parnets, yet do not know anything about Teri (have they ever seen her, consulted with the doctors)? You are also pushing aside the court system that have over and over ruled in favored of the husband (and done so on extensive fact searching, hearings, ect).

Yes, there's no denying the point that the Democrats are often guilty of the same grandstanding, hypocrisy, and choosing politics over serious policy-making that we are seeing from the Republicans on this issue.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether the focus should be on assessing this case in a vacuum; and on whether we should consider the implications this case may have to medical care and its cost-structure in this country.

I have read information on the case and yes I know it was just not her husband. I don't recall all of the "others" but I believe they were his brother and his brother's wife. There's money involved in this case and I hate to say it but it certainly can't be out of the realm of possibility that its a motivation to testify one way or the other for everyone involved.

Also if you read to what the court decided was her consent to not be kept alive in such a situation her comments seem to be off the cuff remarks. Like in one case she saw a movie with a man in a coma and allegedly remarked that she would not want to be kept alive on a machine like him. To me, that doesn't seem like it should be a declaration of her true wishes. For starters there's no explicit remark in there - how can a court decide that she wouldn't want to be kept alive under any circumstances? Maybe she just wouldn't want to be kept alive if she was in a coma. Maybe it was just a remark in regards to the movie.

It bothers me that none of her alleged comments about not wanting to live like that were made in the context of a serious, heartfelt discussion. Alleged comments were made at a luncheon for her grandmother's funeral and a comment about her grandmother being in intensive care and saying that if she was ever a burden she wouldn't want to live like that. Well she's obviously not a burden to her family who want to keep her alive.

I just fail to see conclusive proof in the court reports about her alleged comments that would warrant a judge deciding that it was her wishes to not live in a situation like this. But that's the problem with not having recorded proof - I think her alleged comments made to her husband and his family members could have been made simply as comments upon seeing a situation and without true regards to her own future or there's always the possibility that those comments weren't made or made exactly like that.

Well I'm not for Congress and politicians getting involved in this - my beef is with the court. I realize what judgment the court has made and I realize what they are basing that judgment off of and I don't agree with it. I see a situation where we have an individual whose right to life is being decided by a court based on testimony of what people claim she said to them 15-20 or more years ago. The resources to pay for her care are there but the court has decided that her wishes are to die - I would have zero issue with that if she had left proof or made a remark about that in different circumstances. But alot of people say things they don't truly mean when faced with grieving situations (like seeing her grandmother in intensive care or at her funeral luncheon) or say things just to comment like when watching a movie with a man in a coma. I just don't feel there is conclusive evidence that she would not want to live this way and when there are people willing to care for her then why should she have to die?

Also I do wonder what the motives of the husband are. He's at odds with her family, he's fathered children with another woman, there's money involved in the case, the testimony being used is from his brother and sister-in-law....it's possible that he's a stand-up guy and doing what he feels his wife would want but its hard to ignore the other actions of him. Does his wife want to die in a situation like this? possibly. Would his wife wanted him to go out and have sex with other women and have kids by another woman while she is still alive? I don't begrudge him the fact that he can move on with his life but it certainly at very least gives me some pause as to what his motives might be.

What really bothers me in this case isn't anything about Schiavo (I could care less), but the fact that Congress passed a BLATENTLY unconstitutional law. A lot of Congressmen are lawyers, they should have either known better, or they did know and didn't care. It's quite shameful that plenty of Congressmen knew the law was going to be struck down, but passed it anyway.

It's easier to ask forgiveness than to beg for permission.

I'd recommend reading the opinion of the Guardian Ad Litem appointed for Schiavo as a result of the 2001 intervention by the Florida legislature. He was charged with representing Terry's interests, and I think he laid out the situation fairly dispassionately.

An interesting sub-note to all the outrage sparked by Congress meddling with the case is that the federal judge can choose not to even rule on the case. There seem to be some constitutional issues involved and he can have the law tossed if need be, or just leave the case alone on the merits. It will be interesting to see what happens with this.

Of course if he doesn't rule in their favor Congress will gracefully accept it in the spirit of checks and balances I'm sure :rolleyes:

Has anybody here gone to www.TerrySchiavo.com ???

It's not the same woman, but an Italian who's not bad on the eyes at all...

So basically, you're saying all the previous court sessions deciding this case were a sham, and that the burden of proof the state of Florida required was too minimal?


Please present a logical scenario outlining what possible motives Michael Schiavo could've had to have pursued this decision, especially when you consider all the vehement opposition and character assassination he's had to face, that were anything other than pursuing what he genuinely believes to be Terri Schiavo's wishes?

This sums up the merits of the parents' case quite well:


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/21/schiavo/index.html