Congress & Schiavo

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Why not just smother her face with a pillow and get it over with. Why make her suffer for 7-10 days longer?

Because the same Republicans who want to prolong her comatose life also don't want to let consenting, 100% aware adults end their own lives.

Why? Presumably because they know better, or something....

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Bullshit.

1. She's going to be in bed, unconscious, for the rest of your life. Your uncle isn't.

2. Her husband says she wouldn't have wanted to live this way. I'm going to assume your Uncle's closest guardian (or even your Uncle himself) has not said this.

It's a completely different situation.

I don't know many unconscious people that laugh and smile, and make eye contact.

Her husband also has a huge conflict of interest here, so I take what he says with a grain of salt. Last time I checked, when you loved someone you didn't father two kids with another woman, or want to starve them to death.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

And one more thing no one has mentioned - Michael Schiavo claims to still love his wife. What kind of man would want to watch the woman he loved starve to death, regardless of her final wishes?

What kind of man would want to watch the woman he loves eke out a miserable existence she would never have wanted?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What kind of man would want to watch the woman he loves eke out a miserable existence she would never have wanted?

Then smother her with a pillow and get it over with.

Oh wait, that would be murder wouldn't it? But if we remove the feeding tube, well then Terri kills herself...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

He has used almost half (1.2 mil) of the money trying to end his wife's suffering.

Fixed that for you.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Same here. Once all hope for a reasonable quality of life has disappeared, please just let me die.

Same here, and my wife & I both have instructions as to this matter.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Her husband also has a huge conflict of interest here, so I take what he says with a grain of salt. Last time I checked, when you loved someone you didn't father two kids with another woman, or want to starve them to death.

Last time I checked, you've never had a marriage to a severely brain damaged spouse who has no hope of recovery and wanted to move on with your life (as, we can expect, the spouse wanted you to).

[Senator]

Starving someone seems very inhumane to me. I would hope we always surrendered to the better angels of our natures. Protecting those who cannot protect themselves has to go to the very core of being human.

I hope she is allowed to live. I hope 3 years from now the strides we make everyday in medicine allow her to improve. I hope she turns out like this guy -
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in562293.shtml

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Then smother her with a pillow and get it over with.

Oh wait, that would be murder wouldn't it? But if we remove the feeding tube, well then Terri kills herself...

It's not my fault that self-righteous Republicans continue to legislate against euthenasia, including instances that involve consenting adults (which this may or may not be).

I'm so glad you all know exactly how everyone should live their lives....

[Masked]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

And that is a factually incorrect statement. Her brain is not dead. If her brain were dead, she wouldn't be able to breathe or beat her heart on her own. She laughs and makes vocal sounds, she responds to pain, she responds to her parents. She also responds to Michael. She can move her arms and legs, though with little control. If her brain were dead, she wouldn't be able to do these things.

She is not brain dead, but has extremely limited cognitive abilities. Respiration and heart rate are controlled by the brain stem which is a very primitive structure that plays no role in any cognitive functoins. Basic responses to pain and other external stimuli (orienting gaze towards a sound) are often reflexive and may not involve the brain at all (controled by the spinal cord). The lack of coordination in arm and leg movements is a pretty strong indication of a severe neurlogical trauma. Terri has no hope of recovering high level brain functions. The body is not able to recover from such a severe brain injury.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Last time I checked, you've never had a marriage to a severely brain damaged spouse who has no hope of recovery and wanted to move on with your life (as, we can expect, the spouse wanted you to).

Hey, I resemble that remark. Wait...

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's not my fault that self-righteous Republicans continue to legislate against euthenasia, including instances that involve consenting adults (which this may or may not be).

I'm so glad you all know exactly how everyone should live their lives....

That is the key, isn't it. LIVE their lives. Not order someone to die by starvation based on the word of someone who claims to love her, yet had no problem porking another woman while she was in the hospital.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Hey, I resemble that remark. Wait...

Despite our other political clashes, I'm assuming that you're not severely brain damaged, of course.

[cartman]

Well, we are about to get a front row seat to a Federal Government vs. States Rights showdown. Just had a Breaking News flash that the Florida Judge is basically telling Congress they have no jurisdiction in this matter, due to the seperation of powers. Since the Supreme Court let the existing ruling stand, he's saying Congress can't act.

This should get interesting.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

That is the key, isn't it. LIVE their lives. Not order someone to die by starvation based on the word of someone who claims to love her, yet had no problem porking another woman while she was in the hospital.

You make it sound like she's in the hospital for a couple of weeks to deal with her hemmorhoids. I'm sure her husband, acting on her pre-accident wishes, would like to end her suffering in a quicker, more humane, way, but the same people who want to prolong her misery also won't allow him and her that alternative.

But I guess you know how everyone should live their lives, right?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Masked

The body is not able to recover from such a severe brain injury.

There are other doctors that disagree and have testified that with therapy she could live recover a significant amount of motor skills. I am not sure however if that means that she would have had a chance if therapy had occurred soon after her injury or if she could still do it today.

I'm not a doctor, but I'll bet on the positive and hope rather than the negative every time.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by cartman

Well, we are about to get a front row seat to a Federal Government vs. States Rights showdown. Just had a Breaking News flash that the Florida Judge is basically telling Congress they have no jurisdiction in this matter, due to the seperation of powers. Since the Supreme Court let the existing ruling stand, he's saying Congress can't act.

I wonder if Congress will send the National Guard down to Florida to stop it. Oh wait, they're all in Iraq. Nevermind.

[cartman]

near dola,

this comes after the earlier order to block the removal of the tube, due to the Congressional subpoena.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You make it sound like she's in the hospital for a couple of weeks to deal with her hemmorhoids. I'm sure her husband, acting on her pre-accident wishes, would like to end her suffering in a quicker, more humane, way, but the same people who want to prolong her misery also won't allow him and her that alternative.

But I guess you know how everyone should live their lives, right?

Can't very well tell people how to live their lives when the courts are advocating starvation for everyone who's an inconvenience to their spouses.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Despite our other political clashes, I'm assuming that you're not severely brain damaged, of course.

Dola - he married me out of free will, sure you don't want to re-think that.

[flere-imsaho]

Of course, this just goes to show how important it is to have a living will.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Of course, this just goes to show how important it is to have a living will.

That I will agree with you 1000000%

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Can't very well tell people how to live their lives when the courts are advocating starvation for everyone who's an inconvenience to their spouses.

Bloody good thing too, then.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Dola - he married me out of free will, sure you don't want to re-think that.

Given the arguments I have with Arles on other issues, it appears it's a good match.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Given the arguments I have with Arles on other issues, it appears it's a good match.

Awww. Can we hug now?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Awww. Can we hug now?

No, that's why you have Arles. Do try and keep up.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

FL State judge just told Congress to take a hike.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050318/D88TICO00.html

[flere-imsaho]

Boy, I wouldn't want to be Judge Greer right now.

[Blackadar]

Farrah, while I appreciate your passion on this issue, you seem to be off base. I believe every independent doctor - not hired by one side or another - has ruled Terri as functionally brain dead. I would tend to believe those physicans over doctors hired by one side or another.

This woman has been in a vegative state since 1990 - 15 years. FIFTEEN YEARS! Do you think in that time the courts could have found even a substantial minority of independent physicans to say she isn't in a permanent vegative state with no voluntary cognative ability? They haven't...

In addition, you seem to have a great deal of animosity against the husband, Michael. The family had a falling out with Michael in 1993. It was only in 1998 that Michael petitioned the court to remove her feeding tube. It then took the courts 3 years to give permission to remove the feeding tube. I think they took their time and examined all the facts of this case. It would seem to me that 8 years is a long enough mourning period (1990-1998). Is the husband supposed to live the life of a monk for the rest of his life? He believes she is dead. The court agrees with him. If I were him, I would have moved on as well...after all, he is still living.

What really bothers me is that this is a private case. It's nobody's business but the families that are directly affected. It demonstrates the lengths that the Christian Conservatives will go to butt their way into others' private lives to further their agenda.

Pull the tubes, let her go. With luck, they will let her die in peace.

[Peregrine]

Great post, Blackadar. Terri's parents have done an extensive smear campaign against the husband, making people believe he's an evil man, twirling his mustache in the corner and cackling while his wife dies. I haven't seen any evidence to this, but what I have seen is an incredibly long and drawn out court proceeding where the rancor on both sides is quite high. Is Terri's husband supposed to never move on with his life? Wouldn't Terri have wanted him to find happiness in the situation she is in?

Of course there are issues in this case about what Terri's wishes were. That's the whole point of the long court proceedings over a decade, to decide the he-said, she-said part of this. And they have decided. Of course one side or the other isn't going to be happy, but the parents trying to make this a political football at the national level is just ridiculous in my opinion. Let her die in peace. It's my nightmare to be in a situation like hers with people trying to keep me in that state against my will.

[Ksyrup]

CNN is completely screwed up. They have a headline that contradicts the (old) story. What a screwjob.

[ISiddiqui]

Jeez, just pull the tube already and let people go on with their lives!

Oh, and Congress really has no jurisdiction on the matter. Under what provision of Art 1, Sec 8 are they relying on to interject here?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh, and Congress really has no jurisdiction on the matter. Under what provision of Art 1, Sec 8 are they relying on to interject here?

Interstate commerce--I'm sure some of the medical equipment was purchased out of state.

[Blackadar]

Best damned article I can find on the subject. From MSNBC.

By Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.
COMMENTARY
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 2:50 p.m. ET March 18, 2005

We have now reached the endgame in the case of Terri Schiavo. Her husband, Michael, remains unwavering in his view that she would not want to live in the state she is in. Despite the fact that he has been made the target of an incredible organized campaign of vilification, slander and just plain nastiness, he remains unmoved. Even a pathetic effort to bribe him into changing his mind with the offer of $1 million did not budge him.

He says he loves his wife and will do whatever it takes to end an existence that he believes she would not want to endure. He thinks that she would want her feeding tube stopped and that she would wish to die rather than remain bed-bound in a nursing home in a permanent vegetative state for the rest of her days.

The Schindler parents and their other children remain equally convinced that Michael is wrong. They say that Terri would want to live, that she is not as brain-damaged as Michael contends, and that there is still hope for her recovery despite the fact that she has failed to show any real improvement in 16 years. They argue that there are still more treatments to be tried and that as a Catholic Terri would want to honor recent Papal teachings that feeding tubes should not be removed from those in permanent vegetative states.

Who's right and who's wrong?
Congress, or at least the pro-life constituency in the House and Senate, are doing their best to halt Schiavo's death. Last-minute bills invoking habeas corpus, a legal doctrine that has historically only been used for those held in federal custody, along with incredibly zany and inappropriate subpoenas to doctors and nurses requiring that Terri Schiavo be brought to Washington, show a level of grandstanding that is normally reserved for issues such as the use of steroids by major-league baseball players.

So now that this miserable case is moving toward a resolution, what can be said about who is right and who is wrong? And what is the likely legacy of the battle over the fate of Terri Schiavo?

Ever since the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed a respirator to be removed from Karen Ann Quinlan and the U.S. Supreme Court declared that feeding tubes are medical treatments just like respirators, heart-lung machines, dialysis and antibiotics, it has been crystal clear in U.S. law and medical ethics that those who cannot speak can have their feeding tubes stopped. The authority to make that decision has fallen to those closest to the person who cannot make their own views known. First come husbands or wives, then adult children, then parents and other relatives.

That is why Michael Schiavo, despite all the hatred that is now directed against him, has the right to decide his wife’s fate. The decision about Terri’s life does not belong to the U.S. Congress, President Bush, Rep. Tom Delay of Texas, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the Florida Legislature, clerics in Rome, self-proclaimed disability activists, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, conservative commentators, bioethicists or Terri’s parents. The decision is Michael’s and Michael’s alone.

Sanctity of marriage
Remember the recent debate about gay marriage and the sanctity of the bond between husband and wife? Nearly all of those now trying to push their views forward about what should be done with Terri Schiavo told us that marriage is a sacred trust between a man and a woman. Well, if that is what marriage means then it is very clear who should be making the medical decisions for Terri — her husband.

But, isn’t it true that tough questions have been raised about whether he has her best interests at heart? They have. But, these charges against Michael Schiavo have been heard in court again and again and again. And no court has found them persuasive.

Has there really been careful review of this case? Is Terri really unable to think or feel or sense? Will she never recover? The flurry of activity in Washington and Tallahassee might make you think there has not. But that is not so.

There have been at least 11 applications to the Florida Court of Appeal in this case resulting in four published decisions; four applications to the Florida Supreme Court with one published decision (Bush v. Schiavo); three lawsuits in federal district court; three applications to the U.S. Supreme Court and nearly untold motions in the trial court. This has got to be the most extensively litigated "right-to-die" case in U.S. history. No one looking at what has gone on in the courts in this case could possibly deny that all parties have had ample opportunity for objective and independent review by earnest and prudent judges of the facts and trial court orders.

The time has come
So, it is clear that the time has come to let Terri die. Not because everyone who is brain damaged should be allowed to die. Not because her quality of life is too poor for anyone to think it meaningful to go on. Not even because she costs a lot of money to continue to care for. Simply because her husband who loves her and has stuck by her for more than 15 years says she would not want to live the way she is living.

If Terri is allowed to starve to death what next? Undoubtedly there will be efforts to pass laws to prohibit feeding tubes from being taken away from others like Terri in the future. And there may even be efforts made to push right-to-die cases out of state courts and into federal courts. These are bad ideas.

We have had a consensus in this country that you have a right to refuse any and all medical care that you might not want. Christian Scientists do not have to accept medical care nor do Jehovah’s Witnesses need to accept blood transfusions or fundamentalist Protestants who would rather pray then get chemotherapy. Those who are disabled and cannot communicate have the exact same rights. Their closest family members have the power to speak for them.

The state courts of this country have the power to review termination of treatment cases and have done so with compassion, skill and wisdom for many years. Those who would change a system that has worked — and worked well for the millions of Americans who face the most difficult of medical decisions — should think very hard about whether Sen. Bill Frist, DeLay, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Bush, Sen. John Kerry or the governor of your state needs to be consulted before you and your doctor can decide that it is time to stop life-prolonging medical care.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Farrah, while I appreciate your passion on this issue, you seem to be off base. I believe every independent doctor - not hired by one side or another - has ruled Terri as functionally brain dead. I would tend to believe those physicans over doctors hired by one side or another.

This woman has been in a vegative state since 1990 - 15 years. FIFTEEN YEARS! Do you think in that time the courts could have found even a substantial minority of independent physicans to say she isn't in a permanent vegative state with no voluntary cognative ability? They haven't...

In addition, you seem to have a great deal of animosity against the husband, Michael. The family had a falling out with Michael in 1993. It was only in 1998 that Michael petitioned the court to remove her feeding tube. It then took the courts 3 years to give permission to remove the feeding tube. I think they took their time and examined all the facts of this case. It would seem to me that 8 years is a long enough mourning period (1990-1998). Is the husband supposed to live the life of a monk for the rest of his life? He believes she is dead. The court agrees with him. If I were him, I would have moved on as well...after all, he is still living.

What really bothers me is that this is a private case. It's nobody's business but the families that are directly affected. It demonstrates the lengths that the Christian Conservatives will go to butt their way into others' private lives to further their agenda.

Pull the tubes, let her go. With luck, they will let her die in peace.

I got to agree with Blackie here. It's a tough decision for anyone involve, but I just the family of Teri just as bad the husband (in the "smear attack") in the case. I find it funny that Congress is using a subpoena to abuse it power.

I find the whole concept of the Christian Republicans odd. They want lower taxes, but want to keep people alive (yet complain that they have to pay for it)-not in just this case, but similar cases and abortion, ect.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

And that is a factually incorrect statement. Her brain is not dead. If her brain were dead, she wouldn't be able to breathe or beat her heart on her own. She laughs and makes vocal sounds, she responds to pain, she responds to her parents. She also responds to Michael. She can move her arms and legs, though with little control. If her brain were dead, she wouldn't be able to do these things.

you must have rather extreme definitions of what constitutes quality of life.

"wait!!!! stop the presses!!!! that person's heart can still beat and he can wiggle his pinkie toe with some assistance. let...him...liiiiiiiive!!!!"

i hope i'm not ever faced with this predicament. i think if i were in Terry's position i would want my wife to pull the plug, save the money that she'd spend on medical costs and use that money to make herself happy and to improve her life. that's true love.

for what it's worth i don't think i'd pull the plug on my wife, as long as she could open her eyes and acknowledge my presence then i wouldn't care if she needed machines to keep her alive. as long as she had cognitive abilities then i'd work 2 jobs to keep her around. its different for me, i don't like being a burden on people and i would rather people remember me for how i was when i was alive.

and i don't like pity.

[HomerJSimpson]

Good article, Blacky. I can't say that I agree with the husbands desicion, but I agree it was his and it shouldn't have drug on this long.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

I find the whole concept of the Christian Republicans odd. They want lower taxes, but want to keep people alive (yet complain that they have to pay for it)-not in just this case, but similar cases and abortion, ect.

My point exactly. Nobody has given me an answer as to how her parents planned to pay for 40 years of medical care. If medicaid is going to pay for it, will the Republicans make an exception for Terri Schiavo when they slash funding?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

. its different for me, i don't like being a burden on people and i would rather people remember me for how i was when i was alive.

Trust me HA, you're a burden on all of us.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Farrah, while I appreciate your passion on this issue, you seem to be off base. I believe every independent doctor - not hired by one side or another - has ruled Terri as functionally brain dead. I would tend to believe those physicans over doctors hired by one side or another.

If the doctor wasn't hired by either side, then how did they testify? Someone had to grant access to her medical records. Or do you mean doctors that are experts in cases like these, though not directly related to the case? I'm not sure what you mean here. Besides, I question whether there is such a thing as an "independent doctor" in this case. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, this will be a precedent setting case for issues ranging from the assisted suicide laws in Oregon to abortion. In such an important case I think it's difficult to remain independent, even for the most upstanding professional. Everyone has an angle.

As I said earlier, if there are two doctors telling me two different outcomes, I'm going to go with the more hopeful and positive every time.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

This woman has been in a vegative state since 1990 - 15 years. FIFTEEN YEARS! Do you think in that time the courts could have found even a substantial minority of independent physicans to say she isn't in a permanent vegative state with no voluntary cognative ability? They haven't...

I disagree that she's in a vegetative state first off. Vegetables don't laugh.

Secondly, there are doctors out there that have disagreed with Terri's diagnosis. They have testified that with therapy Terri's condition could improve. Does a doctor have to be independent in order to have any validity? I think medical experts on both sides think they are right. But again..if there is a chance she could improve, why not try it?

Originally Posted by Blackadar

In addition, you seem to have a great deal of animosity against the husband, Michael. The family had a falling out with Michael in 1993. It was only in 1998 that Michael petitioned the court to remove her feeding tube. It then took the courts 3 years to give permission to remove the feeding tube. I think they took their time and examined all the facts of this case. It would seem to me that 8 years is a long enough mourning period (1990-1998). Is the husband supposed to live the life of a monk for the rest of his life? He believes she is dead. The court agrees with him. If I were him, I would have moved on as well...after all, he is still living.

Damn straight I have animosity towards Michael Schiavo. If these were truly Terri's wishes, why did he wait 8 years before filing his petition? Why did he allow the feeding tube to be inserted in the first place? It's not Terri's parents doing the smear job, Michael's actions speak for themselves.

He stood before God and his family and swore "til death do us part" not "til I think you're dead do us part". If he wanted to move on he should have petitioned for divorce and removed himself as Terri's guardian before he started fathering children with another woman. If he respected his marriage, as much as he claims to respect Terri's final wishes, why did he remain married to her now that he's in love with someone else?

He should have suggested the court appoint an independent guardian, who has no conflict of interest in this case. If this were any other type of court case a man with such a large conflict of interest would not be allowed to make decisions for Terri. All the court has on what Terri's wishes were, is the word of a man who is now in love with someone else. Doesn't sit right with me.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

What really bothers me is that this is a private case. It's nobody's business but the families that are directly affected. It demonstrates the lengths that the Christian Conservatives will go to butt their way into others' private lives to further their agenda.

I agree this is a private case, but I'd really refrain from asserting it's one side of the political aisle making it an issue. The argument can be turned around either way - the more rabid on the right (me on some occassions ) could say it's another example of the Lunatic Left taking their support of state advocated murder of innocents beyond the womb. But that doesn't lend itself to a constructive debate and we're having such a good one here. Besides, I don't really think that's what's going on in this case.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Pull the tubes, let her go. With luck, they will let her die in peace.

Death by starvation is anything but peaceful, and I guess that's one of the reasons I'm having such a hard time with this.

I don't see any difference in the act of allowing her Terri to die by removing her feeding tube, and smothering her with a pillow. They are both murder, though one is being committed under the guise of being humane, when it is anything but.

[flere-imsaho]

Remember the recent debate about gay marriage and the sanctity of the bond between husband and wife? Nearly all of those now trying to push their views forward about what should be done with Terri Schiavo told us that marriage is a sacred trust between a man and a woman. Well, if that is what marriage means then it is very clear who should be making the medical decisions for Terri — her husband.

An exceptionally good point. Hypocrisy, thy name is the Christian Right.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Damn straight I have animosity towards Michael Schiavo. If these were truly Terri's wishes, why did he wait 8 years before filing his petition? Why did he allow the feeding tube to be inserted in the first place? It's not Terri's parents doing the smear job, Michael's actions speak for themselves.

I'm not Michael Schiavo, but I bet it went something like this:

1990-1993 - Initial hope that she'd recover.
1993 - Broach "removing the feeding tube" with parents. Fallout.
1993 - 1998 - 5 years of futile attempts to convince the parents otherwise.
1998 - Go to court.

For someone who says "always take the optimistic choice" you sure are cynical.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm not Michael Schiavo, but I bet it went something like this:

1990-1993 - Initial hope that she'd recover.
1993 - Broach "removing the feeding tube" with parents. Fallout.
1993 - 1998 - 5 years of futile attempts to convince the parents otherwise.
1998 - Go to court.

For someone who says "always take the optimistic choice" you sure are cynical.

So then from 1990-1993 he was ignoring her wishes? But I thought he loved her.

And yep, I'm cynical when it comes to men and their motives. I'll freely admit that.

[Bo Jackson's Hip]

Breaking news-- the feeding tube was just removed.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

So then from 1990-1993 he was ignoring her wishes? But I thought he loved her.

Now that's just not a reasonable comment. If I were in his shoes, even if I did promise not to leave her in that state, I would still wait as long as I reasonably could for her to come back. Three years is a pretty long time...

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Now that's just not a reasonable comment. If I were in his shoes, even if I did promise not to leave her in that state, I would still wait as long as I reasonably could for her to come back. Three years is a pretty long time...

But then you (in his shoes) would be ignoring her wishes. Yet he vehemently claims to want to honor them now. What's changed? Hmm...

See why this just smells?

[Arles]

I really don't know where to fall on this. I think the husband has been through a lot and am not quite as cynical on his motives as Farrah , but I can also see the side of the parents (who have doctors telling them she can recover) hoping to try every avenue. The hardest thing comes back to this 10-day "starvation" manner of death. Given she can notice people coming into the room and adjust to different situations tells me that she is going to seriously suffer if the feeding tube gets pulled.

This whole situation is really tragic and I hope the one message that comes from this is for everyone to get a living will.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

But then you (in his shoes) would be ignoring her wishes. Yet he vehemently claims to want to honor them now. What's changed? Hmm...

See why this just smells?

No I don't think I would be ignoring her wishes. I would think that Terri and the husband would work under the assumption of "reasonable time"--i.e., you wait as long as you possibly can to see if they recover, if not, don't let it drag needlessly.

This attempt to force a rigid logical structure on Schiavo's husband just seems like an attempt to paint him as a heartless bastard...

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

No I don't think I would be ignoring her wishes. I would think that Terri and the husband would work under the assumption of "reasonable time"--i.e., you wait as long as you possibly can to see if they recover, if not, don't let it drag needlessly.

This attempt to force a rigid logical structure on Schiavo's husband just seems like an attempt to paint him as a heartless bastard...

Actually, I was trying to paint him as a heartless bastard for letting his wife starve to death. Guess I better try harder.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

If the doctor wasn't hired by either side, then how did they testify? Someone had to grant access to her medical records. Or do you mean doctors that are experts in cases like these, though not directly related to the case? I'm not sure what you mean here. Besides, I question whether there is such a thing as an "independent doctor" in this case. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, this will be a precedent setting case for issues ranging from the assisted suicide laws in Oregon to abortion. In such an important case I think it's difficult to remain independent, even for the most upstanding professional. Everyone has an angle.

As I said earlier, if there are two doctors telling me two different outcomes, I'm going to go with the more hopeful and positive every time.

There is such a thing. It's called a court appointed physican or expert. Numerous ones have testified in this case. I believe every single one has testified that she is in a permanent vegative state. While you may look on the bright side of things, there comes a point in time that reality must set in.

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I disagree that she's in a vegetative state first off. Vegetables don't laugh.

Secondly, there are doctors out there that have disagreed with Terri's diagnosis. They have testified that with therapy Terri's condition could improve. Does a doctor have to be independent in order to have any validity? I think medical experts on both sides think they are right. But again..if there is a chance she could improve, why not try it?.

Again, see the points above.

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Damn straight I have animosity towards Michael Schiavo. If these were truly Terri's wishes, why did he wait 8 years before filing his petition? Why did he allow the feeding tube to be inserted in the first place? It's not Terri's parents doing the smear job, Michael's actions speak for themselves.

Yes, his actions do speak volumes. They speak of a caring husband hoping his wife can pull through. It speaks of someone carrying the torch for a long damn time after many of us may have given up hope. They speak of someone who did give a shit.

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

He stood before God and his family and swore "til death do us part" not "til I think you're dead do us part". If he wanted to move on he should have petitioned for divorce and removed himself as Terri's guardian before he started fathering children with another woman. If he respected his marriage, as much as he claims to respect Terri's final wishes, why did he remain married to her now that he's in love with someone else?

Because she's mentally dead. He reached this conclusion in 1998. The court validated this position in 2001. They reached the conculsion that Terri ceases to exist as a congnitive human being who can make choices. So he - like most everyone else - has finally moved on. You can disagree with this prognosis all you want, but it's what has been determined in 11 seperate court actions. So in his mind, it is "death-do-us-part".

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

He should have suggested the court appoint an independent guardian, who has no conflict of interest in this case. If this were any other type of court case a man with such a large conflict of interest would not be allowed to make decisions for Terri. All the court has on what Terri's wishes were, is the word of a man who is now in love with someone else. Doesn't sit right with me.

Why? The case should have been resolved 7 years ago if not for the constant interference of others who have no standing in the case. So now he has no right to make the decisions because others have delayed the outcome? Or falling in love with another person a decade after this incident somehow clouds this issue? So you're saying that if I can keep this somehow tied up in court - even though I have no standing - he has to put his life on hold? Seems a bit unfair to me.

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I agree this is a private case, but I'd really refrain from asserting it's one side of the political aisle making it an issue. The argument can be turned around either way - the more rabid on the right (me on some occassions ) could say it's another example of the Lunatic Left taking their support of state advocated murder of innocents beyond the womb. But that doesn't lend itself to a constructive debate and we're having such a good one here. Besides, I don't really think that's what's going on in this case.

It is EXACTLY what's going on in this case. This is a private case and one side - the Conservative Christians - keep trying to get involved in it. This is a rule of law that has used the best of medical science to help determine the outcome. And because some religious conservatives don't like it, they keep attempting to interfere. I don't see the left in it at all.

It validates the trepidation among many of us non-Christians that Christian Conservatism will continue to be imposed (or attempted to be imposed) on those who don't believe the same things.

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Death by starvation is anything but peaceful, and I guess that's one of the reasons I'm having such a hard time with this.

I don't see any difference in the act of allowing her Terri to die by removing her feeding tube, and smothering her with a pillow. They are both murder, though one is being committed under the guise of being humane, when it is anything but.

In one way, there really is very little diffference in this particular case. The result is going to be the same either way. But one is much more passive than the other. But you seem to keep repeating this mantra/statement to sensationalize her death as murder, which is really a shame.

It's like saying that shooting you in the head is no different than waiting until you die of old age. The outcome is the same - you're going to die. So why wait?