Congress & Schiavo

[SFL Cat]

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

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

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

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

[Jesse_Ewiak]

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

ABC News has obtained talking points circulated among Republican senators explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited..." and "This is a great political issue... this is a tough issue for Democrats."

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

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

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

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

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

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

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

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



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

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

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

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

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

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

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

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

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

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Some of us are fond of ridiculing self-appointed moralists, who are Christians in this case.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

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



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

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

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

Excellent post. Spot on.

[SunDancer]

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

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

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

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

[yabanci]

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

Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, a leading antiabortion group that has been helping Ms. Schiavo's parents, was also outside the hospice. He left no doubt that many conservatives saw Ms. Schiavo's case as a test for how well conservative lawmakers would hew to their conservative bases.

"This is the biggest test for DeLay and Hastert," he said, referring to the House majority leader and to J. Dennis Hastert, the House speaker. "We will hold the House leadership accountable if this thing fails."

"The conservative right of this country has lobbied frantically for two decades to finally get control of both houses," he continued. "We didn't get here so they could pour this down the drain."

"They owe us a political debt of honor," he said. "We are about to find out what the United States House of Representatives if made of."

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

[Jesse_Ewiak]

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

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

in political cahoots with a group who gave a wink and a nod to abortion clinic bombers.

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

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

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

They consider them good christians.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

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

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

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

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by duckman

Pray tell ?

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

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

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

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

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

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

[Mr. Wednesday]

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

[SackAttack]

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.

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

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Some of you are fond of ridiculing Christians, but what I find trully chilling are those of you who appoint yourselves judges of what constitutes an acceptable "quality of life," find her state lacking, and are all for starving her to death....not a very humane way to let someone die IMO.

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

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

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

[Ragone]

Bottom Line..

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

Simple yes or no answer will suffice

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Bottom Line..

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

Simple yes or no answer will suffice

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

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

[Ragone]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

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

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

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ragone

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

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

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

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

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

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

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

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

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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

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

[Ragone]

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

is this right or just some internet hyperbole?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ragone

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

is this right or just some internet hyperbole?

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

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

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

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

[Ragone]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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

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

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

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ragone

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

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

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

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Flasch186]

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

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

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

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

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

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

[Flasch186]

better?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

better?

Yep.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

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

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

[cartman]

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

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by cartman

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

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

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

[SunDancer]

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

Thank god for the Supreme Court.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

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

[clintl]

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

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

[oliegirl]

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

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

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by clintl

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

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

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

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

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

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

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

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