Terri Shiavo

[Snow]

For Pete's sake, let the poor woman die already.

The husband is the legal guardian and thus speaks for her. Tom Delay, arrogant jerk, says he doesn't care what he, the husband says and will do whatever he can to force medical treatment on Terri Schiavo.

The sister of Terri claims, tonight on Larry King, that Terri is a "vibrant healthy woman."

Let people (and their proxies) make their own healthcare decisions. This sort of thing (letting people die) happens daily across America. What's different here, I mean besides nothing?

[Jason]

I must disagree with you Snow. We're not talking about someone who's own organs would shut down without life support. She has a feeding tube, that's it. That's like saying a newborn can't feed itself, so it's meant to die.

Way wrong on this one buddy.

[Jenda]

I agree with Jason. There was no proof that Terri had a "living will" except what her husband (who had ulterior motives) said. Nada. And the husband's refusal all along to provide even the most rudimentary forms of rehabilitation before they could even assess her mental/physical abilities, even his refusal to assess her mental/physical abilities, is very suspect.

The very money that was supposed to provide her rehab (not anything out of his own pocket) is being used to kill her (not anything out of his own pocket).

That the courts would pass a decision to withdraw the feeding tube to kill her denies her the right to live the way most killers in prison on life sentences are allowed life.

I think it is appalling.

[Guest curvette]

I think he should divorce her, move on with his current love, and let Terri's parents care for her. If that were my daughter, I couldn't sit back and let them starve her to death when she seemed to show occasional signs of life. It's barbaric. There is no easy solution to this very, very complex, unusual situation.

[Snow]

What appalling is that people who have no standing insert themselves into the picture and demand that her legal proxy do what they, Tom Delay, or the sister, or some right wing minister demands that he do. You may not like it, you may think it is moral or ethical but you don't speak for Terri. Her legal proxy does. It is the patient's option NOT to be force fed to stay alive. Since the patient has no decision making capacity, the responsiblity falls to the proxy. He's not forcing you to stay alive or to be left to die so stay out of her/his business.

Contary to what Jenda says, many forms of rehabilitation were attempted in the early years and by admission of Terri's sister tonight on Larry King, up to and including 1993. Her own doctors and doctors appointed by the court say that she is in a persistent vegatative state. The reason that no rehabiliation is given currently is because she is unable to be rehabilitated. Having run the kinds of facilities where Terri lives (although I wouldn't call it living) for twenty years gives me intimate knowledge of this type of situation. If I were ever to wind up like Terri, for heaven's sake and for my own sake, allow me some dignity, although me to pass.

If you think that a life where you urinate and deficate on yourself without control, where you can neither commuincate, nor read, nor eat, nor turn yourself over to prevent bedsores, nor think, nor pray, nor look at dirty magazines is a life worth living, by all means may your legal representative force feed you to keep you alive to deficate on yourself and vegitate some more, but please don't force it on me and if I can't speak for myself, then don't force it on my wife or children.

Sure, I know that some doctors hired by the family to say that Terri can cognate have said that Terri can cognate. They too have no standing. Terri has her own competent doctors. The decisions belong to them and her proxy - regardless of what you'all think is good or bad.

And - like I said, this sort of thing happens every single day and no one drops a tranny.

[pushka]

Snow, I hear you and I tend to agree overall..although I don't know the ins and outs of this case so cannot really comment, I agree with you that generally this sort of 'life' is barely an existence which I would not consider a happy one for myself if I were to end up that way.

[Jenda]

None of "her" doctors have spoken. Three doctors spoke, only one had seen her, and that was for one or two short visits a year. When he was shown the videos of everything she is capable of doing, he was surprised. If he really knew her as "her doctor", he would have known all along what shewas capable of. He was a court-appointed doctor, and probably got little compensation for seeing her, so he most likely spent the least time allowed by law with her.

The reason her husband just doesn't hand over care is probably because, if he can legally kill her, he would inherit her "rehab" money. If he just hands care over to her parents (who have been trying to get custody for quite a while), he gets NOTHING.

It is as plain as the nose on your face why he would rather just kill her.

What's cool about it, though, is that now, after years of spending her rehab money on lawyers to get the courts to allow him to kill her, there is next to no money left. He probably felt that when he started this campaign years ago, that her parents wouldn't stand in the way, and he would have stood to inherit over a half-million at that time, but all the legal fees, etc., have eaten away at her money, and now there is only about 2 hundred-thousand left.

[Outshined]

I don't feel it's the business of the government or outside people to decide her fate. Her husband is trying to live up to a promise he made, and her family wants her to be okay again, against all hope. I would never want to be in a position to make that kind of decision.

Ms. Schiavo suffered severe brain damage from a cardiac arrest and a lack of blood flow and oxygen to her brain. She is kept alive with a feeding tube in her stomach.

When ever a part of the body is severely and irreversibly injured it tends to atrophy (shrink). In the case of Ms. Schiavo, CAT scans have shown that ever since her cardiac arrest her cerebral cortex (that outer layer of the brain that allows us to think and to be conscious and self aware) has atrophied so much that little is left and the rest has been replaced by cerebrospinal fluid.

If one of these functional MRI tests were done on Ms. Schiavo to see if her brain could react to external stimuli there would not be enough of her brain left for the MRI to detect such a reaction. Any reactions that are seen in Ms. Schiavo's brain during such a test (in the deeper autonomic areas) would likely just confuse the issue since we still have no way of knowing if these reactions mean that there is consciousness and would draw attention away from what we do know; that the thinking part of Ms. Schiavo's brain is gone thus making consciousness extremely unlikely.

http://www.rangelmd.com/2005/02/new-study-...e-patients.html

Most people seeing this case for the first time on the news have seen the video clips of Terri that her family has released. What you see is a smiling woman reaching for her mother. There is no possible way that this woman could be in a "persistently vegetative state" as the court and doctors say she is! Right? The problem here is that people are confusing the concept of "coma" where a patient is completely unresponsive to stimuli with "persistent vegetative state" where the patient has intact reflexes (such as movements and facial expressions) but no awareness or conscious thought. In hearing testimony from five physicians (two for Michael, two for Terri's parents, and one independent), the court concluded that there was no convincing evidence that Terri was capable of any conscious thought;

At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.

Even though there is no technical way to measure or evaluate conscious thought there is the additional evidence of the CAT scan of Terri's brain that proves that the critical areas of the brain necessary for conscious thought (the cortex) is either gone or severely damaged. This scan is consistent with Terri's clinical presentation. She has intact reflexes (purposeless movements, breathing, digestion, temperature regulation) that only require the most basic structures of the brain, the brain stem, and the spinal cord to be intact in order to function. Given the evidence of the clinical exam and the head scans and the fact that she has been in this state for over 10 years without any change, the likelihood that Terri has any self awareness or conscious thought to any extent is slim to none.

http://www.rangelmd.com/2003/10/terri-schi...hiavo-case.html

Aside from the judgements of a husband who has dealt with this for the last fifteen years, it sounds like a lot of people want these type of decisions to be dictated by government.

To make accusations about Mr Schiavo's compassion or love for his wife, you need to be in his shoes. It's easy to make comments about him without enduring what he has. He stayed by his wife's side for eight years before requesting the feeding tube be removed because he realized that she won't get any better. Another seven years he's had to fight with activists and lawyers with no business involved, and endure name-calling and jugements from people who don't know him or his family. They hear rumors from activists and lawyers, and rush to condemn him as a "murderer". I don't blame her parents; it's their child, and they'll hold out hope until she dies one way or another. The fact is that no person has ever recovered from this condition.

This is between Mr Schiavo, the family, and Terri. I don't want Congress or any other group telling me I have to be treated if I am ever in a state like this. I've seen a lot of serious accusations and judgements from people about Mr. Schiavo, including on this board. Some very nasty comments from people who apparently think they know what's in this man's heart, and have judged him on it. That's just wrong. Not what I'd call Christ-like.

While watching the news, my wife said, "If something like that ever happens to me, don't let them keep me alive". All I could think was then I'd be in the same boat as Mr. Schiavo, and people would be attacking me.

[Outshined]

You know, we've heard the accusations and judgements about Mr. Schiavo wanting to kill his wife for money. Funny; he's been offered money at least twice to walk away and let them deal with her the way they want, but he's refused. The most recent offer was $1 million.

A wealthy California businessman offered Terri Schiavo's husband $1-million Thursday if he walks away as his wife's guardian and lets the woman's parents take over.

Saying he wants to keep Schiavo alive, Robert Herring Sr. deposited the cash into his attorney's bank and awaits word from Schiavo's husband.

"It seemed like everybody was wasting a lot of money and wasting a lot of time" in the courts, Herring said in an interview. "So I came up with the idea to shortcut everything and make an offer."

An attorney for Michael Schiavo said the offer won't be accepted. Attorney George Felos said Schiavo turned down a similar $10-million offer about two weeks ago made via an attorney for an anonymous Floridian.

Previously, Schiavo also received an offer of $700,000, and that was turned down, Felos said. The lawyer said Schiavo once promised to his wife before her collapse 15 years ago not to let her live by artificial means.

"There is no amount of money anyone can offer him to induce him to betray his promise to Terri," Felos said. "He's simply not going to betray her for money."

http://sptimes.com/2005/03/11/Tampabay/1_m...fered_to_.shtml

Let's judge him some more, what do you say?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 05:56 AM

The reason her husband just doesn't hand over care is probably because, if he can legally kill her, he would inherit her "rehab" money.  If he just hands care over to her parents (who have been trying to get custody for quite a while), he gets NOTHING.

It is as plain as the nose on your face why he would rather just kill her.

That is just so much bunk Jenda.

You can no more look into the mind of Michael Schiavo and know his motives than you can look into the mind of of the author of that article on the JS decendant and convert and know her thoughts. That your argument requires you to fabricate knowledge of motives indicates the insubstantiality of your position.

First, you are factually wrong. There is no money, or what little money there is is less than fifty thousand as of a cople weeks ago. In October, the Schiavo lawyer made a written offer to the parents to have any remaining monies donated to charity if they would redraw. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. The offer was to be recinded if they did not agree within 10 days. Additionally, "A wealthy California businessman offered Terri Schiavo's husband $1-million Thursday if he walks away as his wife's guardian and lets the woman's parents take over. Saying he wants to keep Schiavo alive, Robert Herring Sr. deposited the cash into his attorney's bank and awaits word from Schiavo's husband." (St. Petersburg Times)

So that blows your as plain as the nose your face invention. What are you going to invent next?

[Guest curvette]

Snow. Please entertain the thought for a moment that one of your lovely daughters was in Terri's position. She is married to a man who you do NOT feel has your daughter's best interest at heart. Your daughter had never expressed to you the desire to be taken off a feeding tube (if that scenario ever presented itself.) To your eyes, your daughter seems occasionally responsive, and you hold out hope that she could have some quality to her life if she had the proper care. All you have is the word of a man you do NOT trust that it was your daughter's wish to be allowed to starve to death. What would you do? I suspect you would fight for your daughter's life.

[Guest curvette]

I don't think that money is his primary motive. I think this has developed over time to much more than just money. If he were to take money now, with the press coverage this case has received, he'd never be able to show his face in public again. The humiliation would be too great. I don't know what his motives are. Maybe they are noble, but if her parents aren't willing to let her die and are able to assume her care, they should be able to.

[Snow]

Curvette,

I think about that, sure, and my answer is that if my daughter were in a persistant vegatative state then not prolonging her lack of a life is a viable alternative to forcing feeding her to stay alive. Over the years I have personally known and cared for, as an administrator, hundreds of such persons. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

I love and respect my mother a great deal, wonderful woman that she is. However I left my mother and father and clove unto my wife and should the same sad state (of Terri) befall me, I would be horrified if my mother were try and supplant my wife and prolong my state.

What a lot of courage the man must have to stand up to the lies and insinuation of Terri's family and fight for her.

...and by the way, if the rest of Terri's family is anything like her sister, then they are not people in touch with reality. Last night on Larry King, the sister said that "Terri is vibrant healthy woman"... in a pigs eye.

[Jenda]

IMO, it goes deeper than just letting one woman die. It is setting a precedent for any other person in the country who is a custodian for someone in a similar state. I have read other articles about people who were in comas for years, who woke up and went on to normal, healthy lives. What if the plug had been pulled on them? And we are not even talking about a plug. She is not on life support. There is no proof that she said anything to anyone about wanting to die. I do find it all suspect, but I am more worried what this will do to America. What happened to the millions who spoke out against Dr. Kevorkian, who euthanized a few adults in their right mind who wanted to die instead of remain in the state they were in? Why do people want it both ways? I just don't see this as a good thing.

[Outshined]

Of course, this woman is not in a coma. Her brain has atrophied, been permanently damaged, and she is in a condition that no person has ever recovered from. She has no cognition or control, only basic functions like heart and lungs. It is a persistent vegetative state.

And there is no proof that she ever said she wanted to be strung out for years as a vegetable, either. I don't know anyone who would. It could set a precedent for allowing the government to control who lives and dies instead of the families involved.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

And there is no proof that she ever said she wanted to be strung out for years as a vegetable, either.

There doesn't need to be. The burden of proof, according to Florida law as well as most other states, is on the side of halting medical treatment, not continuing it. That is, continued medical treatment is the medical default setting.

Maybe that presumption needs to be revised. It's the easiest thing in the world to make a living will, or just a note making it clear that you don't want to be maintained in an impaired state. Still, it appears that most people don't bother to make that clear.

We ought to ask which is the more common desire of the average person: to be maintained in an impaired state or to be allowed to die. If the latter, then the presumption ought to switch, so that the burden of proof is on the side of continuing treatment.

Of course, that opens a whole new can of worms: How impaired is "impaired"? That is, how brain-damaged do you have to be before the presumption of letting you die kicks in? Do you have to be totally unresponsive, or would it be enough if you were unable to speak, but could respond to stimuli?

That gets you into questions of fact, and with respect to this particular case, there are enough open questions of fact to cloud the issue. I don't know how accurate this article is at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/joha...00503160848.asp -- I suspect it has several axes to grind -- but if the facts are correct, it seems as if there is more than a little bit of a rush to judgment here.

It seems to me that if Terri's parents want to keep her alive, their wishes should be respected at least as much as those of her husband, who by all accounts has moved on with his life, moving in with another woman and having children with her.

One troubling thing about this whole area is that it seems that we're trying to define life as restrictively as possible -- at both ends. Since human life is one of the few things that are still recognized as moral goods unto themselves -- Kant's "categorical imperatives" -- and since, in a society that values liberty, there is always the tendency to want to minimize those things, like duty, that place limitations on human freedom, I wonder whether we are always the best judges of where to draw the borders of life. We still have a moral consensus that owe moral duties to life, yet our natural libertarian tendency is to recognize as few duties as possible. The tension between these two facts may color or judgment as to the boundaries of life.

[Outshined]

If nothing else, this illustrates the importance of making your wishes known. If you think you might need a living will, get one.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 19 2005, 03:02 PM

If nothing else, this illustrates the importance of making your wishes known. If you think you might need a living will, get one.

Excellent moral of the story. B)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 19 2005, 01:34 PM

It could set a precedent for allowing the government to control who lives and dies instead of the families involved.

But that's just the point. The majority of Teri's family want her to live. Yes, the spouse is the primary relation, but there are so many unusual circumstances here. Teri's husband speculated that Teri's collapse came from an eating disorder (something the rest of her family or even her doctor had never heard anything about.) There were even medical opinions that she was the victim of a strangulation attempt (which obviously casts suspicion on the husband.) This is no cut and dried case. When there is this much doubt, I think it's better to err on the side of life.

[Outshined]

There is no doubt about her condition. She is in a condition that no one has ever recovered from, and will be exactly as she is for as long as they keep her alive. Her family thinks she'll wake up and be okay again, and that won't happen.

The speculation about a strangulation is just that, there was no evidence for it. Every effort has been made to demonize her husband, but he has insisted on keeping his promise to her.

If something like that ever happened to me, I'd hate for government to tell my wife she had to keep me alive. Why force a brain-dead person to go on living like a houseplant?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 19 2005, 05:50 PM

Why force a brain-dead person to go on living like a houseplant?

If she's really brain dead, then her husband should willingly allow her to have an MRI. They did one on my shoulder when an injury wasn't healing properly. It showed a fracture at the top of my humerous than the xray didn't show. They are very detailed, and should put an end to any speculation about her brain function.

[Outshined]

Well, as the doctor I quoted earlier said, CAT scans have already shown that her brain is irreversibly damaged and has withered.

Ms. Schiavo suffered severe brain damage from a cardiac arrest and a lack of blood flow and oxygen to her brain. She is kept alive with a feeding tube in her stomach.

When ever a part of the body is severely and irreversibly injured it tends to atrophy (shrink). In the case of Ms. Schiavo, CAT scans have shown that ever since her cardiac arrest her cerebral cortex (that outer layer of the brain that allows us to think and to be conscious and self aware) has atrophied so much that little is left and the rest has been replaced by cerebrospinal fluid.

If one of these functional MRI tests were done on Ms. Schiavo to see if her brain could react to external stimuli there would not be enough of her brain left for the MRI to detect such a reaction. Any reactions that are seen in Ms. Schiavo's brain during such a test (in the deeper autonomic areas) would likely just confuse the issue since we still have no way of knowing if these reactions mean that there is consciousness and would draw attention away from what we do know; that the thinking part of Ms. Schiavo's brain is gone thus making consciousness extremely unlikely.

Even though there is no technical way to measure or evaluate conscious thought there is the additional evidence of the CAT scan of Terri's brain that proves that the critical areas of the brain necessary for conscious thought (the cortex) is either gone or severely damaged. This scan is consistent with Terri's clinical presentation. She has intact reflexes (purposeless movements, breathing, digestion, temperature regulation) that only require the most basic structures of the brain, the brain stem, and the spinal cord to be intact in order to function. Given the evidence of the clinical exam and the head scans and the fact that she has been in this state for over 10 years without any change, the likelihood that Terri has any self awareness or conscious thought to any extent is slim to none.

I'd say the evidence is there and has been displayed. That's why the judge gave the go-ahead for removing the feeding tube. She's pretty much just a political pawn at this point.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 19 2005, 06:19 PM

Well, as the doctor I quoted earlier said, CAT scans have already shown that her brain is irreversibly damaged and has withered.

Her parents contend that Teri's husband did not provide the physical therapy necessary following her collapse. Other experts think that there is some hope through stem cell research (a hope that I also cling to for my own daughter's condition.) It is still my belief that the parents should have some rights here too. Especially since there is no proof that Teri requested removal of a feeding tube. A CT scan (in my opinion) is not good enough when we have the technology to do much, much better. This is somebody's daughter for heaven's sake!

[Outshined]

In history, not one person has ever recovered from this condition. Her parents are tormenting themselves, and her in the process.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 19 2005, 06:41 PM

In history, not one person has ever recovered from this condition. Her parents are tormenting themselves, and her in the process.

Maybe they aren't hoping for a full recovery. Maybe they feel that her life has some value as it is, or with any small improvements that can be made. I just think that the parents should be given that choice. It would be more tormenting to sit and helplessly watch your child starve to death than to cling to the hope for any small improvement in her condition. Parents of disabled children do feel that their children have value, even if they don't contribute to society in the normal way.