Topic: Rite to Die
started by: MADDOG
Posted by Paul Harvey on Mar. 21 2005,3:29 pm
Speaking of which...I miss old Hoosier... 
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 21 2005,3:43 pm
| Quote |
| Man you don't like it if someone disagrees with you. |
If we all agreed, there would be no "discussion".| Quote |
| Well Jim Bush gave a statement vowing to stand on the side of those defending life. It sounds like government intervention to me. |
| Quote |
| Lest anyone think I'm 100% "pro-life"--I wouldn't want to live in a vegetative state--mental incapacitation has been called the "old man's friend"--a way to check out without the histronics. |
Isn't it interesting--for this to become law, it has to be ratified by both Houses--535 members. All Bush has to do is sign it--yet you single out Bush as the "bad guy" for signing the bill. Kind of like blaming the guy that washed and detailed your new car for a problem that happened during assembly. I guess the "Blame Bush" organization amongst liberals is still going strong.
| Quote |
| You'd think he would be used to it by now. |
Posted by Krusty on Mar. 21 2005,4:23 pm
From the Christian Sicence Monitor 3/21/05AFP
Slideshow: Terri Schiavo Right-to-Die Case
"Behind the move by many Republicans on Capitol Hill is a desire to advance a "culture of life" agenda that they think will be important in the 2006 elections and beyond. At the same time, many conservative groups see the fight to save Mrs. Schiavo as an extension of the war over judicial nominations and "activist" judges.
But the decision of congressional leaders to intervene in the case, which played out dramatically over Palm Sunday weekend, reflects a highly charged mix of religion and politics that critics say could have broad and unintended consequences. "
Jim the problem with the new right is the ends justify the means and to hell with anything else!
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 21 2005,5:48 pm
| Quote |
| Jim the problem with the new right is the ends justify the means and to hell with anything else! |
Clowns are silent--with your farcial, skewed view of the world, you should re-brand yourself as a comedian.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 21 2005,7:04 pm
Hot off the press--posted at 5:57 pm--an ABC News poll on the subject. Excerpts:| Quote |
| Views on this issue are informed more by ideological and religious views than by political partisanship. Republicans overall look much like Democrats and independents in their opinions. |
| Quote |
| Conservatives and evangelicals also are more likely to support federal intervention in the case, although it doesn't reach a majority in either group. Indeed, conservative Republicans oppose involving the federal courts, by 57 percent-41 percent. |
| Quote |
Should Feeding Tube Be Removed? Support Oppose Non-evangelical 77% 18 Evangelical 46 44 Catholics 63 26 Liberals 68 24 Moderates 69 22 Conservatives 54 40 Democrats 65 25 Independents 63 28 Republicans 61 34 Conservative Reps. 55 40 |
| Quote |
Should Federal Government Intervene? Support Oppose Non-evangelical 26% 71 Evangelical 44 50 Catholics 38 56 Liberals 34 62 Moderates 29 67 Conservatives 48 49 Democrats 34 63 Independents 31 61 Republicans 39 58 Conservative Reps. 41 57 |
Link to ABC News Poll--contains link to raw data. < http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=599622 >
Conservatives criticized the poll format, saying "it amounts to push polling"
| Quote |
| However, a look at the questionnaire shows that ABC News completely misrepresented Terri's medical condition, which undoubtedly impacted the responses given. Question 2, which asks the central question, claims that Terri is on life support: ABC News question2. Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday. Terri has never been on life support. The only medical treatment Terri received for the past five years has been food and water through a feeding tube, which is nothing at all like artificial life support. Artificial life support consists of ventilation for people unable to breathe on their own. |
If the ABC News poll is to be believed, there really ISN'T MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES POSITION. One more time
| Quote |
| The problem is not of government intervention--the problem is "Who is authorized to make decisions terminating life?" What is the "pecking order:? Is it the spouse? The children (if so, which one)? The doctor? |
Posted by scorenix on Mar. 21 2005,10:08 pm
| Quote (jimhanson @ Mar. 21 2005,3:43,pm) |
| All Bush has to do is sign it--yet you single out Bush as the "bad guy" for signing the bill. Kind of like blaming the guy that washed and detailed your new car for a problem that happened during assembly. I guess the "Blame Bush" organization amongst liberals is still going strong. |
A fairer analogy might be Bush is the inspection guy that signs off on the car as it leaves the assembly line. After all, the House and the Senate can pass, but without George's signature, it's going nowhere.
What's also missing from this discussion is the conservative mantra of states' rights. Now they disagree with a state court decision, actually numerous ones that have gone against their beliefs, so they toss in the Feds to supersede states' rights hpoing their means will justify their end.
Posted by jayroq on Mar. 21 2005,11:53 pm
This topic does not belong in government. It sickens me to see these politicians jump on the band wagon. It looks like having a living will is the way to go to avoid this kind of mess.
Posted by Madd Max on Mar. 22 2005,8:53 am
I think that this issue is a family issue and I believe government should not get involved in family issues. I guess the one point that gets to me is that we are willing to let this person suffer for as long as it takes, but if the government decided you have committed a crime and must pay with your life you are given a lethal injection and you die in fifteen minutes. I just hope she is not suffering.
Posted by Mamma on Mar. 22 2005,9:01 am
There was a doctor on t.v. last night explaining her condition. I wish everyone could have heard it. Basically, she is brain dead and there is no chance that she is going to improve. Her movements, of her eyes and etc. are basic reflexes not controlled by her. Unless you have seen a person in this condition you have no idea what it is like. It's not in her best interest to let her linger on when she died 5 years ago.
Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 22 2005,9:25 am
Staring her to death isn't right, though. We'd be in jail if we starved our pets to death or refused to give water to them.
Posted by DrBombay on Mar. 22 2005,9:42 am
After learning more about this case over the weekend, I totally agree with everything you said Mamma. The video clips I've seen made it appear she was responding, laughing, maybe recognition. Come to find out the clips were 5 yrs. old, and just as you said simply reflexes. She's not in there anymore, let her go!34 judges have heard parts of this case over the past years. Testimony from experts, family, friends, those who've taken great pains to make up there minds if she has any brain function or not and they have decided over and over she's in a vegetative state, and have agreed the husband has the right to make this decision for her.
Congress making this into a political agenda is absolutely unconstitutional BS.
Posted by DrBombay on Mar. 22 2005,10:51 am
Jimhanson; This is a political agenda by the republican politicians. You can see election 2006 coming down to slam ads saying Senator Democrat voted to let Terrie die, blah, blah, blah. They knew it and so did the democrats, that's why so many of the democrats who obviously opposed it in argument voted for it. I might add I have no respect for those who sold out thinking of the next campaign.How did this get to congress anyway? What makes this case so special? Could it be because it was a high profile case in the land of Jeb Bush? I'm not saying this whole thing is some kind of conspiracy either, I just think the republicans saw the opportunity to jump on the moral high horse and use it to oil the political machinery for the next election.
According to all the polls the majority of people agreed with the decision to pull the tube (even FOX!!). This stunt just may backfire!
Posted by DrBombay on Mar. 22 2005,10:55 am
So I'm still not clear as to what call you're making here jimhanson. Is it put the feeding tube back, or let her go? Which is it?
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 22 2005,11:22 am
| Quote |
| Jimhanson; This is a political agenda by the republican politicians |
| Quote |
| So I'm still not clear as to what call you're making here jimhanson. Is it put the feeding tube back, or let her go? Which is it? |
This is a good issue for the Discussion Forum--it touches all of us. This should not be a political football. I threw the comments and poll results out there for additional comment--and to refute the charges that this is a conservative-inspired issue--the ABC poll shows that it is the conservatives that do NOT want the government to intervene.
If you would LIKE to make this political, we can have that discussion, too. Conservatives are being consistent in wanting the government to stay out of our personal lives. Isn't it interesting that the Democrats--the liberal party--the people that believe in a government program for everything--the people that believe in Federal pre-emption of States Rights--the people that had the Federal government OK abortion on demand--are the people that suddenly ALSO want the government to stay out?
Isn't it interesting, that the Senate passed the law with a unanimous voice vote--but the Dems now would like to make political hay by making this a "Republican Issue"? What--weren't there any Democrats voting--or have they still not found their voice since last November?
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 22 2005,8:42 pm
Great, now we have the Hollywood elite plastered across our screens! As if this wasn't enough of a media fiasco already.I've made the mistake lately of watching Entertainment Tonight, and see Patricia Heating (or whoever it is, never heard of her until now) COMPARING TERRIE'S HUSBAND, AND THOSE THAT SUPPORT HIS DECISION TO NAZI'S! Apparently, other celeb's quoted agree, but don't use as harsh language as Patricia.
I doesn't matter to me which side of this issue someone is on, but saying that in some way those who support removing the feeding tube are somehow in favor of a halocaust for people with disabilities is insane! What's even worse it that instead of talking about the issue, they're more focused on insulting the husband. It's bad enough he's gone through years of emotional pain and grief seeing his wife go through this with no hope of recovery, now everyone who gets in front of a microphone wants to second guess his love for her.
The one thing I can give the celebrities credit for is that they might have a better understanding of the situation, since, they too, appear to be brain dead.
Personally, I agree with what the husband is doing. Even if I didn't though, I can't believe they would start slinging mud at someone who's going through an experience like this. They should've left it up to the courts to decide, regardless of the outcome. Politicians getting involved in this has turned an already sad situation, into an ugly political campaign.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 22 2005,9:06 pm
Why has George changed his tune, or is it the same tune he's always played..which ever way the wind blows flip flop flip flop flip flop
| Quote |
In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless. Bioethicists familiar with the Texas law said yesterday that if the Schiavo case had occurred in Texas, her husband would be the legal decision-maker and, because he and her doctors agreed that she had no hope of recovery, her feeding tube would be disconnected. |
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 23 2005,2:08 am
irisheyes, I have to respect your views. Mine were not quite as intense, but jusy the same.
Posted by ICU812 on Mar. 23 2005,10:00 am
My view, and I have been thru a situation very similar.Terri has been thru an ordeal that damaged most of her brain. From what I have heard/read the only real part of her brain that functions is the part that keeps her breathing.
This decision should have been made long ago without intervention from the Gov. The husband should really be granted what Terri wished for. Whether or not she wanted it that way we will never know, but I feel he is telling the truth.
The doctors I feel have done a poor job of informing the parents that it is probably the right thing to pursue.
Now how I come up with those thoughts, all personal feelings.
To go from being a parent and wife living life to her fullest she had a medical episode that took 100% of what she had and did. She went from total independece to the opposite.
I know for my own sake that if I went from 100% to a feeding tube in my stomach, never enjoying a simple glass of water, someone changing my diapers daily(they are putting food in so its gotta come out), someone bathing me whenever it fits their schedule, I think you see the point Im trying to make, I would hope they pulled the tube and let me continue my journey. And if I found out somehow that they put a video of me "eye chasing" a balloon on national TV every night I would be back to haunt the "F-ers" that allowed it.
That being said I am not saying people should just go around and pull the tubes out of people in a veggie state of mind across the country, they do have every right to live, but they also have the choce to die.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 25 2005,5:44 pm
| Quote |
SEMINOLE, Fla. -- A man was arrested after trying to steal a weapon from a gun shop so he could "take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo," authorities said. Michael W. Mitchell, of Rockford, Ill., entered Randall's Firearms Inc. in Seminole just before 6 p.m. Thursday with a box cutter and tried to steal a gun, said Marianne Pasha, a spokeswoman for the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. Mitchell, 20, told deputies he wanted to "take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo" after he visited the Pinellas Park hospice where she lives, Pasha said. Mitchell was in custody at the Pinellas County jail Friday after a judge set his bail at a total of $120,500 for the four charges of armed robbery, grand theft, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and criminal mischief. The feeding tube that has kept Schiavo alive for more than a decade was removed March 18 over objections from her parents. Schiavo's husband has said his wife would not want to be kept alive artificially. Doctors have said she would probably die within a week or two of the tube being pulled. Randy McKenzie, the owner of Randall's Firearms, said Mitchell pulled out the box cutter and broke the glass on a couple of display cases. "He told me if I wasn't on Terri's side then I wasn't on God's side, either," McKenzie told The Associated Press. McKenzie said he then pointed his own gun at Mitchell and ordered him to lie on the ground. But Mitchell fled out the store's back door before police arrived, he said. It was not known if he had a lawyer. Seminole is about 5 miles west of Pinellas Park. |
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 26 2005,6:36 pm
Once again, I don't have a position on this issue. I'm no longer in favor of capital punishment--I have NO faith in the judicial system. There ARE huge differences between those condemned to death, and Schiavo.Those executed were given a trial. They were found guilty. They had a separate punishment phase that considered mitigating circumstances. They had an automatic appeal. In many cases, they had a court-appointed defender. They were judged by a medical examiner that they were cognizant of their actions. They spent an average of 14 years before their sentences were carried out.
Schiavo didn't commit any crime. She has none of the safeguards afforded criminals. There is no living will, no document--only hearsay and uncorroborated evidence from her "husband" that this was her will. The simplest tests (CAT scan, MRI) have not been carried out. Her "husband" has been living with another woman for years, and has 2 children by her. He received a large insurance check, it hasn't been accounted for.
No jury in the world would condemn a person to a cruel death based on the subjective evidence presented by her husband.
| Quote |
| "err on the side of life" coming from the man who executes the mentally retarded. |
There is NO CONNECTION between a murderer and Terri Schiavo.
Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 26 2005,9:08 pm
who among us would be willing to pull her feeding tube? We'd all go to jail if we did this to our dogs
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 26 2005,9:18 pm
O.K. I (don't) have an opinion. I don't think the family can throw in thier thought. The husband has that. Sorry. My thoughts are, let the poor gal go. If it was'nt up to modern medicine, she wouldn't be here. Give the gal her resting place.
Call me cruel if you must.
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 26 2005,9:27 pm
| Quote |
| Why has George changed his tune, or is it the same tune he's always played..which ever way the wind blows flip flop flip flop flip flop |
He "ain't" flopping. Facts are facts.
I respect anything factual that put here, like it or not.
Heck, I even respect repdan and oh, what's his name, Belshan.
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 26 2005,9:35 pm
O.K., I take that back. I do have an opinion. That's all it is though. If it were me, I'd say "cut me loose" How could a person that's 25 or 26 years old. Because that's how old she war when she went into this coma set up a will. Hell I'm 46 and only started on one.If her husband can't make the decision, who can? It's his call, but if he wants to let her go, I feel sorry and good for him.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 27 2005,12:02 pm
| Quote |
| If her husband can't make the decision, who can? |
In any other venue, this would be considered murder. There was no living will--simply "she told me once that she wouldn't want to live if in that situations". Absolutely no corroboration, she didn't tell anyone ELSE that. Can you imagine a defense of a spouse that kills the other spouse "he/she told me they don't want to live anymore"?
Why HAVEN'T the most rudimentary Cat scans and MRI's been done? Why haven't the courts insisted on it? It would make it a lot easier for all involved if there was better medical evidence.
Put me down in favor of terminating life if brain dead (I see a long procession of cars heading for the airport!)
but the rationale on this case stinks.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 27 2005,12:26 pm
| Quote |
In any other venue, this would be considered murder. |
That's almost as insane as the doctored picture I saw on FOX the other day that had her all made up with lipstick and some coloring in her cheeks, they couldn't correct the fact that the eyes point random directions though. Feeding tubes are removed every day, CAT scans have been preformed and since 1991 six different court-appointed physicians have concluded that Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and in the histroy of the world nobody has ever come back from of a persistant vegetative state EVER. In over 4 hours of videotape that was taken several years ago you can possibly interpret the reflexes as something other than a reflex in a couple of seconds of the video.
From Wikipedia about her medical condition in case you actually believe the religious right rantings of Jim.
| Quote |
Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed (and has been replaced by cerebrospinal fluid), and there is also damage to the lower brain and brain stem, which controls functions such as breathing and swallowing, due to the lack of oxygen her brain suffered after her heart attack in 1990. Dr. Ron Cranford, a neurologist at the University of Minnesota, assessed Schiavo's brain function in 2001 as part of a court-ordered assessment. He was quoted in Florida Today as saying "[Schiavo] has no electrical activity in her cerebral cortex on an EEG (electroencephalogram), and a CT (computerized tomography) scan showed massive atrophy in that region." < http://www.floridatoday.com/apps....006 > Three Florida neurologists viewed 12 of Schiavo's computed tomography scans on March 22. After viewing the scans, Dr. Leon Prockop (a professor and former chairman of neurology at the University of South Florida's College of Medicine) was quoted by the Sun-Sentinel as saying that Schiavo's scan exhibits the "most severe brain damage as I've ever seen." Dr. Walter Bradley, the chairman of neurology at the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine, said that he "doubts there's any activity going on in the higher levels of her brain." [17] < http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11213061.htm > In 2002, a trial was held to determine whether or not any new therapy treatments would help Schiavo restore any cognitive function. A new CAT scan was done, and showed severe cerebral atrophy. An EEG showed no measurable brain activity. Five doctors were selected to provide their expert opinions to the trial: two by Schiavo's parents, two by Michael Schiavo, and one by the court. These five doctors examined Terri Schiavo's medical records, brain scans, the videos, and Mrs. Schiavo herself. The physicians were divided in their conclusions. The two doctors selected by Schiavo's parents (one of whom was a radiologist, not a neurologist; the other of whom made several claims about therapies supposedly developed by him which the court found spurious) supported their conclusion; the two doctors selected by Schiavo's husband and the doctor appointed by the court supported Mr. Schiavo's position. Greer ruled with the latter that Mrs. Schiavo was in a PVS and was beyond hope of significant improvement. [18] < http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt > Florida's Second District Court of Appeal reviewed all the evidence and upheld the trial court's decision, saying had they heard the case themselves they would have ruled the same as Greer. Judge Greer reviewed a six-hour tape of Schiavo and concluded that her vegetative condition was factual and not subject to legal dispute. Mrs. Schiavo could be evaluated with a PET scan in her current condition. However, an MRI cannot be done without first surgically removing experimental electrodes which were implanted within her brain in 1992, something that Mr. Schiavo has chosen not to do. |
Now how many CAT scans would the religious right need to be convinced?
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 27 2005,1:25 pm
| Quote |
| in case you actually believe the religious right rantings of Jim. |
Liberals like to refer to the "religious right" when it is something they disagree with. They use the term "religious right" as something to be scorned, denigrated. You never hear conservatives referring to liberals as the "godless left". Perhaps it is alliteration they are seeking--after all, conservatives often DO refer to liberals as the "looney left".
Back to the point. From Liberal
| Quote |
| The physicians were divided in their conclusions |
| Quote |
| But in spite of the lack of advanced testing, such as an MRI, attorney George Felos has claimed that Terri’s cerebral cortex has “liquefied,” and doctors for Michael Schiavo have claimed, on the basis of the CT scans, that parts of Terri’s cerebral cortex “have been replaced by fluid.” The problem with such contentions is that the available evidence can’t support them. Dr. Zabiega explained that “a CT scan can’t resolve the kind of detail needed” to make such a pronouncement: “A CT scan is like a blurry photograph.” Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.” Is it possible that Terri has that sort of “massive” brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a “normal or near normal” MRI. So why hasn’t an MRI been done for Terri? That question has never been satisfactorily answered. George Felos has argued that an MRI can’t be done because of thalamic implants that were placed in Terri’s skull during the last attempt at therapy, dating back to 1992. But Felos’s contention ignores the fact that these implants could be removed. Indeed, the doctor who put them in instructed Michael to have them removed. Michael has never done so. |
| Quote |
| Now how many CAT scans would the religious right need to be convinced? |
So, the husband refuses to have the implants removed, despite the doctors recommendation. Imagine, Michael on the defense stand, trying to answer why he refused to have the implants removed so a MRI could be conducted. "Isn't it true that a MRI could have more accurately determined your wifes condition? Isn't it true that, despite doctors orders, you refused to do so? Isn't it true that you were the beneficiary of a million-dollar insurance policy? Isn't it true that if your wife dies, YOU are the sole beneficiary of that policy, but if she outlives you, the FAMILY gets the money? Isn't it true that there is no living will? Isn't it true that while your wife is in a coma, you have a common-law relationship with another woman? Isn't it true that you have fathered two other children with that woman?"
From Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Steyn
| Quote |
| There seems to be a genuine dispute about her condition -- between those on her husband's side, who say she has ''no consciousness,'' and those on her parents' side, who say she is capable of basic, childlike reactions. If the latter are correct, ending her life is an act of murder. If the former are correct, what difference does it make? If she feels nothing -- if there's no there there -- she has no misery to be put out of. That being so, why not err in favor of the non-irreversible option? The here's-your-shroud-and-what's-your-hurry crowd say, ah, yes, but you uptight conservatives are always boring on about the sanctity of marriage, and this is what her husband wants, and he's legally the next of kin. Michael Schiavo took a vow to be faithful in sickness and in health, forsaking all others till death do them part. He's forsaken his wife and been unfaithful to her: She is, de facto, his ex-wife, yet, de jure, he appears to have the right to order her execution. This is preposterous. Michael Schiavo is living in a common-law relationship with another woman, by whom he has fathered children. I make no judgment on that. Who of us can say how we would react in his circumstances? Maybe I'd pull my hat down over my face and slink off to the cathouse on the other side of town once a week. Maybe I'd embark on a discreet companionship with a lonely widow. But if I take on a new wife (in all but name) and make a new family, I would think it not unreasonable to forfeit any right of life or death over my previous wife. |
What's the hurry to kill her? She isn't on life support, she is existing on her own, no respirator, etc. If the IS brain dead, she isn't suffering--no need to end life to alleviate pain--if she ISN'T brain dead, this is cruel. Why not have her husband divorce her? It would eliminate that million-dollar cloud over his motives, he could marry his "new" wife, her parents would take custody, and this whole thing would be a non-issue.
I've said it before, but one more time, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm also on record as saying that I would prefer to "check out" in this condition. I've also explained that I'm not a religious man. I've raised the rhetorical question twice about "what is the "pecking order", with no response. You've chosen for some reason to attack me as a religious zealot. I can't understand why you would do so.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 27 2005,3:01 pm
I don't think it is out of order to identify just WHO has the right to terminate life. Do you? IS it the spouse? Mother/Father? Brother/Sister? Doctor? State?Liberal
| Quote |
| Yeah, that's real divided, Michael Schiavo brings neuroligists to court and the family brings a radioligist and a snakeoil salesman. |
| Quote |
| Judge George Greer decided to ignore the declarations of some 30 medical experts who contested the diagnosis. There are advanced tests that might show evidence of brain function, but the Court refused to permit them, although some studies have shown that as many as 18 percent to 43 percent of patients said to have PVS are misdiagnosed. |
Yep, experts with perhaps an incomplete diagnosis. How many doctors would do a diagnosis on a patient without asking for a battery of tests--tests that her husband will not allow? Roughly akin to asking an auto mechanic to diagnose your car simply by listening to it--not touching it.
From Liberal's post
| Quote |
| It was ruled in February 2000 that Mrs. Schiavo would choose to have the tube removed, and Michael Schiavo does not have the ability to simply overrule this legal determination |
From the ACLU website discussion of the issue
| Quote |
| Again, the courts have looked at this over the years, and found that Michael as guardian has the right to remove life sustaining treatment from Terry. However Governor Bush’s order overrides the court’s decision; the issue here is if the governor and legislature have the constitutional power to supersede the court’s ruling. |
| Quote |
| I might add that this also makes your remark about a life insurance policy look a little silly doesn't it. |
What--no snappy comebacks on her husbands philandering? (let me guess, it is a remnant of the Clintonista "It's all about sex" lie) On his potential insurance windfall? Why WEREN'T MRI's taken? What IS the rush to "let her die"? Why NOT have the MRI done?
I believe she IS brain dead. I'm also on record as saying that government has no business in this case--but enough ethical questions have been raised that there is more than "the shadow of doubt" standard used in a capital case as the standard of judgement. What is the matter with letting her live? Why are liberals rushing to judgement? Are they afraid that this controversy might spill over into debates on euthenasia or abortion?
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 27 2005,3:28 pm
| Quote |
What--no snappy comebacks on her husbands philandering? (let me guess, it is a remnant of the Clintonista "It's all about sex" lie) On his potential insurance windfall? Why WEREN'T MRI's taken? What IS the rush to "let her die"? Why NOT have the MRI done? |
That's the biggest non-issue of this whole case yet the religious right continues to bring it up over and over again because they've got nothing of substance left to discuss so they've resorted to personally attacking the husband and questioning his morals. Just because the religious right doesn't agree with his personal decision on when he should move on with his life doesn't make him immoral.
The experts have spoken, and this issue has been adjudicated all the way to the Supreme Court and back again yet the religious right refuses to acknowledge any of this because it's all about this insane "CULTure of life".
| Quote |
What is the matter with letting her live? Why are liberals rushing to judgement? Are they afraid that this controversy might spill over into debates on euthenasia or abortion? |
How long do you think this should drag on? What court would you like an opinion from? What doctor would have to tell you it's true before you will believe that letting this husband act in the wifes best interest is the proper thing to do?
| Quote |
From the ACLU website discussion of the issue |
Your arguments have gotten so weak you've resorted to quoting other websites.
Posted by busybee on Mar. 27 2005,4:17 pm
One thing I do beleive, the subject of "pulling the plug" is something people don't talk to just anyone about. Meaning, I think Terry most likely did tell her husband she wouldn't want to live this way, because people tend to share something like that with people who are closest to them, like a spouse. However, I don't understand one thing. The husband's anger towards her parents. I listened to him talk about them on Good Morning America and it gave me a sinking feeling in my gut when he talked so negatively about them and his refusal to "hand her over to them." Maybe they're in denial, so what? If my spouses parents didn't want me to end his life for him because he told me he'd never want to live this way, then I would have some respect for them even if I couldn't convince them differently. A parents love is valuable and I didn't see where he showed any concern or remorse for their feelings. I understand they've fought him all the way, but if he wanted to do what's best for his wife, one thing might be to not make them out to be evil (he made some statement about them hurting her by requesting some testing be done that he didnt' agree with) in the media. I'm certain my husband wouldn't want me to do something like that to his parents, whether they understood or not.
Further, is her husband with her now, while she is starving to death, or is it her parents that are by her side while she is dying? There seems to be such a division between the parents and husband. Who is there with her? I got the impression this morning it was her "family," not her husband. I would hope that if her husband demanded and fought for the removal of the feeding tube, that he'd also exercise his right to be by her side now while she is dying along with her parents.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 27 2005,4:38 pm
Great points, Busy Bee!| Quote |
| Your arguments have gotten so weak you've resorted to quoting other websites |
| Quote |
| That's the biggest non-issue of this whole case yet the religious right continues to bring it up over and over again because they've got nothing of substance left to discuss so they've resorted to personally attacking the husband and questioning his morals. |
| Quote |
| Just because the religious right doesn't agree with his personal decision on when he should move on with his life doesn't make him immoral. |
Well, it worked on defending Clinton, but then, Michael Schiavo isn't President of the United States. There IS the question of insurance money, there IS the fact that at one time he vowed never to disconnect, there IS the "inconvenient" fact that he has been living with another woman, and fathered two kids. Questioning his morals? What the heck, Scott Peterson was convicted on much of the same evidence--insurance money, girlfriend on the side, desire to get rid of his "inconvenient" wife. Maybe that's part of the argument--these aren't inconveniences for conservatives--words mean things--as Clinton the Great Prevaricator once said "promises are just starting points for negotiations".You keep bringing up the "religious right". Just who are you talking about? I brought up these points--we've already established that I'm not a particularly religious guy.
| Quote |
| How long do you think this should drag on? What court would you like an opinion from? What doctor would have to tell you it's true before you will believe that letting this husband act in the wifes best interest is the proper thing to do? |
"What doctor would you have tell you it's true?" Any one that does the MRI and PET tests. I'm already on record as thinking she is brain dead--but killing her accomplishes nothing. Isn't it interesting, liberals wring their hands over capital punishment--rights to murderers--requiring that EVERY LAST EFFORT BE MADE TO SPARE THEM (and I don't disagree, I have no faith in the court system any more), YET THEY ARE IN A RUSH TO KILL SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. They can't even use the excuse that "it's for her own good", since they say that she is brain dead, and can't feel pain.
Have Schiavo divorce his wife, and leave us all alone.
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 27 2005,5:41 pm
busy, I'd stay out of this. I think this is between two consenting adults.
Posted by busybee on Mar. 27 2005,6:01 pm
Stay out of what? Having an opinion and thoughts on the matter?
Posted by Older and Wiser on Mar. 28 2005,8:28 pm
Being in a TERMINAL STATE and being DISABLED are two very different things. The problem with this case is that the terms are being used interchangably. In 1990, Terri Schiavo lost oxygen to her brain for 5 minutes from a questionable cause. The husband says that her loss of oxygen was due to bulemia causing a fluid and electolyte imbalance which culminated in a heart attack ;, the parents believe there was foul play involving the husband. Interestingly enough when the paramedics answered the 911 call and entered the home to find Terri, they stated it looked like a crime scene and notified the police. The police did an investigation but the judge sealed the results of this investigation, and to this day they are still sealed. The husband was never charged but the family and many others have lingering doubts. Questions many questions. Michael Schiavo (husband), filed a malpractice suits against Terri's Dr. for not diagnosing her problem. He did receive 1 million dollars. $700,000 was earmarked for her care and $300,000 went to him directly. The parents were upset because their daughter did not receive Occupational, Physical and Speech Therapy as Michael promised he would obtain after receiving his windfall. Michael first petitioned the court to remove the feeding tube that Terri had since her loss of oxygen episode in 1998. And the legal battle started and continues till this day. Michael had Terri in Nursing Homes and for the last 5 count them 5 years she has been in a Hospice. First of all, I don't know about the State of Florida but in Minnesota, a person is appropriate for Hospice if they have a year to live or less, not longer. Terri Schiavo was not terminally ill as is the guideline for being on Hospice. She was simply severely disabled. All of her body functions were healthy including her digestion and it is very interesting to me that Michael Schiavo's attorney keeps stating that during the last 15 years that Terri has been incapacitated she has never had a bed sore. My point exactly. An unhealthy or compromised patient would not have the same outcome. Secondly, friends of Terri's have stated during interviews that she was going to divorce Michael because he was so controlling. Prior to hearing that I have watched him extensively on various programs and I thought he was unbelievable controlling to the point of getting upset with Greta Van Susteren and Larry King when they did not agree with him or they asked him the hard questions. He was a lot like Scott Peterson in his demeanor, very cocky, confident but something just was not right about the guy. And thirdly, it is strange that Michael all of the sudden remembered those now infamous words Terri was supposed to have stated "No tubes for me" when he needed to come up with something for his 1998 court petition. ? And, I especially like the "other woman" he lives with and has the two kids by. He has a life. But I think if he didn't have her locked and the key thrown away she may have the ability for rehab. The CNA's in sworn depositions have stated they fed Terri jello and gave her water that she was able to swallow and not aspirate. The Doctors. are almost evenly divided over her "vegetative state" and who wants the chance that someone would come back and tell that you tried to murder her? Oh, and lastly, he wants her cremated.
Posted by FlyguyAL on Mar. 28 2005,9:19 pm
Older and Wiser this is a family struggle. Obvious good for debate but I think we all need to move on.
Posted by taraindiana on Mar. 28 2005,10:17 pm
I read an article that said Terri's parents have stated that they would fight the removal of the feeding tube even if Terri would have had a will stating she wanted to be let go
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 28 2005,10:43 pm
I was watching CNN today and according to the husband's attorney there will be an autopsy performed at Michael's request. He made the decision to have her corpse mutilated after the religous right criticized the choice of cremation.Just in case there is anyone that believes there wasn't a CT scan done here's a slide from the scan and a slide from a normal scan.
Posted by Older and Wiser on Mar. 28 2005,10:52 pm
Oh how wrong you are. This is a family matter, that is true. The Shindler/Schiavo family today perhaps yours or mine tomorrow. I agree with Mr. Hanson, this is the perfect test case. If the lawyers for Terri Schiavo would have made a better case the US Supreme Court would have taken this case. As it stands anyone can verbally say anything, hearsay. The husband, or surrogate, Michael Schiavo states that she said "no tubes for me." Did she say that or did she not say that? The only way to know is to have each individual put their wishes in writing have the document notarized. I feel that special interest groups and parties have attempted to polarize this very emotional case and make it their own. However, right wing conservatives and left wing liberals aside, can't we all just be humanists.
Posted by Older and Wiser on Mar. 28 2005,10:54 pm
Liberal, did you also hear that in the State Of Florida if there is a cremation the law dictates that there also has to be an autopsy. Michael Schaivo did not make that decision, the State of Florida made that decision for him.
Posted by Older and Wiser on Mar. 28 2005,11:00 pm
What is the point of the brain scan pictures? The question is about our right to live or to die and the decision each of us has a right to make. It does not matter that Terri Schiavo is in or not in a vegetative state. Did she really make a decision that she did not want to live with tubes or did she not make that decision? If she stated to Michael prior to 1990 and her incapacitation "no tubes for me" then why was one inserted in the first place? Why ?
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 28 2005,11:17 pm
The point of the CT was that certain people don't believe that there were "rudimentary tests" done. As far as the debate about whether she was in a PVS or not it was a big part of this discussion and I think the CT makes it abundantly clear that her cerebral cortex is gone and has been replaced by fluid (the big black spot in the middle) it also shows that the brain has some considerable atrophy. Personally I don't understand what was keeping her alive, but I've never understood how a person could be born without a brain either.| Quote |
The question is about our right to live or to die and the decision each of us has a right to make. |
It certainly is! And just in case my brain checks out before my body, then just ask my wife what to do with my body, because I've left instructions with her.
Posted by Older and Wiser on Mar. 29 2005,6:55 am
There are people that would not want to live in a vegetative state, there are people that would decide to live in this state instead of dying. That is the fundamental question before this country. Did she say "No tubes for me" or did she not say this. We will never know. So the test for the future is to have very specifically in writing what your wishes are. There are people that believe a feeding tube is not extraordinary. There are people that believe it is. There are people that want CPR. There are people that do not want it.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 29 2005,10:49 am
You're right that some people would like to live as a house plant, but if a person doesn't have a living will or an advance directive the decision is left to the closest family member.This whole case isn't about what treatment to give her or not to give her. This is about the religious right and their "culture of life" trying to control every aspect of your life from the cradle to the grave. I watched a couple of weirdos on the news and the talking head asked "If the PET scan showed she was brain dead would you agree to the removal?" The woman said "No, because every life is sacred". That shows you what these people are about, these are the same people that can't get over Roe v. Wade. They lost 30+ years ago and now they've lost again, but not even the presidents 46% approval rating will get them to believe that Americans don't want the government telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 29 2005,3:29 pm
Maddog | Quote |
| busy, I'd stay out of this. I think this is between two consenting adults. |
Liberal
| Quote |
| I think the CT makes it abundantly clear that her cerebral cortex is gone and has been replaced by fluid |
This isn't our decsion to make. The issues here (and there are many) are: Who has precedence to determine what measures should be taken to keep a person alive? The "husband"? Parents? Siblings? What if she were homeless, with no family--who would make the decision? Doctors? Someone from the government? What constitutes "heroic efforts"--should it be unplugging a ventilator? (Schiavo doesn't have one). Removing a dialysis machine? (she doesn't have one). Witholding medication? (she isn't on any) All she requires is simple food and water--the same as any infant. She hasn't committed a crime--should someone be put to death for being mentally disabled? If "persistent vegetative state" is reason to be put to death, how about dementia? Alzheimers is generally not reversable--should Alzheimers patients be put to death by witholding food and water? How about severely retarded kids? Like Schiavo, they aren't usually on medication, but can't care for themselves--they too have to be fed. Should they be put to death?
Far from being a religious issue, I think this issue touches so many because of all the questions it raises. By a 2-1 majority, most people polled don't think the government should intervene. That axe cuts both ways--the government should not intervene in saving her--and it shouldn't intervene in killing her.
The upside of this is that most of us that keep up on the news (I believe most Forum readers do, but probably only about 20% of the American populace does) have re-examined our own wishes, and taken action to make our wishes known. In my own case, I don't want my wife making the decision--I don't want a family member to be burdened by that thought for the rest of their lives. I'll leave it up to the treating physician--and you can believe that I'll quiz HIM very thoroughly!
Older and Wiser
| Quote |
| If she stated to Michael prior to 1990 and her incapacitation "no tubes for me" then why was one inserted in the first place? Why ? |
Posted by Whiskero on Mar. 29 2005,3:41 pm
There are 2 things that really bug me. One is the insertion of the tubes in the first place if Teri supposedly didn't want that and the second, if the parents want to take on the emotional and financial responsibility of their daughter, let them. He has obviously went on with his life ( with another woman and kids), so let her parents do what they feel they want to do. It is obvious that on one will ever know for sure what Teri wanted. If the parents feel that there may be some hope left, why take that from them.
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 29 2005,3:42 pm
| Quote |
| In my own case, I don't want my wife making the decision--I don't want a family member to be burdened by that thought for the rest of their lives. |
No, but I have expressed to my parents and sister that I don't want to be like that.
Let me die in "peace" and meet my maker. We don't have the right to ttry and make this decision. That is between her family and her husband. More so with him.
As several posters indicated, I sorry, but I think it's her husband's choice; whether I like it or not.
Posted by Whiskero on Mar. 29 2005,3:52 pm
I still don't believe his emotional state of mind is totally on his wife. With the other woman and kids in his life, I feel his judgement is impaired. Let the parents take care of their daughter. And that brings up something else. If they have to let her die, then it is a shame that they are not able to have it done humanely. We wouldn't let our dog starve to death.
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 29 2005,4:10 pm
I wouldn't let a dog starve to death. Or any other animal for that matter in this way. (An I don't particular like cats) All animals deserve to live.Niether would I let him 1/2 starve to death. I would go without before I fed a pet. I can take good care of myself, the rest depend on me.
Sorry, this is all about Lacie.
Don't like or agree with it, but it's his call.
Posted by Older and Wiser on Mar. 29 2005,7:02 pm
For a moment just a little sidebar. Michael Schiavo either totally devoted his life to Terri or he is someone who will get away with the perfect crime. Some facts to ponder. After his wifes' incapacitation in 1990 and the windfall he received in 1993, Michael went to school for both respiratory therapy and nursing. He stated he did this so that he could take care of Terri. Or, was it to learn everything he could about the situation so that he could manipulate even the most intricate of details. In sworn affidavits CNA's and RN's stated that Michael would come to visit Terri, take the chart with him into her room and close the door. One RN stated that pages were missing from the chart and she knew this as she had just charted on Terri the previous day: when she reported this she was immediately fired. CNA's would report and nurses would chart that Terri gestured, moaned, groaned, guarded, smiled, fidgeted, followed with her eyes their movements. When Terri would have an incontinent BM she would attempt to fling her arms and get the sheet off of her. They said this was something she always did during her incontinent BM episodes. The staff would attempt to do range of motion, put Terri in her chair, stimulate her, talk to her. They also gave her jello and water, yet she never aspirated. However, it was a well known fact in every facility she resided in that Michael did not want this done, any of it. He did not want the charting to reflect that she could do anything that would not substantiate his claim that she was in a permanent vegetative state. Why? Because in every nursing home facility in the US an assessment is required for each and every resident/patient. The assessment is the federally mandated Minimum Data Set. The assessment is over 500 questions in length and is completed after the patient has been admitted, quarterly, and in any change of condition either a decline or an improvement. In many states this assessment tool is used for reimbursement purposes. Is the resident/patient in a permanent vegetative state is one of the questions. Also, the assessment asks about any type of non-verbal communication that the res has been observed doing. To validate his claim that his wife was in a permanent vegetative state Mr. Schiavo not only needed Physicians assessments and diagnosis, he needed these MDS assessments. The State of Florida has these on record and my bet is that part of his arguments before Judge Greer and every subsequent judge was that no only did the Dr. diagnosis substantiate his claims but so did every MDS that was ever done on Terri. And finally, Dr. Michael Boden was on Greta VanSusteren last noc and Greta asked Dr. Boden if during an autopsy could it be determined how Terri died and if her loss of oxygen was due to a bulemic episode or a stangling would the results be the same? He stated yes. The only thing they could determine during an autopsy that would tell if he did strangle her would be the trauma marks left on her neck. I don't think he strangled her, I think he tried to smother her with a pillow or something and that cannot be determined during an autopsy. Oh, I think this guy got away with the perfect crime. However, just watching the man in interviews he is truly a human being haunted by his past.
Posted by FlyguyAL on Mar. 29 2005,8:18 pm
Older know alot. Almost too much. ;) Maybe you can answer a question I have had all along. I have searched but havent been able to find an answer. How many deaths per year (or however it can be quantified) by removal of the feeding tube?
Posted by Older and Wiser on Mar. 29 2005,9:27 pm
I don't know.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 30 2005,10:30 am
I saw on the news last night that doctors are suggesting the Pope go back in the hospital because he is having trouble swallowing--might require insertion of food/water tubes.As a Catholic, he can't endorse voluntarily giving up his life--witholding food and water. Obviously, he doesn't have a WIFE. Rhetorical question--who makes the decision of when to withold food and water from the Pope?
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 30 2005,10:38 am
Flyguy--news agencies have speculated on the same thing. One of the "majors" said there might be up to half a million people in the U.S. that might be in the same situation--they didn't say whether it included dementia, extraordinary life support, etc. Fox News about a week ago mentioned 10,000.Controversy aside, I find it amazing that she has now lived 12 days without food or water--a HEALTHY person would seem to have a hard time lasting that long, let alone a frail, bedridden patient.
Several people on this Forum have mentioned having to make the decision to terminate life. Tom Delay mentions having to make that decision about his father. One of the things that makes this case unique (and contentious) is that unlike most termination of life cases, there was no living will, there seems to be no absolute consensus among physicians, the spouse refuses to allow more definitive tests, and there is not a consensus among family members. As a final titillation for the tabloids, the spouse is "unlikeable" (i.e. Scott Peterson). All come together for "the perfect storm" of controversy.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 30 2005,12:18 pm
More news--More rhetorical questions. Now that the REVEREND Jesse Jackson (another fraud, he called himself "Reverend", but didn't get his divinity degree until 2000, when he was forced to take some time off from extorting money from government and corporations after it was revealed he had a child out of wedlock) has asked for Schiavo's tubes to be restored--will liberals stop referring to the "outrageous position of the religious right) on this issue? No, I didn't think so.
As I pointed out before, this isn't a religious issue, this is an issue that asks about the power of family members, medical professionals, and government to control life. People from BOTH left and right think that government should take no part.
Posted by ICU812 on Mar. 30 2005,12:21 pm
Ive got a feeling if Terri knew JJ showed up she would have pulled her own tube out.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 30 2005,12:42 pm
| Quote |
| Ive got a feeling if Terri knew JJ showed up she would have pulled her own tube out. |
Posted by Whiskero on Mar. 30 2005,1:42 pm
I agree with Older. I believe he is going to get away with the perfect crime.
Posted by Older and Wiser on Mar. 30 2005,7:26 pm
When a resident or patient is in a dying state that is the time to pull the "tubes". Usually in the dying process there are various stages. You will see the patient decline before your eyes. Their pulse will increase, their B/P will decrease, their respirations will become shallow and there may be periods of taking no breaths for durations of time called apnea, their skin will change and you will be able to see signs and symtoms of dehydration before your eyes, at times there may be mottling of the extremities (loss of oxygen to the areas) causing a purple-like blotting look of the skin, many drift in and out of consciousness. You will know this when you see it. It is very distinctive. Terri Schiavo, on the other hand is severely disabled. She was not terminal. She could not do certain things but the above set of circumstances was not evident when she had her feeding tube. She was not dying. By taking away her feeding tube as the husband did she is now in the above dying process. That is the difference. Her kidneys have shut down and she has entered the point of no return. She was murdered. Her dying process did not happen naturally. She did not have cancer, or any other terminal condition. She was just disabled. This is the case, people. We are all living it. Heaven help us all>>>
Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 30 2005,11:17 pm
thank you, Olderandwiser, well said, my sentiments, too......I watched my grandma die just as you described, she was ready to go. My other grandma had food & water removed from her. She rallied a little when I visited her for the last time, she slowly opened her eyes, called me by name and begged me for water and to take her home. There is a difference. One grandma's death was peaceful, almost beautiful, the other's was horrendous. Terri's plight fits in the horrendous category. Prayers for Terri & others in similar situations.
Posted by ICU812 on Mar. 31 2005,8:58 am
Terri has passed. God Bless her soul.
Posted by Mamma on Mar. 31 2005,9:34 am
It's too bad that this had to be such a public death. It should have remained a family affair. I think it's a blessing that she has been allowed to die. I agree that you wouldn't starve a dog to death, but on the other hand, if I had a dog that only had the ability to breathe I would have it put to sleep. Would you let your beloved pet lay on a blanket with a tube feeding it for 15 years? I believe it would be an act of love to let it go. The feeding tube was nothing more than a form of life support.
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 31 2005,9:58 am
amen.
Posted by hairhertz on Mar. 31 2005,1:44 pm
Now that Terri has died, I wonder what her "widowed" husband has for medical directives in his living will?........I'd like to remind him what goes around comes around.
Posted by Older and Wiser on Mar. 31 2005,2:23 pm
I think there will not only be political and cultural fall out from this case but I think Mr. Schiavo will forever be a target and the girlfriend and his children are in harms way as well.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 31 2005,2:49 pm
Ann Coulter had some bitter barbs on the subject:| Quote |
| On the bright side, after two weeks of TV coverage of the Terri Schiavo case, I think we have almost all liberals in America on record saying we can pull the plug on them. ... Of course, if my only means of entertainment were Air America radio, Barbra Streisand albums and reruns of "The West Wing," I too would be asking: "What kind of quality of life is this?" ... Today's brain twister: Would you rather be O.J.'s girlfriend or Michael Schiavo's fiancee? ... I believe [Michael Schiavo] exact words were, "PET scan? MRI? What do I look like, a guy who just won a $1 million malpractice settlement?" ... Surely, if anyone would defend the practice of being on a liquid diet, you'd think Ted Kennedy would. |
Older and Wiser--you are correct--like O.J.'s "hunt for the real killers" and Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman", Michael Schiavo will always be the subject of scorn and ridicule--even Southpark aired an episode on the subject.
Posted by adamwpuyear on Mar. 31 2005,7:22 pm
Michael Schiavo creeps me out.
Posted by FlyguyAL on Mar. 31 2005,8:45 pm
| Quote (Older and Wiser @ Mar. 31 2005,2:23,pm) |
| I think Mr. Schiavo will forever be a target and the girlfriend and his children are in harms way as well. |
Older I am more troubled by your post than the death of terri. Now all these people who wanted someone to live so bad would be out to hurt? Maybe even kill??? I will never understand this activist mentality. I believe they are all fooled by the speculations of Michael's intent from everything from cable news to this forum.
Posted by FlyguyAL on Mar. 31 2005,9:08 pm
Agree 100%
Posted by Older and Wiser on Apr. 01 2005,11:07 am
This forum promotes the First Amendment to the Constitution, Freedom of Speech. It is my free thought that simply verbalizes that Mr. Schiavos' words and actions have mirrored psychopathic personalities, most notably, Scott Peterson. In common with other psycho-active illnesses such as a split personality, Mr. Schiavo has been described by friends, co-workers, family members, neighbors as being either, "a really great guy" or "a manipulative, angry control freak" He was either or. I noted during exhaustive monitoring of this case that no one, not one person described Terri or her immediate family in any other than glowing terms. And there are two sides to this case. One can say, well she and they are victims, still others have described Michael as a victim. I think the latter (my opinion only) has a personality that will stop at nothing to get what he wants. Ted Bundy was descibed by his friend and author Ann Rule as one of the nicest people she had ever met. Ann Rule did not fit into his victim profile and was never harmed,( Ted liked young thin dark haired women). To hinge an entire life on "No tubes for me" verbalization during a movie or whatever they came up with is pure insanity. It has demonstrated the lack of responsibility we have for those that are weaker than we. And lest you say that I am a Conservative Right Winger, I got news for you. I was against Viet Nam and protested in the 60's and 70's. I voted Democrat more times than I can shake a stick at. I voted for Jesse the Body. I have assisted individuals in their fights with age discrimination, wrongful firing, disabilities with a school district and took two EEOC complaints to Chicago and Washington on behalf of an individual. This case is the case and it will have implications in every aspect of our being. Not only Right to Die and Right to Live advocates, the religious right and the religious left but individuals with disabilites as related to strides they made in Civil Rights legislation and what implication this case will have on all disabled ................. including those in a vegetative state. Advocacy and guardianship laws will be reviewed and probably restructured. Federal jurisdiction vs State jurisdiction. Individual vs State and/or Federal Rights. And finally, I have not advocated but merely verbalized Mr. Schaivo has opened a Pandoras Box and that Cobra he let out may just end up biting him in the end.
Posted by shaker on Apr. 01 2005,12:01 pm
If there is one thing to come out of this,it is the fact that everyone should have a liveing will or health directive, the last thing I would want is a bunch of bleeding hearts or politicans and talking heads on the news media getting involved in my rite to live or die. I don't pretend to talk of what Terri would have wanted, I just know that if it were Me I would have wanted to die in peace many years ago.
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 01 2005,3:12 pm
Older and Wiser--my thoughts exactly--but you say it much more eloquently than I.
Posted by REPOMAN on Apr. 01 2005,4:38 pm
I agree with Jim and I applaud Older and Wiser for taking the time to lay out in so much detail the facts of the matter...the only thing I didn't see - and I probably missed it - was that Schiavo was asked early on if Terri had a living will or if she had expressed any opinion on life sustaining measures...
he initially told nurses and doctors that the subject just hadn't come up...
some here have observed that he has moved on - and indeed he has - he has moved on to another woman and has fathered two children with her...
how odd that he still feels the need - indeed that he would still feel that he even still has the right to excercise complete dominion over Terri...
he has openly renounced his commitment to her by entering a relationship with Jody...
this cold, heartless, bastardly prick has even gone to the extent of denying the family her body in death - and he will not allow them to attend her funeral...
there ought to be a special place in hell for this piece of work...
for those of you that take his position - try putting yourself in the Schindler family's position...
would you want your son or daughter's end-of-life decisions left in the hand of someone that has moved on to another mate - someone who would not give your wishes any weight what-so-ever...
even whether to cremate or bury is up to Mr. Powerful...
I for one hope someone eventually gives Shiavo what he so richly deserves...
Posted by FlyguyAL on Apr. 01 2005,9:30 pm
Where did your post go ICU812
Posted by busybee on Apr. 01 2005,11:30 pm
| Quote |
| this cold, heartless, bastardly prick has even gone to the extent of denying the family her body in death - and he will not allow them to attend her funeral... |
Even if Terri did tell her husband she would have never wanted to live the way she was living, it has really bothered me how he has reacted to her family, especially her parents. I realize they gave him a battle, fought him every step of the way, but I think it's easy to recognize they were doing that out of the love they have for their child. I have a difficult time understanding him fighting to give Terri something he claims she wanted, yet he could not perform the simpliest act of love for her in allowing her parents to be with her at some point during her final moments. Am I missing something here? Did Terri dislike her parents that much that she wouldn't have wanted them by her side at some point? Could it be Schaivo thought there would be arguing, instead of peace for her when she died? Couldn't he have fought his hardest to make this work for her sake?
Posted by REPOMAN on Apr. 03 2005,3:45 am
Crime & CorruptionSee other Crime & Corruption Articles
Title: Agency Had 89 Abuse Reports on Schiavo
Agency Had 89 Abuse Reports on Schiavo
Florida's Department of Children and Families had received nearly 90 allegations that Michael Schiavo had abused his wife in recent years - but a Florida judge ruled yesterday that DCF summaries of those allegations must remain secret.
The St. Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune had filed suit for the release of the abuse summaries, which covered 89 reports - the Times said Friday.
But state Judge George Greer ruled Friday the records belong to DCF, and although Terri Schiavo's husband can have access to the abuse files, the records cannot be made public, The Associated Press reported. During a hearing Thursday, just hours after Terri Schiavo died, DCF attorney Jennifer Lima-Smith asked Greer to keep its records sealed, saying, "It's time to end this case."
Just a few weeks ago, however, the agency was pressing for a full-blown abuse probe.
In the petition filed with Greer's court in early March, the DCF asked him not to remove Schiavo's feeding tube until the agency could investigate 34 pages of materials documenting allegations of abuse, the Orlando Sentinel reported at the time.
The DCF petition said the materials were sent to its abuse hotline on Feb. 18 and Feb. 21, and by law, the agency had to conduct an investigation.
"The allegations in the abuse reports go to the heart of whether abuse, neglect and/or exploitation has been perpetrated by the guardian [Michael Schiavo]," the DCF's 10-page petition said, according to the Sentinel.
The allegations were based partly on bone scans showing Terri Schiavo suffered fractures, as well as statements she made to family and friends that she was unhappy in her marriage, the AP reported Friday.
Responding to allegations of abuse in 1992, Michael Schiavo told the Tampa Tribune: "I've never, ever struck a woman, especially my wife. I was raised better than that."
He called the abuse allegations "utterly ridiculous," suggesting instead that Terri's injuries may have been caused during physical therapy sessions.
Posted by FlyguyAL on Apr. 04 2005,7:33 pm
| Quote (FlyguyAL @ April 01 2005,9:30,pm) |
| Where did your post go ICU812 |
Sorry ICU my bad.
Posted by jayroq on Apr. 06 2005,10:54 pm
This whole topic makes me sick. To think that our elected officials have the time to spend on this subject is just wrong. They should be spending time fixing the country as a whole. Unemployment, social security, poverty, illegal aliens...you get the picture. This is a private family situation that has no place in the government. Yeah, I feel for the families but I do not want the government spending taxpayer money on subjects that have nothing to do with helping this country get out of the current situation that it is in.Rest in peace Terry.
Posted by FlyguyAL on Apr. 16 2005,9:44 pm
MSNBC.comAgency: No evidence Schiavo was abused
Report clears both sides of accusations of exploitation
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:56 p.m. ET April 15, 2005
TAMPA, Fla. - The Department of Children and Families said it found no evidence that Terri Schiavo had been abused or exploited by either side of her family after the legal battle surrounding her right-to-die case intensified, according to documents released under a court order Friday.
The agency investigated 89 complaints logged on its hotline dating back to 2001, when Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed for the first time. The calls alleged that the brain-damaged woman was being mistreated by both her husband and her parents for financial gain.
One complaint alleged her parents were selling videos of her through a Web site, while another caller complained that her husband wasn’t spending money intended for her rehabilitation.
However, investigators said they found no evidence that either her husband or parents were exploiting her, and often noted in their records that they found Schiavo well cared for on their visits to her Pinellas Park hospice.
The agency was ordered on Thursday to release the records by Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer.
Schiavo, 41, died last month after her feeding tube was removed for the third time, ending a gut-wrenching court battle between her husband, Michael Schiavo, and parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, over whether she would have wanted to live in a vegetative state.
The repeated allegations of abuse were based partly on bone scans showing Terri Schiavo suffered fractures and statements she made to family and friends that she was unhappy in her marriage.
Schiavo’s husband has denied harming his wife. His lawyer said the fractures resulted from osteoporosis caused by the woman’s years of immobility and complications of her medication.
Attorneys for Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers did not immediately return calls seeking comment Friday. The Schindlers attended a memorial service for their daughter Friday evening in Southampton, Pa.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7520417/ >