Terri Schiavo

Remove all ads!

First, the facts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2971-2003Oct22.html

And some more facts heard on NPR (I believe her family's side):

And also regarding her state, I'm not sure how this jives with the WaPo article and the source is obviously one with an agenda:

And the legal dilemma:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/national/23STAY.html?ex=1067486400&en=b4659aa661c88fea&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

There is so much here. And best of all, it ain't got nothing to do with Iraq.

 

*ouch*

Man, I don't know what to say on that one. Obviously, a conflict of interest. Although, it's been 13 years and the nural pathways just ain't what they used to be. Have hope and all that, but sometimes you let go and remember as best you can. I would think the cash and resources would be better spent toward disease processes.

Also, keep in mind that NPR is as Tree-Hugger as it gets (second to UCB, mind you), and factor that into the final equation.

 

EJ - And what's wrong with trees? Perhaps you can find yourself a nice big industrial, toxic tube to "hug."

 

Personally, if I was in Terri's position I wouldn't want to burden my family or live as a vegetable. I think it would be an insult to be kept alive in that state.

That video is total propaganda (and not even effective propandanda). Thankfully, I've gotten into a good habit of checking Laches' sources.

*Terri is asleep*
Doctor (loudly): Terri, open your eyes!
Doctor (loudly): Terri, open your eyes!
Doctor (loudly): Terri, open your eyes!
*Terri wakes up and stares off into space*
Doctor: Good job! Good job!

By god! She opened her eyes after I woke her up! Inconceivable!

This is a serious issue though.

I don't agree with Jeb Bush's abuse of power in the matter. Not because I disagree or agree with his position on the issue. But because he got the legislature to create a new law to make him look like some sort of hero, even though he is a grade-A scumbag. The only reason he cared was because it was front-page news. Period.

I guess the real question is should the husband let the family decide? I say yes. Obviously, Terri was not his soulmate if he has decided to get married again. So I say he should let the family decide and he should go on with his life.

I am all for the family keeping her alive. As long as they are paying for it and not the state.

[ October 24, 2003, 03:39: Message edited by: InquisitorX ]

 

I originally thought this euthanasia case was legal ratcheting from conservative politicians to endorse their own beliefs over others without considering the cultural borderlines that separate them.

Upon reading more about the Schiavo case and some suspicious ties the husband has to funds that are most benefited if and only if Terry dies, I find this is less and less about euthanasia. Ploys to politically maneuver the situation to one's own political agenda serve to cloud the issue (The AP release is disgracefully thin and frames the issue wrongly).

Terry's family hate Terry's husband. Terry's husband, may not really care whether or not Terry dies, but has financial interests unfulfilled as long as she lives. Terry's a vegetable. We will never truly know if she wanted to live or die in the event of such severe brain trauma, lest we take the husband's words at face value.

To me it is strange that the husband should want Terry to die so soon. It is strange Jeb has pooled his resources into sustaining Terry's life. It is strange that this is national news, when it isn't exactly a shining light of scrutiny on whether or not euthanasia is humane/should be allowed/within the limits of discretion by the ones eligible for it. Terry cannot tell any of us whether she wants to live or die. I believe that since she has not, she should be given a chance to live, just by default. Corollary interests have fought bitterly over her right to live or to die, their agendas are ever more potent than hers, or her family's, or her husband's.

This says nothing about whether someone should choose to die or not. This merely tells us whether or not we can, depending on the legal or familial capacity we serve, decide if a woman should die, having no former information on her wishes. I think the answer to this is no, we cannot. It is better to err on the side of caution. Anyone who has not expressed a wish to die should not. An additional precondition should be the cost, and Jeb should not allocate federal funds for this task - It should be forwarded to the immediate family, and paid out of his pocket like a private citizen.

 

There is a lot of discrepancy regarding the amount of money in the fund initially and now. The husband’s attorney said that there was ~ 700k to start with, that ~300k has gone to legal fees, and that currently there is ~50k. Others say that according to the jury verdict in the underlying med mal case that the initial award was 9.4 million reduced to a present day value of 4.3 million further reduced as Fl is a comparative negligence state to 1.29 million. A separate med mal suit was reportedly settled for 250k and there were 50 k in donations so that you had a total of about ~1.6 million that should have been in her trust to start with. The attorney for the husband though has reportedly “sealed” the accounting.

There are also varying reports regarding what the husband received. I’ve seen reports that he received 300k and other reports that he received 600k. I was interested in this and that’s how I came across all of the above. I anticipated the husband received loss of consortium money and I was curious about how much. I don’t know what amount he received but I think it is a safe bet that he received a relatively substantial amount.

Really knowing the facts involved is hard – different newspapers are reporting different facts depending on who they’re talking to.

Like dmc, I've mixed emotions regarding the husband and family. I can understand how a family might fight and hold out hope - even though I personally feel like in that situation I'd consider my daughter/sister to truly be deceased. I can't blame them for their feelings however, even though I may not agree with them. Likewise, I can't blame a husband for wanting to remove the life support - I would view it as an undignified and slow death and would not want to see someone I loved go through it.

The one thing that bothers me though is that the husband could, with regards to the money, say: "I'm not going to take any of the money for myself instead I'll donate it to... some coma research group or doctor's without borders or... something." This is how I would like to think I’d approach the situation – a peace offering of sorts.

It's just an ugly mess.

I think the case brings up two interesting fundamental questions: 1) who should decide whether to remove life support when the family disagrees and what should the process be and, 2) which branch of government gets to do what?

I also agree with dmc in that I think that the courts will rule that the Fl legislature overstepped its bounds. I think this is the right result. The legislature shouldn’t be in the business of determining the result of litigation on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, I could see how one might argue that it is rather common for legislatures to react to court decisions they dislike by enacting new legislation to make those rulings moot; this is done rather frequently actually. The difference is that in this case they’ve made their legislation so narrow that the practical effect is to usurp the court system’s role. I do think that had the legislature acted a little differently, creating a broader piece of legislation, they’d have been in the clear.

I guess the moral is: if you want a D.N.R. make sure you get one in writing. If you don’t want to be removed from life support, better put that in writing too. How many people here have written D.N.R.’s?

Another issue is that according to the husband’s attorney, the fund is almost depleted and now Medicaid will start to pick up part of the tab (reportedly ~5k per month). Above someone mentioned federal funds shouldn’t be used so I’ll just make sure that everyone knows that Medicaid is overwhelmingly funded and administered by the states and so these aren’t federal funds (unlike Medicare); if that makes a difference to you. Should Medicaid or Medicare ever be picking up the tab for something like this? What about Social Security benefits or something that is purportedly not a welfare program but tied to what you paid into the system - an "entitlement" it is argued.

 

Considering the past history it is rather iffy. I have a living will for just this sort of situation. I recommend it to everyone of legal age.

 

Anyone remember what movie won the "non english movie" Oscar? a Spanish movie called Sea inside (Mar adentro) and is a true story about a guy who was paralised from the neck to the toes; he went on a trial because he didn't want to live anymore and judge said that he had to live anyway; he had a woman who helped him to do everything and one day he asked her to kill him what she did giving him poison, but, the fact is that she gave him the poison and he was the one who took it; he also asked a camara and in the moment he wanted to die he asked her to put the camera on and to give him the poison; so, after years (7 I think) nobody knew who gave him the poison, he had lots of money so there were people fighting for it, and finally, nobody got that money because he didn't leave to anybody, anyway, few weeks back (by the time the movie was fighting for an oscar) the woman came out from nowhere and presented the video in which the guy said what happened, the family tried to take the woman to jail but the "crime" (helping someone to kill himself or suicidal helper) has proscribed (err, is no longer legal or some such).
I wish I could explain it better but all the articles are in spanish.

 

Well, I guess this is it for Terri.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/schiavo.brain-damaged/index.html

I live in Florida and work for a TV news station this has split the reporters and anchors into two separate groups and it has been hell for the grunts.

 

Hopefully she will go quickly and be at peace. This insane story has gone on long enough.

 

The problem is that she's alive and she does react to her family. She's cut off from communicating but she isn't a plant yet, so we are basically discussing euthanasia. The husband wants the money, the parents want to save their child - I can't help being sympathetic towards the latter rather than the former.

 

Chev,

Personally, I disagree with that. She has been tested by various neurologists and they have determined she is essentially brain dead. The people who "See her communicating" are seeing what they want to, not reality (my opinion).

To claim that the husband is in it for the money is also people reaching for an excuse. The man has been through hell and back. Then the righteous pull him back into hell again.

The way I see it she has been in a vegatative state for fifteen years. For fifteen years she has been kept alive by a feeding tube. In my opinion that isn't being alive. I firmly believe if she had any faculties at all she would beg for death. I know I would.

The selfishness of her parents is amazing to me. That hunk of flesh in that bed isn't the little girl that they loved and raised. How people can claim she is better off as she is now rather than being at peace is beyond me.

EDIT: And now I see the idiots in Congress feel the need to step in. How this is a federal issue is completely beyond me. I hope the Supreme Court smacks them on the hand for over-stepping their reach.

 

Well, in theory, if she's brain dead, she's not feeling any pain or agony or...

I hope (not being a neurologist myself).

 

I agree 100% with Snook here. We have really sunk to an all-time low in America when I don't even have the right to not exist as a vegetable adn am forced into playing rallying symbol for the pro-life cause.

She is dead. She has been dead for 15 years. Conservatives are offering up the idea that maybe God will miraculously restore her brain-functions but that he cannot do so if she is taken off life support.


Nonsense all around.

 

We aren't the judges of whether she's at peace now or not. Even if she isn't at peace but in a condition opposed to that, it implies some sort of consciousness still remaining, which makes shutting down the machinery an act of homicide.

People have returned to life from states close to brain death, even after many years. It is not a matter of waiting for a miracle as those people might as well be waiting for God to raise her from the grave, if we are at it. The idea is that it can't be proven that she is actually brain-dead and that she can't return to her normal state at any time in the future.

I believe it's pointless to prolong the life of the body if the brain is really dead and the person is confirmed to be unable to return to conscious life in the future. However, we can't take guesses. We need to be sure.

The problem he is that there is no such certainty and the cause is being made into playing rallying symbol for the pro-choice cause.

What they are going to do is to starve her to death. The argument that she can't eat or drink the normal way is a fallacy as the same can be said of a person with all limbs removed or incapacitated, especially a paralysed person. So long as the food and water meets its proper destination and purpose even when artificially provided, it needs to be provided. Otherwise, it's homicide by starvation. Note that the food and water is necessary for life, so withholding it from someone is inflicting death rather than allowing the person to die. Thus euthanasia. However noble the motives, this is essentially homicide. Note again that she's able to breathe on her own. Dead people don't breathe. Providing food and water is not a means of medical care, it's nourishing. A normal function of the body. She's still a human being and not an item, even if deprived of full consciousness. However, she does still react to stimuli and she's even able to track objects with her eyes. She reacts with laughter or smiles or vocalisations. See Laches's opening post for more details.

As for the husband, Judge Greer extended the emergency stay by 48 hours late in February to consider the parents' lawyer's arguments that Mr Schiavo was unfit to be Terri's guardian because of abuse. The parents claim Terri has been beaten by the husband, leaving signs such as broken bones. It is also quite obvious that the first and foremost thing he wants is his wife dead. He wants the money. He wants the freedom. He doesn't step short of withholding information and disturbing correct medical practice by choosing doctors sympathetic to his ideas.

The death that is going to be inflicted on her is not merely a cessation of bodily functions, but a painful death of dehydration and starvation over the course of a couple of weeks. This is not even mercykilling. She has done nothing wrong and this method isn't suitable even for executions of serial murderers. Heck, Florida laws prohibit repeated or excessive suffering from being inflicted on animals destined for slaughter.

This is forced euthanasia and the modern society has been increasingly tolerant of this, up to the point of allowing euthanasia to requested by and performed at the request of someone else than the person being put to death. Now it's mentally limited people and newly born infants. Who's next? Perhaps people with AIDS or permanent incurable diseases? Mutilated people conscious but unable to survive on their own?

[ March 20, 2005, 22:46: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

We can speculate until the cows come home about how nefarious the husband may be or what his "true motives" may be but as far as knowing Terri's wishes on the matter go, we have no other alternative but to allow the husband, who was in the best position to know, to speak for her. IF it turns out that he is a liar and we find some document she had written saying "Whatever you do, don't let him take me off life support because he is after some money!" or something then fine but until then...
I admit I am more concerned in this matter for my OWN rights than for Terri's. I am someone who has severe enough medical problems that I may well not live beyond "middle age". I don't care even if I am NOT brain dead, if I am ever in a position where I cannot move my arms and legs and turn my head, then I want OUT! My mother and siblings know this and if such a hypothetical were to come to pass I would not want some Church group butting in to prolong my existence for whatever imagined reason they might want to do so(like holding out hope they might "save me" before I pass).

If there is one civil right that should be beyond contention, it is the right for someone to decide they are NOT all that impressed with existence and to be able to check out. The people who live with me should be the ones to determine whether I would have wanted to go on. Not some emotionally crippled parents or grandparents who cannot accept that I have gone brain dead and it is time to let go.

The husband gave her nearly 15 years to show some sign...ANY sign that she was improving or recovering her neurological functions. Not happening. SHe is a vegetable. it happens. It is tragic and yeah, we would ALL like to believe in magic and the indominatable human spirit overcoming impossible circumstances...yada, yada, yada. But she is gone. Let her go.