Terri Schiavo

Remove all ads!

@ Toughluck:

Because those news reports and articles have tended to be (1) biased, (2) politically motivated, (3) rants and/or (4) devoid of any real evidence to support their assertions. I think that you're right about some of us taking the other side as truth too easily, but until there is some sort of documented proof, report, or other solid source, your arguments aren't compelling enough for a lot of us. Without evidence, it just seems like more vitriol and name-calling. Sorry if that came off as condescending; that wasn't my intent - I haven't given one shred of evidence to support my position either, so I guess I can be safely ignored as well.

@ Chev:

First off, I apologise for the misconception: my disagreements with toughluck are not the same as the ones I have with you. While I disagree with you, you're finding sources and putting forward a coherent argument (although the credibility and impartiality of said sources are often questionable).

Well, that's something I have no issue with. You're never going to have anybody be completely impartial in a situation like this (hence my earlier comments about monopolies of morality being irrelevant to this debate). Everyone has a stake in the outcome, whether it is political, financial or personal. I agree that we should at least ask why Mike wants this to happen, but there has been no evidence to prove that he just wants the money. The marriage/freedom thing, however, I agree with you on; it does compromise his position to a degree, although without knowing more about his new relationship I couldn't form a proper opinion of it.

An absolute pittance, to be sure - would you compromise principles for a few hundred bucks? How about if the case became a national issue - would you risk your future on a campaign donation that didn't reach four figures? I'm sorry, Chev, but I can't believe that; if Greer was so self-interested as that, there is no way he would shoot himself in the foot and gamble with his credibility and career over a matter of a few hundred dollars.

How about any contributions made to any other people standing for election made by the same firm? After all, when you look at corporate donations to US presidential campaigns, it's exceptionally rare to find big bucks being thrown only to one party. If anything, it reflects less favourably on the lawyer and the firm than on Greer.

No argument. I'd be utterly amazed (and would probably drop dead from shock) if it was only the "liberal" judges doing this, too.

 

It is being reported that Terri Schiavo has now passed. I hope that her soul if it hadn't already moved on, has found the peace that she has assuredly earned.

God's speed Terri.

 

Amen to that.

Some follow-up questions or scenarios that people could discuss if they'd like.

1) It's common practice not to use "heroic measures" on very elderly or ill patients. For example, pneumonia is often considered a very merciful, natural way to die, especially for someone who is suffering a painful illness, or for whom a number of bodily systems are breaking down. In many cases, when such a patient is dying of pneumonia, something could be done to keep them breathing (say, putting them on an invasive form of artificial respiration, the "iron lung" if you will), and so to extend their life for a short time. Yet it's generally considered to be more morally correct to let them pass as naturally as possible. Why is that?

2) It was often argued that Schiavo's parents had the resources to maintain her in her vegetative state, so why shouldn't they have been allowed? Of course, most patients don't have millions of dollars in donations to support them in this way. What about all the Terry Schiavo's that don't have any resources? Correct me if I'm wrong, but no state in the US holds that vegetative patients on life support, who a panel of doctors have deemed beyond recovery, should be maintained on (very, very expensive) life support at the state's expense, regardless of what the next of kin feel. Plugs are pulled on such patients all the time. Why is it moral to pull the plug on a patient without resourses, and immoral to do so for a patient with resources? Or should I, as a taxpayer, bear the burden for maintaining vegetative patients deemed beyond recovery, simply because the next of kin believes, against all scientific argument otherwise, that they might, just maybe, get a little better?

 

@NonSequitur: My goal wasn't to cook up a charge against him but to undermine his position to make such a decision in Terri's case. What I have couldn't probably suffice in a criminal case, but it sufficiently shoots down his credibility - as if it needed shooting down in the first place. I've been surprised all the time how courts and everyone there seemed to take whatever Michael said as granted. It's probably because of the political affiliation of lawyers who are mostly leftist (per US standards) and "progressive" on such issues, without much exception. It also annoys me how courts redefine words to claim that food and water is artificial life support and so on. Plus the way parents and siblings were disregarded. It's a shame.

Parents weren't even allowed near her in her final hours. Michael kicked them out ten minutes before she passed away. Hope he's proud of himself. Lord have mercy for him.

 

I find it pretty disgusting the degree the Schiavo case has been politised.

For a person in her state for so long recovery is impossible. That poor lady is most certainly braindead in those parts of her brain that distinguish a human being from an ant. And Ms. Schiavo is lying there for more than a decade now?

As the actual state of science is, the brain cannot recover by itself after being so severely damaged - and there yet has not been a treatment found to restore it. Ms. Schiavos's state is irreversibly.

This autum I attended a wedding party in Flensburg, where a friend of my girlfriend married. It was sort of grizzly when they drove in her father in his wheelchair, who after a stroke, fell into a vegetative state, too. She hoped that he was so 'undead' as to notice, and to see her marry and hear her announcing her pregnancy - one of his greatest wishes was to see her marry and have a child. Strange party that was.

In principle I found that approach admirable, but I'm almost sure that this was about the 'principle of hope' rather than medical reality.

Ms. Schiavo is being made an example in the endless 'pro-life' debate in the US, and in this debate it is totally irrelevant wether she dies or lives, or if it is possible for her to recover or not - that doesn't count. It's just a highly cynical game, where Ms. Schiavo is just the object, not subject of the debate.

Iirc she wanted to be allowed to die in peace, so grant her the mercy.

 

The courts aren't "redefining" anything, this is the position taken by the medical community and simply upheld by the courts. Please stop trying to give your religious perspective the weight of law.

It was regard for the wishes of parents and siblings that kept this case in the courts for all these years. How much more "regard" do you want them to have? The LAW wasn't on their side, no matter how many emotional pleas they made or how much sympathy they engendered (even from me, believe it or not). Insisting that they didn't get their share of "regard" after all these years and the levels of inappropriate political interference they managed to wrangle is nothing but the whining of a sore loser.

 

I agree with Rally. On every point she just made.

 

The husband has the right. Period. If my wife was dying, I could keep her parents, siblings, any children, out of the room. Terri's parents should have been fully aware of what effect their animosity toward Michael would have. He wanted to be with his wife at her passing. I can't say I blame him for not wanting any accusations during that time.

Chev: Unfortunately, your comments seem too much like a witch hunt. A witch hunt does not damage the credibility of the target (in this case Michael).

 

Rest In Peace, Terri.

I'll always believe you were murdered.

 

@dmc: Food is not medicine, no matter who says that. Everyone requires food, healthy or not. Every creature dies without food, not just Terri. It can't be construed as a differentiation criterion between her and a healthy human, as we all need food.

@T2Bruno: Why a husband who has had a second family for ten years now (i.e. started about five years after Terri's accident) and has been diagnosed to match the wife abuser profile by his own psychiatrist and reported to have been in the outs with the woman just before the accident, and not her family?

You are making Terri's parents into Michael-hating warmongers and the truth is that they wanted their child back. What matters more - the life of your child or the potentially hurt feelings of her husband?

 

Chev: I don't have a good explanation for you, that's just the way the law works in America. The spouse gets to call the shots. Parents do not have very many rights when it comes to their married, adult children.

My post at the top of this page (4) says how I feel about her parents -- I will never fault them for the fight. However, had I waged that fight I would not expect Michael to want me near him at any time (especially not at the end).

 

This is absolutely true, and I don't think anyone would dispute this. However, short of inventing a time machine, this simply isn't possible.

 

Aldeth: I hope you're agreeing with the 'they wanted their child back' sentiment. I don't think they are Michael hating warmongers.

 

Yes, I was agreeing with "the truth is that they wanted their daughter back". I think many people would dispute that the parents are Michael hating warmongers. Perhaps a more detailed explanation is in order:

All parents love their children, and no parent wants to go through the ordeal of seeing their child die before they do. There's something very unnatural about a child preceeding their parents in death. Generally speaking, it is something that few have to deal with, and so fewer still prepare for it. The parents involved in such cases never fully recover from it either, at least as far as my personal experience goes. My father's sister (so I guess she would have been my aunt) died in childhood, and my grandparents were never the same. My wife's brother died as a young adult, and my wife's parents haven't fully recovered either. It hasn't affected me directly though, as my aunt died before my birth, and my wife's brother died several years before I met my wife. It is something I hope I never have to experience, because the emotional scars that are left behind never go away. In the case of my aunt, that happened over 40 years ago, while in the case of my brother in law, it was 11 years ago, and it is as heart-rending to the parents today as it was all those years ago.

 

I just think that her death is for the good of everyone, but apparently a few (maybe a lot) of fanatical people who seem to lack they're own life, keep protesting against the death of a half dead person. While they were saying "Let her live!", I was saying "Let her die!"

 

Half dead Kelvon. That statement alone scares me.....so she was half alive also. I say lets put an end to this post and just agree to disagree. I saw on CNN where 100 people just like Terri are removed from life support everyday. Only thing that bothered me about this whole situation is Terri was not on life support. Once again I reiterate.....We live in a time when technology has outpaced humanity....rest in peace Terri

 

Agreed, DHB. About the whole lot of it.

She wasn't on life support, and she wasn't going to recover, which is what made this case so damn difficult. I can think of at least two scenarios I find preferable to what has transpired, but there won't be consensus. I just hope that Terri and those close to her are no longer suffering, that her parents are given support and space to grieve, and that the media circus around this can disperse.

 

I *do* find the selective use of Terry images in the media rather disturbing though, especially all these collages with protestant iconography of Christ and the US flag. Terry's face has this innocent, supplicant look, which I'm sure a number of people, not least her parents, have taken to suggest a kind of quiet suffering and a plea for help. It's the sort of look that almost anything could be read into, and I'm sure many people have been projecting all sorts of thoughts onto that face, that frankly, for someone without any registered brain activity for the last 15 years, aren't there.