How much is a life worth?

[Bonnie]

The judge had the ability to watch the examination of the witnesses and made his determination in part on their reliability and credibility. No one else has had such an opportunity and I am willing to give the judge the benefit of the doubt - especially because his order has been upheld in multiple appeals. Further, unless I missed something (forgive me if I have), the mother indicated that the statements made to her suggesting that Terri would want to continue to exist in her current state were made when Terri was 11-12 years old. I don't find that all too reliable an indicator of her state of mind as an adult.

In any other case going to court the evidence needs to be overwhelming and airtight, no case would be prosecuted on hereseay of a few wittnesses. So what Im getting here is when it's a severely handicapped woman who may be starved to death, three witnesses, her husband and relatives on his side, telling the judge they had a conversation over dinner one night, is enough to end her life......But to send a criminal to jail we need rock solid proof, DNA, many eyewitness accounts, expert testimony etc?

If Terri's parents don't have any truth in their favor why is this taking so long?......True some judges agree with the husband but many seem to be agreeing with the parents as well. It's not a cut and dry case.

 

[ReillyT]

You are assuming that it works. With the advent of activist judges, we are now seeing how these robed freaks can make up laws to serve their personal agendas. It maybe the best system but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.

Whatever "activism" there may be in the judicial system, it generally would appear at the appellate level, not in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Probate Division.

 

[ReillyT]

In any other case going to court the evidence needs to be overwhelming and airtight, no case would be prosecuted on hereseay of a few wittnesses. So what Im getting here is when it's a severely handicapped woman who may be starved to death, three witnesses, her husband and relatives on his side, telling the judge they had a conversation over dinner one night, is enough to end her life......But to send a criminal to jail we need rock solid proof, DNA, many eyewitness accounts, expert testimony etc?

If Terri's parents don't have any truth in their favor why is this taking so long?......True some judges agree with the husband but many seem to be agreeing with the parents as well. It's not a cut and dry case.

Well, there are different standards for different proceedings. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal proceedings, and "clear and convincing evidence" for probate proceedings in Florida. That is probably a legislative choice. Also, hearsay rules probably don't apply in probate proceedings - also a legislative choice.

As for why it is taking so long, that is probably pretty easy to explain. Numerous avenues for appeal coupled with the fact that no judge wants to be the judge to make the final decision (state judges being elected and this being a touchy matter) coupled with interference from the governor to prevent the feeding tube being removed. Hence, endless stays while new appeals are formulated and pursued. Not one judge has actually made a ruling that supports the Schindler family. They all have ruled, eventually and after long delay, in Michael Schiavo's favor.

 

[ReillyT]

I should actually have said that not one judge that I am aware of has actually ruled in the Schindler family's favor. I haven't reviewed the whole record so I can't be sure.

 

[MissileMan]

SmarterThanYOU


The problem is there is nothing in writing from her of her wishes that was notarized. All we have is heresay... in any court that doens't hold water. You are talking about taking human life, starving her to death on pillow talk.......Sorry doesn't wash.

Letting her die is not taking her life.

If you believe in God, wouldn't you have to also believe that if she is meant to live she'll get up and feed herself?

 

[musicman]

Letting her die is not taking her life.

If you believe in God, wouldn't you have to also believe that if she is meant to live she'll get up and feed herself?

I haven't decided where I come down on this heart-wrenching question yet, but I know that THAT argument isn't any good. It makes as much sense as asking, "If a baby is meant to live, won't it wrest the scissors from the abortionist's hand?"

 

[SmarterThanYou]

You are assuming that it works. With the advent of activist judges, we are now seeing how these robed freaks can make up laws to serve their personal agendas. It maybe the best system but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.

would that be leftist/liberal judicial activists only? or both party judicial activists?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I haven't decided where I come down on this heart-wrenching question yet, but I know that THAT argument isn't any good. It makes as much sense as asking, "If a baby is meant to live, won't it wrest the scissors from the abortionist's hand?"

yeah, i wasn't buying that argument either.

 

[MissileMan]

I haven't decided where I come down on this heart-wrenching question yet, but I know that THAT argument isn't any good. It makes as much sense as asking, "If a baby is meant to live, won't it wrest the scissors from the abortionist's hand?"

While it may have not been worded as well as some of my other arguments, I was suggesting that you hear about death-defying "miracles" all the time, and that if she were 'truly" supposed to survive, some form of divine intervention would occur. I guess it depends on how much you believe God influences events on earth.

I still stand by my statement that letting her die is not the same thing as killing her. For her sake, I hope the end comes quickly and peacefully.

 

[Bonnie]

While it may have not been worded as well as some of my other arguments, I was suggesting that you hear about death-defying "miracles" all the time, and that if she were 'truly" supposed to survive, some form of divine intervention would occur. I guess it depends on how much you believe God influences events on earth.

I still stand by my statement that letting her die is not the same thing as killing her. For her sake, I hope the end comes quickly and peacefully.

Maybe God who gives us all free will is hoping those entrusted with this womans life, judges, doctors, husband ( I use that one loosely) will actually do the right thing, and save her life, now that would be a miracle!!!

 

[MissileMan]

Maybe God who gives us all free will is hoping those entrusted with this womans life, judges, doctors, husband ( I use that one loosely) will actually do the right thing, and save her life, now that would be a miracle!!!

Two questions for you Bonnie:

1. How is it that you are certain that God isn't hoping those people will just let her die?

2. Do you honestly believe that in 100% of all cases, that keeping someone alive through artificial means is the "right" thing to do?

 

[Bonnie]

Two questions for you Bonnie:

1. How is it that you are certain that God isn't hoping those people will just let her die?

2. Do you honestly believe that in 100% of all cases, that keeping someone alive through artificial means is the "right" thing to do?

One reason, because there is still a spark of life left in her, when she sees her parents she responds to them with emotions. Do me a favor and read exactly what she will be going thru once they remove her feeding tube........It's absolutely horrendous........Then tell me that's merciful to her. You may think so I just do not, and it's not from a religious standpoint that I feel this way. I wouldn't want a mouse to go thru this much less a human being.




No I don't. I think there are many cases in which a person decides they don't want extreme measure to be taken to keep them alive, they put it in writing, their desires should be honored.

This case is just not one of those! There is too many other things going on here. There is evidence of spousal abuse towards Terri prior to this incident, and no incontovertible evidence,nothing in writing, not even on a napkin, that she wants to die. If there was no money involved I would not be questioning the husbands motives as much as I do now.
Why won't he just divorce her and leave her to the care of her parents who are willing to accept all responsibility for her finanacially and otherwise? Answer he looses the money.

But don't worry Im sure sooner or later he will win and she will be starved. Her parents are running out of options. Their only hope now is this new investigation being opened as to possible abuse from the husband to Terri before this tragedy.

 

[Gem]

I have to address a somewhat erroneous statement that is being bandied about here:

There is no machine breathing for Terri Schiavo, or keeping her heart beating. Her body is functioning and keeping itself alive...she COULD be fed orally, she has the capacity to swallow, it is simply easier and more time efficient to feed her through a feeding tube.

That is NOT "artificial means", she is still recieving nourishment, just not in the way you or I do...do you consider a baby to be living via artificial means because it gets its nourishment from its mothers breast?

Have you ever seen someone with a feeding tube? I have, I've worked with individuals who have feeding tubes and I have helped to feed people who are severely handicapped and have feeding tubes. It is not a machine, its a small tube inserted into their stomach to make getting nourishment easier. For their care providers, its a relief, because they can now make sure that their patient's body is getting enough nourishment.

You may feel that Terri Schiavo has a right to die...but this nonsense about "keeping her alive through artificial means," is just that, and if you are really interested in taking an honest look at this case, you should stop. Unlike a REAL artifical means of keeping her alive, if you removed her feeding tube...Terri would continue to live...her body would FIGHT for its right to live...just like yours or mine would, it wouldn't give up, like a body being kept alive by a breathing machine or heart-pumping aparatus. Her body would go through all of the stages of dehydration and starvation...her body would work desperately to survive....that is NOT artificial means...thats life....thats a body working...just not optimally.

Terri is alive, she could eat orally and does not NEED the feeding tube...the only thing artifical about her way of life is that she needs someone to feed her...just like babies, some elderly...or you if you broke both your arms...shall we put you down for death by starvation if you ever have trouble eating without assistance because you don't want to live via artificial means???

No, of course not. As of yet, we are not a society who kills people simply because they are incapable of feeding themselves (yet that is what you are suggesting because it is the only "artificial mean" Terri is using to support her life, even though that is erroneous as well).

Terri is not brain dead, she is not in a Persistive Vegetative State, she is not being kept alive because a machine is doing her body's work for her, she is not in a coma. Terri does not fall under any of the guidelines that our society has already deemed "allowable" for suicide/allowing the patient to die. Thats one of the reasons why this case is so complex.

If they do decide to starve her to death...they will set a new precedent...that a person has the right to end their life if their body and/or mind are not functioning as optimally, rather than before, when we "turned off the machines" because that was what we keeping the person alive. There is no "machine" keeping Terri alive excpet for her body...and to "turn it off" we are going to starve her to death. That is the reality of this debate.

So if we are considering killing Terri Schiavo...we should make sure that we are doing it for the right reasons, not for this silly, "being kept alive due to artificial means" argument which simply does not hold water in this discussion.

 

[Annie]

Agreed Gem. What is being proposed is that she be starved to death.

 

[Bonnie]

Perfectly said Gem!!

 

[SmarterThanYou]

she can swallow? on her own? I've heard otherwise. is there a non-biased source that points out her ability/inability to swallow on her own?

 

[MissileMan]

I have to address a somewhat erroneous statement that is being bandied about here:

There is no machine breathing for Terri Schiavo, or keeping her heart beating. Her body is functioning and keeping itself alive...she COULD be fed orally, she has the capacity to swallow, it is simply easier and more time efficient to feed her through a feeding tube.

That is NOT "artificial means", she is still recieving nourishment, just not in the way you or I do...do you consider a baby to be living via artificial means because it gets its nourishment from its mothers breast?

Have you ever seen someone with a feeding tube? I have, I've worked with individuals who have feeding tubes and I have helped to feed people who are severely handicapped and have feeding tubes. It is not a machine, its a small tube inserted into their stomach to make getting nourishment easier. For their care providers, its a relief, because they can now make sure that their patient's body is getting enough nourishment.

You may feel that Terri Schiavo has a right to die...but this nonsense about "keeping her alive through artificial means," is just that, and if you are really interested in taking an honest look at this case, you should stop. Unlike a REAL artifical means of keeping her alive, if you removed her feeding tube...Terri would continue to live...her body would FIGHT for its right to live...just like yours or mine would, it wouldn't give up, like a body being kept alive by a breathing machine or heart-pumping aparatus. Her body would go through all of the stages of dehydration and starvation...her body would work desperately to survive....that is NOT artificial means...thats life....thats a body working...just not optimally.

Terri is alive, she could eat orally and does not NEED the feeding tube...the only thing artifical about her way of life is that she needs someone to feed her...just like babies, some elderly...or you if you broke both your arms...shall we put you down for death by starvation if you ever have trouble eating without assistance because you don't want to live via artificial means???

No, of course not. As of yet, we are not a society who kills people simply because they are incapable of feeding themselves (yet that is what you are suggesting because it is the only "artificial mean" Terri is using to support her life, even though that is erroneous as well).

Terri is not brain dead, she is not in a Persistive Vegetative State, she is not being kept alive because a machine is doing her body's work for her, she is not in a coma. Terri does not fall under any of the guidelines that our society has already deemed "allowable" for suicide/allowing the patient to die. Thats one of the reasons why this case is so complex.

If they do decide to starve her to death...they will set a new precedent...that a person has the right to end their life if their body and/or mind are not functioning as optimally, rather than before, when we "turned off the machines" because that was what we keeping the person alive. There is no "machine" keeping Terri alive excpet for her body...and to "turn it off" we are going to starve her to death. That is the reality of this debate.

So if we are considering killing Terri Schiavo...we should make sure that we are doing it for the right reasons, not for this silly, "being kept alive due to artificial means" argument which simply does not hold water in this discussion.

And what is the ultimate goal of keeping her body alive? You are advocating treating a human being like a potted plant. Water and feed it daily just so you can have it around. Her body may be alive, but she is not living life. Unfortunately, passive euthenasia...letting her body starve to death is the only solution available at the moment. IMHO, active euthenasia is warranted in this case.

 

[Merlin1047]

You certainly make some good points. This is, without a doubt, a tough issue. It is further complicated by the fact that only anecdotal evidence exists of Terri's wishes in the matter and by the fact that one must consider the possibility that her husband might be motivated by greed.

Terri is alive, she could eat orally and does not NEED the feeding tube...the only thing artifical about her way of life is that she needs someone to feed her...just like babies, some elderly...or you if you broke both your arms...shall we put you down for death by starvation if you ever have trouble eating without assistance because you don't want to live via artificial means???

But I'm not sure that "Terri is alive" is a fair or entirely accurate statement. Yes, her body functions. But I'm not sure that you can call that being alive. Yes, she CAN swallow. But if you placed food in her mouth, would she even recognize what she's supposed to do with it? Probably not. Most likely she would simply aspirate the contents and choke.

So while a person with two broken arms would have difficulty feeding himself, he would have no difficulty recognizing food and knowing what to do with it when it is placed in his mouth. Or, having no one to feed him, he could still dive face-first into the plate.

Terri is not brain dead, she is not in a Persistive Vegetative State, she is not being kept alive because a machine is doing her body's work for her, she is not in a coma. Terri does not fall under any of the guidelines that our society has already deemed "allowable" for suicide/allowing the patient to die. Thats one of the reasons why this case is so complex.

After reading a piece on the condition of her cerebral cortex, I'm of the opinion that while she is not in a coma, I doubt very much that she has any true cognitive function remaining.

The only thing I'm absolutely sure about is that I'm damn glad I'm not personally involved in a situation like this.

 

[Gem]

Having known and worked with several people in conditions identical to Terri Schiavo's, while I will not begin to tell you how Terri Schiavo is, I've never met her, I will tell you how others in her condition that I HAVE met act:

- They laugh or gurgle happily when people they know enter the room or when they are happy about something

- They cry or moan uncomfortably if they are not happy

- Some make actions showing some level of cognisance....leaning towards a voice, moving or becoming quieted when music is playing...etc.

I could go on, but the above examples do show life...not the life I would want to live (hence why I have spoken to several of my loved ones and have a very brief living will that discusses conditions under which I would not want to be kept alive) but certainly a life above that of a potted plant.

I personally feel that if Terri Schiavo wanted to die, and that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt....then so be it. I feel that there can only be so many court cases that rule in her husbands favor before her family simply has to accept that when she married, she became more her husband's responsibility than theirs.

However, I am concerned about what sort of precedent it sets to kill someone because their bodies haven't given up....they just aren't working as well as we would like. There have been articles written about other nations that have legalized and encouraged euthanasia...articles that point to disturbing trends...old and sick people being made to feel pressured to kill themselves to save their family from any trouble...people who under other circumstances would not want to die, being made to feel obligated to take their lives in order to make life easier for others. Is this a road we are now travelling down...and Terri's case just the first few steps of the journey??

And where is the line drawn...Terri's life is not one I would care to lead...but what about someone who is in an accident and can talk, but only basically...what if they have to be completely retrained and will never be the same again...can that person write in their living will that they do not want to continue to live if it means having to learn everything over again and possibly never regain something even close to what they once were? Its not that drastically different from Terri's situation, especially considering doctors feel that Terri's condition could be improved upon with rehabilitation...What if a fashion model decides she can not possibly continue with her life if she is maimed or disfigured...what if a runner decides he can not live if he is paralyed...

Terri is not dead. Her brain, while functioning on only a most basic level, is functioning...she is not brain dead. She is not, in any way, a house plant. She is a woman who will be killed because her body and brain are no longer functioning optimally...not because machines are keeping her alive.

So, in my opinion, that is the road we are travelling down...and that is the road which we, who are presently standing at the start of...must try to look down and see what might be coming further down the line.

If we allow Terri Schiavo to be starved to death because our courts rule that it is what she would have wanted we are saying that a person has the right to kill themselves, or have assistance in killing themselves because their body or brain is no longer functioning in the manner in which that person deems acceptable...where are we headed once that decision is in the books, and are we comfortable heading in that direction?

 

[Merlin1047]

If we allow Terri Schiavo to be starved to death because our courts rule that it is what she would have wanted we are saying that a person has the right to kill themselves, or have assistance in killing themselves because their body or brain is no longer functioning in the manner in which that person deems acceptable...where are we headed once that decision is in the books, and are we comfortable heading in that direction?

I'm comfortable with letting someone in this condition die if that is what the person wants. So I suppose that brings us back at the beginning of the argument - does Terri Schiavo want to die? If there is sufficient evidence that this was her wish, then it should be honored. And that is really what this court battle has as its central issue. The argument is not so much over whether Terri's condition merits keeping her alive as opposed to her wishes regarding being kept alive in this condition.

This case highlights another aspect of medicine - we seem to be at a rather sad state of affairs in the medical sciences. Our technical expertise has outstripped our knowledge of healing. We have the capability to keep a body functioning, but we often lack the ability to repair it. So you have to ask yourself - when does it stop being humane medical treatment and start turning into a Frankenstein-type of science in which we simply seek to prolong existence but not life? As troubling as this case is, I am more uncomfortable with the fact that doctors have the capability to keep a body function despite the fact that the light is on, but nobody's home.

You better believe I'm going to make sure my living will and my wife's are still current and valid. No family should have to endure something like this.