Micheal Schaivo Cleared To Remove Feeding Tube

[krisy]

I don't know if more can be done now but pray. Stupid,guilty,jackass.

http://start.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20050225/421eb0d0_3ca6_1552620050225338752562

 

[Avatar4321]

If he does, perhaps we could prosecute him for murder. Course the way the courts have been ruling i doubt that will do much.

 

[Annie]

I don't know if more can be done now but pray. Stupid,guilty,jackass.

http://start.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20050225/421eb0d0_3ca6_1552620050225338752562

The ruling by Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer will allow the husband, Michael Schiavo, to order the tube removed at 1 p.m. on March 18. In the meantime, the woman's parents, who want her kept alive, are expected to ask another court to block the order from taking effect.

The judge wrote that he was no longer comfortable granting delays in the family feud, which has been going on for nearly seven years and has been waged in every level of Florida's court system. He said the case must end.

"The court is no longer comfortable granting stays simply upon the filings of new motions," Greer wrote. "There will always be 'new' issues."

Seems to me he is basically ordering the parents to the FL SC, then to the SCOUS.

 

[theim]

Oh, well that's OK. I mean, if the judge is no longer "comfortable" getting in the middle of the woman's husband killing her for a cool million, then by all means just let her croak. How people like these get on the bench, I have no idea.

 

[theim]

I wonder if the bottom-feeder will even have the balls to attend the funeral.

 

[Merlin1047]

But leave it to the Vatican to screw it up.

"If Mr. Schiavo legally succeeded in provoking the death of his wife, this would not only be tragic in itself, but it would be a serious step toward legally approving euthanasia in the United States," Cardinal Renato Martino told Vatican Radio on Thursday.

This has nothing whatever to do with euthanasia. This is a woman who is being kept alive by medical intervention. The question is whether her family should be allowed to keep her alive or whether she should be allowed to die. My opinion is that in the absence of concrete proof of her wishes, the scales should be weighted in favor of keeping her alive so long as there is any reasonable cognitive function.

But Terry Schiavo's case raises another issue we will have to resolve. It is legal for a doctor to remove her feeding tube. If that happens, she will die. But she will die a slow and painful death from dehydration and starvation. Granted, she can be kept doped up to the point that she won't feel much, if anything. Does anyone see as idiotic, the premise that it is legal to allow a person to starve, but it is illegal to give that person a quick death with dignity by giving her a shot to stop her heart?

 

[krisy]

I am hoping that Florida Social Services can jump in and make a new case for themselves. State vs state. Would be interesting. As I have said a lot,I just can't fathom that starving a person is even considered!!! Social Services carries a lot of weight in some places,and I hope they can get the 60 day stay.

 

[pennyville73]

This is the exact reason why everyone should have all their wishes down on paper now. I know I have mine spelled out exactly and everyone knows what they are. I would never want to live like this woman, quality of life is much more important to me than quantity.

 

[krisy]

This is the exact reason why everyone should have all their wishes down on paper now. I know I have mine spelled out exactly and everyone knows what they are. I would never want to live like this woman, quality of life is much more important to me than quantity.

I agree quality is important,but this woman is only 41. When this happened,she was in her twenties. There was a good chance of rehabilitation,then,and she could possibly be rehibilitated now. Her husband has started another family,and I just can't see the stubborness on his part since he can give all responsibility for her to her parents. I do not believe it's because of HER wishes. Onm top of all that,starving someone. I do agree that we should have something written up-for sure!!

 

[pennyville73]

I have instructions that I am not to be given any life prolonging medical care IF it will only prolong my death. Meaning, that if I have no chance to get better, and only machines and feeding tubes are keeping me alive everything is to be removed, including feeding tubes. The only thing I will be given is pain medication.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Our local newspaper took a poll to see how the locals regarded this case. 60% did not think Terry should be kept alive, 20 percent said she should be kept alive, and 10% said keep her alive for 5 more years and then re-assess the situation. What are we becoming as a people to be so cruel? Her parents are willing to care for her, for goodness sakes. Too bad her ex-husband seems to have the final say in this case. This case does points out the need to have your wishes spelled out in advance in case you should meet with a situation like this--as Pennyville indicated.

 

[Hobbit]

What I'm imagining is if all of my worst suspicions are true. A dirty judge, a lawyer who knows and doesn't care, a paid off doctor, and a husband trying to cover his crimes. That's seriously what it looks like. If this turns out to be true, I'd prosecute the whole lot of them for conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder and seek the death penalty under the statute for contract killing. As far as I can see it, Michael Shiavo's just using the legal system as his own hitman.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

My opinion is that in the absence of concrete proof of her wishes, the scales should be weighted in favor of keeping her alive so long as there is any reasonable cognitive function.

Let me get this straight, If I were in a similar situation(being kept alive by some means other than my own physical bodily functions) and my wife said my wishes were to not let me be kept alive by any artificial means, you think it would be A-OK for the government to step in and deny my wishes to my wife because I didn't pay a lawyer to write up and have notarized a document stating such?

Pardon me, but thats just wrong.

 

[manu1959]

Let me get this straight, If I were in a similar situation(being kept alive by some means other than my own physical bodily functions) and my wife said my wishes were to not let me be kept alive by any artificial means, you think it would be A-OK for the government to step in and deny my wishes to my wife because I didn't pay a lawyer to write up and have notarized a document stating such?

Pardon me, but thats just wrong.

you right unfotunatley it is not the law

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I agree quality is important,but this woman is only 41. When this happened,she was in her twenties. There was a good chance of rehabilitation,then,and she could possibly be rehibilitated now. Her husband has started another family,and I just can't see the stubborness on his part since he can give all responsibility for her to her parents.

That does not mean he can just arbitrarily relieve himself of his promise to his Terri

I do not believe it's because of HER wishes.

Your opinion, while still valid as far as its important to consider what you think, is irrelavant. You have no personal knowledge of the situation or relationship between these two individuals.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Let me get this straight, If I were in a similar situation(being kept alive by some means other than my own physical bodily functions) and my wife said my wishes were to not let me be kept alive by any artificial means, you think it would be A-OK for the government to step in and deny my wishes to my wife because I didn't pay a lawyer to write up and have notarized a document stating such?

Pardon me, but thats just wrong.

Consider this. The husband argued he needed money in court for her lifetime of care. He received 1.2 million dollars. ONLY THEN, did he want to pull the plug.

 

[Annie]

Consider this. The husband argued he needed money in court for her lifetime of care. He received 1.2 million dollars. ONLY THEN, did he want to pull the plug.

Good point!

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Consider this. The husband argued he needed money in court for her lifetime of care. He received 1.2 million dollars. ONLY THEN, did he want to pull the plug.

that is a good point. was that before or after numerous doctors said that she would never recover?

 

[krisy]

That does not mean he can just arbitrarily relieve himself of his promise to his Terri



Your opinion, while still valid as far as its important to consider what you think, is irrelavant. You have no personal knowledge of the situation or relationship between these two individuals.

First off,we don't know that there was a promise-which is the problem. Second,if she felt this way,wouldn't you think that at some point,she may have voiced this to her parents?

I don't know first hand of course,what their relationship was,but I do know that it isn't normal for a man that loves a woman,or child whatever the case,to not even TRY rehabilitation. This man is not normal. She can do everything on her own,but eat. How hard would that have been to try and teach her to eat? She could have been far worse. If your wife had a stroke,and had to learn to do everything again,wouldn't you want her tought to do everything again,if there were a chance? The press also just reports on the docs that think there is no hope,never the ones that say there is hope. He doesn't even let her have dental check ups-that's pitiful. I believe he wants her dead for some very scary reason. IMO you don't do this to someone you love.

 

[Merlin1047]

Let me get this straight, If I were in a similar situation(being kept alive by some means other than my own physical bodily functions) and my wife said my wishes were to not let me be kept alive by any artificial means, you think it would be A-OK for the government to step in and deny my wishes to my wife because I didn't pay a lawyer to write up and have notarized a document stating such?

Pardon me, but thats just wrong.

You're assuming ethical, honest and moral people are involved. That's an unwarranted leap. Where a human life hangs in the balance, we need more than the word of an individual who, in this case, has a great deal to gain from his wife's death.

So yes, I guess I'm saying that if you want to be allowed to die if certain parameters are satisfied, then you'd better put it in writing. Society has an obligation to protect the helpless and if you want that protection put aside, you need to let it be known in a verifiable manner. And I don't see anything wrong with that.