Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube to be Removed on Friday

[SmarterThanYou]

how soon will it be then, once we require/mandate living wills to express what your true wishes are, that we'll then nullify those because the debate will be that you couldnt possibly understand what you were truly wishing because you had never been in a vegetative state?

 

[sagegirl]

how soon will it be then, once we require/mandate living wills to express what your true wishes are, that we'll then nullify those because the debate will be that you couldnt possibly understand what you were truly wishing because you had never been in a vegetative state?

I would hope that the rest you would have better things to do and left the issue to me and my loved ones.

 

[Bonnie]

I guess I haven't been paying enough attention to this particular piece of news....

What crime has this woman been convicted of again? It must have been particular heinous to warrant such a........cruel and unusual punishment.......to be dehydrated and starved to death over the period of about week? She must have done something awful.

I think she drools when she eats...

 

[sagegirl]

I think she drools when she eats...

I think this comment and some of the above humor is very disrespectful.

 

[Bonnie]

I think this comment and some of the above humor is very disrespectful.

Im not being disrespectful at all, we now live in a society that thinks it's okay to decide who lives and who dies, we take life for conveneince sake forgetting that life is life no matter what the so called "quality is". Yes it's a geat idea to make a living will. I believe in the sanctity of marriage, but that sanctity does not supercede the law when it comes to human life. Terri's husband has no proof that she would have wanted to die,and she is brain damaged, not brain DEAD, big difference. She will be starved to death which is too cruel for even a flower to go thru much less a human being. People impune her parents but they are the only ones who really care what happens to her, they are trying to save their daughters life, when they look at her they don't see a brain dead person they see their daughter,their flesh and blood,with whom they are perfectly willing to take care of not bothering anyone else to do it not even her so called "husband". Why is this man determined to have her starved to death, when he can just divorce her and leave her to the careof her parents........It makes no sense and it's cruel!!!!

I am not beig disrepsectful to her, on the contrary I am being very respectful of her and her life, as it is drool and all!

 

[Bonnie]

Smarter Than You....suspicion is not proof, first off. But now that congress has intervened its irrelevant. Heres what I would like to see. Hold the hearings, talk to doctors and not just doctors that support only one point of view. Get the consensus, whatever that may be, and go from there. I'd be willing to bet that if all the evidence is gathered and it turns out that there is no future for terri's improvement, people still won't give it up.

Congress has intervened to the extent that it is demanding the Fla state court listen to the entire case, which is perfectly within their rights and perfectly consitutional to do.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

People impune her parents but they are the only ones who really care what happens to her, they are trying to save their daughters life, when they look at her they don't see a brain dead person they see their daughter,their flesh and blood,with whom they are perfectly willing to take care of not bothering anyone else to do it not even her so called "husband". Why is this man determined to have her starved to death, when he can just divorce her and leave her to the careof her parents

contrary to popular belief, it IS entirely possible that she truly did not want to live like this and THAT could be why he's doing this.....because he CARES about her wishes.

 

[Gem]

how soon will it be then, once we require/mandate living wills to express what your true wishes are, that we'll then nullify those because the debate will be that you couldnt possibly understand what you were truly wishing because you had never been in a vegetative state?

How soon after we starve Terri Shiavo to death do we allow parents of children with Downs Syndrome to starve their children to death because no one would want to live with such a terrible disability?

How soon after Terri Shiavo dies do we start to see situations in which Alzeihmer's patients are made to sign papers saying they wish to commit suicide without them being aware of what they are signing and agreeing to?

How long until we have situations like those being whispered about in nations that have legalized euthanasia...where the elderly are being pressured by their "loved ones" to kill themselves, rather than require their family to care for them in their old age?

How long before we see people with far less dehabilitating diseases or injuries than Terri Shiavo decide that, they too...wouldn't want to live this this...and ask for medical help in ending their lives? People who are paralyzed, or people who suffer brain trauma? People who, if given proper treatment, psychological assistance in adjusting to a different life would have been able to have an enjoyable, albeit different life.


BOTH outcomes to the Terri Shiavo case have consequences that we should be concerned about, Smarter.


But stating that we shouldn't require legal documentation before depriving a person of food and water on the basis that someday someone might state that the paperwork is invalid is a bit like saying that because the police don't catch all the criminals...we should just get rid of the police department and let criminals run free.

If Terri Shiavo had placed her wishes in writing, none of this would have been neccessary...and if we are a society that claims to want to legally protect EVERY individual...then requiring a living will in order to kill people by means such as removing food and water, ESPECIALLY in cases where the person's true wishes are in question, is common sense...

contrary to popular belief, it IS entirely possible that she truly did not want to live like this and THAT could be why he's doing this.....because he CARES about her wishes.

Of course that is possible. However, it is equally possible that he wanted to see if she would be ok and he could continue living with her...so he gave her say, 7 years...and after that he realized that she wasn't ever going to be like she was...so he sued for malpractice money and then told everyone that she wanted to die...assuming that everyone would agree and she would die...leaving him with a chance for a normal life and a sizeable bank account to start over with...and now he can't get out of it or he'd look like a criminal sleeze...so hes had to see the whole thing through.

The bottom line is: NONE OF US KNOW

And because none of us know...we have to examine all the evidence...giving just as much credence to the possibility that Terri would want to live as we give to the possibility that she would want to die.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Congress has intervened to the extent that it is demanding the Fla state court listen to the entire case, which is perfectly within their rights and perfectly consitutional to do.

never said it wasn't, but if the outcome is negative, will they live with it or continue to prevent her wishes?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

How soon after we starve Terri Shiavo to death do we allow parents of children with Downs Syndrome to starve their children to death because no one would want to live with such a terrible disability?

How soon after Terri Shiavo dies do we start to see situations in which Alzeihmer's patients are made to sign papers saying they wish to commit suicide without them being aware of what they are signing and agreeing to?

How long until we have situations like those being whispered about in nations that have legalized euthanasia...where the elderly are being pressured by their "loved ones" to kill themselves, rather than require their family to care for them in their old age?

How long before we see people with far less dehabilitating diseases or injuries than Terri Shiavo decide that, they too...wouldn't want to live this this...and ask for medical help in ending their lives? People who are paralyzed, or people who suffer brain trauma? People who, if given proper treatment, psychological assistance in adjusting to a different life would have been able to have an enjoyable, albeit different life.

apples and oranges. we're talking about disabilities compared to almost zero quality of life. downs syndrome, alzhiemers, and old age are NOT remotely the same as vegetative states.

BOTH outcomes to the Terri Shiavo case have consequences that we should be concerned about, Smarter.

But stating that we shouldn't require legal documentation before depriving a person of food and water on the basis that someday someone might state that the paperwork is invalid is a bit like saying that because the police don't catch all the criminals...we should just get rid of the police department and let criminals run free.

thats a ridiculous argument. again, its not even remotely the same.

If Terri Shiavo had placed her wishes in writing, none of this would have been neccessary...and if we are a society that claims to want to legally protect EVERY individual...then requiring a living will in order to kill people by means such as removing food and water, ESPECIALLY in cases where the person's true wishes are in question, is common sense...

and again, once living wills are instituted, how long will it be before they become invalidated because parents claim they were made under duress?

 

[Gem]

Smarter,

You are using a hypothetical future legal battle: a person stating that another person's living will is invalid...as reason to state that living wills should not be necessary.

This is asinine.

People always find ways to disagree with or disobey laws, or get out of legal contracts...it doesn't mean that contracts or laws are uneccesary or not valid forms of maintain a sense of clarity in difficult situations such as this one.


If Terri Shiavo had a living will her parents could argue all day long...the bottom line would be simple: can you prove that this living will was signed under duress, or without the person having full knoweldge? No? Then it stands.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Smarter,

You are using a hypothetical future legal battle: a person stating that another person's living will is invalid...as reason to state that living wills should not be necessary.

This is asinine.

thanks, i'll certainly remember to use that argument next time a hypothetical future legal battle argument is made here from the conservative side.

People always find ways to disagree with or disobey laws, or get out of legal contracts...it doesn't mean that contracts or laws are uneccesary or not valid forms of maintain a sense of clarity in difficult situations such as this one.


If Terri Shiavo had a living will her parents could argue all day long...the bottom line would be simple: can you prove that this living will was signed under duress, or without the person having full knoweldge? No? Then it stands.

and its never been proven that michael schiavo misrepresented terri's wishes, yet most around here are saying that specific thing. Its stopped nothing and I firmly believe that it won't in the future regardless of whatever contracts or wills are made. People will disallow them because of their beliefs in pro-life at all costs.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

apples and oranges. we're talking about disabilities compared to almost zero quality of life. downs syndrome, alzhiemers, and old age are NOT remotely the same as vegetative states.

I tend to agree, but I'm not even sure she is in a vegetative state since they have not done an MRI or a PET scan.

BTW, where would you draw the line? Normally, you hear about people deciding whether or not to "pull the plug" on someone who is on a ventilator and other life support machines. However, in this case, if I understand right, she is not on a ventilator and just needs a feeding tube. Normally, I don't like slippery slope arguments because people often take it to an absurd level, but I think it's appropriate in this case. Where will this end?

 

[ReillyT]

And because none of us know...we have to examine all the evidence...giving just as much credence to the possibility that Terri would want to live as we give to the possibility that she would want to die.

What evidence do you seek? A court, upheld on numerous appeals, already determined by "clear and convincing evidence," that Terri would not want to continue in this state. During the hearing, they heard the testimony of multiple witnesses on behalf of the Schindlers and Mr. Schiavo on this issue. Absent a living will (which was not required in Fla.), this is pretty much all the evidence.

They also considered the possibility that Terri might recover, and based on the testimony of court appointed doctors, determined that she could not recover or be rehabilitated. They noted that Mr. Schiavo took Terri to California for experimental therapy when no progress was made through doctors in Florida, and this therapy also held no hope for rehabilitation. Spinal cord fluid has backed into portions of her brain and killed it. Nothing more can be done.

I understand people are passionate about this, but the courts did exactly what they were supposed to do. They evaluated whether Terri could be rehabilitated and determined she could not. The sought to determine what her wishes were before she died, and determined that her wish would be to stop living.

 

[no1tovote4]

I seriously doubt that terri schiavo is the absolute first person that theres ever been a dispute between spouse and the in laws.

Given that, its ONLY because certain groups of people saw something they didn't like and made it into a public spectacle. If I were in terri's place I'd be ashamed of my parents right now.

You would be if it was actually your wish to die. Since we cannot know what her wishes are at this time you are basing this off of supposition and emotional response and not logic.

It is easy to place yourself in her place and put your own spin onto this and suppose that she thinks the same that you do, however it is not logical to do so.

Logic tells us that we cannot know her wishes since she did not have a living will. The preponderance of the evidence tells us that she doesn't want to die like this as all those that associated with her previous to this have said so, except one. We have the word of only one person that says that this was her wish, and that person has conflicts of interest.

Hearsay was allowed into evidence in this case and then given more weight to one person with conflicts of interest over an entire family of people who have known her all her life.

Had she a living will and we knew without doubt that this was her wish I would be right along side you fighting for her right to make such a choice, but you will never find me fighting for her husband to have the right to make the choice for her.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

You would be if it was actually your wish to die. Since we cannot know what her wishes are at this time you are basing this off of supposition and emotional response and not logic.

It is easy to place yourself in her place and put your own spin onto this and suppose that she thinks the same that you do, however it is not logical to do so.

Logic tells us that we cannot know her wishes since she did not have a living will. The preponderance of the evidence tells us that she doesn't want to die like this as all those that associated with her previous to this have said so, except one. We have the word of only one person that says that this was her wish, and that person has conflicts of interest.

Hearsay was allowed into evidence in this case and then given more weight to one person with conflicts of interest over an entire family of people who have known her all her life.

Had she a living will and we knew without doubt that this was her wish I would be right along side you fighting for her right to make such a choice, but you will never find me fighting for her husband to have the right to make the choice for her.

logic tells us that the courts decision based on multiple witness accounts indicate that she wished not to live like this precipitate my position. Thats logic. Everyone else is using emotion because they 'suspect' the husband of ulterior motives so they'll disregard any facts in the issue.

 

[ReillyT]

Logic tells us that we cannot know her wishes since she did not have a living will.

So do you not believe that oral contracts should be enforced? They are all the time. The court generally (there are definite exceptions) draws no distinction between whether an agreement was oral or written, provided evidence of the contract is strong enough.

The preponderance of the evidence tells us that she doesn't want to die like this as all those that associated with her previous to this have said so, except one. We have the word of only one person that says that this was her wish, and that person has conflicts of interest.

You obviously haven't read the court record. The court found the very opposite. Three people testified that this would be her wish, one of which was her husband. I thought marriage was supposed to be a sacred relationship, the strongest our laws recongize. The court also found no credible evidence that she would want to continue in this state, except her statements to her mother when she was 11 years old. She just didn't talk to the rest of her family about this issue.

 

[Bonnie]

never said it wasn't, but if the outcome is negative, will they live with it or continue to prevent her wishes?

At some point this case will end, once the parents and or the other side have exhausted all possibilties, and either the parents or her husband will have to live with the consequences. Lets look at it from this perspective...The parents have much more to lose than her husband. If he walks away from this what harm will be done to him, if the parents walk away they loose a daughter. Yes it's entirely possible that the husband is just really obsessed about a conversation they had about her not wanting to live like that, and it is also entirely possible that he doesn't want her to be rehabilitated becasue if she can talk again she might remember how she came to be in that brain damaged state.
If Terri had made a will none of this would be happening now. Sure her parents would have fought for a while maybe two years but they would have lost, and rightly so.

This case is not the typical case, there is too much here to be taking the word of one man who has a lot to gain form her death.

 

[no1tovote4]

logic tells us that the courts decision based on multiple witness accounts indicate that she wished not to live like this precipitate my position. Thats logic. Everyone else is using emotion because they 'suspect' the husband of ulterior motives so they'll disregard any facts in the issue.

Hearsay evidence is not enough IMO when speaking of taking a life in this manner. Multiple witness accounts? One of the two witnesses that I read about in the Judge's ruling was the mother who is on the other side of the battle. She stated that at one time Terry mentioned this to her in passing but that later conversations were quite different and that this would not be her wish. The Judge took only that part of her testimony that could support his judgement, the other witness was the Husband who has conflicts of interest that can lead one to believe that other things may be influencing his testimony.

It may be that he is correct in fighting the battle that it was her wish to die this way, but we CANNOT KNOW. The preponderance of the Hearsay evidence points to another conclusion, I tend to belive the whole plethora in her family that have known her all her life over the one on the other side. IMO the judge in this case made a judgement based on his own opinion and without all the evidence since it has been some years since she was last evaluated with the best of machinery available.

As I said, it is easy for us to put our own spin on it but there is no real evidence other than hearsay that can even point us to this conclusion and hearsay should not be enough to determine her wishes.

Personally, this case has caused me to make a living will so that if ever this happens to me they will know without doubt my wishes.

 

[ReillyT]

If he walks away from this what harm will be done to him,.

Perhaps the knowledge that he failed to protect his wife's wishes and that now she will be left in a state in which she never wanted to live.

Yes it's entirely possible that the husband is just really obsessed about a conversation they had about her not wanting to live like that, and it is also entirely possible that he doesn't want her to be rehabilitated becasue if she can talk again she might remember how she came to be in that brain damaged state.

Interesting take on this issue, he is either obsessed or a batterer. You obviously don't see much gray in your life. However, I wouldn't say both possibilities are equal in their likelihood since a court already determined, after hearing the evidence, that she did not want to live like this.