The Schiavo case: How much crazier can it get?

Pages

From CNN

Let's see, first you have the parents trying to intercede against the husband through the courts. Then, you had the State of Flordia tromping their own court system. Then, you had the courts finally restore order and allowing the system to procede. Now, you have the US Congress, in what has to be the most blatant violation of the Abuse of Powers rules, has seen fit to intercede in a state court case to further a personal agenda that they have no business tampering with. This stopped being about anything remotely related to Terri's particular case a long time ago.

The Republic Council has become corrupt and bureaucratic. The Jedis are arrogant and snobbish.

..wait...

I find myself so conflicted about this case. Primarily, I think, because stopping the feeding tube and forcing her to starve to death seems terribly cruel.

I''m not uncomfortable with the idea of someone being unplugged, per se. In fact I have a living will that says if I meet the Harvard criteria for brain death, then turn the machines off.

But in this case, Terri doesn''t meet the Harvard standard, in that she''s breathing on her own, and she may show signs of cognition. There are stranger things on heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophies...so who''s to say what goes on in her head.

If she had left clear, written instructions about what she wanted, and she had left a contingency for what sort of life preservation methods were acceptable and which were not, then everyone would be much clearer on this.

But even for people like me who support the right to die, this case is problematic because of the feeding tube. If that''s the only support she needs, and she didn''t leave clear instructions, then forcing her to starve to death just isn''t ok.

The fact that her husband didn''t even mention that she discussed right to death options until his mistress gave birth also makes me a tad suspicious. I don''t think the state should be party to murder, and I fear that it''s a slippery slope with this case.

What I don''t understand is why the husband doesn''t just give ""custody"" as it were to her parents. The only reason that comes to my cynic''s mind is that it''s about the money. He doesn''t want to have to give the money for Terri''s care to her parents...or he''s already spent it.

This case was brilliantly selected by the anti-right to die crowd. It''s memetically perfect. Nobody wants to see Terri starve.

Despite all the interesting aspects of this case, I just keep coming back to a lack of understanding of why the husband won''t just turn legal custody over to her parents. He apparently has been shacking up with another woman and has a bastard child. What does he care at this point? Why does he want her to die? I can''t believe that he is doing this because he loves her and that is what she would have wanted.

Have either of you thought that maybe the reason he wont give up and divorce her is because he LOVES her and knows she doesn''t want to live like this?

**edit: How did I miss your last sentence coping? I''ll reword:

Why can''t you fathom that he loves her and knows she wouldn''t want to live like this.

If this were my wife, and I knew that she wouldn''t want this, no way in hell would I give into her parents selfish whims...

"belt500" wrote:

Have either of you thought that maybe the reason he wont give up and divorce her is because he LOVES her and knows she doesn''t want to live like this?

Yeah, that''s probably why he has fathered two children with another woman and is engaged to marry her...but refuses to dissolve his marriage to Terri. It''s why he has forbidden nursing staff to allow them to play music for his wife, or to allow flowers to be delivered to her room, or to allow her to be taken outside on a sunny day. It''s why, in 1998, with close to $800,000 still in his wife''s medical trust, he began to petition the courts to have her feeding tube removed.

"belt500" wrote:

If this were my wife, and I knew that she wouldn''t want this, no way in hell would I give into her parents selfish whims...

Yeah that''s funny too.

Regarding Terri's care, according to Cindy Shook [former girlfriend of Michael Schiavo, after Terri's collapse] Michael Schiavo said, ""How the hell should I know we never spoke about this, my God I was only 25 years old. How the hell should I know? We were young. We never spoke of this.""

Boy, I ask the question and it happens. Her feeding tube was just removed. How far are the Reps willing to push it? How far is G-Dub going to go? Will the FBI storm in and shove the tube back down her throat?

Edit: And you know the Republicans in Congress have no one but themselves to blame. Had they not went bananas and violated about every restriction on their powers, the tube wouldn''t have been pulled immediately today.

It really is a messed up situation.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Boy, I ask the question and it happens. Her feeding tube was just removed. How far are the Reps willing to push it? How far is G-Dub going to go? Will the FBI storm in and shove the tube back down her throat?

I''m pretty curious about how a resolution is going to work out as well. There seems to be a pretty big rift between the will of the state judges and congress. I expect that this could set an interesting, or dangerous, precident.

Please don''t think I''m being callous as far as Terri goes - I just don''t feel I have nearly enough information to make a proper moral judgement.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

From CNNNow, you have the US Congress, in what has to be the most blatant violation of the Abuse of Powers rules, has seen fit to intercede in a state court case to further a personal agenda that they have no business tampering with. This stopped being about anything remotely related to Terri''s particular case a long time ago.

Isn''t it par for the course that the Federal Gov''t sticks its nose into Florida''s business?

I have not read about this in years, but I believe that she cannot communicate with anyone in anyway. As far as I am concerned that is brain dead.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Boy, I ask the question and it happens. Her feeding tube was just removed. How far are the Reps willing to push it? How far is G-Dub going to go? Will the FBI storm in and shove the tube back down her throat?

Edit: And you know the Republicans in Congress have no one but themselves to blame. Had they not went bananas and violated about every restriction on their powers, the tube wouldn''t have been pulled immediately today.

First, it''s not really fair to brand this as solely a partisan issue and even then there are better associations to make than just the Republican party and JeeBush.

Second, not to get technical but the tube is in her abdomen.

Third, does anyone have any information about a possible ex post facto quality to this case? She''s been in this semi-vegetative state for over 15 years. Actually, I''m sure someone more familiar with the law would have already made that arguement.

Lastly, as far as I''m concerned, he needs to do the semi-right thing and divorce his wife and be with his new family. I''ve been following this case for some time now and it''s obvious that his only concern is the money.

"Mayfield" wrote:

I have not read about this in years, but I believe that she cannot communicate with anyone in anyway. As far as I am concerned that is brain dead.

From the CNN article (the quotes are from her parents'' attorney):

He described Schiavo as ""responsive,"" though he acknowledged she functions at the level of a 6- to 11-month-old child. She recognizes her family, he said. ""She teases. She plays. She smiles. She tries to talk."" Schiavo also can breathe and swallow on her own, he said.
"Gio_Clark" wrote:

First, it''s not really fair to brand this as solely a partisan issue and even then there are better associations to make than just the Republican party and JeeBush.

Since the Congressional order was written and sent by Republicans, the accusation is fairly accurate. At least in terms of Capitol Hill. I fear that if Bush gets into it, he''ll provoke the biggest Constitutional crisis in this nation''s history since the Watergate inquiries.

I''ve been following this case for some time now and it''s obvious that his only concern is the money.

The money''s all gone, though. The 750K that was held in trust from the malpractice suit has been all but spent on her care. Her parents even offerred him a million to make them the primary caregivers, but he refused. If it was all about money, he would have cashed out years ago. There''s a lot of disinformation about this case floating around out there, admittingly from both sides of the argument.

Like I said, I think the people involved stopped caring about Terri and started caring more about being right years ago.

Podunk, the doctors that aren''t being paid by the Terry''s parents disagree with thier assesment of the situation.

Also, it''s been almost 16 years. Just because he has moved on doesn''t mean that he can''t still respect his wife''s wishes and her memory. I think you''ve been reading this from the very biased slant of Terry''s parents. Via their website or whatever. I mean no disrespect in that. I''m just saying that there are two sides and these allegations towards the husband have been brought up numerous times in court, and dismissed every time.

I agree this is an awful situation, one that I hope I never have to go through. But the medical advice says that she is in a persistant vegetative state, one that she''s not coming out of. And by law, the husband is the one whom the responsibility falls to.

I can''t help but think that if I ended up in this state, I hope my wife would have the decency to pull the plug.

The trick, buzz, is not to think that, but to explicity have it spelled out in a living will. Having just a ""verbal contract"" isn''t good enough anymore, what with all the bile being thrown around in this situation.

The trick, buzz, is not to think that, but to explicity have it spelled out in a living will. Having just a ""verbal contract"" isn''t good enough anymore, what with all the bile being thrown around in this situation.

Damn you and your responsible answers, Rat Boy!

Yeah, I was gonna say...

Blaming the husband entirely seems kinda out there... after all this time, it''s obvious there''s no money left. So it CAN''T really be about that anymore. Fifteen years is a long time not to get over someone, especially when you can plainly see that they are no longer the person you loved. He may still love the memory of her as she previously was... but then, that may also be the motivation for trying to let her die, not wanting her to live as a shadow of her former self?

That said, if she''s not really in pain, per say, then I don''t know that it''s entirely right to let her die. I could understand if she had like ZERO cognitive ability left or if she was severely brain damaged and in lots of pain... but it kind of sounds like she''s doing ok.

That said, given all of this... it does sound like maybe the husband is against divorce. Is it right for his wife to die for that? Well, depends on who you ask. I''m sure Henry the VIII wouldn''t have a problem with it. But, given the circumstances, I don''t really know.

In this case, I say, let the parents have her. Say, for all practically purposes, the woman Schiavo married is dead, and as such, he''s marrying his new love. Seems simple enough to me. But, that said, I don''t think this is necessarily the best case to have ANY sort of Right to Die type precedent. This woman isn''t slowly dying or in pain and consciously choosing to die. All very fuzzy if you ask me.

I can''t help but think that if I ended up in this state, I hope my wife would have the decency to pull the plug.

Agreed. I just think there should be a more humane way to do that than letting someone starve. I mean, morphine is cheap...I''m just saying...

"buzzvang" wrote:

I can''t help but think that if I ended up in this state, I hope my wife would have the decency to pull the plug.

One of my biggest problems with this is that it''s not quite the same as ''pulling the plug.''

The moral argument from which all of this spawed was a case of either:
1 - Keep her on a feeding tube for an unknown amount of time
or
2 - Remove the feeding tube, and let her die

What''s up with the removal of a feeding tube? The article states that once before it was removed, only to be replaced after a week or more - a week is NOT a humane length of time for someone to spend dying.

Ethical qualms aside, if someone is going to be allowed to die, I would infinitely prefer that the death be quick, and painless. Braindead or not, starvation isn''t pleasant.

But then again, I suppose that would bring up a whole other series of problems, relating to assisted suicide and such. If I hit a deer with my car (not equating the poor woman to a deer, mind you) then I would put it down with a shotgun, rather then letting it bleed to death for the next few days. I wouldn''t be happy about it, but it''s a better alternative then a lengthy wait full of suffering.

Hmmm...that was very rant like - sorry.

Hmmm...that was very rant like - sorry.

No, makes perfect sense.

"belt500" wrote:

Podunk, the doctors that aren''t being paid by the Terry''s parents disagree with thier assesment of the situation.

I''m sure that''s the case, and it''s difficult to know who to believe. I don''t really know what to make of the medical facts (or even what the facts are at this point).

I know there are two sides to the story, but from all that I''ve read--from various sources--it''s very difficult for me to believe that Michael Schiavo''s intentions are noble, especially when he has denied his wife things like a basic swallow test. He''s been trying to kill her since 1993, when he instructed her caregivers to deny her treatment for a life-threatening infection. This was less than a year after he assured the court that he would use the $1 million malpractice settlement on treatment for his wife...treatment which she still has not recieved.

This isn''t pro-life propaganda...this is stuff that he has testified in his previous court appearances. Maybe the guy deserves the benefit of the doubt, I don''t know...I just have a hard time seeing why.

then I would put it down with a shotgun

Shotgun?! Good lord, remind me never to get hit by your car!

I wouldn''t be happy about it, but it''s a better alternative then a lengthy wait full of suffering.

Which is why this case was such a genius decision on the part of the people who are working against the ""right to die"" legislation and movements. Nobody thinks that withdrawing food is rational, fair, or humane. The people I know who support the right to die with dignity have never, and will never support the withdrawing of a feeding tube as death with dignity.

"DuckiDeva" wrote:

Which is why this case was such a genius decision on the part of the people who are working against the ""right to die"" legislation and movements. Nobody thinks that withdrawing food is rational, fair, or humane. The people I know who support the right to die with dignity have never, and will never support the withdrawing of a feeding tube as death with dignity.

I completely agree. I think that because of the law''s refusal to commit to an action the entire case is twisted into a new context. I think it would be a different situation if the options were feeding tube vs. injection.

The whole ''we can''t actually kill her, so we just let her die'' strikes me as very ludicrous. It also seems, based on the past thread comments, that there is a ton of internal conflict and misinformation about this case - which stands to reason; Both sides want to twist things to help prove their point. A common, but unfortunate, practice.

"Reaper81" wrote:

Shotgun?! Good lord, remind me never to get hit by your car!

As a general rule, lack of violent automotive contact is a good standing rule for us fleshy sorts. Newton''s gonna win every time

Newton''s gonna win every time icon_smile.gif

I''ve been hit (once ran over) 3 times. I''m still here. newton can kiss my ass!

*ducks and hides*

I learned from my wise uncle long ago that if you run over something, it''s best to back over it again to put it out of its misery. Of course, he came to that epihany when he thought he ran over his kids'' cat, but it turned out to be his briefcase, which he had left on top of his car. Fortunately, it did not suffer long.

I''ve been hit (once ran over) 3 times. I''m still here. newton can kiss my ass!

Dang Dr G, get outta the road!

On the topic, I have not been following this case very closely, but my thoughts lie in the starvation is cruel camp.

It wasn''t always in the road that this happend, heh. once I was ont he sidewalk.

Here''s the situation as I understand it:

To start out, this is Terri''s brain vs healthy brain:
IMAGE(http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg)

The dark regions (i.e. the center and some of the outlying areas) are areas of only cerebral/spinal fluid. Imagine a person''s brain, now imagine that you scooped out all the dark areas of that poor person''s brain with a mellonballer, and the result is unfortunately close to Schiavo''s condition. Barring a direct act of God, she''s not going to spontaneously regrow all that tissue and be okay. After the heart attack that led to this damage, she seems to have received 3 or 4 years of intense therapy to try and restore some function, but unfortunately, nothing seems to have come from it.

Secondly, Terri''s husband no longer has a decision making role in Terri''s situation. I''ll quote from abstract appeal''s site:

Why did Terri's husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri''s husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri''s situation -- Michael and Terri''s parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward''s surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the ""clear and convincing evidence"" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

From this point, the case goes on with various appeals and motions over the 7 years or so since the initial judgement, all of which are dismissed or ruled in favor of discontinuing life support. As it stands now, Schiavo''s feeding tube has been removed three times.

Anyone looking for a really good overview of the whole shebang is advised to go to:
Abstract Appeal

As to the husbands motives, he''s recently refused offers of $1 million and then $10 million to let Schiavo continue on with life support until she dies of natural causes, old age, etc (which he can''t actually do but hey, that''s philanthropists for you). And while it may seem heartless to some that he''s engaged to another woman, at this point in time his wife Terri has been brain dead for around 15 years. At some point I think it''s probably fair to move on. (Edit: Some further poking discovers that he''s been engaged to this other woman since ''95 and has 2 kids with her. That''d still be 5 full years since Terri went brain dead, but feel free to judge it as you''d like.)

Lastly I think it''s a damn shame that the only available option is to let Terri die of dehydration. Though she seemingly doesn''t have any real brain function, I wouldn''t wish that on a lizard. Blame the governing body of your choice for not allowing a lethal dose of morphine as an alternative.

Pages