Terri Schiavo: Please explain something to me...

[skcin]

I am having a very hard time figuring out how I feel about this case. I support euthanasia. I support dying with dignity. I support "do not rescucitate" orders. I support not using "extraordinary measures" to make someone breath, their heart beat, etc.

I do not think I can support starving someone to death.

What makes it harder for me is that I worked with people with profound developmental disabilities for 5 years. Some were born that way, others had illnesses or accidents that caused brain damage. Most can't walk, talk, communicate in any way. Some can eat, others need a feeding tube. Most lived way, way beyond the life expectancy that was told to their parents when they were born. "Put you kid in a home, they can't have a life, they'll be gone by the time they're 12." The "kids" were older than me when I worked there - some as old as 40.

But I am telling you, most of them knew when someone they loved was in the room. Maybe they smiled, maybe they made eye contact, maybe they moved an arm. Whatever. They knew & they showed it in any way they could. I can't believe that they wouldn't feel pain like anyone else would. I could never agree to remove one of "my kids" feeding tubes because someone else (family, government, whoever) decided they didn't have quality of life.

On the other hand, we did have patients that did not really respond to us in any way, but they were alert & awake and could move around and eat normally. They just had no way of showing if they knew we were there & who we were. Should we have stopped feeding them because their life wasn't up to our standards? F*ck that.

I hope this woman can die in peace, whatever happens. The bottom line is that it's none of my business, and it's damn sure none of the federal government's business.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Originally Posted by skcin

I hope this woman can die in peace, whatever happens. The bottom line is that it's none of my business, and it's damn sure none of the federal government's business.

Who is paying for all her medical supplies? Do you think her parents can afford it all? Surely they can't with just one source of income. I dunno how old they are or anything. I don't believe that they are paying for this by themselves. Insurance maybe?

[skcin]

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

Who is paying for all her medical supplies? Do you think her parents can afford it all? Surely they can't with just one source of income. I dunno how old they are or anything. I don't believe that they are paying for this by themselves. Insurance maybe?

I'm sure it's Medicaid. That's how our place was funded.

And that's a whole other debate, dahlink.

[The Tower]

This whole thing is a big, big mess. It's all sad for everyone. Some points....

A feeding tube for someone who can't swallow is just as much life support as a ventilator is for someone who can't breathe on their own power. Ventilators are shut down on people all the time- why is the feeding tube any different? All this publicity would never occur if the situation were mirrored with the person being on a ventilator for life support. It wouldn't even make the local paper.

Tom piece-of-**** DeLay stated that Terry had "missed two meals already". What is that ****ing about??? She doesn't have "meals". She can't "eat".

No matter what the husband has done in the past with regard to his character (I'm not aware of all the stuff that may or may not have gone on)- he has to live with the fact that his wife- someone that I'm sure he loved- is sitting there in this half-life world.

People make too much of death these days. Remember, all six billion people on this earth will all be dead and gone in about 120 years. I think that quality of life is a much more important factor than just life itself.

And the parents?? I think it's sad that they will have to bury their own daughter before they die, but I believe that their daughter died fifteen years ago.

[heyjupiter678]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Tom piece-of-**** DeLay stated that Terry had "missed two meals already". What is that ****ing about??? She doesn't have "meals". She can't "eat".

He also said that she talks, laughs, and knows about the fight over her in Congress -- none of which is possible with a liquified cerebral cortex. He's scum.

[GODDESS6]

i found this, this morning & thought it was interesting~ terry's husband has moved on w/ his life it says in here, that he has started a family w/ some1 else~ so y not just get a divorce? it says that her husband is her "gaurdian" & has 2 speak & decided 4 her, so y doesn't he "decided" she divorce him?, he obiviously has other motives~ anyways i thought this was interesting & sheds a little more lite on the subject~
read the timeline also if u get a chance, it is very interesting, where the husband ordered medical staff 2 NOT treat his wife 4 a potentialy fatal infection, more than once, he even admitted 2 doing so in a affadavit~ also further down it says an ex-girlfriends admitted that terri's husband lied about her death wishes~ wow this is all so shady~ i am at a loss almost ~


http://www.terrisfight.net/

Myths versus Facts
.
Terri's situation can be confusing. Because of misreporting and inaccuracies, it is easy to lose sight of the real issues surrounding her case.
We've compiled what we believe to be important items that are not always clear to the general public, but that deserve understanding.

Most Common Questions and Answers

If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go?

Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it.

Why can't Terri just divorce?

Terri's husband/guardian speaks for her. She cannot divorce without his permission

Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?

Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation.

Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide?

Terri's husband has started another family and probably has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home.

Is Terri receiving life support?

Not in the traditional sense. Terri only receives food and fluids via a simple tube.

Isn't removing her tube a natural and dignified way to die?

No. Dehydration and starvation cause horrific effects and are anything but peaceful. Read more here.



Most common misconceptions about Terri's situation

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.

MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley
Atty Deborah Bushnell
Atty Steve Nilson
Atty Pacarek
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL)
Atty George Felos
$10,668.05
$65,607.00
$7,404.95
$1,500.00
$4,511.95
$397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank
$55,459.85

Michael Schiavo
$10,929.95

Total $545,852.34

[thepoetinmyhear]

Okay, the stuff you just posted is sadly biased beyond the point of being beneficial.

First: Terry received treatment until 1994.

Second: over 16 judges and 8 court certified doctors have agreed that she is in a vegetative state from which recovery is not possible. Only one doctor has said there is hope of recovery and that is the doctor employed by the parents.

Third: the settlement the Schiavo's received due to malpractice was spent on her treatment and each time any money from this is used it is monitored by the courts.

Fourth: He won't divorce her because he seems to firmly believe that his wife would prefer to die and if he divorces her his wife will continue to suffer (in his opinion). I honestly can't believe that people buy into the idea that the husband has shady motives. He has been fighting to allow her suffering to end since 1998 (4 years after the first doctors told him it was hopeless). Over the course of the various legal battles (all of which would require an unprecedented amount of time and energy on his behalf) he has never wavered. He has been offered over 10 million dollars from various private donors to divorce Terry and he has never done so.

Fifth: I am not saying either side is correct here, but the criticisms of Mr. Schiavo were invented by the parents to discredit him, something he has never done to them. The best objective source for information on this case has already been posted in this thread, but here it is again:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Here is a great timeline for all the court cases, treatments, settlements, court-appointed gardianships, everything you need to make an INFORMED opinion:

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

Michael

[Kelly]

Terri had her heart attack over fifteen years ago. I have no problem with her husband getting on with his life. My Mom died of breast cancer ten years ago and my stepdad has remarried and had a kid with his new wife. Does that mean he didn't love my Mom? No...he has a right to move on as does Michael.
Terri's husband is not the only one who testified about her wishes. The nineteen judges and six courts who heard this case and evaluated all the evidence found there was sufficient and compelling evidence that Terri had expressed her desire NOT to be artificially sustained. There were four people who testified that she told them that. My husband and best friend know more about my wishes than my parents at this point in my life...so the fact that her parents did not know how she felt about this issue make total sense to me.
BTW....I have read alot about this case and I question her father's motives more than I do Michael's but that is another debate.
I agree that removing someones tube sounds barbaric and inhumane but the point is, the courts have decided, upon reviewing the evidence, that this is what Terry WANTED. Whether you or I think her quality of life is good or bad is not the point. Whether she is happy to see her mom wal;k in the room is not the point. Whether she tries to raise her arm to wave is not the point. She did want want to live this way! The courts have adjudicated on the matter and decided there is sufficient evidence to support her husband's claims regarding her wishes.
If the government is going to get involved in this case, it needs to involve itself in every case and how many of us want that?? What about parents who don't believe in giving their children medication? Or surgery. Or blood products. It is against their religion so they let their children die from normal childhood illnesses or minor problems that could be easily corrected through surgical intervention. Should the government step in and take away these people's constitutional rights? I think not. (although I would rather see the Congress step in on a case like this because the children's rights need to be protected)
Sad sad case and I pray for a swift, painless outcome.

[thepoetinmyhear]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Should the government step in and take away these people's constitutional rights? I think not.

Sadly the bill passed yesterday. I am unaware of a time when the constitutional powers of congress have been so completely trampled on as when they passed this bill. The entire system of checks and balances has been destroyed. It should be no problem for Michael to get this bill declared unconstitutional but that just means more time and more money wasted for everyone involved in this case.

I have already written my House representative to let him know exactly what I think of his working knowledge of the constitution and questioning what on earth led him to believe he could vote in favor of this bill. The courts have decided; congress, George and Jeb have no business interfering and certainly no constitutional authority to do so.

Michael

[GODDESS6]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Terri had her heart attack over fifteen years ago. I have no problem with her husband getting on with his life. My Mom died of breast cancer ten years ago and my stepdad has remarried and had a kid with his new wife. Does that mean he didn't love my Mom? No...he has a right to move on as does Michael.
Terri's husband is not the only one who testified about her wishes. The nineteen judges and six courts who heard this case and evaluated all the evidence found there was sufficient and compelling evidence that Terri had expressed her desire NOT to be artificially sustained. There were four people who testified that she told them that. My husband and best friend know more about my wishes than my parents at this point in my life...so the fact that her parents did not know how she felt about this issue make total sense to me.
BTW....I have read alot about this case and I question her father's motives more than I do Michael's but that is another debate.
I agree that removing someones tube sounds barbaric and inhumane but the point is, the courts have decided, upon reviewing the evidence, that this is what Terry WANTED. Whether you or I think her quality of life is good or bad is not the point. Whether she is happy to see her mom wal;k in the room is not the point. Whether she tries to raise her arm to wave is not the point. She did want want to live this way! The courts have adjudicated on the matter and decided there is sufficient evidence to support her husband's claims regarding her wishes.
If the government is going to get involved in this case, it needs to involve itself in every case and how many of us want that?? What about parents who don't believe in giving their children medication? Or surgery. Or blood products. It is against their religion so they let their children die from normal childhood illnesses or minor problems that could be easily corrected through surgical intervention. Should the government step in and take away these people's constitutional rights? I think not. (although I would rather see the Congress step in on a case like this because the children's rights need to be protected)
Sad sad case and I pray for a swift, painless outcome.

i understand what u r saying , but the diff is she terri is still living & he has moved on~ my farther died when he was 37, & yes my ma went on w/ her life also afterwards~ i am very sorry 4 your loss by the way~ i just think since no other type of apparatus is being used 2 keep her alive besides the feeding tube, they say she breaths on her own & such, they said this wekend when not just her parents were there that they asked her if she wanted 2 die & her eyes popped open & she started weeping, i am far from a dr, but it seems significant~ & yes i to pray 4 a painless end also no mater what the outcome~

[GateandGarden]

The more I think about this, the more I can't see a reason why Michael wouldn't have her best interests in mind. It's not like she would be a burden to him and he wants to kill her off--her parents have already elected to take care of her. It wouldn't effect him. I can't see why he would have evil intentions. He must really think that she would've wanted to die. I guess this is irrelevant, but if you were the equivalent of a baby who would never grow up and could not feel or speak and had nearly the lowest quality of life possible, wouldn't you want to die as well? I think most people in that situation would want to just leave this world.

And the fact that he moved on doesn't say anything, IMO, as Kelly said. She may not literally be dead but she is for all practical purposes. I can't even see how it would do anything to go see her in the hospital, as she has no idea what's going on and probably wouldn't know who her husband is, from what I understand.

My brother thought I was being a bitch yesterday, but I said that I think the parents are being "self-serving" to want to keep her "alive." I say this because I think they are only serving themselves in doing so. They're not ready to let go of her so they want to keep her alive. Living is not benefitting her. I understand not wanting to let go of someone. I'm not saying that I have no sympathy but I do think it's self-serving. At the same time, I don't know if I'd have the strength to let someone go myself. I never want to let go of people I love.

Also, is this not what happens when you don't write up a living will and you're married? Legally, the husband makes the decision about whether or not to "pull the plug" for lack of a more eloquent phrase. I'm not saying the law is always right by any means, but is that not the law? In a sense, that makes me wonder why it's such a controversy, especially sense I'm sure there are many similar cases out there that just aren't all over the media like this one is.

[thepoetinmyhear]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Also, is this not what happens when you don't write up a living will and you're married?

Yes, legally Michael is the one who is meant to make the decisions. The parents didn't even object when he was appointed gaurdian in 1990. They didn't object to his treatment of their daughter until he made a motion to remove the tube in 1998. That is when they filed their first objection to his qualifications. The reason this has been such an issue is that the parents were able to raise sufficient doubt to open an arbitration in the beginning. This is likely due to the money involved at the time (money that is now spent).

Their claim is that their daughter would never have said that she wanted to die and he is not acting on her interests. Every single court that has reviewed the case (only one has heard the case) disagrees with this idea and supports Michael's claim to the extent of declaring that clear evidence beyond any doubt exists (the highest decision the court can award) that Terri would have preferred not to be kept alive through artificial means.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by heyjupiter678

Here's a pretty unbiased overview of this whole situation, if anyone is interested.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Thanks for this, Mikki. I'm reading through it right now.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by thepoetinmyhear

Yes, legally Michael is the one who is meant to make the decisions. The parents didn't even object when he was appointed gaurdian in 1990. They didn't object to his treatment of their daughter until he made a motion to remove the tube in 1998. That is when they filed their first objection to his qualifications. The reason this has been such an issue is that the parents were able to raise sufficient doubt to open an arbitration in the beginning. This is likely due to the money involved at the time (money that is now spent).

Their claim is that their daughter would never have said that she wanted to die and he is not acting on her interests. Every single court that has reviewed the case (only one has heard the case) disagrees with this idea and supports Michael's claim to the extent of declaring that clear evidence beyond any doubt exists (the highest decision the court can award) that Terri would have preferred not to be kept alive through artificial means.

I don't mean to be insensitive, but, in the eyes of the law, does it matter if the parents disagree with his decision in the least?

[thepoetinmyhear]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

I don't mean to be insensitive, but, in the eyes of the law, does it matter if the parents disagree with his decision in the least?

Only because they originally raised a legitimate question as to his motives. If it were shown that he was unfit to be her gaurdian then the power to decide as it were would have moved to the parents. Incidentally you'll find most of this info on the page you're reading and in the timeline which links each courts decisions/findings, the motions to appeal, and in some cases the actual testimony.