Several years ago, I had a living will done up. If the worst should happen, I’m never going to have to concern myself that politicians, like leeches, will attach themselves to my case the way they have with poor Terri Schiavo. Screaming hypocrites who consider all life sacred–unless, of course, we’re bombing it into oblivion or consigning it to death row for execution.
Yes, friends, the US government–the one that the GOP claims they want to keep out of people’s lives–just loves mixing into people’s deaths, setting the calendar on life termination and making sure that no one, absolutely no one, dies before the government is ready to send them to their deaths personally.
I strongly suggest to any and all reading this that you decide one way or the other while you still can. If you want to insist your family takes whatever measures possible to continue your life, even if medical science says it’s hopeless, then make that clear in writing. If, like me, you don’t want to burden your family and force them to watch you lie there like a slab of meat, consigning you all to a sort of twilight zone holding pattern for year after year after year, then make that clear as well.
Don’t leave it in the hands of politicians, lawyers, judges, and, God forbid, a Bush.
PAD
• 
I’m of a very liberaterian bend myself. I used to vote for mostly Republicans, but as the years have gone by I vote for few and fewer each election cycle. Sometimes I wonder how I came to be voting for Democrats. Then something like the Shiavo case comes along and I remember why.
I agree. The government should not have been put into this. This is now something that the Republican party is going to wrap the flag around. “This is a quality of life issue.” They’ll say. Yet, what about the OTHER lives that are like this, where this struggle of families against the victim’s spouses goes on? Does this case outweigh those stories because this is one that comes from Dubya’s brother’s state?
Last year around this week (Holy Week for us Christians)my mom had to make a difficult decision in her life: To decide my grandmother’s fate should she slip into uncosicousness. She did and my mom decided that if there was no hope, then it was time to let her go. My mom has been punishing herself this past year wondering if the decision was the right one.
The decision is one that is an emotional roller coaster for a family. So why does the government want to add to that by making it a political point?
I can understand both sides opinions on this issue. And really believe they both want the best for Terri. However, what Terri’s parents need to accept is their daughter has been dead for 15 years. She’s only a empty vessel now. I can’t believe anyone would want this. And even if the husband isn’t doing this completely for her, but rather so he can get on with his life. How long would they want this to go on? Should we keep Terri alive after her parents are gone? 10 years? 20? 30? There has to come a point where this ends. The government should not get involved and twist the knife even further. Further more if Congress and the President do this and supersede the ruling of the state courts it will be a dangerous prescient that we may never be able to undo. Course it’s not like we haven’t seen plently of those already in the last 4 years. Side note this is my first post here and I have to say what a big fan I am of your work Mr. David
Oh yeah, that evil Bush. He’s the entire problem here, not the “husband” that’s been living with another woman, had 2 children with her, and stands to inherit close to a million dollars from a malpractice settlement when Terri dies. Yes, close to a million dollars. None of this money has been used to care for Terri, that’s being handled by medicare or medicade.
Terri didn’t make a choice! Her angel of a husband says she did, but there’s nothing in writing. But, again he has no ulterior motive in wishing Terri dead, does he.
Bush is right (I cannot believe I said that) that we should err on the side of life but all of the politicians getting involved in this screams of sharks smelling blood. The families involved are surely in a personal Hëll and there are way too many people getting involved.
Terri didn’t make a choice! Her angel of a husband says she did, but there’s nothing in writing
Yet, regardless, the courts have ruled in favor of the husband.
Unfortunately, Congress can’t handle that.
If YOU want to live for 15 years in a “persistant vegetative state”, with ho chance of recovery, by all means, write it into your will.
For some of us? We see when it’s time to move on with life and let somebody go.
Too bad Terri’s parents haven’t figured out when that is yet.
Jeff, if it’s about the money for Schiavo, perhaps you can explain why he’s turned down offers for 10 times as much to relinquish custody of Terri to her parents and divorce her.
As to the living with another woman, his wife has been dead for 15 years. The fact that he hasn’t divorced her and still is trying to honor her final wishes says a lot.
for those who do not have a living will or advance health care directive you can consult a lawyer or go to legacywriter.com
after reading the hoopla about Schiavo’s case i got myself an advanced health care directive. i think the politicians should stay out of it. i for one, don’t want to become a living dead.
Posted by Jeff In NC at March 21, 2005 12:26 AM
Oh yeah, that evil Bush.
Nope. Just oppertunistic politicians.. I’d say that Delay and his bunch ARE much worse. The profess states rights and have for YEARS tried to make the Federal Government smaller.. that is until they gained control of all three branches of said Government. Now it’s a friggin free for all… and on OUR DIME! Total hypocrisy.
He’s the entire problem here, not the “husband” that’s been living with another woman, had 2 children with her
The woman has been brain dead for 15 years. At least he’s taken care of her for that amount of time.
and stands to inherit close to a million dollars from a malpractice settlement when Terri dies. Yes, close to a million dollars.
WRONG! It’s been said over and over and over again on EVERY major network that she has been cared for with the settlement money and that there isn’t a whole lot left of said settlment.
None of this money has been used to care for Terri, that’s being handled by medicare or medicade.
See above answer!
Hëll, he was offered 1 million dollars and an uncontested divorce just to leave. He turned it down. Why would he turn down the 1 million when he could send his two kids to any school and give them a nice nest egg for the future? It’s already been said by just about every media outlet that the settlement money is almost gone and he’s not going to get anything else out of the case. Why wouldn’t he just take the cash and the divorce and blow.. maybe because he knew the woman he married and cares deeply about this.
Terri didn’t make a choice! Her angel of a husband says she did, but there’s nothing in writing. But, again he has no ulterior motive in wishing Terri dead, does he.
And you were there when they talked about it in the wee hours of the morning? You know this guy personally and have spent time with both he and Terri? No.. you say? Well, then you must be a friggin psychic.. you should open your own hotline .. you could make the cash to pay him off and take care of poor Terri.
You really shouldn’t demonize the guy without first hand knowledge. You don’t know what happened between this couple. And neither do I. I just don’t want the Federal Government superseding the 40+ judges and Florida lawmakers that have already heard this case over and over again since it began 7 years ago. It’s dangerous precedent.
Jeff in NC, you don’t seem to understand how Medicaid or Medicare works. As somone who helped put twho grandparents in Nursing homes and on Medicare to do it. All monies the person had is accounted for to the government government, period. This money is then used to pay their bills until it is gone and then the government takes over. There would be no way for the hushband to hide 1 mil in money from the government and both sides have admitted: THE MONEY IS GONE!
If he was the leach you try to portray him as he would have been smarter to file for divorce the day after recieving the payment and get the half of all assets that he is entitled to as the spouse and leave. I’d be surprised if at this point he isn’t in debt to his lawyers for the rest of his life. You have to give this guy credit, faced with a storm of religous zealots he has stood his ground and honored his wife’s wishes.
This is a sad day for this country. The Republicans have once again stepped all over our personal freedoms, declaring their moral superority all the while they continue to slaughter untold, countless Iraqis and pushing 2000 american soldiers in a war for oil. God help us, I’m sure he is smelling the hypocrisy. And ofr those who say it’s god’s choice that we keep alive this slab of meat that hasn’t realized that it’s dead yet, I say you are violating God’s will. He decided to shut down her brain, he decided it was her time to die and we are interfering in his plan by keeping her alive. Nature has not followed it’s course, it has been violated!
Julio, the offer of 10 Million was a recent thing. Husband could have petitioned the court for divorce many times over the past years, but didn’t. I believe it was because of the money then, and now it’s to try to save face. And his wife isn’t dead. So, he’s technically an adulturer.
If Terri is brain dead like some believe, then her soul/essence/whatever isn’t there anymore. So, what’s the harm in keeping her fed. She’s not on life support keeping the organs alive. She’s on a feeding tube. If she just has brain damage, and there is some chance of recovery, however slim, isn’t it worth trying?
While it’s easy to call the politicians entering this fight leeches, or use it as yet another excuse to bash Bush or the GOP, the fact is this is a very tough issue.
Because while I apreciate the arguments the other side is making, I do feel we will be going down a slippery-slope if we allow a woman to starve/dehydrate to death because she is brain-damaged, especially snce her parents are willing to take care of her.
Once you establish a precedent like this, especially with no living will, there is no going back.
If you don’t believe me, ponder this…I have had peole suggest to me that severely autistic children should be allowed to die since A.) They are a burden to ther parents B.) They can’t realy communicate or tel their parents ‘I love you’ or most of the other things we consider “normal”.
What’s next? The severely retarded? People with Alzheimer’s?
These thoughts kep me awake at night sometimes.
So I will back these brave lawmakers who have decided to enter the fray.
Oh, and I voice these opinions as my support for the death penalty continues to wane.
I’m going to stay out of most of this, largely because it seems like few people know much of the details and instead want to focus on the talk-button points…
…however, I did want to say this: Peter, make sure you have a Power of Attorney with that Living Will – a Living Will can be argued.
-Kelly
Jerome:
I do feel we will be going down a slippery-slope if we allow a woman to starve/dehydrate to death because she is brain-damaged, especially snce her parents are willing to take care of her.
Her parents should have no say in this at all. Terri Schiavo is an adult, married woman, and her parents’ authority ended a long time ago. If there were no next of kin, maybe, maybe I’d let the parents make this decision. As it stands…nuh-uh.
Once you establish a precedent like this, especially with no living will, there is no going back.
There is a precedent like this. Has been for years. It’s that in these cases, the right to make this type of decision falls on the spouse. This isn’t establishing a precedent as much as it is destroying one.
Much as I am loathe to increase anybody’s ire:
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php
If anybody’s blood starts to reach pasta-cooking temperature, well, don’t say I didn’t warn you…
Jerome:
I do feel we will be going down a slippery-slope if we allow a woman to starve/dehydrate to death because she is brain-damaged, especially snce her parents are willing to take care of her.
Her parents should have no say in this at all. Terri Schiavo is an adult, married woman, and her parents’ authority ended a long time ago. If there were no next of kin, maybe, maybe I’d let the parents make this decision. As it stands…nuh-uh.
Once you establish a precedent like this, especially with no living will, there is no going back.
There is a precedent like this. Has been for years. It’s that in these cases, the right to make this type of decision falls on the spouse. This isn’t establishing a precedent as much as it is destroying one.
Much as I am loathe to increase anybody’s ire:
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php
If anybody’s blood starts to reach pasta-cooking temperature, well, don’t say I didn’t warn you…
Part of the settlement was for the continuing care of Terri. Part was damage award from the malpractice.
Hey BJ, as for not knowing how medicare/medicaid works, after you have to deal with it for years as well as dealing with a parent with altzheimers, you can get back to me on what I know about the situation.
General Information about Terri:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
Who’s Paying for Terri:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/11155564.htm
Jeff in NC
“If Terri is brain dead like some believe, then her soul/essence/whatever isn’t there anymore. So, what’s the harm in keeping her fed. She’s not on life support keeping the organs alive. She’s on a feeding tube. If she just has brain damage, and there is some chance of recovery, however slim, isn’t it worth trying?”
Obviously you’ve never had anyone you loved in such a state. When my Father had cancer, it caused blood clots in his leg, one of which came loose & caused a stroke. Yeah, he was still conscious, & maybe could register that people were around him, although if he did, he had no knowledge of who or how many people were/was there. But that’s ALL he could do. His eyes were completly vacant, had to be kept in diapers & changed, had to be fed, and did little, if anything, more than stare off into space & waste away for the remaining weeks of his life.
Until you’ve had to experience a similar hëll, don’t you **DARE** to judge anyone else in this position. Especially when the other people are strangers & you have no idea what their conversations consisted of what situation they’re in. And that goes for anyone else who wants to stick up for bush & the other republicans.
If bush & the republicans really cared about right to life & quality of life, they would fully fund medicare & medicaid so that everyone alive can have the quality of life that these opportunistic bášŧárdš claim that they want for Terry. If they really cared about any of this they would fully fund the Veterans Administration so that all the soldiers that are getting killed in bush’s wars could be taken care of, instead of being stockpiled in barricks &/or turned out into the street. If they believed what they said, they wouldn’t have taked away bankruptcy for poeple when cannot meet medical bills or people who can no longer pay their bills because they are either in the service with reduced income or killed in service leaving the remaining family is financial peril.
Besides, while they’re preparing to overturn the courts, do you hear any of these well-to-do politicians offering to pay for the cost of keeping Terry alive?
correction:
“all the soldiers that are getting killed in “
Obviously killed should be wounded.
There is a vivid discussion still going on in the Trek BBS and it is also a topic in the British news.
The whole case first of all reminds me to be grateful that there is no one among my immediate family who shares the attitude that “life is sacred at all cost” and “that where is life, there is hope”.
I keep wondering, how a parent can be so cruel to fight to keep a loved one in such a state: Trapped in a completely useless body for 15 years! When I first heard about this case, my immediate reaction was, I hope the woman is indeed beyond any level of awareness because if not, I most definitely would have been mad by now!
How also politicians can think that removing a feeding tube is inhumane but letting her in her present state for more – months? years? decades? – is civilized is beyond me.
Here in Britain the Catholic church is arguing that the topic abortion should be part of the election campaign. They are pointing to the USA where religion played such a big part in the election process. Oh, yes, I remember: like the topic stemcell research and gay marriages. Well, a president who even wanted (or did he actually do it?) put an amendment in the constitution to forbid gay marriages is capable of more. What happened now saddens me but, no, I am not surprised.
On the other hand, these religious people are in favour of the death penalty and defend the right of US citizens “to bear arms”. I don`t want to start writing about the topic Iraq right now because this text would become much longer.
What happened also confirmed my and my husband`s attitude towards religion and the church. It also confirmed our belief that we made the right decision to not baptize our daughter and leave her out of the church. If she wants to join later, it is up to her, but we won`t encourage her.
Concerning living wills, in the USA there is another aspect to consider: medical expenses. I read it all the time that people in the USA not only have to deal with the illness itself but also with the question how to pay for treatment. Fortunately, here in Britain you don`t have to worry about that. Intensive care costs a fortune and the medical bills for the treatment – or more accurately, preserving her – must be enormous.
I am writing this after I finished reading the other comments so far. Someone said, if people haven`t been in such a situation, they shouldn`t dare judging.
I very much disagree but that is a different matter. Yes, I have some experiences here or mor accurately, my husband has. His mother had a stroke when he was a young teenager. It was serious but she was brought back to live. Only, she was a shadow of herself. Her personality changed completely and she was unable to look after herself. She died a few years later after a second stroke.
To my husband, his mother died twice and he also told me, he wouldn`t want to be brought back after a stroke because he doesn`t want to suffer the same fate as his mother.
Michael Brunner,
First, let me say I am sorry about your father. My grandfather died of cancer, so I can empathize.
That part of your post was touching. But that quickly disappears as you state:
“Until you’ve experienced a similar hëll, don’t you DARE (to) judge anyone else in this position. Especially when the other people are strangers and you have no idea what their conversations consisted of what situation they’re in. And that goes for anyone else who wants to stick up for Bush and the other Republicans.”
Sorry, I reject this knd of thinking completely. Because once we accept it, then it would follow that only those who served in the military should DARE have an opinion about it; that only those directly affected by domestic violence should DARE have an opinion about that; that only those afected by non-smoking laws – mainly businesses should DARE have an opinion about it; and on and on and on.
No Thanks.
Your second paragraph is a demagogic rant that demonizes the “opportunistic bášŧárdš”. Are you sure they’re being “opportunistic”? Is it even possible they are doing what they think to be right? And, sorry to break it to you, they are not all Republicans.
“Besides, while they’re preparing to overturn the courts, do you hear any of these well-to-do politicians offering to pay for the cost of keeping Terr(i) alive?”
Since her parents are already offering to do so, that would seem to have little to do with the issue at hand. But if Rick Santorum, Jeb Bush, Tom DeLay or anyone else WERE to make such an offer, would it change your mind? if not, then your question is moot.
To Michael Brunner:
How **DARE** I??? Like I stated, I have a mother with altzheimers. My mother “died” about 12 years ago, and now there is a shell of a person remaining. She needs assistance on a 24 hour a day basis. Do I have the right to tell the nursing home to stop taking her to the dining room and feeding her? Because that’s exactly what’s happening to Terri now. She’s slowly starving and dehydrating.
My brother and I have both agreed and signed papers to the fact that if anything major should happen (heart attack, stroke, etc) then no extrordinary measures should be taken to prolong her life, but for now, there’s nothing short of murder we can do to stop her life.
THAT’S how **DARE** I.
Okay, here’s my two cents. Living Wills are a great idea, as long as they can be backed up. Like any other legal document, they can be fought over in the courts.
What amuses sickens me about this case is that it’s another attempt to invade the bedroom by the Republican Party. They’ll let business run rampant, but God forbid that you should be able to have individual choice.
What also kills me is that any southern member of congress is going along with the bill to “protect” this woman. Why? Because the bill is trumping the state court system, and inserting federal authority over the states. As my Georgia-born wife likes to remind me (I was born in NJ), the other reason for the Civil War was State’s Rights (not letting the federal government interfere with what the states were doing).
I feel sorry for both sides in this case. From what I’ve seen on CNN, it seems to me that the woman’s parents are doing this out of spite for the husband. According to him (and court documents), the split over what to do about Terri came about when the parents asked for part of the malpractice settlement money, and the husband refused.
Having said that, even though I have nothing against polyamory, it does smell like dead fish that the husband has a “common law” wife and kids. It certainly loosens his credibility to those who think that he should be faithful to his wife.
Out of morbid curiosity…if an 11th-hour, near-impossible miracle occurred and Terri woke up from her coma, and a few weeks or months later regained the ability to communicate and found out how long she’d been on life-support and basically said “WHAT THE F**K DID YOU DO THAT FOR!?”
…how do you suppose the politicians would react to that one?
Amusing typo by Jason R. Anderson:
“a dangerous prescient”
I doubt Bush can be seen as a prescient. So he’s either setting a dangerous precedent or being a dangerous president (a case can be made there ;)).
Anyway, my personal view is that the government (any government) should either keep out of situations like this, or provide guidelines after some serious debate. Rushing things through to get some PR and be seen as a crusader is NOT the way. Especially not as it’s pretty much a case of Bush ramming his views down everybody’s throat. Again. Kinda puts a cramp on this democracy thing he’s so eager to ram down the world’s throat…
And I can see both sides of the argument of pulling the plug. Preserving life at all costs (the parents) or knowing when it’s time to quit (the husband). While I’m personally inclined towards the latter, especially since it has apparently been 15 years that the woman has been in a coma, I can understand why the parents may cling to any hope that their child may recover. I can’t see Bush’s point of view, though. He’s shown that he does not believe in preserving life at all costs, nor does he know when to quit. So if someone could explain his reasoning for interfering – which I’m sure he has, somewhere – I’d be thankful.
“If, like me, you don’t want to burden your family and force them to watch you lie there like a slab of meat, consigning you all to a sort of twilight zone holding pattern for year after year after year, then make that clear as well.”
Good advice, although in this case it is the family that wants to keep her alive.
I’m uncertain of how I feel about this case, so I don’t have the luxury of demonizing the other side. Many of the arguments are patently bogus. “the courts have decided!” the husband’s supporters say–the same folks who fell over themselves passing a law to help a woman in an ugly child custody battle years back. “He’s in it for the money!” the husband bashers claim, though that should be easy to prove and so far they haven’t.
I do have a major problem with starving a woman to death. I keep hearing that it’s painless. Ok, animal lovers, how about we pass a law mandating that impounded animals be allowed to die in this painless manner? Would save a bundle on dog and cat food. For that matter, prisoners on death row could be allowed this painless method of execution–it would certainly add a touch of irony to that whole “last meal” thing.
If we are going to kill her, put a bullet in the back of her head. If that strikes one as distasteful, maybe we should let her parents take care of her.
I’m all for pulling the plug on people, including myself if it comes to that, but there ain’t no plug here. I don’t like the slippery slope argument but one does have to wonder where this will be taken next. She’s in only slightly worse shape than some advanced alzheimers cases I’ve seen and they have even less chance of improving than she does.
So…if push came to shove, I’d probably have voted for the law that congress passed. They can always kill her later. There is so much political posturing on both sides that it’s hard to see what the truth is.
“Well, a president who even wanted (or did he actually do it?) put an amendment in the constitution…”
Fortunately, Baerbel, in the US, a President can’t amend the COnstitution by fiat. Instead, the issue must get the approval of 2/3 of Congress, then of 2/3 of the state legislatures. That’s one reason why it’s only been amended 16 times over the past two centuries. (The first 10 don’t count for our purposes – they were passed almost immediately after this Constitution was adopted, in 1787.)
No matter what you’re feeling on the decision for this case, is it something that should be tying up both a large state’s legislature (why is it always Florida and why do I live here?) and now the federal government? What the **** ever happened to the Republican idea of government staying out of our lives?!? Can you imagine a more personal issue, or one which is a better example of when the government should keep away?
If the government wants to keep people from starving, there are millions of people they can provide food for. If they care about people dying unnecessarily, there’s more examples of that then any reasonable human wants to think of. Instead our attention is focused on this case. I guess Michael Jackson isn’t sufficiently distracting right now.
Here’s the circus, where’s my bread?
My grandmother had a stroke a few years go. She survived, but had some mobility and balance issues, and developed dementia after that. Most days she was pretty good, some days she’d forget what year it was, how old she was. Which wasn’t that big a change.
Last year, she suffered another stroke, only this one left her comatose. She had discussed ahead of time with my mother not to put her on life support. There was no will, although she had had the foresight to make my mother her executor and guardian, including power of attorney. The doctors made her as comfortable as they could, but made no efforts to sustain her body beyond it’s own means. She passed peacefully a few days later.
Her husband had died 20 years before that. He developed inoperable lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking. His last year of life was spent confined to a bed with gradually increasing twice-daily morphine doses to allow him to sleep through the constant pain he was in.
So I have some experience with this sort of thing. And I am outraged on so many levels…
First, the very idea that our Federal Government has mobilized for one person disgusts me. I don’t care that congress was on a break, and they are essentially doing this on their own time. Where were they over the years as other families dealt with this issue? This cannot be the first time a family has disagreed or come to legal challenges over who has a say in whether to continue artificial life support for a striken loved one. So what makes this case so special that our government takes direct action? Media coverage and political coin.
Secondly, this is a blatant attempt by the Federal government to usurp state power. This issue has been in the Florida court system for nearly 15 years. Yet for some reason, the Federal government feels that they need to have a final review of this case? Are they saying that Washington doesn’t trust the states? Or maybe it’s just Florida, and George is playing literal Big Brother to Jeb?
I find it criminally hypocritical that so many republicans can applaud this effort, while at the same time speak about defending the institution of marraige. One of the key benefits of marraige is control of medical care. Yet when a husband tries to exercise that right of marraige, they feel the need to step in and look things over. He says he’s respecting the wishes of his wife. I find it hard to believe that, aside from a house and other property, there’s not exactly a lot of marital property that he stands to inherit upon her death, and given that he’s turned down a no-contest divorce/buy-out, it seems that the only possible explanations are that he either really, really hated his wife, or he is telling the truth. Yet now the government wants to take that right away from marraige. How is that defending marraige?
My only hope is in the judiciary. What the Republicans call “activist judges,” I my Obi-Wan Kenobi. Given the number of recent judicial decisions overturning recently passed (read Republican) laws, my hope is that the Federal courts reach a quick and correct decision that they have no jurisdiction to review this case, despite what Congress says. The judiciary is in place explicitly to provide a check on the legislative and executive branches, for exactly this situation. When on party controls both branches, the sitting-for-life judges, relatively removed from political life, are entrusted with enforcing those laws compatibable with the Constitution, and not enforcing those that run against the powers set aside for the government. This is clearly a case of the Federal government exceeding it’s powers.
Without legal documentation, the husband has the most legal standing to make this decision. Period.
The parents were wrong not to accept his decision and take it to the courts.
The courts got it right anyway.
The Florida Legislature and Congress should not have intervened. George and Jeb should not have signed the laws. The Florida one has already been overturned, and the Federal law likely will as well.
The GOP was wrong to bring this to the federal level. The Democrats were wrong to delay the vote yesterday on a procedural technicality when they knew the votes were there – they becamse just as guilty of playing politics with her life at that point. All of this for the sake of press conferences on both sides.
There’s just way too much stupidity going on with this.
I have a living will – I have had it for five years now – and I am more glad of it every day.
Despite the arguments for keeping her alive vs. pulling the feeding tube; despite the arguments of hypocricy/opportunism/manipulation on either side; despite ALL that…
Am I the only one who has a problem with the Congress passing a law that basically says, “It doesn’t matter what the local or state courts have decided, or what jurisdictional laws are; the federal courts are going to hear this case carte blanche”? (Yes, I know the bill specifically says it won’t “constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation,” but, as the saying goes, words are cheap.)
This steps all over all kinds of jurisdictional, state/federal, and separation of powers issues and I just find that more than a little off-putting.
Bill, there’s clearly a plug here. The woman was only kept alive by a tube fed directly into her stomach to provide her with nutrients and water. Digestion is an autonomous function, running whether higher brain function is present or not. Without that, she would have died years ago.
And it’s painless because she has no higher brain function. Pain, and more importantly, the body’s reaction to is, is a conscious function of the brain requiring higher brain capacity (or so I understand…anyone feel free to present medical knowledge to correct me). So starvation while in a coma or brain-dead is painless. Or better put, the body exhibits no signs that there is any pain. Starving a fully conscious person/animal, as I undestand it, is quite painful. Which is why food deprivation is a fairly effective form of torture.
On another note…
Anyone catch that a man was arrested while attempting to sneak into the hospital with food and water? Which, if he had been successful, would likely have resulted in choking her to death, as she has no capacity to swallow.
Idiocy among the lunacy, I say.
Except that a former nurse has come forward and said she IS capable of swallowing. And that therapy for swallowing has never been allowed by the husband.
If this was a case of her receiving a fatal dose of morphine, or somesuch, I could deal with it. This is a case of a woman being starved to death. And the courts are allowing it. Barbaric, says I.
The Terri Shiavo case is heart-wrenching because I do believe that both the husband and the parents are doing what they believe is best for her or what she would have wanted. Let’s be realistic. She isn’t coming back. The doctors give her no real chance of recovery and after 15(?) years, it’s clear to me that any hope of recovery has long since faded away.
I’ve thought a lot about what what I would want in such a situation were I condemned to spending my life staring at the ceiling, unable to function in capacity whatsoever or to even comprehend my surroundings. That sounds like hëll to me. I know what I would want in that situation: Pull the dámņ tube.
But that’s me. I can’t speak for what Terri would have wanted or whether her parents or her husband could possibly know her wishes better. I think, though, it is a tell that for all the years that have gone by, the courts have consistantly sided with her husband. If there was any credible evidence that he had some kind of ulterior motive, wouldn’t some court in Florida’s judicial system have found that out?
What sickens me, is that the same politicians who constantly proclaim that families, not the government, should make decisons about personal finance and health care, are now bringing the full weight of the federal government to bear not that the one family member with legal standing in the case has made a decision that they don’t approve of. Those that preach that the federal government should stay out of areas that are traditionally the state’s business, are once again interfering in a case that a state government has already decided because they don’t like the decision. The same politicians that loudly rail against federal courts that “legislate” from the bench are now calling on those same federal courts to rewrite the law, giving them the power to intervene. That Congress would use its subpoena power, not to investigate, but simply to interfere is reprehensible.
The politicians are just doing their usual grandstanding. I don’t believe that anyone of them give a dámņ about Terri Shiavo. They’re just trying to get votes. It’s clear that those “principles” that they preach go out the window the second somebody makes a personal decision they don’t like.
And that should scare everybody.
Rob, I dated a speech therapist for three years. Her training included swallow rehabilitation. Swallowing is not something you can treat with therapy if there’s no conscious person to work with. Many people that are conscious have to learn how to control the swallow reflex all over again after a stroke or some throat surgeries. My guess is that the husband didn’t allow it 1) because it went against the wishes of his wife, and 2) it would have endangered her because she has no ability to respond to therapy, nor control her swallow reflex, and she’d be just as likely to aspirate (take food or water into the lungs) just as much as swallow.
How quick we are to demonize politicians. Surely they are incapable of compassion, so their actions must be because they are heartless horrors looking for an easy vote.
Jerome is correct in accessing the danger of “where does it stop?” While I agree I don’t want to live under such circumstances – and hence have as much in my will – I am uncomfortable with not being able to look at these on a case by case basis. In this case, as I understand it, there has been no therapy, nothing that might bring some response. Nurses have claimed she has “good moments” which would likely expand with therapy.
There is also some question on how she came to be injured and if the husband had something to do with it. I have no idea if that’s true, yet his unwillingness to provide for (and stand in the way of) basic therapy makes me go hmmmmm….
Sanctity of life is a big deal. There is no hypocrasy in being for the death penalty and against euthenasia and abortion. Why it’s okay to kill the innocent but not hunky dory to kill the truly guilty is beyond me (I’m not completely for the death penalty, but being for abortion and against the death penalty seems screwy to me).
War can be a necessary thing. King David had the right to send warriors out in war; he did not have the right to have Bathsheba’s husband sent on a mission to purposely get killed. There are distinctions. Are you suggesting that the Revolutionary War, WWI, II and the Civil War were wrong to prosecute? Is it war in general, or just THIS war that you find objectionable?
My mom and I discussed this last night and agreed to get living wills and give copies of them to each other. Fifteen years on a feeding tube isn’t living. It’s being alive, and only by a technicality. Neither of us wants that.
Not all states allow or recognize living wills. You should check your state to see what’s required, if they’re allowed at all. A quick call or letter/e-mail to your state attorney general should get you the relevant information.
That is, unless the Federal government decides it wants to pre-empt your state’s ability to legislate it’s own laws.
Alan M: “Despite the arguments for keeping her alive vs. pulling the feeding tube; despite the arguments of hypocricy/opportunism/manipulation on either side; despite ALL that…
Am I the only one who has a problem with the Congress passing a law that basically says, “It doesn’t matter what the local or state courts have decided, or what jurisdictional laws are; the federal courts are going to hear this case carte blanche”? (Yes, I know the bill specifically says it won’t “constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation,” but, as the saying goes, words are cheap.)
This steps all over all kinds of jurisdictional, state/federal, and separation of powers issues and I just find that more than a little off-putting.”
No, Alan, you’re not the only one. This “law” is, quite possibly, the most disgusting aspect of this entire case. That these opportunists and demagogues would be so willing to trample the Constitution to score political points with the most inanse of their constituents, but can’t show that level of dedication to, I don’t know, balancing the dámņ budget, horrifies me beyond word.
Congress, what the hëll am I paying you for?
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
How quick we are to demonize politicians.
I wouldn’t be so quick if they weren’t so dámņ hypocritical all the time. Now, whenever I see a politician spewing lofty rhetoric about empowering families to make their own decisions, I’ll see the following asterix:
* – Unless, of course, you make a decision that we don’t like, then we’ll be on you like white on rice.
Surely they are incapable of compassion, so their actions must be because they are heartless horrors looking for an easy vote.
It comes from having their soul removed. 😛
Jerome is correct in accessing the danger of “where does it stop?”
Where it begins: with families making these decisions, not the courts, and not the elected parasites in Washington.
Sanctity of life is a big deal. There is no hypocrasy in being for the death penalty and against euthenasia and abortion. Why it’s okay to kill the innocent but not hunky dory to kill the truly guilty is beyond me (I’m not completely for the death penalty, but being for abortion and against the death penalty seems screwy to me).
I’m against both. Does that make you feel better?
War can be a necessary thing.
It can also be a thing done for the wrong reasons.
King David had the right to send warriors out in war;
I miss the days when we lived in a republic instead of a monarchy. 😛
Is it war in general, or just THIS war that you find objectionable?
I find this particular one objectionable, considering we were LIED to about the reason we started it.
There’s no basis to say that the absense of therapy is an illegal denial of therapy. Florida law says patients retain the right to therapy. Her husband is her legal guardian. If he denies therapy, that’s within his authority as her legal guardian. His actions carry the same weight as though Terri herself had acted. There hasn’t been a denial of therapy so much as therapy has been refused.
There’s an interesting parallel in this case with death-row appeals. In both cases, some party is willing to fight to the literal last breath, often taking extreme actions, in order to stave off the inevitable.
One additional thing I think this case highlights, is the impact media, both good and bad, has had on public opinion. Someone reading the “facts” (no offense to Bob Jones, but without reading the supporting material Mr. Jones has, his facts are really just educated opinion) presented by Mr. Jones would probably side with Terri’s family. Others, reading a different set of “facts,” would side with her husband.
Which is all the more reason for the Federal government to stay the heck out of this. Next thing you know, Bush will ask Congress to legislate a peace between the Hatfields and the McCoys….
After reading the previous post, I’m simply going to say that the courts have repeatedly said otherwise about many of the “facts” purported about Shiavo’s case.
It comes down to one simple fact, one that has been challenged repeatedly and in every case supported by the courts: Michael Schiavo is Terri’s legal guardian. His decision, one way or the other, should be the final say.
And I find it disquieting that the party in power, the people who loudly proclaim the sanctity of “state’s rights”, who scream loud and proud about “getting government off the backs of the individual”, seem to want to add “…unless of course we don’t agree with the decision and can make political hay throught it”.
JSM
What if Sarah Scantlin had been starved?
Jeff Morris is 100% correct in his statement. Every single court to date has found in Micheal and Terri Schiavo’s favor.
Let’s see, however, if the federal court sees it the same way as the other courts. I’d be very interested to know how much pressure Judge James Whittemore is under right about now. Especially considering the politicians involved.
“Out of morbid curiosity…if an 11th-hour, near-impossible miracle occurred and Terri woke up from her coma, and a few weeks or months later regained the ability to communicate and found out how long she’d been on life-support and basically said “WHAT THE F**K DID YOU DO THAT FOR!?”
…how do you suppose the politicians would react to that one?”
The politicians would say that clearly they knew best because she recovered.
PAD
After reading the previous post, I’m simply going to say that the courts have repeatedly said otherwise about many of the “facts” purported about Shiavo’s case.
I agree. While Terri’s mother and few nurses have reported seeing signs that she has responded, no one us in this forum were witness to these observations and it is just as likely that they are the product of wishful thinking, like the “assisted communication” fad from a few years ago.
What I find interesting is all the accusations about her husband’s supposed ulterior motives. If all he wanted was the settlement money, then he could have just divorced her and taken half. Instead, he’s spent years fighting in courts. Between the legal fees and her medical bills, that money has to be long gone. If all he wanted was to be with this new woman, then again, he could just as easily have divorced Terri and left her in the care of her parents.
The fact that he hasn’t walked about from this case for 15 years says one of two things: That he is a truly evil person who is working out of spite, or that he really does still care for her and truly believes in his heart that she is gone and this want she would have wanted.
The most disgusting tactic I’ve seen here was when they tried to subpoena Terry to appear before Congress, claiming that if she was allowed to die they would be subverting the subpoena. What next — coma victims called to present evidence? And the lawyer was claiming that if she was put in a wheelchair she’d be just as responsive as anyone else. Um, no — she has suffered tremendous brain damage and has been vegitative for FIFTEEN YEARS!!!
I suspect the parents believe she’s responsive because that’s what they want to think. Every facial tic or movement can be interpreted as a response, every sound or grunt a reply. However, they should accept the inevitable: Terry as you knew her is gone, she will not get better, she will not come back. Say a prayer and let her go.
Oh, and a short time ago Republicans who were against gay marriage kept shouting about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of a union between a man and a woman. Now they’re perfectly happy to totally ignore the beliefs and wishes of her husband, who is her legal guardian. Go figure.
It’s a tough situation all around. In many ways it would seem to be better if he did hand her over to her parents. But that said, regardless of the moral issues, there seems to be three primary legal issues at stake that anything prolonging her life would overturn at least one of and cause harm to:
1. Innocent Until Proven Guilty
This, simply put means the we (the government) has to assume the Michael Shivo is telling the truth and is compitent to serve as his wife