How can anyone call being in a persistant, vegetative state for 15 years "living"? According to news reports that I heard earlier this week, her cerebral cortex (the part of brain in which thought processes take place) is liquified, and basically has been replaced with cerebral spinal fluid. Terri, in essence, died years ago...and keeping a body alive, with no brain function, or possibility of recovery, seems much more inhumane than letting her go in my opinion.
You know....even if she WERE in a persistant vegitative state...(which Dr.s who have NOT been allowed to testify have stated in signed affidavits) that would mean she wouldn`t have any awareness of her surroundings....
So what the heck would it hurt to let her family have her to love and nurture for her remaining days?
Attacking the parents and calling them selfish is way over the line.
I just heard one pt nurse say on tv that when Terri was in her care one day.... Michael exploded and demanded to know *when the bitch was going to die?*
The answer to the question in the thread title is yes. But there is no reason for guardianship to change, so it has not.
Many of the horrible things being said about Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer and other judges, and others are obviously on their face pure lies. Some of the less obviously false allegations, such as the allegations of abuse by Michael Schiavo, have been investigated and found to be of no substance.
The video clips are a total of a few minutes edited from many hours of video. The awareness and intelligence they demonstrate are of the videographer and editor, not of the subject. It is quite easy to edit film or videotapes to appear to show something that they do not. That is done in movies all the time and is the reason why edited clips are not acceptable as evidence in courts or other valid truth-seeking forums. The judge viewed uncut video evidence, which shows just the opposite of what the clips are being used to try to show. Any “expert opinion” based on edited video is groundless and useless.
The “estranged husband” nonsense is just that. The court records indicate that Michael Schiavo was Terri’s most faithful and frequent visitor for years, up to and including the 1998-2001 proceedings. He has continued regularly visiting her since then. He is still spending many hours with her, which is why the Schindlers are denied access to her at times. It seems pretty reasonable to me that they should not with her at the same time as he.
The issue in this case is not and has never been what anyone else might want, it is what Terri Schiavo would want. That is what the court attempted to determine and ruled on, by the “clear and convincing” standard of evidence. That ruling and the proceedings that led to it have been reviewed and upheld at all higher levels. This is not and never has been about anyone wanting her dead. It has always been about wanting to determine and carry out her wishes. No matter what anyone else’s motives and goals might be, those were and are the motives and goals of the law and of the courts that apply the law and the facts to this case and others like it.
Michael Schiavo claims to be trying to carry out Terri’s wishes. There is no credible reason to believe otherwise and quite a few reasons to think that he genuinely is trying to do just that, including his willingness to endure all the horrible accusations and his refusal to accept millions of dollars to wash his hands of the matter.
The Schindler family, on the other hand, is on record as being willing to ignore Terri’s wishes.
quote:
From Report of Guardian ad Litem to Governor Bush, pursuant to Florida’s “Terri’s Law:”
Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it.
So what the heck would it hurt to let her family have her to love and nurture for her remaining days?
If that is contrary to her stated wishes, it hurts her rights (and those of others) to refuse treatment.
quote:
I just heard one pt nurse say on tv that when Terri was in her care one day.... Michael exploded and demanded to know *when the bitch was going to die?
That nurse is not believable. There is no support anywhere in the record for her statements about alleged events of ten years ago. In addition, some of what she says is clearly false. For example, I heard her say that during the year when she helped care for Terri, no males were allowed in Terri's room. That is so obviously false that it's laughable, but the interviewer didn't question it.
Well there were other nurses who spoke up through the years...one was terminated when she filed a report and was contacted by the police regarding the husbands behavior to Terri.
Many staff members have come forth condemning his behavior and unwillingness to allow the treatment needed.
when my friend took her husband off life support a few months ago, guess what happened? He died on his own.
they are killing terry , it is murder. She is starving to death.
So now if your poor and cant eat you must die. That is what is happening here .
We can talk about her state of mind lets compare that with the serial KILLERS who we must by law keep alive and spend millions on to defend for years.hmmm does she compare to THAT justice or right in america?
The bottom line is she did NOT have papers everyone is agreed IF she did this would be easier. She was an adult when this happened not under the direction of her parents orders.
Her parents love her and want to see her live. Her husband thinks she must want to be dead. Well she isnt dead and who is to kill her now?
We have millions of disabled people in jeopardy today who can not eat in jeopardy with this court ruling. We have nursing home patients unable to eat and draining all the estate away can a child who thinks he/she deserves the money chose death for them?
If she died without artificial support that is death by a natural means this what they are doing is KILLING a person . it is murder.
Quality of life is NOT an issue here, who exactly decides when a person is sane or mental enough to live now? JUST who ?
If the husband doesnt like the way she lives then leave her alone.
I also saw this with brain damaged folks, parents and spouses who could not deal with the personality changes and life style of a family memeber injured in an accident. No they are often not the same person, yes they will be needy the rest of their life, and no one did sign on for this deal in life. Some can not adjust to the changes mentaly and physicaly , they knew them as a differnt person a different relationship a different future. It all stops when one gets this ill. Some walk away within in just a few short years .
That is the familys right and I am not to judge them. Yet who are they to say that because this life isnt what they planned for their loved one they must now die??? Because they cant adjust?
money it is about MONEY in America? I think not. I would gladly trade one of the bastards who have maimed and killed for her life how about that idea? No they live they have the right.
I've got a question for those parents here who would fight like hell to save their kids in situations like this, and I mean no disrespect nor acrimony:
What if your child either directly stated or else communicated their wishes or belief or in the way they lived that they would not want to be and remain in such a vegetative state? Or their was a good chance that they would not want to be in said state?
(((RASCAL)))) I'm sorry too! I shouldn't have said that. I'm going back to erase.
OKay, back to the subject at hand.
Feeding tubes have been removed thousands of times. This is not the first time this has happened. These decisions are made thousands of times every day, according to news reports.
I don't like the idea of taking people off life support either! Especially breathing. Interesting how suffocation is thought of as a "soft death" Excuse me? Not being able to breath? Personally I'd rather be shot in the head than to die of suffocation.
Anyway, I'm simply pointing out what the courts are ruling on Constitutionally. I don't know what Terri's wishes would be, as she had nothing legal drawn up.
I have no idea what this poor woman will be experiencing, nobody really does. But it is something to consider I suppose. Of course, I may find articles supporting the exact opposite view, I have no doubt.
Oh someone was quoting an article or something from a Patricia Heaton, (look at the first page) and I think I did see her on TV talking about this case. I remember cause I was like..??? HUH? What does she have to do with this?
A child is a child and legaly and that is the core of the issue here who says who is to live and die.
As late as the 70's some dr.s would tell the parents their child had no quality of life if they had retardation and the infant was put into institutions upon birth. they lived a complete life span (many are still alive today although outof the the state institutions)
these state houses have quite the history of mass abuse and torture yes torture for as little as being born deaf and then raised in a dank dark institution with no help.
I have worked with these individuals you should hear their stories of survival and success. We began breaking out the state institutions in the 70's after geroldo took secret camera's and recorded the abuse .
This was done to them by dr. opinion on how they thought they may turn out in life and what should be done for the best for the family. Often times the parents trustsed his opinion and no question where asked and they just went home and never saw the infant again assumed he/she would die shortly. most didnt.
Garth it is a feeding tube only, people and children go on this for many diferent reasons in life. If it was my child you bet I would allow them to live and not kill them out right. I do not think it would be legal or an option. The state would hold it as a right to life and no hospital would assume the responsibility . that is why we are in court with terry now.
I think the difference is mental health issues and state institutions and being disababled.
It is true many mental ill folks did find that without the state to house and tell them what to do we have a butch of problems, keeping them housed and fed.
Disabled those in wheelchairs and those who need care fared slightly better. and hopefully many are still working on it.
I ask anyone here who thinks someone should die rather than "live like that" go to your day treatments for the disabled.
see what life is and how it defines itself day in and day out.
I am not so sure everyone should consider who is suffering other than Terry at this point. You know? how is my life and its problems and whether I should die or not even remotely interested in another emotions? Yet that is what we are doing.
Is their a suffering worse than death? Starving to death at that!!!
it is gross.
now everyone seems to be talking about getting a living will sounds like a good idea so stop this from happening to another family.
Okay, here is the thing. If removing feeding tubes is so cruel, how come I have never heard this come up before Terry's case? I'm not trying to be a smart a$$. I really want to know
Removing feeding tubes didn't start with Terry Schaivo. This has been a means of ending life support for years. So it's just why now, is this being brought up as such a cruel way to die? This is what I don't get.
If this is the reason then NO feeding tubes should ever be removed again ever, from anybody. And as I stated before, I personally think suffocating (taking someone off a breathing machine) would be a horrid way to die.
But I don't know all the medical insights that doctors do. I know Karen Quinlan's Mom said her daughter was in pain being on the breathing respirator, so they fought to have that removed and simply had the nasal tube helping her breath, and she lived for another 10 years, before dying of pneumonia.
people do die on a respirator and it is also an uncomfortable way to live. very.
If taken off a respirator the body dies . by natural causes the heart or lungs stop. Not so with feeding tubes, to die of starvation . not a natural cause. I guess if you want to look at the many many people in this world who are unable to eat on their own and not help them and think it is ok your opinion would differ.
I just do not agree.
after sugery I was unable to eat for 19 days I was "kept alive" by intervenous fluid. should I have died? I couldnt eat on my own. they "kept" me alive. dehydration would have taken just a few days but no they kept me alive untill I was able to have food again. how is terry any different?
she isnt the difference is some do not think she is'alive" enough for their standards. gross gross. im sorry this is scary stuff.
side note to shar, you're too young to remember willowbrook. i used to go there to work in summer with my uncle (i was a young kid). his group of "boys" in their 40's who were like 8 (or was it younger) LOVED to brush my hair
of course i had no idea (and i hope my uncle didn't either) of the conditions
he was a day person and he worked with them in "shop" or "class" i never saw mattresses or sleeping rooms or anything like that
what a freak out tho ya know I mean food issues all of her life and now it comes down to this? I worked with a bulimic. she was so sick throw up every time she was under pressure. sad sad case but you know the heart attack was not bad enough to KIll Terry her will to live is stronger isnt it?
bulimic have mental health issues not death wishes. I think her family understands that. this isnt sucicide.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
12
21
13
Popular Days
Mar 24
63
Mar 25
45
Mar 29
19
Mar 30
19
Top Posters In This Topic
RottieGrrrl 17 posts
mj412 12 posts
LG 21 posts
waterbuffalo 13 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2005
63 posts
Mar 25 2005
45 posts
Mar 29 2005
19 posts
Mar 30 2005
19 posts
vickles
I just e-mailed the governor of Minnesota. But I don't know if it will help. Who else can I contact. Any ideas?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
2fortheroad
How can anyone call being in a persistant, vegetative state for 15 years "living"? According to news reports that I heard earlier this week, her cerebral cortex (the part of brain in which thought processes take place) is liquified, and basically has been replaced with cerebral spinal fluid. Terri, in essence, died years ago...and keeping a body alive, with no brain function, or possibility of recovery, seems much more inhumane than letting her go in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Its the way its being done. She is breathing on her own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Agreed Vickles....
You know....even if she WERE in a persistant vegitative state...(which Dr.s who have NOT been allowed to testify have stated in signed affidavits) that would mean she wouldn`t have any awareness of her surroundings....
So what the heck would it hurt to let her family have her to love and nurture for her remaining days?
Attacking the parents and calling them selfish is way over the line.
I just heard one pt nurse say on tv that when Terri was in her care one day.... Michael exploded and demanded to know *when the bitch was going to die?*
Nice guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
The answer to the question in the thread title is yes. But there is no reason for guardianship to change, so it has not.
Many of the horrible things being said about Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer and other judges, and others are obviously on their face pure lies. Some of the less obviously false allegations, such as the allegations of abuse by Michael Schiavo, have been investigated and found to be of no substance.
The video clips are a total of a few minutes edited from many hours of video. The awareness and intelligence they demonstrate are of the videographer and editor, not of the subject. It is quite easy to edit film or videotapes to appear to show something that they do not. That is done in movies all the time and is the reason why edited clips are not acceptable as evidence in courts or other valid truth-seeking forums. The judge viewed uncut video evidence, which shows just the opposite of what the clips are being used to try to show. Any “expert opinion” based on edited video is groundless and useless.
The “estranged husband” nonsense is just that. The court records indicate that Michael Schiavo was Terri’s most faithful and frequent visitor for years, up to and including the 1998-2001 proceedings. He has continued regularly visiting her since then. He is still spending many hours with her, which is why the Schindlers are denied access to her at times. It seems pretty reasonable to me that they should not with her at the same time as he.
The issue in this case is not and has never been what anyone else might want, it is what Terri Schiavo would want. That is what the court attempted to determine and ruled on, by the “clear and convincing” standard of evidence. That ruling and the proceedings that led to it have been reviewed and upheld at all higher levels. This is not and never has been about anyone wanting her dead. It has always been about wanting to determine and carry out her wishes. No matter what anyone else’s motives and goals might be, those were and are the motives and goals of the law and of the courts that apply the law and the facts to this case and others like it.
Michael Schiavo claims to be trying to carry out Terri’s wishes. There is no credible reason to believe otherwise and quite a few reasons to think that he genuinely is trying to do just that, including his willingness to endure all the horrible accusations and his refusal to accept millions of dollars to wash his hands of the matter.
The Schindler family, on the other hand, is on record as being willing to ignore Terri’s wishes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Sorry Rottie, though we are on oposite sides of this issue, I should not have upset you......
My remarks were directed more at oldies and mstar......
I guess that as a Mother, my sympathies rest with her folks is all....as passionatly as I feel, it is no excuse to being offensive to you.
I apologise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well there were other nurses who spoke up through the years...one was terminated when she filed a report and was contacted by the police regarding the husbands behavior to Terri.
Many staff members have come forth condemning his behavior and unwillingness to allow the treatment needed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
when my friend took her husband off life support a few months ago, guess what happened? He died on his own.
they are killing terry , it is murder. She is starving to death.
So now if your poor and cant eat you must die. That is what is happening here .
We can talk about her state of mind lets compare that with the serial KILLERS who we must by law keep alive and spend millions on to defend for years.hmmm does she compare to THAT justice or right in america?
The bottom line is she did NOT have papers everyone is agreed IF she did this would be easier. She was an adult when this happened not under the direction of her parents orders.
Her parents love her and want to see her live. Her husband thinks she must want to be dead. Well she isnt dead and who is to kill her now?
We have millions of disabled people in jeopardy today who can not eat in jeopardy with this court ruling. We have nursing home patients unable to eat and draining all the estate away can a child who thinks he/she deserves the money chose death for them?
If she died without artificial support that is death by a natural means this what they are doing is KILLING a person . it is murder.
Quality of life is NOT an issue here, who exactly decides when a person is sane or mental enough to live now? JUST who ?
If the husband doesnt like the way she lives then leave her alone.
I also saw this with brain damaged folks, parents and spouses who could not deal with the personality changes and life style of a family memeber injured in an accident. No they are often not the same person, yes they will be needy the rest of their life, and no one did sign on for this deal in life. Some can not adjust to the changes mentaly and physicaly , they knew them as a differnt person a different relationship a different future. It all stops when one gets this ill. Some walk away within in just a few short years .
That is the familys right and I am not to judge them. Yet who are they to say that because this life isnt what they planned for their loved one they must now die??? Because they cant adjust?
money it is about MONEY in America? I think not. I would gladly trade one of the bastards who have maimed and killed for her life how about that idea? No they live they have the right.
this is dam frightening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I've got a question for those parents here who would fight like hell to save their kids in situations like this, and I mean no disrespect nor acrimony:
What if your child either directly stated or else communicated their wishes or belief or in the way they lived that they would not want to be and remain in such a vegetative state? Or their was a good chance that they would not want to be in said state?
What would your position be then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
garth, in direct answer to your question, I would honor my child's wishes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
(((RASCAL)))) I'm sorry too! I shouldn't have said that. I'm going back to erase.
OKay, back to the subject at hand.
Feeding tubes have been removed thousands of times. This is not the first time this has happened. These decisions are made thousands of times every day, according to news reports.
I don't like the idea of taking people off life support either! Especially breathing. Interesting how suffocation is thought of as a "soft death" Excuse me? Not being able to breath? Personally I'd rather be shot in the head than to die of suffocation.
Anyway, I'm simply pointing out what the courts are ruling on Constitutionally. I don't know what Terri's wishes would be, as she had nothing legal drawn up.
Here is a link to a USA today article.
Schiavo unlikely to experience pain, neurologists say
I have no idea what this poor woman will be experiencing, nobody really does. But it is something to consider I suppose. Of course, I may find articles supporting the exact opposite view, I have no doubt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
rot, what about the woman from everybody loves raymond ? (do you mean the wife on the show ?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Oh someone was quoting an article or something from a Patricia Heaton, (look at the first page) and I think I did see her on TV talking about this case. I remember cause I was like..??? HUH? What does she have to do with this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
PS. Yeah Patricia Heaton plays his henpecking wife. lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
A child is a child and legaly and that is the core of the issue here who says who is to live and die.
As late as the 70's some dr.s would tell the parents their child had no quality of life if they had retardation and the infant was put into institutions upon birth. they lived a complete life span (many are still alive today although outof the the state institutions)
these state houses have quite the history of mass abuse and torture yes torture for as little as being born deaf and then raised in a dank dark institution with no help.
I have worked with these individuals you should hear their stories of survival and success. We began breaking out the state institutions in the 70's after geroldo took secret camera's and recorded the abuse .
This was done to them by dr. opinion on how they thought they may turn out in life and what should be done for the best for the family. Often times the parents trustsed his opinion and no question where asked and they just went home and never saw the infant again assumed he/she would die shortly. most didnt.
Garth it is a feeding tube only, people and children go on this for many diferent reasons in life. If it was my child you bet I would allow them to live and not kill them out right. I do not think it would be legal or an option. The state would hold it as a right to life and no hospital would assume the responsibility . that is why we are in court with terry now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thanks. i was going "huh" too
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
I think the difference is mental health issues and state institutions and being disababled.
It is true many mental ill folks did find that without the state to house and tell them what to do we have a butch of problems, keeping them housed and fed.
Disabled those in wheelchairs and those who need care fared slightly better. and hopefully many are still working on it.
I ask anyone here who thinks someone should die rather than "live like that" go to your day treatments for the disabled.
see what life is and how it defines itself day in and day out.
I am not so sure everyone should consider who is suffering other than Terry at this point. You know? how is my life and its problems and whether I should die or not even remotely interested in another emotions? Yet that is what we are doing.
Is their a suffering worse than death? Starving to death at that!!!
it is gross.
now everyone seems to be talking about getting a living will sounds like a good idea so stop this from happening to another family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
shar, re: geraldo, are you talking about willowbrook on staten island ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Okay, here is the thing. If removing feeding tubes is so cruel, how come I have never heard this come up before Terry's case? I'm not trying to be a smart a$$. I really want to know
Removing feeding tubes didn't start with Terry Schaivo. This has been a means of ending life support for years. So it's just why now, is this being brought up as such a cruel way to die? This is what I don't get.
If this is the reason then NO feeding tubes should ever be removed again ever, from anybody. And as I stated before, I personally think suffocating (taking someone off a breathing machine) would be a horrid way to die.
But I don't know all the medical insights that doctors do. I know Karen Quinlan's Mom said her daughter was in pain being on the breathing respirator, so they fought to have that removed and simply had the nasal tube helping her breath, and she lived for another 10 years, before dying of pneumonia.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
people do die on a respirator and it is also an uncomfortable way to live. very.
If taken off a respirator the body dies . by natural causes the heart or lungs stop. Not so with feeding tubes, to die of starvation . not a natural cause. I guess if you want to look at the many many people in this world who are unable to eat on their own and not help them and think it is ok your opinion would differ.
I just do not agree.
after sugery I was unable to eat for 19 days I was "kept alive" by intervenous fluid. should I have died? I couldnt eat on my own. they "kept" me alive. dehydration would have taken just a few days but no they kept me alive untill I was able to have food again. how is terry any different?
she isnt the difference is some do not think she is'alive" enough for their standards. gross gross. im sorry this is scary stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
Bazaar parents to say the least. Their daughter has heart complications brought on from being bulimic. Heart attack turns brain into liquid. No cure.
If they didn't feed her through a tube, she would have been dead a long time ago.
What are the parents going to try next?
Petition the court to have her freeze dried for a future cure?
This story shouldn't have made the local news.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh boy i don't know....
**
side note to shar, you're too young to remember willowbrook. i used to go there to work in summer with my uncle (i was a young kid). his group of "boys" in their 40's who were like 8 (or was it younger) LOVED to brush my hair
of course i had no idea (and i hope my uncle didn't either) of the conditions
he was a day person and he worked with them in "shop" or "class" i never saw mattresses or sleeping rooms or anything like that
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
what a freak out tho ya know I mean food issues all of her life and now it comes down to this? I worked with a bulimic. she was so sick throw up every time she was under pressure. sad sad case but you know the heart attack was not bad enough to KIll Terry her will to live is stronger isnt it?
bulimic have mental health issues not death wishes. I think her family understands that. this isnt sucicide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.