Topic awaiting preservation: Terri Schiavo (Page 1 of 1)

I suppose this a big issue in the States but this is the first time I'd read a major report on it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1077029,00.html

Its all very sad - from my own viewpoint I'd like to stick around and fight as long as there is hope but I'd hate to sit around as a vegetable like that

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

It is a big story here. There are no easy answers to this situation. If forced to come down to a decision, I say family members should be allowed to remove artificial means of life support such as ventilators. But providing food and water to a patient should not be considered heroic or artificial.

If she had a clearly written legal document stating how she should be cared for in the event of a vegetative state, then they might have good grounds for removing the care but it doesn't seem she did other than some verbal agreement with her loving husband. He has stuck by her side with his new girlfriend and new children through better and worse, sickness and in health. God bless him.

You see? This is why I didn't get into that abortion thread a while back. My emotions run extremely high on topics like this.

But let me try to calm down a bit. I do not oppose every form of euthanasia. I think there are times and places for such action. You may recall that the last thing I want to do is make it a legal issue or regulate it. I want to keep that sort of thing between doctors, families, and patients and keep the government the hell out.

In this case, as long as Terri can survive on food and water with the loving attention of her own parents and siblings for what possible purpose could her starvation serve? And if she if truly in a complete vegetative state, she is not suffering and to starve her to death would hurt her parents considerably.

quote:

---

His other daughter, Suzanne Carr, who is five years younger than Terri, is more expansive. "This whole notion of doing away with a group of people who don't contribute to society or who can't feed themselves or who are expensive to maintain, that is bizarre, that is crazy," she says. "You might as well put down handicapped people."

---

I think we have to take this possibility extremely seriously. Once you start offing those *you* deem unworthy of life, where does it end?

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

His other daughter, Suzanne Carr, who is five years younger than Terri, is more expansive. "This whole notion of doing away with a group of people who don't contribute to society or who can't feed themselves or who are expensive to maintain, that is bizarre, that is crazy," she says. "You might as well put down handicapped people."

---

Strange, that some people have been so estranged from Nature, that they have forgotten it entirely. Such is Natures way of weeding out the unfit. We humans have invented some pretty ingenious systems, to circumnavigate this, true. However, if seperated from these ingenious systems, would the person in question survive?

Also, the woman was directly responsible for her condition, as a result of her Bulimia.

quote:

---

In February 1990, aged 26, she suffered a heart attack, brought on by acute potassium shortage caused by bulimia.

---

Obviously, she wanted to die - or, let us say, was very, very sick. Where was her family when she most needed them? Now, the family wants her kept alive (not quite sure, really - after six minutes without oxygen to the brain at normal body temperature, surely any condition that the woman would have if she should miraculously regain conciousness would be...severely handicapped, to say the least), and I take it that her Husband would like to let her die.

She is going to die, anyway. That much is certain. I guess the remaining question is, what would be the quality of life for the woman, if she was left to go on living, until it was impossible to maintain that state with current technology? A lump, anyway you look at it? What about the medical expenses? What about the toll on the family and loved ones (re: Husband) emotionally?

I personally tend to side with the Husband, on this case.

If she had a clearly written legal document stating how she should be cared for in the event of a vegetative state, then they might have good grounds for removing the care but it doesn't seem she did other than some verbal agreement with her loving husband. He has stuck by her side with his new girlfriend and new children through better and worse, sickness and in health. God bless him.


This is an un-christian passive attitude. And contrary to the Bible teaching. Surly God will not bless his decision.

I find this appalling. What happened till death do us part. She is clinically alive. Her husband is not loving. He wants her burried dead 6 feet under. Whos interest is he serving? His own. He is committing adultery and wants to get on with his girlfriend. Christian speaking you cannot have a wife and a girlfriend. Since his wife is no longer responsive, he wants a woman who responds. I am sure if they had children, they would want to keep her on life support. Some crosses are just too heavy for persons to bear. It just gets too heavy. He should just give all rights to the parents and they will care for her till her natural death. Then he can live happily ever after.

As Christians know Christ has the power to heal the sick even today. He raised dead Lazarus, healed the sick and gave sight to the blind so Christ can also work miracles with Teri. All hope is not lost until her natural death.


Also, the woman was directly responsible for her condition, as a result of her Bulimia.

This is such an insensitive remark. She doesn't deserve to die for self-induced vomiting. Bulima is a condition due to emotional problems. Which is a sickness too.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 11-04-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 11-04-2003).]

hmmm....my friends and i have been debating this quite a bit.
for *me* i wouldn't want to continue living like that, as i don't see it as living, but merely exsisting. as for what these people should do, i'm in favor of her being allowed to die...but am not comfortable with some of it. i can see both sides of the argument, but i tend to feel that if there's no quality of life, then they should let her die. i feel that the family is being selfish keeping her alive....this isn't something that there's a cure for and there's no hope of recovery. of course, opponents to this could say the same thing about the husband.
that being said, i am not comfortable with the 'starvation' thing. i'm also not comfortable with the fact that she's been like this for 13 years and they're just now getting to this. had it only been a year or two after her heart attack, then i'd be more ok with it.
i agree with bugs, that had she made herself clear on her wishes should something like this happen, then removing care wouldn't be as much of an issue, but since she didn't and it's been taken to court several times, i think they should uphold the judge's ruling and let her die.

i dunno... there's definitely no easy answer to things like this and then it's compounded by emotions running so high. i know i'll be taking the time to clearly state my wishes for such a situation......

[edit] damn....2 posts in the time it took me to post hehe



[This message has been edited by Lacuna (edited 11-04-2003).]

I really don't know if my actual opinion was shrouded in so much obscurity that I could have been misunderstood but let me see if I can help clarify:

<Bugs is expressing unbelievable disgust and disdain for the actions of this man using sarcasm>If she had a clearly written legal document stating how she should be cared for in the event of a vegetative state, then they might have good grounds for removing the care but it doesn't seem she did other than some verbal agreement with her loving husband. He has stuck by her side with his new girlfriend and new children through better and worse, sickness and in health. God bless him.</Bugs is expressing unbelievable disgust and disdain for the actions of this man using sarcasm>

Look, while I completely sympathize with the terrible thing that has happened to his wife and how hard that must be for anyone to bear... this man is beneath contempt in my estimation for not only wanting to abandon her and start a new life with another woman but for not giving her care over to her parents and rather wanting her starved to death instead.

[edit] To be even clearer I meant the part about having a clearly stated will saying how she wanted to be cared for in the event of a vegetative existence. [/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 11-04-2003).]

Yeah I understand your compassion bugs, but we cannot just bail out when times are rough especially to the ones we love. Just the mere fact that my in-laws love my spouse and want to care for her would make my heart sink with compassion What father can deny his child. What mother can deny her child? Some of us are dealt mega big crosses in life compared to others and we are tested in faith. For my in-laws I would give them this gift to let them care for their daughter faithfully if he cannot do it any longer. For the husband its the feeling of guilt he will have when he marries the girlfriend while his wife is living, so its better if his wife is dead. Could this be a possibility? Why can't he just divorce her and get on with his current girlfriend?

Umm... I'm a little confused. Are you reading everything I wrote carefully? Am I missing something? I think we are agreeing on this one.

. . : slicePuzzle

So sorry! No. I am not. Skimming thru while closing out month of Oct at work Sorry sorry.
Yes we are. I read thur again. So use to standing alone on
religious issues.

Bugs:

quote:

---

I really don't know if my actual opinion was shrouded in so much obscurity that I could have been misunderstood but let me see if I can help clarify:

<Bugs is expressing unbelievable disgust and disdain for the actions of this man using sarcasm>........

---

And there was me nodding along thinking 'good point' (I must make a mental note to double check now ).

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

From my understanding of the situation, this has come to term now because insurance will no longer cover her care, the husband isn't able to pay for continued care and believes she wants to die, and her parents don't want her to die but won't offer any monetary assistance to care for her.

I am conflicted as to how I feel about his having a girlfriend whilst still being married. In any normal circumstance... I would be appalled. This is hardly a normal circumstance. She obviously isn't dead but, just as obviously, she isn't here either. Should I feel gratified that he has stayed by her side even though he has moved on with his life (ina limited fashion) when a divorce request wouldn't be challenged? Or should I be appalled at his audacity to have a girlfriend while his wife is ailing and unable to care for herself?

Maybe that's a point that needs to be made. He can leave at any time without fear of any repercussions beyond those that he imposes on himself and those he believes God imposes on him (and, I suppose, those that the public feels the need to inflict on him). He hasn't left. Admirable to no small extent. How is this any different then the declaration of death after 7 years of absence of a spouse that has been lost? To him, she is dead. Completely unresponsive beyond automatic nervous sytem reactions. As yet I have heard him say nothing to the contrary. Irreligious as I sound to some of you, realize I look at this from a societal point of view. I'm not Christian and therefore view things from a different POV. Just looking at the things he CAN do legally, and hasn't done, shows more caring than people seem to want to see. Beyond the religious reasons for balking at his intended course of action, what other reasons are there? Bugs has mentioned the repercussions of a precedent being set. A valid point, one that might not be as big of an issue in this particular case IMO but something that needs to be watched for closely. What other issues are there? If it's a purely religious reaction, I have a hard time thinking this needs to be stopped.

My mother chose to let my father die last year when he had slipped into a coma after battling brain cancer. My brother and I talked with her about it and decided that it was best to withold hydration even though my father specified in his living will he wished to recieve it. As a family we decided that he would have wanted to go quickly. So no, Jade, any existing children would not surely have wanted her to stay alive.

-Confusion.
------Confusion.
-----------Confusion.
----------------Confusion.
---------------------Confusion.
--------------------------Confusion.
-------------------------------Confusion now hath made his masterpiece.
--------------------------Confusion.
---------------------Confusion.
----------------Confusion.
-----------Confusion.
------Confusion.
-Confusion.

GD, I'm thinking about how terrible letting her starve will be for her family. I understand why the husband wants to but why not walk away from her now and let the parents take over? If they don't want to pay for her care, or can't afford very much then you would think they could find a hospice somewhere that could provide intravenous nutrition for something more affordable. So for another reason I say it would be hell for the parents to be forced to give up hope. It seems to me that should be a voluntary decision on their part.

. . : slicePuzzle

So no, Jade, any existing children would not surely have wanted her to stay alive.


So sorry I may have hit close to home on my remark. I saw Teri on
the news responding to touch and even though she looked alive I
know she is vegetative. But that clip make a lot of people change
their mind because she looks like she is responding. How can you
let her go. I myself would want to lay with her warm body and hug
her as much as I could if she were my sister or daughter or mother. I read how the miracles happen to people and it defies
science. So you never know.

I just don't trust the intentions of the husband being that
he stands to gain money and a new life after her death.
Plus, we really don't know how long he was with her faithfully. How
long it took him to find another woman or women after she went
into a coma. He could have been dating a year or two after she
went sick and still was at her bedside. He can walk away from
Terri and let her family take over and that would be it. Some
people wouldn't blame him. So whats stopping him. Money?

Actually at this point there is so much support for this woman that donations would pour in if asked for to support her for many years to come. Whenever there is a situation that pulls on people's heartstrings in this country, they are rather generous with money. For instance, there is a lot of money being raised right now for the families displaced by the recent firestorm we've endured here in the Golden state.

. . : slicePuzzle

Hospice is very expensive. Pretty much as expensive as hospitals. The only difference between hospice and hospitals is that hospice locations will take people the hospital will not.

Bugs - I don't know this for sure (Who could?) but my guess would be that the husband genuinely cares for his wife. He has every right and opportuniy to walk away, but he doesn't. He has every capablity to put his wife into her parents hands and let them deal with her condition, but he doesn't. My only deduction can be that he truly believes that she doesn't want to live this way and her parents won't give her the release she wants.

Jade - I would have expected that you, of all people, should be able to see reasons of Love in the actions of a man who has no reason to stay, but does.

Jade - I would have expected that you, of all people, should be able to see reasons of Love in the actions of a man who has no reason to stay, but does.

Your right GD. Hadn't thought of that. But what makes me tend not
to believe it is that he has a squeeze and we don't know how long
they have been together. This kind of love you are referring to
is suppose to be intended to the wife ONLY. And that is hard to
believe when someone else is wearing her shoes.

I did not realize hospices were that expensive. If it's truly a case of money I would like to see the donation option at least attempted before withholding food and water.

Ok, so you're giving him the benefit of the doubt. You make a good point if indeed there are no ulterior motives that we are unaware of. It is entirely possible that he really wants her to starve to death because he believes so strongly that is what she would have wanted. I am open to that possibility but the fact that he's already started another family *really* bothers me and makes me question his motives.

But I'll assume he's doing it out of sincere motives for the sake of the next point. So since she is completely unaware, what is the compelling reason to withhold food and water? Why not allow her (an empty shell) to continue so that her parents and siblings will not be traumatized anymore than they alreay have due to her condition? What harm is there in that?

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

Also, the woman was directly responsible for her condition, as a result of her Bulimia.

This is such an insensitive remark. She doesn't deserve to die for self-induced vomiting. Bulima is a condition due to emotional problems. Which is a sickness too.

---

Insensitive? Well, yes, I guess it is, actually. But true. Reality is often insensitive. However, I never, ever said that she deserved to die, because she has Bulimia. I know very well what Bolimia is, and how it effects someone. That's why I see both the family, and the Husband in a suspicious light. If they all love this woman so much, why didn't they help her with this sickness? Of course, I don't know all the facts, here...maybe they did. However, even all this doesn't erase the blame - as surely as an alcoholic is directly responsible for his/her own actions, so, too, is a Bulimic.

Now, I realize that this issue is somewhat...emotional, for some. I would suggest first reading a post thoroughingly, before posting - saves time and trouble.

As for letting her die, by starvation...how would someone go about doing it differently? I thought that euthanasia was illegal. Personally, why hold on to her in this world? Let her go on to the next great adventure...if there is one.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 11-04-2003).]

I understand the misgivings due to the "squeeze" which is why I sidestepped that issue. I don't know anything about it, and to my knowledge, neither does anybody else. To assume the worst is to be passing judgement on him for actions that may not have occured. Against your beliefs from your point of view and against the law from my point of view. I still don't know how I feel about this woman that is with him. If, indeed, she is his wife in all but name... sigh... I HAVE to believe that his wife is dead to him (I think I've heard him say this). I can't find it in myself to believe ill of someone without outright proof. My gut reaction is that he is despicable for even thinking of doing what he may be doing (if he even is). He should clear the air of past issues before moving on. HOWEVER I see no reason that that should change how this is dealt with legally.

quote:

---

Why not allow her (an empty shell) to continue so that her parents and siblings will not be traumatized anymore than they alreay have due to her condition? What harm is there in that?

---

It could just be a matter of honor to him. I swore by Love and Life to do by my wife justly. If her dying wish is something that I know she wants, come hell or high water I'll be damned sure it happens. If this was my wife in this situation I would fight tooth and nail that her wishes were honored. Is it not a harm to her spirit to be betrayed by her husband (in being left "alive" even after telling him otherwise)? Isn't that the worst harm you can think of, betrayal of the spirit? There are a lot of assumption flying around that irk me. He is assumed to be doing this for money. This woman is assumed to be his replacement wife. It is assumed that his wife never asked him to do any of this. It is assumed that she never told him to move on and live his life after she was gone. Any and all of these can be true. Why do you judge? Yes, its hard to believe otherwise, but why should we make a demon out of this man when we DON'T KNOW this man. I would rather believe that people can be honorable and good then believe otherwise. This doesn't make me naive, it makes me fair.



[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 11-04-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 11-04-2003).]

I think that REAL blood family should be the ones to make this kind of decision. Blood is thicker than the mud. He was only
married to Teri for 6 years. Why should he make that kind of
decision when they have known her most of her lifetime. Being
that they probably know her a lot better anyway.

Your right GD, we shouldn't think the worst. We should give him
the benefit of the doubt. But when a persons life, even if its not the quality of the kind of life that we judge by our own standards
is a good livable life is at stake we should question all motives.
And the mere fact that he does have a new family while his wife
is clinically alive is something to question. Thats why in this
case it she should be the responsiblity of the blood family to care
for her. He has to know they truly deeply love her. CAn this love
be misquided? No. Would they wish her harm in any way? Would it
harm her to stay alive? It would give not him but them great
comfort to care for her till natural death. If I were him, I would
be thinking I am thinking not selfishly but lovingly in making her family happy in releasing her to their care.

quote:

---

I think that REAL blood family should be the ones to make this kind of decision. Blood is thicker than the mud. He was only
married to Teri for 6 years. Why should he make that kind of decision when they have known her most of her lifetime. Being
that they probably know her a lot better anyway.

---

I have distinct issues with this sort of thinking. There are things that my wife knows about me that my parents (well... parent) will never know. Not because I'm too embarrassed to tell my mother or any of that drivel but because it flat out isn't her business. She doesn't want to know, I don't feel the need to force it on her. Also, there are just some things that are said to one and the opportunity isn't available to say it to the rest. She could have had full intentions of telling her parents about her viewpoints and never gotten the chance. I still hold that her wishes are paramount here. Not one group or the other's comfort.

A point I'd like to make... my father "starved" to death. It isn't as bad as you might think. It ends in slipping away in your sleep in about 4 days. What makes this any different then someone dying with a feeding tube IN? There is no sensation of being 'full' and no sensation of being 'empty'. There isn't anything you or I would call feeling "starved" like we do after not eating for a day or two. It's cessation of nutrition, not solid food. She hasn't had the capability of feeling "starved" for many years now, I would guess.

Jade, don't take this personally but when I read your comments about blood I almost jumped through the monitor and screamed. Blood is NOTHING. Values are all that matter. Race is nothing, hair color, any other extraneous distinction we separate ourselves with are NOTHING. We are all members of the same family, all of us from the best to the worst of us. This is something I believe very strongly.

GD, there comes a point when the lives of individuals come to have larger implications on society. I believe this is one of those cases. As a society, I believe it is in our interest to have public policies uphold and protect human life as much as we possibly can. I won't get into the abortion debate at this time, but let's assume I'm referring to those who are clearly human beings.

I thank you for acknowledging my point earlier about watching for that slippery slope of deciding who and who is not worthy of life.

That all being said, you are right that I am making a few assumptions about this guy. I am not assuming everything you mentioned but some of it. I can only go on the information we have in the reports. The very fact that he has a "squeeze" AND kids by her proves to me that he has abandoned his marital vows (that is of course assuming he said "better or worse, in sickness and in health" ). That alone is enough for me to question his character and motives in this matter. I never mentioned the money thing because I am not comfortable judging him for that because I don't think we have enough info to make a call.

When I judge others, please understand that I am always willing to be judged by that exact same standard. We are called to judge others, just not in a hypocritical fashion

Anyway, you are making a very good case for his side I must admit. But I am still left asking myself how hurting her spirit by leaving her body lingering works. Are we assuming that he believes that? I see grieving parents. Whether or not she is totally gone or not, they don't want to give up hope and forcing her demise seems very cruel to me. Like you said, the guy can walk anytime. If he's already started another family then where's the honor in that? I still think he should hand it over to the parents.

I'm very sorry to hear about your dad, GD. I just lost my father-in-law, a week ago Monday and so I am pretty fresh with that sort of thing. He had a will clearly expressing his wishes. It was something like if he becomes vegetative with the opinion of two doctors that there is no hope of recovery to withhold artificial means of life support, but I don't think he specifically stated removing food and water. As it happens, the family did not have to make a decision because his heart gave way within hours of going on a ventilator.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

The very fact that he has a "squeeze" AND kids by her proves to me that he has abandoned his marital vows (that is of course assuming he said "better or worse, in sickness and in health").

---

Oh, quite. My point is, if he truly believes in the "Till death do us part", and he believes her soul has gone on... and she is dead and this is only her shell, is there anything wrong with that? I do realize that I've caught myself. If this is only her shell what use is it to honor the spirit for something that doesn't matter. Dunno. I assume it does in some way. Are we sure they are his children? or did they come along. As I said, despicable, but not bearing. He can still walk if he wants to. I still wonder why he hasn't. There isn't any real money to be gained. Any life insurance will be immediately transfered to what insurance didn't cover and I gaurantee it didn't cover everything. If he's on medical aid he has nothing and will gain nothing. the life insurance proceeds have already been paid to the medical aid department and he gains nothing. What does he stand to gain from his actions besides peace of mind that he did what she wished? I don't think he's vindictive enough to do this to harm the parents. I just don't know.

In spite of all evidence to the contrary I still choose to believe in honor and its trappings. I have doubts, I concede, but not such as would make me disobey the law. While I understand your concerns dealing with legality of euthenasia, and i agree with you, I see far more evidence of a knee-jerk religious reaction to this. If only from people whose opinions, whilevalid didn't matter it would mean no thing. But for Jeb Bush to overturn a court ruling... seems awfully audacious to me and setsa precedent I hoped to never see. As yet... I can see no non-religious reason to have issue with this. It is the husbands word against the parents word.



[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 11-05-2003).]

Just one point to make:

quote:

---

All hope is not lost until her natural death.

---

Well, if "natural" is what is wanted, remove the tube and see what happens.

If christ wishes her to live, she will. Other wise, she will die a natural death.

What she has now is unnatural life.

Wow. I was only able to briefly glance at this thread right after emps posted it. I knew I would have some things to say, but I couldn't respond at work. 10 hours later and a whole lot has been said. So, I apologize for entering this discussion so far along, but I would like to interject a few things.

I've been listening to this issue since it came up a few weeks ago. It really only became news nationwide when the court order to have the feeding tube removed was about to go through. It was really only noteworthy because this was not the first time the tube had been removed. This fight has been going on for years between the husband and her parents. I'm trying to find where I read it so I can quote it properly, but I read a statement from the husband stating that the reason he has not properly divorced his wife is because she remains in his care first. Were he to divorce her, her care would be solely placed in the hands of her parents whom have already shown are not willing to honor her spoken wishes. As long as he remains her husband, he has a say in how she is treated. The only reason she still has a beating heart is because of the chain of court orders her parents have produced to prevent the removal of the feeding tube.

The husband has also stated that he still loves his wife. Why does he have a "squeeze" on the side then? I have to ask this question: Did you stop loving someone after they died? My guess in most cases would be no. Why should he stop living? He believes his wife's spirit has passed, all he wants is for her body to be allowed to pass as well as she stated to him. He can't be allowed to marry the woman he has had children with because of the feelings of love and responsibility he has for Terri. I think whether they developed a relationship a month after her heart attack or two years after is irrelavent. In spirit he is a widower and has been since the prognosis came down that there was no hope of recovery.

Bugs - I just wanted to address this one point, feeding tubes and I.V.'s are artificial life support. Do they seem heroic? Not necessarily, but you remove them and the patient dies. That is what life support is - it is not a ventilator alone. One other point of clarification (sorry) hospice would not be the place to put her for continued care, that would be nursing home or rehabilitation center. Hospice is where patients go for end of life care. You go into hospice to die.

Jade - A couple of things I wanted to address that you mentioned: First that the husband is being selfish for not letting her parents take over her care. In my view, it is the parents and siblings that are being selfish for not letting her go. Do you think perhaps that maybe they could be in a little bit of denial over their daughter's wishes? So we come down to the issue of the husband's word against the parents - and no written document from Terri explaining her wishes. It seems to me there is a lot of judgement against the credibility of Mr. Shiavo simply because he has chosen to give his love to another.
"I think that REAL blood family should be the ones to make this kind of decision. Blood is thicker than the mud. He was only
married to Teri for 6 years. " By this statement you are trivializing the marriage they did have. So the validity of one's input into the treatement of their spouse can only be determined by the length of their marriage? Pardon me if I find that logic asinine. Are you saying that you would rather have your parents make life changing decisions about your medical care rather than the husband with whom you live with daily and loves you? I have to say I'm a bit incredulous.
One other thing about her appearing to respond to outside stimulus - Have you seen what happens to some animals when they die? Have you seen them twitch and writhe? How about people? Have you seen the aftermath of an accident with massive head trauma, where the eyes are open to the world, then close; arms twitch and fingers grasp? I've had those very fingers close on my own hand. It's eerie. It's hard not to believe that there isn't something there. But there isn't - the autonomic part of the brain can continue to function allowing the body to breathe and the heart to beat, but there is no brain wave activity in the cognitive parts of the brain.

WebShaman - I agree with most of what you have said, particularly about her being responsible for her own condition. Insensitve? Assuredly, but does that invalidate the truth? No. As for her family's involvment (or lack thereof) with her sickness we can only really speculate at this point. However, I hesitate to put them into a suspicious light because they did not appear to help her. Eating disorders are not easy to detect until dramatic weight loss is shown. Bulemics appear to be eating in normal, healthy manners, and are usually very discreet about getting rid of the contents of their stomachs. Her heart attack could very well have been the first indication that there was something amiss.

In my personal opinion, this woman's body should be allowed to die. I find the intervention by the governor of the state, and the support from his brother to be appalling. If the parents want her to continue to live, they should take her home and administer the care themselves. I'd like to see if their thoughts would change. Many doctors have come to the same conclusion that this woman has no hope for recovery. I don't see a precedent being set here if this woman's body is allowed to die. It isn't a matter of choosing who has the right to live or not. Mr. Shiavo has no motive to let her die other than honoring his wife's wishes. He has nothing to gain, aside from a marriage he could have already had in the first place. This has only become an issue because a couple of parents can't accept death for what it is and let their daughter die.

MD

I don't think you can compare the spirit of a human to the spirit of
an animal. The integrity of the human life cannot compare to animal life. We have to agree that only the husband really knows why he wants to have his wife starve to death. I don't understand why its important to him to let her die. Her real immediate family can let her die. Its something that you state they are all in denial and he isn't. Why? When you fall out of marital love with someone and give that love to someone else you have to agree that everything changes. Your focus changes to the new love and you forget about the old love. If he had the indecency to take on another live in companion and make a new family, I have to wonder that he has selfish motives. Then who is looking out for Teris interest? It can only be her real family.

After her death, happiness will be gained for the husband and his new family. Not Teri and her real blood family. In this case to me, its like, he left her for another woman and what usually happens is
the left spouse is on her own and can return back to live with her
family now that she is left out in the cold, martial speaking. As
soon as her husband took on another woman, he left his rights as
her husband. Its like he abandoned her. So I differ with you on
the point that it is irrevelant on how long it took him to find
a companion. If he truly is married to Teri in spirit, and by the way
he doesn't know where her spirit is, then he should stick by her
till death do them part. If he cannot do this, let someone else
carry the burden lovingly and willingly.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 11-05-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 11-05-2003).]

It's as simple as this: there comes a point where you simply have to let go, and let nature take its course.

Or, if you prefer, let 'god' guide her fate.

The marraige isn't what is important to him now. I believe that she is already dead to him. He is trying to honor her wishes that she told to him in memory of the love they had and he still has for her. The unfortunate truth of that is that their marraige has become a tool. I imagine that will pain him for the rest of his life that he was forced to belittle something so important and taint the love he had with terri to make sure she got what she wanted. I know it would haunt me for the rest of my days.

There is no reason to believe that he doesn't still love her just because he's with someone else. He is trying to make sure that Terri gets what she wanted. I can hear her now saying that she wants to be let go because she doesn't want her family to suffer longer than it has to. Do you really think there is less harm in letting them be in pain for however long Terri's body stays alive and then feeling that pain and suffering after it dies? I think they need to let her go and start healing and living for themselves.

You still aren't getting what I am saying. Have your doubts, but BE FAIR. Don't pass judgement on him. That isn't your place. You believe that is GOD'S place. I can hear the decision (judgement) you've already made in every post you make. This ties into something you said Bugs. I don't believe the intent of what the bible verse (I don't remember specifically) is judge, and to be fair, be judged in return. I think it is directed much more towards being fair to one another since our judgements count for nothing in the grand scheme of things. Be fair to him here and let his rewards or punishments be decided by the authority you believe in, GOD.

[EDIT]I realized after posting this that this has gotten to me more than I thought. If I'm coming across as arguing with you for the sake of 'winning'(as if that would matter anyway)... such is not my intent. I do truly believe in being fair to Mr. Schiavo. I just see some idiocincracies in what is being said and what people tell me they believe. Again, I apologize if I'm coming across... hmmm... antagonisticly.)[/EDIT]


[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 11-05-2003).]

GD


So your saying marrige is a state of mind. Like in his mind he
is not married because he wants to not be married to Teri anymore. This is an escape. See it for what it really is.

You are right. Per Jesus own words, " Do not judge, and you will
not be judged" And I do believe in this. And I am guilty if I
say he is being selfish. I am speaking for the right to Teri to
live till natural death. Her husband is judging that she has no
quality of life so terminate her. Who is judging here.

Did you ever see that movie where these people were mentally ill
and many of them were in catatonic states. A doctor gave them
a medicine that awoken them from their sleep. The effects of the
medicine didn't last long and the patients retreated back to their
catatonic states. But while they were awaken it was revealed that
they could hear what was going on around them but just couldn't
respond. And talking to them & touching them mattered because
they unknowingly to the nurses and doctors were there in some
capacity. This was based on a true story.


I know in the case of Teri some doctors say there is no
chance for her to return to normal, but another doctor says there
is a possibility. An just on the opinion of that doctor, she should be kept alive.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 11-05-2003).]

I'm peronally with DL on this. People expound about God's works and God's will, but when it comes down to it the human lust for self-preservation goes far beyond any religious matters. In the end, it isn't 'God's Will'...it's your will...if you want to say that things are God's will, then turn off the machines, remove the feeding tube and let nature take it's course. Nature is, after all, God's will.

Meanwhile, through reading this thread, I've seen alot of stuff about 'well, her husband only wants this so he can be with another woman' or 'he's with another woman, so he can't say what to do with Terri'. Well, would someone mind pointing out to me exactly where it says that he's found somoene else?

And, my final point for this post. I am, actually, neither pro-death, nor pro-life in this issue; I'm pro-nature, but, everyone on the pro-life side here is talking about how Terri would want to live, even if she did live out her life as a vegetable. Well, I ask you...how do you know? No one knows what she wants, she has no form of communication...no sign that she even understands what people are saying to her, if she even hears them. Even if the original personality or Terri is still alive in that husk of a human being...do you realise how deeply sunk in madness she would be by now? It has got ot be the greatest horror on this earth to be stuck in a body that doesn't work. You can see...you can hear, but you have no concious control over it's movements, no way whatsoever to communicate with the outside world. It's just you...there, in the darkness behind the eyes. How cna someone truly be so caught up in their own righteousness, so...absorbed by a cause that they loose all sight of what's important. These parents don't want Terri to live for Terri's sake. They want Terri to live for their sake, so that when the end comes they can say 'We did everything we could'. But they've become such martyrs to this cause that they've forgotten what it's all about, and now just want to make Terri a martyr too.

Sorry, was rambling on for a bit there...

Now, as with all things, this is simply my opinion...like it? good...don't like it...feel free to pick it apart and point out inconsistancies, but don't expect me to change it just becuase you tell me to...ok?

We'll get along just fine.

quote:

---

So your saying marrige is a state of mind. Like in his mind he
is not married because he wants to not be married to Teri anymore.

---

No. I'm saying that her Spirit (Soul to you) is what matters to him. That's what matters to me. The intertwining of Spirits and energies that make the union between two people a special thing, not this puny physical shell I inhabit. He is fighting for the release of her body because Terri asked him to. Maybe she didn't believe that the spirit was the only thing that was important. Maybe she did and knew her parent's would have issue. There are too many maybe's. Too many suppositions. You've made your choice. At least you can see how you've trapped yourself.

I see your points guys. Makes me think too.

The thing is if I stop feeding myself water and food, I will die too.
I WILL STARVE TO DEATH. Nature is not taking its course. Some
one is taking natures course.

Where one sees it as mercy, some see it as STARVING HER TO
DEATH as killing. Yes let life take its natural course and give her
nutrients till she dies a natural death. Nature takes its course
when even if you feed the body it still wants to die for sickly
reasons. If we keep feeding her, she will live.

The fact is we are judging her quality of life and he, his also. He will not have a good life if she continues to live.

Just wanted to post this site for info on Terri since I have
already expressed my view and have nothing more to add.
http://terrisfight.org

Jade, to be fair I know I posted a lot so maybe you missed everything I was trying to say. So, I'll restate a couple of questions for simplicity's sake. Have you seen first hand the reactions of the body of a brain dead person? Would you rather your parents make life altering decisions about your medical care rather than the husband with whom you live your daily life and share your love? If you need further clarification about these questions, I invite you to reread my entire post to gather the context.

One other question to the general forum: If your spouse stated to you that they did not want to remain in a vegetative state after several doctors have given the prognosis of no hope of recovery, even if this included removal of a feeding tube where they would "starve to death", and that they asked you ensure continued care did not happen, would you do everything in your power to honor that request? Now say you had to make this decision before the request could be documented legally.

MD
http://terrisfight.org/

Yes, I read your post. Sorry if I didn't address you back specifically. And I understand what you are trying to say but I wanted to point out in this situation in regard to Terri her husband stands to gain not loose because according to him she is alredy lost. He gains happiness with a new family which he started two years after her accident. And an award of 1.1 million for damages in a malpractice suit. Should she be terminated he gets the rest of the money not used up yet from her care. Now if he would donate the rest of the money to set up a foudation in her memory it might make me believe he has Terri's interest at heart.

Living till natural death she would use up all the money in her care. He would not be able to blissfully enjoy the money with his new family. I personally could not live like that knowing I am living off my dead spouse money that would have been used for her care had she lived.

Personally, the way my husband is so emotionally close to my family whom I know he loves dearly, he would consider their feelings and would decide with them along with my children. There would be too many hearts to consider which would entail great sacrifice and knowing my husband he would not take it upon imself to decide this alone.

Then again it all depends on the situation. In Teri's case she is not completely vegetative. She is not brain dead. If I were brain dead and would be kept alive on a machine and the machine was breathing for me because I couldn't then thats another story. I would die when they turn off the machine. Yeah sure I 'd say turn it off and let me die. In Teri's case she can breathe for herself without a machine. Look at alzheimers patients. They at the near end cannot feed themselves, so a feeding tube is inserted. Should we do the same to them or let them die natually. Remove the tube and let them starve to death.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 11-05-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 11-05-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 11-05-2003).]

Since when is aphyxiation and Starvation morally different? Both lead to death...irregardless of how. Point is, the body needs both air, water and food to go on living.

Interesting, that you, Jade, can justify turning off the breathing machine, but not the feeding machine.

Natural course. Natural course. I think you're missing where the natural course was interupted. It isn't now. She should already be dead if we're going the route of the natural course of her life. The natural course would have been for her to recover or die after her heart attack without any interference. There almost ISN'T any natural course of life in anyone's life. There almost hasn't EVER been any. So long as there have been "doctors" there hasn't been any continuity of nature in matters of life and death. Why only have issues with the 'natural course of her life' now when it's just as valid to have issues at the beginning of this? Bringing nature into this only weakens your side of the debate, IMO.

I must admit going through all of this has brought my bad dreams back. My wife and I have decided to hire a lawyer and have our wills and living wills drawn up. I suggest you all do the same (where it's applicable). I don't expect to die of old age, it'd be nice (maybe), but I don't expect it. That means it could happen tomorrow. NOW is never to early to take care of things such as this.

GD, I think that is *very* good advice. It is not a pleasant topic to plan for one's own demise but there are really good reasons for doing so. It can help ease the process for the dying as well as the loved ones.

WS, for me, I view respirators as a level of artificiality higher than providing food and water. But one of the main points here is whether there is hope of recovery involved. Society has to choose a line somewhere and I guess I would place it between food and the respirator. It's a judgement call. There just aren't any easy answers on this one.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 12-21-2003).]

Key: ,. = etc.

The Terri Schindler Life Ribbon Campaign acts as a beacon pointing to Terri's plight. It also acts as lighthouse and gateway to others who already Realize and stand as Witness to Terri's inherent right to life and rehabilitation,. It is apparent that Michael Schiavo, George Felos, Deborah Bushnell and Co. must be bound by laws in order to be forced out of Terri's life. Let us continue to spread the word and take actions,. for Terri.

Juan Schoch
e-mail: pc93@bellsouth.net


Help Us Protect And Ensure Life
And Liberty For Terri Schindler!
Become a Life Ribbon Site

You are encouraged to place a Life Ribbon Campaign banner on your servers and web pages to support/participate in the campaign described on this page at
http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/c/pc93/terri_schindler_life_ribbon_campaign.htm

Questions to: pc93@bellsouth.net

Also looking for co-ordinators for Terri Life Ribbon Meet-ups in their particular states.