Terry Schiviao (sp?) is being starved today
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Terry Schiviao (sp?) is being starved today
Today is the day that Terry Schiviao's feeding tube is going to be discontinued. They are taking her off "life support". Life support is also defined as feeding tubes. Her husband has been fighting for this for a while. They say she is in a comma, but she sits in a chair, smiles, laughs appropiately, and has even talked. Does not sound like a comma to me. They have chosen to let her die by starvation. How incredibly horrible way to die. We would not let our dog starve to death, but today this woman is going to die (within a few days to weeks) by starvation.
Her husband, who is engaged and has a daughter with another woman will get a large monetary settlement when she dies (thus his motivation). Doctors have said that she could be rehabilitated, but her husband has refused all rehab for the last ten years. He hasn't even authorized her teeth to be brushed or wash rags to be put in her hands to prevent contraction.
on another note Andrea Yates has decided to starve herself claiming her children are in purgatory and her death will free them. I bet we make sure she gets nutrition. Not that we shouldn't but it seems hyporcritical to me.
My dh's mom was in a coma for 7-8 years. She was only on a feeding tube, however the doctors said all of her vital organs were shutting down.
It was really sad. dh's stepdad was dating a woman while all of this was going on (I found this to be heartbreaking, how could someone move on before someone passes away? Shouldn't this guy divorce her and give up all his rights if he is so eager to move on. Don't people marry for better or worse, rich or poor, sickness or health? We went through something similar, it only went down hill after she passed away and that's when greed really set in. I just found this all so sad. I don't know what to say. 
I don't know of this story can someone post a website please.
http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/1102/1102ft1.html
I did a google search and this was the story on it.
Just by reading the article how canthey say she should not live. She is alive. If she is respnding the way she is it sounds like she needs heavy rehab and a long stent away from that nasty man she calls her husband. It is plain that he only wants her money and nothing else.
You can't classify her in a comma go to Terrisfight.org to see the website her parents put up. I hate to see her die and I hate to see this one on the books.
You can't classify her in a comma go to Terrisfight.org to see the website her parents put up. I hate to see her die and I hate to see this one on the books.
I agree, this is ridiculous. Her parents should fight for "custody" of her and get her away from her husband.
He can divorce her and marry this other lady and live happily ever after.
And, I didn't hear about the Andrea Yates thing. But, I'm sure they'll find some way to force feed her.
Bumping up
My message keeps messing up. I will forget this before I get it posted. I listen to a Christian radio station (WCHR) and Jonnie Eareckson Tada (SP?) had prayer, call congressman and they are trying to place Terry in Florida's temporary Foster care. Pray for God's guidance in this situation!
Sorry ladies this really just touches my heart since dh's mom was in a coma for so long. Just think if we were in the same situation.
Marg go to terrisfight.org and see if she is in a comma. They have video of her. her parents have fought for custody of her and have fought this and I'm sure is still fighting. If he divorces her he does not get any money. That is why he has stayed married to her in the first place.
very sad situation. I feel so badly for her parents.
I heard they just removed the tube. Why didn't the governor take time to visit this situation? Very, very upsetting Maybe her parents should file murder charges.
Govenor Jeb Bush would not touch it untill he got like thousands of e mails and calls. then he did write a letter to Judge Greer. He wasn't as active as he could have been. they will give her no liquids either. To die by dehydration is unthinkable to make someone go through. I understand if she was terminal or physically dying and you give her nourishment and pain medication to make them comfortable and let them die on their own, but to starve someone. This opens the doors to euthinasia.
What if her parents gave her liquids, I am just very curious how much they would step in. I think if I were her parents I would kidnap her and take her to another state/country, etc. How can you watch someone die in that manner? My mom had cancer and she did not eat for 5 weeks. The last week and a half she did not drink anything. I knew she would be in a better place, but is was a terrible thing to watch
One of my kids is tube fed. This is going to be a major thing in the disability world!! Unbelievable and sickening!
Everything I have read for the past several years says that the doctors say that she is in a permanent vegetative state and brain dead. That does not sound to me like any kind of rehab would do anything at all.
As for the comments in Juli's first post: "but she sits in a chair, smiles, laughs appropiately, and has even talked. .... Doctors have said that she could be rehabilitated, but her husband has refused all rehab for the last ten years. He hasn't even authorized her teeth to be brushed or wash rags to be put in her hands to prevent contraction." I am assuming these are quotes from the Schindler's site, and they are absolute nonsense. If any judge saw a video of this woman sitting in a chair, smiling, laughing, and even talking, there would be no question of removing the tubes. I believe those statements (from the Schindler site, I assume) are out and out falsehoods. I also do not for one second believe that the facility where she is being cared for would even require authorization for normal cleanliness care or for the other kinds of care given to any comatose patient to prevent muscles in the hands and limbs from freezing in position. No medical facility would accept such orders, no medical facility would fail to provide the appropriate care. Those statements are also almost certainly out and out falsehoods. As for the doctors who "have said she could be rehabbed", who are these doctors? They are certainly not the doctors involved in her day to day care, nor the experts brought in by the court to examine her and to provide expert opinions to the court. Sadly, some doctors will say anything, even if they don't know what they are talking about (or worse, even if they do know what they are talking about and know what they are saying is not true). Again, if these doctors who say she could be rehabbed were deemed credible by the judges, no order would have been issued to allow the tubes to be removed. No judge makes such a decision lightly, and is very careful to look at every shred of evidence on the side of the people who don't want to remove life support. If there were any credible evidence to support the Schindlers, they would have won their case. But unsupported statements of events unwitnessed by anyone other than the Schindlers are not credible evidence.
I don't know the people involved, and have not read any court transcripts or court opinions. I have, however, followed this story as it has been reported in legal publications. One of the issues appears to be that Terri Shiavo was involved in a serious accident many years ago and received a large monetary settlement some time after she married. Her parents, I have read, claim that they should have some of that money, and further claim that Mr. Shiavo has refused to divorce Terri so that he can keep the money after her death. Again, I don't know the ins and outs of this, but I do know that when large sums of money are involved people will do truly awful things to each other.
I do know that the site listed above is one set up by the Schindlers, Terri Shiavo's parents. It is not surprising, then, that it presents only their point of view.
In the ordinary course of events, if no large sums of money were involved and if there were no relatives, a court would have ordered the feeding tube removed years ago after doctors had certified that the patient was brain dead and there was no hope of any recovery of any kind or to any degree. And that is what several qualified medical experts have certified in this case.
I think this is a tragic case. It is always tragic when a child dies before her parents. It is even more tragic when parents hold on to hope for so many years and struggle as the Schindlers have, only to lose in the end.
My personal guess - if the money weren't involved, and if the Schindlers hadn't been so hostile to Mr. Shiavo from the outset, he might well have divorced Terri and let her go into the custody of her parents. My further guess is that the parents would have tried all kinds of therapies, turning to quacks and "faith healers" when the usual medical routes failed, only to have Terri on a feeding tube in the end, for the rest of her life.
The issue of feeding tubes for disabled children who have some level of cognitive function is a totally different matter. I suspect to a great extent that is an insurance and managed care battle, sad to say. But in this case Terri Shiavo has no cognitive function and, according to medical experts, no possibility of any cognitive function.
If she did indeed express to her husband that she didn't want to be kept alive on tubes (which is certainly what I have expressed to my children, verbally and in writing, many times over), then her choice should be honored. And unless her parents had similar discussions with her about this subject, they simply don't know.
Living next door to New Jersey, I remember the Karen Ann Quinlen case very vividly. This was another feeding tube case that went up and down multiple court levels over the decision of whether to remove the feeding tube. In the end, the courts ruled that the tube should be removed but, as I remember, Karen died shortly after the court's final ruling but before the tube was removed.
Ginny, did you go to the site posted above and watch those video clips?
I had not previously heard of Terry or her situation until this post. I have to say that after researching the situation a bit I am horrified and disgusted to the point of nausea. As many of you know I am a speech pathologist. I have worked with patients VERY similar to Terri for 4 years of my career. Obviously with such an emotional topic there will be propaganda on both sides of the issue. However, after viewing the videos (critically viewing them, i.e., the "tracking the balloon" video is too close up to see if she is really tracking the balloon or just moving her eyes for another reason) it is obvious that she has cognitive function. She can hear and respond to speech, recognize family members, and attempts to vocalize through moaning. With brain injured patients we frequently use coma scales to rate their function. I have attached the Glasgow Coma Scale which is commonly used http://www.medstudents.com.br/neuro/neuro4.htm Just based on the snippets of video I saw, and I didn't watch all of them, I would say (in my professional opinion) that she would score at least 3 for "eyes open," 2 "verbal", and 6 "motor". This would give her a score of 11 and put her at a moderately impaired level of IMPAIRED CONSCIOUSNESS, not coma (<8 total score). I cannot believe that the state of Florida is going to allow her to die a horrible death of starvation caused by obvious gross neglect. If she were a dog she would be taken from her owner and rehabilitated by the ASPCA, but human life simply isn't worth much these days.
Also, Ginny, in response to not being kept alive by tubes...that typically refers to ventilators. Now it *can* refer to tube-feedings, but has to be specified as such. Let's give the benefit of the doubt and say no tube feeding. When we work with brain-injured patients, restoring chewing and swallowing abilities is of key importance for speech pathologists. Why not feed her orally? Yes, someone would have to physically feed her and I am sure her parents would be more than willing. Since she didn't appear to have profuse drooling and was able to swallow her own saliva during the videos I saw, she would in all likelihood be able to swallow and tolerate a pureed diet with thickened liquids (there is an artificial thickener made for this purpose), if she were in an upright position with pillows to support her. Best case scenario: she eats and gets enjoyment from food, ultimatley gets more therapy (no she will never be "normal", but there is a possibility for her to eat, be able to communicate basic needs with some type of augmentative communication device, and be splinted and have passive range of motion exercises to decrease her severe arm and leg contractures); worst case scenario:she can't swallow without aspirating food and liquids and she gets aspiration pneumonia and ultimately dies. Even that worst case scenario of dying from pneumonia, which is a "natural cause" to my way of thinking, is preferable to being slowly starved to death.
I just can't say enough how livid this situation makes me. I certainly hope that the lawyers and judges in this case never have a severe stroke, head injury, or debilitating neurological illness where they are still thinking, reasoning people locked in their own bodies, because then they will realize the gravity of their decision and how helpless someone with a diffuse disability is. One of my favorite quotes is, "Just because someone can't talk doesn't mean that they have nothing to say." I think Terri speaks volumes and she and her family will be in my prayers.
Pam, I agree 100%. Ginny, check out the video clip. My Sonja is much like Terri, but Terri has more control of her body than Sonja does.
Due to chronic aspiration, Sonja is 100% tube fed, and always will be. I'm on a g-tube list, and many of the members are fully functioning adults who have had cancer, or something else to decrease their ability to swallow safely. Being tube fed, in no way, means you can't live a full life. I agree that no tubes means no ventilation tubes. Terri seemed to be breathing quite well, with no help at all. She also seems to be quite happy. She was thrilled to see her mom, and was smiling and vocalizing in response to her.
I can absolutely not believe they are doing this!! I'm just hoping that she'll be given the chance to eat and drink orally, and that she'll come through it fine.
Pam, I worked as a speech pathologist before becoming a mother, too. Based on the reports from her family, I can definitely say I have worked with adults who had worse communication abilities. I could not even imagine how painful it is for her family to watch her starve to death. I don't believe that starving a person to death is the right way to handle any situation and I hope that they can find some way to feed her-I wich I could see a report from a Speech Pathologist on her ability to swallow, etc. Are they going to allow anyone to attempt to feed her-have they tried in the past/recently?
Having said that, I think the difference in this situation versus the people I have worked with in the past the fact that they were born with very limited cognitive, communicative abilities. Terri was a fully functioning married adult who is now in what is being called a "coma". I'm not saying it is right to differentiate, but I just think this is where the line is being drawn.
If she did indicate to her husband at one time that she did not want to be kept on life support I can understand why he would not want her to continue life in such a way. If this is his real reson for not getting a divorce, then I can sort of understand his position and if that is the case I hope he gives any money that he stands to inherit to medical research! I'm just not convinced that his motives are pure!
This story also makes me think about what if something ever happened to me, what would I want my husband to do or the other way around. I think it is time to sit down with DH and make our wishes known in writing.
The monetary settlement was for her rehabilitation. The money was to be used to rehabilitate her. Go to Terrisfight.org and see the video for yourself. See the videos that they showed in court and see if she is brain dead. She is not brain dead. She is not in a vegetative state. And the doctors wrote certain orders for at different times to recieve treatment and physical therapy but her guardian refused all treatment and by law they have to do what he says. If he refuses treatment for her then they can not give it to her no matter what doctors say. So why don't you see for yourself. I understand that there is bias in the parents but for anyone to die full awake by starvation is horrible. The pain (that she clearly feels by video) will be horrendous.
Another point is the courts refused to even give her a swallow test. They requested one to see if she could eat but judge greer refused. If she was on a vent and really brain dead and not functioning at all and by all practical purposes being kept alive by machines then I say pull the plug for a loved one, but this is not the case so do more research. IT is hard to believe that people would make this decision, but they have and they do. The sanctity of life in this country means nothing anymore. I can see us migrating to the ways of nazi Germany. Doctors walking around deciding who has the right to live adn who doesn't. ANd then killing al handicap and mentally disabled out of convience. That is what it is all about isn't it. Murder for convience. We don't want our lives messed up or disturbed. WE are slefish people as a whole.
This is why EVERYONE needs a Living Will.
I would not want to be kept alive if I was this woman. If she does have cognitive brain function then I think she is living a hellish life...being trapped inside of a body. She has life but what about quality of life? I also would not want my family or husband to have to choose or impose their views about my life.
This is why dh, myself and family members all have Living Wills. Do you?
Yes I agree we should have living wills although at such a young age I have not made it priority as of yet. UMMM I understand the quality of life thought, but she could have had more chance at a more quality of life if she would have had more rehabilitation. She is not laying in bed on a machine in a coma though. She feels pain and will feel the pain of starving and dehydrating and that is inhumane and horrible. Her family will not have a chance to sneak water or anything becuase they are not allowed to visit unless mike or his representative is present. As a parent I can see them hanging on too long, but being handicap is not necessarily the same as being a vegetable. Of course none of us would want to live that way, but none of us would want to die the death she will die. I find it sad. More than sad. I cannot explain.
This is happening in the city just up the road from us. It has been on the news from the very beginning. Those videos of her smiling and making eye "contact" or "tracking" are the same ones they have been showing for years. She HAS been in rehab. They DO have several drs that continue to diagnose coma, vegitative state. All that stuff was done when she was first hospitalized. After a point, you need to let go, which includes stopping treatments that don't work.
Not that I think the husband is totally correct. And I have no clue as to the events of her medical situation that lead to the coma (her family claim he strangeled her....but this came out several years after all of this has been going on). I do feel her family is not loving her enough to let her die with dignity. Starving is not dignity, but this has just gone on for so long.
After having a feeding tube inserted for such a long time, the muscles are unable to work. They COULD feed her, but it would be pointless since she would be unable to swallow. The only option is to let her starve. They can not give her meds to kill her, so what other option is there?
I've been away on vacation this week, so I am unsure if the death has occured. But certainly a sad sad death. However, having watched this ordeal over SO MANY YEARS! I am happy that she will finally find rest.
I seriously question the videos they show as proof of her mental state. I also question how old the videos are. As far as I can tell, thru all of this, I have seen three clips since the very start of this ordeal.... all the same ones year after year. Nothing proving to me of her current state of health.
All this did not just happen over the last few months. This is not the first time there has been a judge ruling. It has gone on and on. When do you say stop?
Back when it was first requested by the husband years ago, it would have never made the news. However, the parents refused and faught him. It became a battle between them, not Terry. And with each year, the story changes and more dirt thrown into the story.
Just sad all the way around.
This is a very hot topic on my g-tube list right now!!!
what is a g-tube list?
Dana, I think it's a chat/messageboard type list for those with or caregivers of those with G-tubes.
Thanks Karen. I realized after I had already posted. I can certainly understand why that would really be a busy discussion on that type of board. It is heart wrenching, isn't it?
Yup, that's what it is. I've been on it for a couple years - since Sonja's tube was placed.
She was sent to the hospital last night and getting fluids after 6 days without. Jeb Busch okayed it and there is now legislation going on regarding some time of law on a matter like this.
Oh, how I ache for this poor woman.
I saw on TV they reinserted the tube?????
Yes, I heard that on the radio about 2 hours ago.
At lunch time here (we are in the same county) they had still not reinserted the feeding tube. Only IV so far...well, at least that was the noon broadcast. Not sure what has happened in the last few hours.
They'd have to have a surgeon to redo the tube, so they might just be waiting for a time. She can be fed total nutrition (TPN) through an IV. Some people have to be fed that way.
Can you imagine having a daughter marry someone like this? I mean, he has gone on with his life, he should just turn custody over to the parents and divorce her. I just can't imagine being her mother and having to go through this.
Just saw this developement
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4339033.stm
I think he should be allowed to discontinue the feeding tube. Nate knows my personal choices about life support better than my parents do, and this has gone on for way too long in Terri's case. Her parents are being selfish, she has no chance for meaningful recovery. I can't even apologize for feeling this is way out of hand, and needs to end.
It's just very sad.I think after this I will make sure my parents, children, and husband know how I feel about being on life support.
I think that the husband is awful for using money as his motive. He has moved on with his life and just needs to leave her behind, IMO.
He hasn't bothered with her for years now. Custody should be given to someone who actually cares for her.
I won't state my opinion on the actual feeding tube/life support part of it.
I just think that he is being extremely unreasonable and is just using her for the money. The parents have probably come to realize that and that may be their motive to keep her alive. Just to get at him. Sad, but possible.
I feel bad for Terri What a sad way to live life.
Maybe helping her die is moving on with his life? Maybe he feels strongly that she should not suffer further? Isn't fighting for someone's right to die as much an act of caring as fighting for their right to live?
I haven't heard much about this case, not being in the U.S. but it sounds like a really narrow debate that demands two positions. Either the husbands bad and only wants the money or the parents are living in a dream world.
I think more likely both sides care for this woman. I think it's unfortunate to say the least that the parents compaign has isolated the huband by portraying him in such a bad light. I wouldn't rely on their website. They view themselves as fighting for their daughters life and truth may have been set aside or may not even be seen by them in pursuit of that cause.
I just think it is the whole starving her to death thing that has people in a up roar. I know that is part of my issue with it. Her body can breath and her heart beats on it's own correct? The only "life support" she is on is the feeding tube correct?? So let me throw this out there, how can it be legal to starve the woman to death, but it wouldn't be ok to give her some medicine to put her to death? Why don't they give her the injection they give people on death row? Because it is against the law and would be considered murder right? If someone starved their child to death in that state would they be charged with murder? I am not an expert on the case by any means. I have heard things about the husbands side and about the parents side and I am sure the truth is some where in the middle. I do know that my biggest issue is the starving her to death thing. My gosh, we don't even do that to animals. How can it be legal to do it to a person???
I feel that she either does have congnitive faculties and does not seem distressed, so she should continue on the feeding tube, or she doesnt have cognitive faculties and then terri is already gone from the body so there isnt any real suffering because she is no longer there. If the parents wish to continue her care I dont really understand why anyone would object. The issue of quality of life has been raised, yes she used to be a walking talking adult, now she isnt, that doesnt mean that she has no quality of life, just a diminshed one due to her injury. Starving her to death is a definate downturn in her quality of life and also since I do not believe she has much reasoning, all of a sudden not getting anything to eat is cruel. I wouldnt do it to my dog much less to another person.
I believe since there is no living will, that it is one persons word against anothers and that her parents are willing to take care of her that the husband really doesnt have the right or even much say in this matter. Divorce her if it is so upseting.
My main beef w/ this is that if you "pull the plug" on a ventilator, death occurs usually pretty fast, it usually is an instance of total shutdown of organs and brain. Taking out someones feeding tube is like sticking them in a cage w/ no water and no food and then not telling them why and letting them suffer til they expire from starvation and dehydration. And all because they "cared" about her.
I think it will be very interesting to see if he takes the $$ offered and gives up power to her parents.
I think something to remember is that this has gone on for a LONG time. Imagine if it was your husband in that bed, and you had spent years caring for him in a vegatative state, knowing that it was not what he wanted. Then you finally decide to move on with your life, but his parents fight you and make you look like you've never cared for their child, like you married him only so you could pull the plug. He's being treated like he never cared for Terri, like he wasn't her spouse, and therefore has no rights. He lives in a limbo, knowing that his wife's wishes are not being carried out, and that the whole world thinks he's a horrible person for finally moving on and having another relationship. As for the feeding tube, yes it is a harsh reality, but pulling the plug on a vent or other means of support still means putting them in organ failure. It's not always immediate, so is suffocation better than starvation? I don't want to be on life support, whether it's food, air, or an artificial heartbeat, if there is no chance of a meaningful recovery.
Why did he put her on the feeding tube in the first place if she didn't want it, but instead let it drag out for years and then say okay I'm ready to move on now? I guess i don't see the point, if you want to carry out her wishes, then why ever put her on it in the first place. I will be very interested to see if he takes the money as well. I am not for sure if it's all about the money, he may want to marry the woman he is with now and can't do that until Terri is gone. Dh brought up a very interesting fact, he is cheating on his wife! no matter how you look at it. That is just really sad!
I had fairly firm feelings when this thread started, but now I have mixed feelings.
I've done a bit of research on the money angle. Seems the original settlement from the medical cause of Terri Schiavo's injuries was something like $750,000 in trust for her, about half of which is gone, and which can only be used for her and on her behalf during her lifetime (and some of it has been used to pay the legal fees for the husband's battle to carry out what he says are her wishes)(all of the expenses are reported to and must be approved by the court); he received a separate settlement of $300,000 for what legally is called loss of consortium, which means, generally, being deprived of the company, companionship and comfort of a spouse or family member.
Whether he divorces her or not, the trust for Terri is hers and to be used for her benefit. Yes, if she dies, he would inherit whatever is left. But, a divorce court could order part or even all of the $300,000 he received in settlement to be given to Terri, or, rather, to the trust, and could even assess alimony. And, if Terri remains on the feeding tube and the trust runs out of money (nursing homes cost $3,000 to $5,000 a month - $36,000 to $60,000 a year), a court could order him to pay for her care. Initially, until the court case settled, she was on Medicaid, but after the settlement all payment for her care has come from the trust.
If he had accepted that $1 million offer (which he didn't) and then filed for divorce, some or all of that money could also be taken by a divorce court ruling and awarded to Terri(the trust). According to his lawyer, he has already received and turned down other financial offers, some for more than the $1 million he just turned down.
I don't know, but several articles I have read refer to money battles between Terri's parents and husband, with the parents claiming they were entitled to part of the settlement. If that is true, I can't imagine why they would have thought such a thing, because after a person marries their parents have no financial claim on them unless the child willingly provides finances to the parent. If that had been the case, they could have participated in the legal suit and settlement discussions but I am guessing, from my legal secretary knowledge and from talking to several lawyers, that if the parents initially tried to join in the initial lawsuit, a court probably ruled that they had no legal standing and were not entitled to any part of the financial settlement.
I don't believe Terri Schiavo has any functional capacities. I don't believe she would benefit in any way from any form of rehabilitation. I do not believe any nursing home - especially being as much under the spotlight as they have been for the last several years - would in any way neglect her, or in any way fail to have all the appropriate testing done to see if she can swallow, for example. People refer to the videos, but I don't believe they show much. They do show, however, that she has been receiving sufficient physical therapy that her hands and limbs have not drawn up and frozen in a drawn up position, which is what happens when comatose or brain-vegetative bodies are not regularly massaged and exercised. So I think the videos themselves are proof that there is no neglect, at least in that area.
Several medical experts retained by the courts, so presumably neutral, have said that Terri is in a persistent (permanent) vegetative state with no medical likelihood of any kind of recovery. That doesn't mean a diminished quality of life to me - that means no quality of life. Rather than not having much reasoning, she has no reasoning, according to the several medical experts who have examined and tested her over the past several years. And I cannot believe that these medical experts did not test for any possibility of swallowing function.
I know from personal experience what happens when a person no longer has swallowing function, because this happened to my father from Parkinson's Disease, and yes, he had a G tube for the last two years before he died. His ability to swallow deteriorated from the Parkinsons. For a couple of years we fed him pureed foods, and he could swallow liquids. But the muscles deteriorated further and he developed pneumonia from food and liquid getting into his lungs (aspiration). The doctor told mom the choice was to keep feeding him by mouth and risk his dying from more episodes of pneumonia, or have a G-tube inserted. Mom chose the G-tube. I wouldn't have, because my father also had severe mult-infarct dementia and the person that was my father had been gone after a serious stroke a couple of years earlier. What was left was a body, incontinent, incapable of communication, not totally vegetative and definitely able to feel pain and comfort, but no "person", no reasoning ability. But it wasn't my choice and I supported mom in her choice. Because my parents had moved in with me about 18 months before that major stroke, I was involved in the physical care of my father on a daily basis, and continued to be involved, including the feedings through the G-tube, measured amounts of water through the G-tube, bathing, changing diapers, moving from bed to wheelchair to recliner to wheelchair to bed. And I truly don't regret any of it, because that was what my mom wanted. But eventually his swallowing muscles deteriorated to the point where he was aspirating his own saliva. He got pneumonia, which deteriorated to congestive heart failure. It took him a week to die in the hospital, with just enough medications to try to keep him alive another day or hour, with every breath being a loud labor. The doctors walked a fine line between enough medications to control his discomfort to some extent without further depressing his failing body functions for that long, long week.
I have been thinking a lot about this case for the past week or two. What I have come to is that for me, in the best of all possible worlds, he would be allowed to divorce and walk away without financial penalty, her parents would have custody, the trust fund would continue to pay for her care until it is exhausted, and then her parents would pay (but, of course, what that means in practical terms is that shortly after the trust runs out she would be on Medicaid again). Given her parents' ages, I doubt very much they would be able to give her the kinds of care she would need in a home setting - feeding, bathing, changing, massage, physical therapy, etc.
He says he has an overriding moral motive that he promised Terri that she would not ever be kept alive in a vegetative state. I don't know if that is a lie or truth. Nor, frankly, does anyone else. He may, in his own mind, believe that he is faithfully keeping a promise he made to her. Her parents don't know, because they weren't there and couldn't have been there when a husband and wife had this sort of discussion. And, it may be that she knew her parents would not approve of such a choice and that is why it was never discussed with them.
And, on a strictly clinical note, I have talked with people who fasted for several days for various reasons (food strike, for example), taking no food and only water, and they all said that while they were very uncomfortable for the first day, the discomfort disappeared after the first day or day and a half. The withdrawal of water (assuming no IV fluids) will cause death within a few days, long before the lack of food.
I guess I still have mixed feelings - I truly don't know where the "right" is in this case.
Yes, he is "cheating" on his wife. He is not the first or last spouse to develop a relationship with another person when the spouse is long-term critically ill, and most of the time no one criticizes.
Why did he put her on the feeding tube in the first place if she didn't want it, but instead let it drag out for years and then say okay I'm ready to move on now?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He may have had hope of her recovery at that point.
Dh brought up a very interesting fact, he is cheating on his wife! no matter how you look at it. That is just really sad!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not at all. He believes his wife is gone, that she won't recover, that she has no cognitive functions. Legally, he's cheating. Morally? hat's up for discussion.
And I find nothing awful about him seeing another women. He's in exactly the situation where a person would need a lot of support. His life has been in a limbo for years.
Surely he could find support from a friend or family member, but another woman?!! NO, especially not when his wife is still living. Through sickness and in health (Isn't that what we say when we get married?! I believe it is.) When I took my vows I didn't say, "through sickness and in health... unless something happens to you and I need a warm body to cuddle up next to."
His wife's body is still alive. His wife is another matter.
This man has been going through something I can't imagine and it's been going on for years. I don't want to judge him.
"Maybe helping her die is moving on with his life? Maybe he feels strongly that she should not suffer further? Isn't fighting for someone's right to die as much an act of caring as fighting for their right to live?"
He already has moved on. He has another woman and a child. I don't see why he's so interested in Terri still. Only thing that comes to mind is the money.
Let's leave the decision up to someone that is still with her. Be that the doctors, her parents, her church, whatever.
This is happening here where I live. I remember when it all started. Back when she first became "vegitative" he DID do all sorts of rehab things. He did all sorts of testing and whatnot for her. She was on life support in hopes of survival. After I think it was 2 years, he finally accepted that what the drs were telling him was true. He did not deny her rehab, but he did come to a point when he stopped the rehab. He did also get dr after dr that all said the same thing about her recovery. YEs, the parents have dr after dr saying the opposite, but she is still not recovered....and yes she did have rehab so they can not say her lack of recovery is due to lack of rehab.
As for the money, the parents offered him a deal with lots of money if he gave them the rights to keep her alive. He turned the money down stating he is fighting this fight for Terry.
Of course he is going to look like the bad man after all this time and seeing the poor woman starved so many times now before the tubes are returned to her again. it is an awful and very sad story. I feel she should have been given the dignity of dying so many years ago when this all started. I see it as a case of a parent that can not let go for their own selfish reasons. I think, how dare them to let their child suffer like this for so many years.
Those videos of her responding to them are so old now. They were taken back when this all began. She is no longer even the woman the media shows to the world. The parents are wanting new video to be allowed. I would love to see how she acts now. It may change my mind how I feel, but only if there is clearly interactive life there. I think the drs who are insisting she can recover are just wanting to take advantage of the wishful thinking of the parents. They are out for the money and ready to take it from the parents who can't see beyond their dreams of having their daughter back.
I hate the idea of her starving however. What a cruel cruel death. It seems this would clearly be a time to use a humane way to end her life. How unfare that animals are granted more dignity in death than a human.
Things I find interesting. First the parents have mostly been unable to see their daughter until recently. Second there are huge discrepencies in what the docs say, can't they find a different doc? Also ultimately what right does anyone have to kill her? I can understand not starting with the feeding tube, but once you made that choice, I think it is one you have to live with. Like it or not things happen, sometimes people hang on for years, this in no way takes away her wife status. Yes her mind hasn't been there for years, but one could say that of a cancer patient in their last few weeks, heck, people should just move on then? NO. This reminds me of karen carpenter, for whatever reason she hung out in a coma for years and years. I don't see any real reason to remove the feeding tube. It is a horrible death. Ginny is correct when you fast after the first day you don't really notice it, but you are getting water. When you are deprived of water all of your cells cramp, your eyes cannot tear up, they want to, so they itch, your mouth gets dry. I just can't imagine letting anyone I know die like that. In hind sight maybe he should of just let her die years ago and never gone here, but he did, he made that bed, now he has to live with it. Also I think we have our wishes now what we would like, what is okay to us, but until we are there you never really know. So she may have one time said I don't think that is what I want, but at this time her feelings may have changed. I guess I don't get why he doesn't just divorce her and let the parents deal with her, he says he is trying to fullfill her wishes, well I bet she would wish for him to move on until she was gone either, but he didn't seem to think of that.
This case still makes me sick. I fed one of my kids via g-tube for years. Although she had severe cerebral palsy, she was in no pain and obviously enjoyed life. Removing her tube would have been murdering her. She is now gone, and we will forever be heartbroken because of our loss. I think that Terri's parents are reacting as any parent would. I just can't believe he won't sign over custody and let them love their daughter until her time comes naturally. It will. It always does.
For everyone who is talking about a living will, you had better be pretty specific. As I've mentioned before, there are many reasons you might have to have a g-tube inserted, and I'd hate to see you starve to death when you simply needed a tube because of esophageal disease, etc.
Did anyone see Nightline last night? Michael Schiavo was interviewed. I stayed up to watch it after having read this thread.
I feel for everyone involved and don't think there is one right answer, but as was mentioned in the interview, this kind of situation occurs more often than we realize and most every other case is not being scrutinized by the public. Instead it is a decision made privately by the family and the doctors involved. I get the impression that Michael Schiavo accepted long ago that his wife isn't coming back and he wants to let her go. I don't think her parents have accepted that and they may never accept it. That's the crux of this case, don't you think? Anyway, without knowing all the details of the case I can't say what I would do, but I respect Michael Schiavo's decision and believe that it was an educated decision on his part and the lawmakers and public should stay out of it.
I had also wondered why Mr. Schiavo didn't just divorce his wife and hand over guardianship over to her parents, but I'm going to accept that he just may feel he needs to do this for her and leave it at that. After all, if I was in that situation, I doubt I could just walk away and would feel like I needed to see it through to the end.
If we learn anything from this, I hope it's that we make clear to our loved ones what we would want. Then, get it in writing.
No I didn't see it. I wish I had.
I've been telling my family my wishes, gosh, since I was in high school. At one time, I had a living will, but I have no idea where that is...it was so long ago. It might be in my Dad's paper work since I was still a kid under his roof back then.
It is heartbreaking to see this case unfold. I do so wish there was another way besides starvation. That is just so wrong.
I don't think this is a case where the G-tube is the issue, although some posters seem to want to make it about that. As Marcia said, there are many reasons people need a G-tube. No one is suggesting that anyone with a G-tube ought to have it removed just cuz it's difficult to manage at times. I don't think that is the point of this case, it is more about her cognitive function, or lack thereof.
As to those who wonder why Mr. Schiavo doesn't just divorce her and let her parents do what they want...Are you kidding? This is not a case where the marriage fell apart and he is not interested in her. They are still married because he still cares about her and is trying to do what he thinks she would want. If he wasn't interested, he would have taken the payout and divorced her already. I don't believe he is doing this because she is a burden to him, I think he is doing it because it is what he knows she would want. If my husband were in Terry's state, I would want to do the same thing once it was confirmed (as it has clearly been in this case) that his mental functioning was nil. I would make that decision out of love for him and we have discussed it and it is his choice.
I'm sorry but "They are still married because he still cares about her and is trying to do what he thinks she would want." Just really doesn't hold a lot of water for me, when he is currently shacking up with some other lady and has children with her. Will he bring the new lady to terri's funeral? You can't pick and choose when you are going to be a caring loving compassionate husband. Also her reasoning functions are nil, but she does have brain waves, things are still working. We are talking about nutrion and hydration, that is the only life support she is receiving. Having a good good friend with cp, I know there are days you see her and isn't as well off as Terri, but other days she smiles and laughs and gets it, so unless these court observations were made over several months, then I still wonder about them. My friends daughter is similar to a 3 month old (she is 9), she will never get better, this is who she is. But you cannot quit feeding your baby, everyone here would think that was cruel.
I also don't believe Michael Shiavo is still married to her because he cares about her so much. The fact is, he IS with another woman, and has been for a while; if he was still so in love with his wife and so concerned, he wouldn't be involved with someone else. Period. My opinion is that he should have divorced her and given her parents guardianship BEFORE he decided to move on with his life, which he obviously has done.
I've seen the videos of her when her parents visit - there's a lot of controversy about whether or not she *really* knows they are there. But let her parents have her, let them be the decision makers - he has clearly moved on, no matter what he *says*, but she is still their daughter and they love her. If they are willing to continue keeping her alive via G tube feedings so they can keep her in their lives, then so be it.
I agree 100% Karen. I am glad the removal of the tube has been delayed again.
Do y'all realize this has been going on since 1990? 15 years. If it were you, and you knew your spouse's wishes were to not be kept alive by artificial means, what would you do? Put your life on hold for 15 years or more? Abandon your spouse's wishes? I can't blame the guy for moving on. I stand with my original opinion, my spouse is more knowledgeble of my wishes than my parent's and I'd certainly want him to move on should anything happen to me. If doctors were saying she had the slightest chance of a meaningful recovery, I'd totally agree that he should divorce her and give up guardianship. Since they don't believe so, I think he is trying to carry out a promise to his spouse, but I wouldn't expect him to sit in limbo forever.
The tube is out at this juncture...
VERY disturbing, I am still hopeing for a breakthrough, it has been re-inserted 2 times before maybe it will happen again...I guess we will see. Take a challenge and stop eating or drinking for a few days and see how it feels. I have gone a full 24 hours without eating but I did drink water. It hurts. this tube was her only means of hydration also, so don't drink for a day and see how you feel. Very sad, she would have eventually died anyway, why can't they just let her go naturally?!
Divorce isn't an easy out that absolves you of your vows. For many people it IS breaking your vows. True he's broken them in a manner by living with another woman but he's never abandoned his wife. Divorce would be abandonment.
So, we discuss who he's living with because he's proved it's not about money so we can't get him for that.
And...gosh, where was the parent's respect for those same vows and the relationship those two had? If they had respect for it they might give more weight and time to her husbands wishes.
The person really suffering her is Terri..physically speaking. Yes, her parents are emotionally suffering and maybe so is her "husband" but the poor woman is the one being starved...This is WRONG! I am a nurse and have worked in nursing homes and hospices and have dealt with people like Terri alot. They will die eventually, in God's time...she is not on a vent, or a respirator which is different. To literally starve a living being, who may not be "all there" but breathes, feels pain, etc...its WRONG! I feel for her, the poor lady having this tug of war going on with HER body.
"Why not just let her go naturally?" What's natural about being vegetative and kept alive by tubes?
So Crystal, if you gave birth to a child with cp, who was in a wheelchair and needed a feeding tube, you'd tell the docs to just leave her to die? I don't think so.
"Letting her go naturally"...I do not think withholding basic everyday nutrition and water is a natural death. Now, if she was on life support, no brain wave activity, AND a feed tube...that would be a whole different issue...
I am not Crystal, but I just had to respond to the question directed to her...giving birth to a child with cp, who was born not knowing anything different than a life as a disabled person, is quite different than an adult who had a normal, healthy, active life, and then had it taken away from her tragically. I know for myself, that I would NOT want to live that way, what kind of quality of life could she have? She is living far from a "natural" life, a life that I am sure if she could choose, she would not choose it for herself, who would???
Amy, I agree. I wouldn't want to be kept alive on life support either. I don't think any parent would fight for their child to be kept on life support if they had no brain activity. I truly don't believe that is the case here. There are tests to show whether or not there is activity, and I think that if that had been proven, this would not be an issue. The issue is that one side is saying that she is "in a vegetative state", and the other is saying she responds. When they wanted her to be seen by the world yesterday, why was that denied? You'd think that maybe it would have proven the hubby's case, if it's true.
It sounds like this is far from over....
I had typed up a response but it didn't post for some reason. I'll come back and retype it later. I do agree with Amy 100%, CP is just not the same.
Cerebral palsy means brain paralysis, which is basically what Terry has. It can occur at any time of life, from a lack of oxygen.
Cerebral palsy does NOT mean brain paralysis. Terry Schiavo is in a vegetative state from massive damage to her brain caused by oxygen deprivation when she suffered a stroke. Do NOT equate the two.
According to the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/cerebral_palsy/detail_cerebral_palsy.htm), here is the definition of cerebral palsy:
"What is Cerebral Palsy?
Cerebral palsy is an umbrella-like term used to describe a group of chronic disorders impairing control of movement that appear in the first few years of life and generally do not worsen over time. The term cerebral refers to the brain's two halves, or hemispheres, and palsy describes any disorder that impairs control of body movement. Thus, these disorders are not caused by problems in the muscles or nerves. Instead, faulty development or damage to motor areas in the brain disrupts the brain's ability to adequately control movement and posture." (quote ends)
One of the most famous cerebral palsy victims is Stephen Hawking, a genius who is confined to a wheelchair, exhibits the lack of body control experienced by many victims of cerebral palsy, a college professor, and a world-famous cosmologist (study of the universe) who has extended our knowledge of the workings of our universe immensely.
As for Michael Schiavo, there is a lengthy article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer which told me things I didn't know about him. For example, after her stroke, "He rented a house large enough for him and Terri's parents, who had moved to the area. He made sure she was dressed every day. He applied her makeup and dabbed on perfume. ... He went to school to become a nurse, 'because he wanted to take care of Terri" Scott [Schiavo, Michael's brother] said.
The article also refers to the death of Michael's grandmotherin 1988. She had signed a "do not resuscitate" order, but no one at the hospital looked a the records and she wound up with resuscitation efforts and a breathing tube. Scott Schiavo relates that after the grandmother's funeral, Terri Schiavo told him that she didn't want to live like that.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/11180560.htm
(you may have to register to read this article on the Inquirer's web site. I have never known the Inquirer to use the registration information for advertising or to send me any unwanted emails.)
Ginny, from your same article, in the glossary at the bottom...
(cerebral. Relating to the two hemispheres of the human brain.)
(palsy. Paralysis, or problems in the control of voluntary movement)
I'm not here to argue about CP, something I've been dealing with for 25 years. Just pointing out a mother's side of the story.
But Marcia, people with CP can lead a fulfilling life, as I'm sure you know. Terri cannot. That's the bottom line, she is vegatative. She's not going to get better, she doesn't have any chance of a meaningful life. She's 41 and will spend the rest of her natural life barely responsive, and in a hospital bed. No amount of therapy or treatment will help her function enough to live.
This case may now go to Federal court. NOW!!!! Her tube has been out for 48 hours. Let her go. If the appeals proceed, the tubes will be put back in...for the THIRD time.
This is just crazy.
Terry is living the same life of 2 of my kids, except that they were with me, not in a hospital.
As I said before, I am just stating my feelings as a parent of children just like Terry. Unless you have walked in these shoes, I think it would be very hard to say what you might or might not do.
I would love to see an updated video of Terry, as everything we're shown is very old. I really think it would help people, including all of us, to see her for who she is right now, rather than the picture that both sides are painting.
Does anyone remember, (I thought I read awhile back when the last court go rounds happened) that there was suspicion that the husband had caused her injuries and she had a stroke as a result which led to the lawsuit where they were awarded the money. I thought a big part of her parents' issues was that he was not this great guy and in fact they believed he had beat her and not sought medical treatment for her and she stroked and never woke up again. So no one could ever know what really happened. Does anyone else remember this?
Yes Reeciecup, I remember it..I lived in her neck of the woods when all this started. I wonder why it never went anywhere. They say she had a potassium imbalance due to an eating disorder which caused the stroke and the state she is in right now. I have always had the husband theory in my mind all these years. I wish he would let go, give Terri back to her parents so they can take her HOME and take care of her as they want to do so badly.
The allegations (sp?) of his violent abuse were NEVER mentioned until the later years of the dispute. To me, it appears they were just grasping at strings and seeing what would turn heads. There has never been anything to support their claims. And if this was the case, why didn't they bring it up YEARS ago?
Oh, I feel so sorry for this woman. No one should have to go thru this. If only this was humane. As I have mentioned in each of my posts, starvation should never be the manner to let someone die.
I wonder why it never went anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Likely because there was nothing to it.
I wish he would let go, give Terri back to her parents so they can take her HOME and take care of her as they want to do so badly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think the argument to that would be because it's not about the parents. It's about Terry.
I've never thought euthenasia should be legal but this might be the case to change my mind. A woman who needs to be let go and the only manner to do it is starvation.
A very good friend of mine has a daughter who was in a terrible accident when she was 17 years old...that was 25 years ago. Her head injuries were so severe that she lost half of her brain. Cindy is in a state very much like Terry. She recognizes her mother, and smiles when people she knows speak with her. She is a Conway Twitty fan. You can play other country music, and get no response, but play a Conway song, and she moves her arms, and makes a humming sound. Cindy is tube fed and in diapers. I've spent time with her, and know that she is aware. I'm not saying that she is a fully knowledgeable person inside her body, who simply can't communicate. I know that she has lost very much of that, but she experiences joy and sadness. I know she feels pain.
Many severely retarded children will never be able to function alone, nor will they ever recover. Should they also be starved? Brain dead people do not track objects with their eyes. They do do smile in response to spoken words.
I'm not debating the worth of her so-called husband. I believe that pulling her feeding tube is outright murder.
Ginny, another friend has a child diagnosed as CP. This child suffered an aneurism which destroyed a portion of her brain. Her brain damage also caused severe retardation. "Damage to motor areas in the brain disrupts the brain's ability to adequately control movement and posture." is only a partial description. Many of these children are rendered incapable of normal cognitive abilities also. This child was not born with Cerebral Palsy.
Terri is not a child!!! Why are so many of you referring to her as a child??? Do you think she would want to be referred that way?? Would you?
She is STILL someone's child, as we all are...... As the parent of *older* kids - my oldest is 33 - I still refer to them as my children. I don't think in this case anyone is meaning she is a child, as in *young child*, but she certainly is her parents' child, and possibly more of a *child* now than she was before this happened, and IMO, they should have guardianship of their child.......
Actually, I wouldn't be offended if I were referred to as my mother's child.....that is what we all are........
Judge rule late last night not to reinstate the feeding tube. It's now 4 days since she has had any kind of nourishment. Regardless of your feelings on the right to die with dignity. I think slowing starving to death isn't very dignified.
Yes, we are are all someone's child, but Terri is not a child, she is an adult, and people are referring to her as A child, not as her parent's child, and that was what I was talking about. I wouldn't be offended by being called my mother's child either, like I said, that is not what I was talking about, I can't believe that anyone reading this would want to live in the mental state that she is living in, if you had the choice, anyone who would say otherwise would not be believable to me. That is my point. This thing has gone on too long, her parents actually sicken me with their selfishness.
How do you define quality of life or mental state? She can respond. She smiles. She responds to pain. They are willing to shoulder the financial burden and take care of her. How is it selfish of her parents?
I didn't take it that anyone was calling her a child so much as analogizing her situation to those of children they have known. Much like the children mentioned with CP or brain damage, Terri needs constant care and can not provide for herself. I only hope her suffering is over and that she has a peaceful passing, whenever and however it occurs. I hope her parents can find peace as well.
Jodes, I used to feel as you did, but recently changed my mind. I think this will always be a debatable scenario for sure...both sides have great facts to back up their opinons. I just think starvation being the means of letting someone die is not dignity, brain dead or not, the body CAN feel pain, regardless of what doctor want s to argue that..there are other doctor's who will tell you it is painful. There is no easy answer here and the views will always be split. In the end, Terri will be with her Lord and at peace and the people who decided her fate and those who are involved will be judged accordingly.
I've really been trying to stay away from this, since it's a such a loaded topic this week, but I do want to point out, as others have, that she's not going to be painfully starved, she's on medications for pain and comfort. Is letting someone stop breathing (DNR) somehow less "cruel" than letting them die from not having a feeding tube? Not everyone who has a DNR dies a quick death, some stay in the hospital with incredibly low O2 sats for days or weeks before they finally stop breathing completely. The hospice controls their pain and discomfort during that time. "Suffocating" is equal to "starving", but in this country we have the right to not be kept alive artificially, if we choose. No one said "starving" Terri is painless, but her pain is being managed, I'm so tired of hearing how cruel this is, like she's been locked in a dungeon or something.
I am just wondering who is this 'selfish of'.
If we accept the premise that Teri feels nothing and is in no pain and has no brain activity.....why is it selfish to keep her alive? She's not hurting. Her husband wants to start his life over......is that selfish or realistic? Her parents don't want to lose their child......is that selfish or realistic?
What IS realistic is that Terri isn't really a player in this controversy anymore. Other people are battling out their wills.
I have strong feelings about both sides of this situation. I feel strongly about people having the right to decide whether or not that want "heroic measures" taken to prolong their lives if there's no chance for a meaningful life. I also feel starving her to death is not the best solution to this case. Honestly, I don't know what the best solution would be in Terri's case. I just hope and pray that she is not aware of what's going on. I just have these horrible feelings that she's "in there" and aware, and that's just an awful thought. I'm praying for everyone directly involved with this case. It's got to be heart wrenching for all of them.
For those who swear Michael has not allowed docs to try and rehab her, or treat her... this is about her guardian ad litem's report, with a link to the actual report. He hasn't denied her all treatment and rehab as some say. It also points out that the Schindlers encouraged him to move on withhis life, before the animosity began.
Terri
I guess where this gets to me is one of my dearest friends daughter is much like terri. The only difference is she was born that way. Some days she can respons, some days she can not, but I can tell you after spending the past 9 years with her, she is there, she has thoughts, etc. She cannot eat. She has a gtube. That is her life. So I just think if we do this to Terri, then what, is my friend's dd next? I know it is a big step, but she is on medicaid, she costs our gov the big bucks, whose to say that if we can remove feeding from one person that it won't be done for someone else. Ultimately noone knows terri's wishes. Both sides think they do, but we will never know. Another difference for me and the vent/ is feeding tubes are just like meals, it isn't something she is hooked up to all day, just once maybe twice a day for nutrition, where as the others are a constant thing, without them death happens usually quick. Also everyone talks about hope for terri, the reality is this is her life, with lots and lots of therapy some things may improve, but she isn't going to get up and walk without divine intervention, that doesn't mean her life isn't worth having. Christofer Reeves was a great example of this, he commented on more than one occasion that for weeks maybe months he wished he would just die, because he couldn't imagine not living his life, then he realized he was living his life, just a different chapter. I believe when our times comes it will come, but I sure don't want to rush it.
I told my jerk of an ex that I wouldn't want to live that way and I told him that early in my twenties. It wasn't until early in my thirties that we got papers made up. My mother told me they would not have believed my ex. For me I thought, give it a little time, no response or in a state like this woman, let me go. If I was "in there" somwhere I would want to just go! That is not "living"! As for starving, its not always painful. I have gone without eating for long periods of time. I used to have an eating disorder. After several days there is no pain. Your body actually can go into a state of euphoria. Hasn't anyone ever read articles on people who were stranded and then found? Do some research.
If she were me, I would be awfully angry that I told my husband to never ever let me live like that and someone was holding me back. IF I "was in there". I committed the same thing to my jerk ex, and even as a jerk ex that I would do the same for him, I would also fight for his rights to die. He asked me for the same thing.
ALso, why can't he have great love for her and still move on? He probably HAS to stay married to her in order tofight for what she asked for. He deserves a life also, a living life. I feel a person can do both. I can't judge him because I don't know if my actions would be any different in his situation. And I am TOTALLY against defying the commitment of marriage under any circumstances!
Don't judge me. This is just MY opinion.
If we accept the premise that Teri feels nothing and is in no pain and has no brain activity.....why is it selfish to keep her alive?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It shows a lack of respect for the person she was?
Another thing that's disturbing about this is how Michael has been demonized. There's little willingness amongst the other side to admit he could be acting out of love. It's got to be about money or another woman.
It's also really awful how it's turned into a political fight. The way some politicians are playing this is just disgusting.
Just remember that if you don't have a Will, go to a lawyer and get one written up. Include in it what you would want done in case anything like this happened to you.
I have a living will so everyone will know what to do with me. I told my dh and the rest of my family in a recent discussion (about Terry Schivo) that if I were in that state, let me die. So now they all know what to do.
I understand both sides of the story. It is a very hard situation to be in for both sides.
I dont have any problem w/ her husband finding another person and going on w/ life. I would want my dh to go ahead w/ his life if something tragic like this happened. Nobody deserves to live alone in this fashion.
That said I do think they should err on the side of caution. If someone believes that she is still in there even in a decreased capacity, they have a responsibility to fight for her continued existance. She could have died at anytime from the time of her neurolical event, but she didnt. I think that people DO make a decision to die and that decision hastens their own death, and I think that this desire is hardwired, the first and last thing that a person has. If she wanted to die, she would have, the only thing they were providing is food and I dont see much difference from hand feeding someone who is no longer able to feed themselves and being tube fed.
Her parents believe that taking out her feeding tube is equal to murder. I agree w/ them in this instance. If someone would do the brain scan that shows mental activity and prove to the parents that she is indeed "dead" then that would be different but I havent heard of anyone doing this and I know that I would never be at peace wondering if I cut off life support to one of my kids without ever knowing if they were in there still.
Another point is that nobody knows if she did or did not want to continue if she was like this besides her and her husband. I would not accept his word if he was the spouse of one of my kids, if I think about my inlaws and my own siblings there are only a few spouses that *I* would trust and accept on their word alone.
I believe that she is in there and that she can feel. You can see that on the videos they show of her.
I'm sure she can feel if she is hungry, she just can't express it.
What a horrible way to die. Starving to death. And just because she can't say "hey, I'm hungry". Just sad.
She's heavily medicated, she's not feeling pain. Also, people who die from lack of other life support, ie: breathing tube, don't just die quickly. Nate's grandmom died over the course of a week, after signing a DNR. She was heavily medicated and unconscious, but it wasn't just "Oh, she doesn't want a breathing tube... *flatline*" My great-grandmother died in s imilar way, after 6 years of the end stages of Alzheimer's. She wasn't "there" any more, and they made her comfortable until her time. We need to stop assuming Terri is writhing in pain from lack of food.
Here is a web site which lists the rules for living wills for all states:
http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/will.html
You can get a state specific form from AARP. Looks like there is a $5 fee, but don't know if that is AARP's fee or this web site's fee. You must have a form of living will which is approved the legislature of your home (residential) state, and it can vary from state to state. If you decide to have a living will, I suggest that you make several copies of the form after you have filled it out and before you sign it, and sign and have witnessed each form. This way you can give originals to the person or persons you name as your surrogates, to your primary care doctor, and have some handy in case (heaven forfend) you are admitted to the hospital. Be aware that some hospitals will insist on their own forms being used.
Also be aware that no matter how carefully one plans, no document truly takes the place of being there and having to make decisions, which is why you name a "surrogate", a person or persons who are authorized to make decisions if you are not able to make them. My dad had signed a living will /health care power of attorney, naming my mom and me. But we found, when he was hospitalized, that there were so many situations which, while generally covered by the living will, called for decisions. And those decisions were not easy ones to make sometimes. We thought we had it all covered, but there we were. That is why whoever you name as your surrogate has to be someone you trust to try to think the way you would think if you were able to make decisions. That isn't always your closest family member.
Kaye, I agree 100%.
I just wanted to mention something about the term "brain dead". That's very different than "brain damage". If you are in fact brain dead, there is no sign of brain function. If you have brain damage, it's exactly that - damage to some or all areas of your brain. If you are brain dead, you are not able to do anything, including breath, on your own.
When my aunt had an accident and was declared brain dead, the doctor told my grandparents and my mom that they would be taking her off of life support, because she had no brain activity, and that would not change. The media should not be saying that Terry is brain dead, and either should anyone else, without having a test to prove it. There's no way they have a test that has proven that, because she's showing some response, and she's not on a ventilator.
Interesting....
http://theempirejournal.com/0319052_attorneys_last_visit_wit.htm
Wow, Marcia, what an article! She laughed. that is amazing. I am still hoping something will turn around for her benefit. This is so sad.
Between Travesty and Tragedy
By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, March 23, 2005; Page A15
If I were in Terri Schiavo's condition, I would not want a feeding tube. But Schiavo does not have the means to make her intentions known. We do not know what she would have wanted. We have nothing to go on. No living will, no advance directives, no durable power of attorney.
What do you do when you have nothing to go on? You try to intuit her will, using loved ones as surrogates.
In this case, the loved ones disagree. The husband wants Terri to die; the parents do not. The Florida court gave the surrogacy to her husband, under the generally useful rule that your spouse is the most reliable diviner of your wishes: You pick your spouse and not your parents, and you have spent most of your recent years with your spouse and not your parents.
The problem is that although your spouse probably knows you best, there is no guarantee that he will not confuse his wishes with yours. Terri's spouse presents complications. He has a girlfriend, and has two kids with her. He clearly wants to marry again. And a living Terri stands in the way.
Now, all of this may be irrelevant in his mind. He may actually be acting entirely based on his understanding of his wife's wishes. And as she left nothing behind, the courts have been forced to conclude, on the basis of his testimony, that she would prefer to be dead.
That is why this is a terrible case. The general rule of spousal supremacy leads you here to a thoroughly repulsive conclusion. Repulsive because in a case where there is no consensus among the loved ones, one's natural human sympathies suggest giving custody to the party committed to her staying alive and pledging to carry the burden themselves.
Let's be clear about her condition. She is not dead. If she were brain-dead, we would be talking about harvesting her organs. She is a living, breathing human being. Some people have called her a vegetable. Apart from the term being disgusting, how do they know? How can we be sure of the complete absence of any consciousness, any awareness, any anything "inside" this person?
The crucial issue in deciding whether one would want to intervene to keep her alive is whether there is, as one bioethicist put it to me, "anyone home." Her parents, who see her often, believe that there is. The husband maintains that there is no one home. (But then again he has another home, making his judgment somewhat suspect.) The husband has not allowed a lot of medical testing in the past few years. I have tried to find out what her neurological condition actually is. But the evidence is sketchy, old and conflicting. The Florida court found that most of her cerebral cortex is gone. But "most" does not mean all. There may be some cortex functioning. The severely retarded or brain-damaged can have some consciousness. And we do not go around euthanizing the minimally conscious in the back wards of mental hospitals on the grounds that their lives are not worth living.
Given our lack of certainty, given that there are loved ones prepared to keep her alive and care for her, how can you allow the husband to end her life on his say-so? Because following the sensible rules of Florida custody laws, conducted with due diligence and great care over many years in this case, this is where the law led.
For Congress and the president to then step in and try to override that by shifting the venue to a federal court was a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers. The federal judge who refused to reverse the Florida court was certainly true to the law. But the law, while scrupulous, has been merciless, and its conclusion very troubling morally. We ended up having to choose between a legal travesty on the one hand and human tragedy on the other.
There is no good outcome to this case. Except perhaps if Florida and the other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones differently -- by granting authority not necessarily to the spouse but to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it. Call it Terri's law. It would help prevent our having to choose in the future between travesty and tragedy.
Jodes, if your problems about Terry being called a child are in response to my post, "This child was not born with Cerebral Palsy", may I respectfully request that you read my post again. The child I wrote about was not Terry.
No Bea, I was not responding directly to you, many people posting were referring to Terri as a child by comparing her to other children with CP, which I feel is completely unrelated to her, considering she is an adult, and does not have cp. I am not going to debate this topic any further,I just wanted to respond.
There is something said here that peeked my interest a bit, You are right I would not want to live this way, if given a choice i pick what i have now. BUT she isn't given that choice. Her choice is die or live like this. I do think I would pick live. I just fundamentally don't believe withholding feeding should ever be okay. There are many people in nursing homes that cannot feed themselves, but we don't withhold their food. I feel like a great injustice is done to the people with G tubes by all the media. Terri is not hooked up to machines, even Michaels brother used that phrase. She is fed, several times a day (probably 3) by ONE tube. It is then disconnected. She would be completely able to live with him at home with only the special care you would give to your elderly mother or toddlers, hook up meals and change diapers. Not what I would pick for my life, but then again if she didn't die, I feel like it is for a reason. For better or for worse...isn't that what we promise?
Yes, they do make it sound like a big deal. The truth is, my kids tube fed their sister. (who, by the way, was an adult)
One point that hasn't been discussed that I think is important.
When is it OK for one person to decide that another human's life should be ended...or is not worth living?
That is the precedent that is being set here.
The court is essentially defining the "worth" of person's life and deciding when it is legal to kill someone!
This is not a case of someone who is "brain dead" that has been used in the past to define clinical death.
The question then becomes:
Who gets to define a "worthwhile" human life".
The court?
A family?
A majority vote?
This is a very slippery slope and there is no turning back once we start down that path.
As I read in another article:
"If you tried to end a dog's life in this way, you would be arrested for animal cruelty."
Then why is it ok to do this to a person?
But arguing whether it is cruel or not, or whether it's painful or not, isn't the point.
If her husband was going to give her a lethal injection everyone would be up in arms.
How is this any different? This is a slower, but no less sure method, of killing.
John, that's what's terrifying to the people dealing with family members with special needs all over the world. What's next? When is someone going to walk in and tell me that my kids' lives aren't worth the money they cost? That they shouldn't be forced to live with feeding tubes, or having to be fed and changed because they can't do those things for themselves. It's a terrifying thing for millions of people.
And yet, on the opposite side of the fence, a Canadian man decided that his daughter was suffering from great pain from her disabilities, and decided to euthanize her. He was found guilty of murder.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/latimer/
Why the difference?? He felt and feels the same way Terry's husband feels.
I was listening to NPR this afternoon, and one of the guests was a person who has been very involved with the Terry Schiavo matter. I believe he was a doctor. He said that two members of her family were at some point on life support and that she expressed, more than once and to more than one person, that she did not want to be kept alive in wuch a state.
The point, John, Marcia, and others, is not that someone else is deciding. According to Michael Schiavo, his brother Scott, and from court testimony from other persons, Terry Schiavo at various points clearly expressed the wish that she not be kept alive by doctors if she were in a state where she could not make such decisions and voice them.
The court has ruled that the testimony is valid, and that Michael Schiavo is carrying out Terry's wishes. So who does make the decision? Government? Strangers who never knew any of the people involved?
I have said just that to my sons several times. The difference is, I have also prepared a living will, and update it every couple of years.
There is another case, in the Midwest, where a man who has been in an illness caused coma for some time has a living will which specifically says he does not want tube feeding if he is in a medical condition of persistent unconsciousness and not likely to recover. His wife has instructed his doctors to insert a G-tube; his daughter is, on the basis of the living will, fighting it. Who is right here? Who should make the decision here?
But, speaking of someone else making the decisions, here is a quote from a recent Molly Ivins column. You may not agree with her politics, but when she says something is a fact, research always proves her correct:
"For your information, while he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed the Advanced Directives Act in 1999, which gives hospitals the right to remove life support in cases where there is no possibility of revival, when the family cannot pay, no matter what the family's wishes are in the matter. In Texas, you can only live in a persistent vegetative state if you are accepted in one of the few institutions that provide such care or if your family is both willing and able to take care of you."
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/ivins/story/12605580p-13459885c.html
Last night on FOX news they said a judge was hearing the matter and would have an answer about whether or not to get her IV fluids by this morning. Also, there was a bomb "suspicious package" threat. I fell asleep. Has anyone heard anything yet?
MM
And, Ginny and others, it is important not only to have a Living Will, but a Advanced Health Directive document drawn up as well, and possibly a detailed DNR. We have recently just become enlightened to this fact, dealing with my inlaws and their declining health. We have spoken with several lawyers, and the Living Will is not always worded to cover every situation, that's where the Advanced Health Directive comes into play.
Oh yes, Karen. I know, and have both. You are absolutely right, the Advanced Health Directive document is essential. I know you can get the forms from AARP for whatever state you (or the person you are caring for/about) lives in.
My first contact with this situation was when my dad had his first major stroke. I was in Philadelphia, 3 days into a new job. My parents lived in Chicago. My dad was really out of it, hallucinating, dementia, and the whole 9 yards. The doctors would not give Mom any information or talk to her "because he is 'competent' to make his own decisions". To add to the fun, he was allergic to the dye they used for the brain scan and the medication they gave him to counteract the dye increased the dementia. The medication they gave him to handle the dementia (Haldol, which was then the drug of choice) was one which increases dementia in about 25% of older adults, including my dad. A wonderful nurse noticed that his dementia increased with the Haldol dose and decreased as the Haldol wore off, so it was stopped. Then they wanted to discharge my father - still demented, climbing out of bed over the rail to go the bathroom and tearing out the IV needles - and my mother was in a panic. I spent a morning following my networks until I found a lawyer at Community Legal Services who gave me the magic words to give my mother (inadequate discharge planning) to keep dad in the hospital until I could get out there on Saturday. When he was finally discharged appropriately a week later, with home health care, hospital bed, etc., the first thing we did was bring in a family friend lawyer and get all the documents - health care directive, health care power of attorney, property power of attorney, living will - all done and notarized. Those documents were godsends when my dad's conditioned worsened and he eventually became completely demented. Mom could not have sold their house without the property power of attorney. There would have been lots of medical battles without the living will and health care power of attorney and advanced health care directive.
Especially with the new HIPAA regulations, very few doctors will talk to family members without an advanced health care directive and a named surrogate, especially doctors in the hospital - who are not your loved one's family doc, don't know you, and are probably badly overworked and worried about being sued if they violate the HIPAA regs. They especially won't involve a family member in decision-making without all the documents properly signed AND NOTARIZED. And be sure to have multiple originals, all signed and notarized, so all the relevant people - especially you - have an original to wave in the doctor's or nurse's face.
I don't fault the medical people - their hands are tied by rules and regulations.
Violations of HIPAA can include a $250,000 fine and/or a 10-year jail sentence. So, you can see why medical professionals are ware of letting out too much information!
That said, Dh and I are going to do the footwork necesaary get our advanced directives in order.
Advanced Care
This is not life support, but basic nutrition/hydration being denied. Exactly, John, as you quoted, someone who did this to a dog would be arrested.
My aunt suffered head trauma in Italy and was comatose. The doctors there decided that she was brain dead and witheld nutrition/hydration.
I was about 20 when it happened and I remember being sickened! I'm no less sickened, now.
If she breathes, sleeps, wakes, has some degree of conscious life, then how can she be called dead?
When I went in to have my baby, I had to sign a living will and a medical plan I wanted followed. I had a DNR and called for no measures other than nutrition/hydration.
Just want to say what a relief it is to have this debate here! I'm on another board where much of the arguments involved calling people murderers or resorting to labeling the posters either liberals or conservative. Here, I can read and feel that we're actually debating to get to some understanding of each others opinions, not shout the other down. 
This is not life support, but basic nutrition/hydration being denied. Exactly, John, as you quoted, someone who did this to a dog would be arrested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But the dog suffering that way would be offered the humane option of euthanasia. I never thought much about euthanasia before this case but now I'm wondering if there isn't a place for it afterall.
f she breathes, sleeps, wakes, has some degree of conscious life, then how can she be called dead?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can she be called alive? Are we cheapening her life and the choices she made in life if she's forced to go on like she is?
And why is death such a horrible option? Might it be a release?
I have to say I'm really glad Michael allowed her to recieve communion. I'm not Catholic, but my in-laws are, and I think this was an important gesture on his part, considering it seems so important to her family.
I am just so sad for her parents! You know, Florida law on divorce states Terri cannot divorce unless the husband allows it in this instance...WELL, my question is this: He has fathered children, living with another woman WHILE married to Terri...that doesn't constitute divorce????? I am just sick over this, she deserved to be given back to her parent's care and they would have cared for her the way she should have been all along. I hope Michael Schiavo gets his one day! I have no problem with him going on with his life BUT he should have let go of Terri legally 1st.
Amy
I heard a newsreport yesterday that he denied communion. I was SO mad at that. I am glad that he did let her have it though.
The new battle is burial stuff. Catholics in general don't do creamation (i think you can, but are NOT allowed to spread ashes). He wants her creamated and buried in his family plot. They want a full mass and burial with their family. It is all so sad, obviously it is a power struggle on both of their parts. Neither one wants to conceed to the other, but seems like neither one is thinking about the other one at all.
With burial, is he likely to visit her, or are they? Some people visit graves others don't. Is he going to remarry? What does wife 2 feel like doing? Does she want to share her grave with Terri? My dad has lost 2 wives and has just remarried, it is very weird to think about the logic of that when you are grieving, but you have to consider those things.
Regarding cremation, I pulled my catechism book: "The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body"
Also "The dying should be given attention and care to help them live their last moments in dignity and peace. They will be helped by prayer by their relatives, who must see to it that the sick receive at the proper time the sacraments that prepare them to meet the living God. The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit."
I dont know if this expressly forbids scattering of ashes but I dont think that it would be accepted in our community.
I heard Michael wants cremation and the parents want an autopsy (to see how she really got those bone injuries since there was questions of abuse in the marriage). Michael Schiavo won on killing his wife, so he could at least let her be buried as her parents see fit and not carry this power struggle to the very end. I am sorry, but I think he is an awful person. He cannot love Terri, his past actions in every venue have shown me that.
Bear w/ me here, I went ahead and looked up euthanasia also, here it is from the catachism:
"Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is mearly accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose resonable will and legitimate interest must always be respected.
Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity w/ human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form if disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged."
Amy/Katiesmommy, whether there is cremation or not, there will not be an autopsy unless the doctor of a judge orders it or Michael Schiavo permits it. And, what bone damage? The parents did not raise issues of abuse until several years after Terry Schiavo's stroke, and only after he stated he wanted the feeding tube removed, which is when these horrendous court battles began. They were perfectly happy to live in a house rented by Michael Schiavo to accomodate them and him and Terry while he took care of her at home for some time. Remember, her stroke was about 15 years ago, and Michael Schiavo took care of her, both at home and in a nursing home, for several years before he accepted the doctors' advice that there was no hope of recovery.
I know that we (Momsview members) will have strong differences on what should be done in this case. However, I think it is very important to only post information which is acquired from a reasonably reliable source. From all I have read, the "reports" of abuse are not by any means reliable.
I'm still wondering why he said yes to a feeding tube in 1990, if she so strongly didn't want to be kept alive with any sort of tubes in her body.
I have always wondered that too.
Back in 1990 he spent 3 years trying to rehabilitate her, and only after 3 years of non-success and multiple doctors concurring she was not ever going to improve, he decided it was time to let her go. The report from the guardian ad litem I mentioned in an earlier post discusses all of that.
Not disputing that he tried, just wondering why if she was so totally against any artificial measures to keep her alive, why did he agree to the feeding in the first place??
Katiesmommy, Florida is a no-fault state. It doesn't matter who cheated abused or anything else. I know this from first hand experience.
But if she said no, then why did he try? He wanted to try, but did she say she wanted him to , or that she didn't want any artificial support? It can't be both ways.
It matters because he feels she wouldn't have wanted to be kept alive in the state she's in by artificial means. Obviously, no one would give up before exploring options of rehabilitation. I don't want to be kept alive on artificial support, but if there is a good chance of me recovering I'd like the docs to try. It's a matter of meaningful life. If I have no chance at meaningful life, I do not want to be kept alive on tubes.
To Kim,
I am from Florida as well, so I know the laws, I was just wondering why Terri could not be granted a divorce based on Michael going on with his life and technically not adhering to his vows to Terri...I guess its b/c she cannot speak for herself, but it isn't fair in principle IMHO.
Amy
This from updated yahoo news:
Felos said the hospice room was decorated with flowers, had music playing and that Schiavo had a stuffed tabby cat under one arm.
He also said that the chief medical examiner for Pinellas County, Dr. John Thogmartin, had agreed to perform an autopsy. He said her husband wants definitive proof showing the extent of her brain damage. Michael Schiavo contends his wife told him years ago she would not want to be kept alive artificially under such circumstances.
An attorney for Schiavo's parents, David Gibbs III, said her family also wants an autopsy. "We would certainly support and encourage an autopsy to be done with all the unanswered questions," Gibbs said.
Amy, she can't be granted a divorce because he is her legal guardian, and therefore speaks for her, so she can't file. We all need to keep in mind that the Schindlers encouraged Michael to move on with his life *before* all of the disagreements and lawsuits started. Back when they were still close, and all supporting each other as family and friends. Now that they are at war with each other they bring up the "affair", but neglect to mention that they supported it years ago.
Crystal, thank you for posting the link to the Guardian Ad Litem's report. I found it informative and helpful. I urge everyone who has any interest in this matter to read the report in full, not just excerpts. It is in PDF format:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2005-02/16435770.pdf
You're welcome Ginny. I'd read the whole thing, but my Adobe reader makes my computer lock up, and therefore I can't read any PDF files. One of these days I'm gonna figure out what's wrong with it.
Try uninstalling your present Adobe reader and downloading a new one. But before you install a new one, use your search function for "Adobe" to be sure you remove any files which might get overlooked by the uninstall.
Thanks Ginny. Another online friend had also mentioned I might not be removing the corrupted files when I uninstalled, so I manually searched, and it worked!
I can't believe she is still alive So sad. I thought for sure she would have died by now.
I am so sad that she has to go this way. I did not want them to remove the tube. It breaks my heart, as a mother.
I was talking with an old friend over the weekend about this case. She has a personal friend that was in a coma for just over 6 years. She was "in a vegatative state". By some miracle, she woke up one day. She said that she could hear and feel everything, she just couldn't make her body respond.
If we are going to starve someone to death, why not pick a person on death row for murder, or some child sex abusers, or ??? Why pick a poor, innocent woman that has all the love in the world that she needs, and is healthy? It just doesn't seem logical.
I thought she would have died by now, too. It's like the first thing I look for, when I get up in the morning. It's very sad, no matter what happened, no matter which side you are on.
This scares me to death. (No pun intended, it's not funny). But it seems to me that it opens up a huge can of worms. Terri's custodial person decides that he doesn't want to take care of her anymore and wants the feeding tubes removed. Regardless of her mental capacity as long as she received food and water she could live on indefinitely. It's just not the same as removing somebody off of a ventilator or pace maker. We ALL have to have food and water to survive.
After this case what is to stop anybody who has a mentally retarded child or quadriplegic or whatever from deciding that they don't want to continue to care for that person. They can't feed themself so we don't feed them, they'll die and we'll be done with that person of burden.
I think this whole thing is horrendous that our courts have or government officials have not stepped in and said that EVERY human being has the right to water and nutrition. Maybe not go any further steps for medical care.
In my opinion this is a horrible chapter in American history.
I agree! I guess to me the difference is she isn't terminal, she is disabled, terribly disabled. And yes I guess none of us WANT to live that way, but so what? Who of wanted a special needs child? Some of us got them anyway and we still love them and care for them just like they are.
I wonder what the longest anyone has lived without food or water, you would think 12 days is just near miraculous. At the very least I wonder if it shows her will for life.
I have been reading this thread but not posting but this kind of struck me. No offense Debbie, But I have heard this too many times about this case and I just had to comment,
"After this case what is to stop anybody who has a mentally retarded child or quadriplegic or whatever from deciding that they don't want to continue to care for that person. They can't feed themself so we don't feed them, they'll die and we'll be done with that person of burden."
That is just it, People shut off life support on their family members every day in the very same manner that is being done to Terry but their plights aren't made into national news.
No matter what side of this you're on, today's news must anger you. Terri is in her final hours, and Michael has refused to let her family be in the room with her. Now tell me, is he really doing what he thinks Terri would want right now? I think not. No matter what their differences are, he should be sucking it up and allowing them to spend these last hours with her. They are all adults, and I'm sure they could ignore their differences for a few hours and just love her. My heart is breaking for this family.
I heard on the news this morning (a debate show) that Terri has the will to want to live due to going on day 14 and still trying to hang in there. It is true in my professional experience of people who have their support stopped and are wanting to pass on, do it much sooner than Terri. They also said that if she had the tube reinserted at this stage it could cause her body shock (which is true). I don't care what anyone else thinks, I feel this woman wanted to live. Regardless of how one feels about the issue of stopping or continuing her feeding tube...or what you think is correct, this woman is showing she doesn't want to die. It is a tragedy. Your opinions are respected, as I once was on the other side of the fence regarding this issue.
DH just heard that she died. But I am glad her suffering is over..Her cruel husband will get his for making her die this way. just very sad.
Terry has died, and her parents and siblings did not get to see her until after. So very sad. Again, no matter where you stand on this, please keep them all in your prayers.
I am sick for her parents and siblings. There is nothing that will ever comfort them, and their lives will forever be changed.
So very sad for her family. I haven't seen anything on the news, but if it is true that he wouldn't let her family with her, that is just plain wrong and just shows me really what kind of person he is. I wonder how he would feel if it were one of his children that were dying and he couldn't be with them? He just sounds like a monster to me. May god bless her family and all who loved her. I hope she can rest in peace.
Just went on cnn.com, she has indeed passed away, and the blood family was denied access to Terri in her last hours. So sad.
I agree, he was not acting in her interest when he denied the parents access to Terri during the final minutes of her death. Maybe he needed to apologize for doing this to her.
Regardless, it is just wrong and truly shows his selfish side!
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this whole thing. Yes, it is very sad. It is easy to paint Michael as the bad guy, but I think he should have allowed Terri's parents to be with her. What gets me is that if Terri told Michael that she didn't want to be kept alive artifically and truly meant it and insisted on it then why in the world didn't they get anything in writing? Also, I wonder how long Michael will wait to marry his girlfriend. Out of respect, I think he should wait at least a little bit. We'll see.
He seems so selfish, he probably already has the wedding plans in progress. you're right, I guess we will see.
I just thought of something, if she is cremated Michael can stick her in the closet next to his sneakers if he wants to, meaning no visits from her parents, if they bury her, that means they have free access to the grave site. I wonder if this is his reasoning for cremation and if it it is what a control freak.
I, too, have been silently reading this thread for a very long time and not wanting to add my two cents.
I’m very saddened by the whole situation. But, it’s the legal and family battle made public that is the worst.
As with all arguments between two parties, regardless of the topic, there are always three sides. The Black Side, The White Side, and The Middle Gray Side. The Black side tells you THEIR side, which is how they perceive it. Same with the White Side. Both truly believing what they are saying, because it is truly how they see it. But, the truth inevitably resides somewhere within the Gray Side. No matter how much someone believes they are telling the “total truth”, it is always subjective to their own point of view.
Terri’s family truly believes there was hope for her and that she showed signs of communication. Even though countless medical professionals told them it was impossible. If it were my daughter, I would be the same way. I would want to move heaven and earth to give her every chance at life.
Her husband says that she would not have wanted to live like that, and has chosen to believe the doctors. Does that mean he loved her any less than I love my daughter? I can’t answer that. She has been in this state for 15 years. That’s a very long time for a young man to go without a wife or “female companionship”. He’s not bedding every woman in sight. He is in a relationship and has had children. He has moved on with his life, while still being married. Was it the right thing to do? I can’t answer that. Do I blame him for moving on? No. He has already said that he wants a full autopsy performed to prove that there is no cerebral cortex left and that there has been severe atrophy to the brain. After the autopsy, she will be cremated and buried in a Schiavo family plot. Again... the best or most agreeable terms between him and her family? Probably not! But, we, the public, truly do not know all the facts about what has gone on between these people.
All I’m saying is that there are no real winners in this situation. Certainly not Terri. Not her parents and not her husband. It’s just a massive He Said, She Said and no one wants to quit.
I will tell you that ten years ago, my grandfather, the man who truly raised me, was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer. He spent 75 very healthy years alive, and I helped him through his last year, watching him struggle as his body denied him what his heart and mind felt. The radiation took its toll, and after nine months, he had a stroke and slipped into a coma. There were no massive doses of pain killers to keep him from opening his eyes. If fact, he did open his eyes and sometimes he even seemed to be looking directly at you. But, HE wasn’t there. We were told that because he had led an exemplary life, health-wise, his body was strong, and the feeding tube could keep him alive for a very long time before the cancer actually killed him. We chose not to put him through this. He had TOLD us that was what he wanted done. Not in writing. He TOLD us. My grandmother was against it. She felt we’d be starving him. But, the doctors said with so little brain activity, it was the right choice. He survived eight days. It was the worst decision I ever took part in and hope that I never have to make that decision again. Do I believe in what I did? Yes. Without a doubt. Do my husband and I have everything in writing? You Bet Your Life! Let it be a lesson learned by all of us. Don’t assume that your family just KNOWS what’s best. Make your own decisions and write them down.
If they previously spoke about what to do if one of them were in this situation (she said she wouldn't want to be attached to machines) then perhaps she also told him that she wants to be cremated. I really havn't followed this story as much as some of you seem to have but why does everyone always label the husband as the bad guy? Sure, he COULD be a creep. But he also COULD be following a persons personal wishes.
May Terri Schiavo rest in peace she is much more comfortable now.
I am not commenting on the entire battle. I'm not up on the situation well enough to make an informed opinion. However, regardless of their differences, I think the proper thing to do would have been to allow her parents to be at her side when she passed. I was with my dad when he passed and it is a very important moment. I think they should have put aside their differences for those 10 minutes or so.
Bobbie--I don't take any offense to your comments. I agree there are times that there is no hope and we deny the use of pacemakers, or ventilators or other extraordinary measures. But I just don't think that denying food and water is right for anybody. Terri's parents had hopes that if they would be allowed to care for their dd that they could have given her some sort of life. Maybe not full recovery but something.
To me it's as bad as Dr. Kavorkian and his assisted suicide. But at least those people that he assisted chose death. From Terri's mouth no one but supposedly her husband ever heard that. Withholding nutrition and water is purely murder. And a slow one at that.
I have never seen in our facility where food and nutrition were withheld from somebody to allow them to die. I have seen on many occasions where certain meds, ventilators, etc were pulled and allowed people to die which usually occured in a few minutes to a couple of hours.
But I do believe it does occur and this case has come to the limelight because someone opposed the caregivers decision. In most cases I believe that caregivers and loved one usually come to the decision in agreement.
The whole story is just sad, start to finish.
I think it is absolutely disgusting that the parents were not allowed in with her when she died. There is absolutely no excuse for that. I hope they file a wrongful death suit against him.
The parents were never denied access to Terri in her final moments. Her parents were at home. Her mom did not go to her bedside since since Easter Sunday.
I have to say, Colette, being a legal secretary, anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. But, given the multitudinous court orders and court reviews, I would think that any suit for wrongful death will be thrown out immediately. Where there is going to be another potential wrangle, of course, is the matter of the disposition of her body, because that is already another major contention.
|
Members
