Terri Schiavo (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() No offense meant. If I seemed harsh I apologize. I of course agree with you about living wills. Regardless, of which "side" or what opinion on has on this issue, I think everyone can agree at its core it's tragic and sad. Again, zagagirl I apologize if I made an unfair assumption about your feelings on this issue. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Motivated - 2005-03-22 10:58 PM #4. I spent a lot of my time as a young adult working with the mentally handicapped. There were many people who couldn't feed themselves, I personally fed a few of them. What makes this woman so different? Chistopher Reeves couldn't feed himself. Neither can some extremely intelligent people with CP or quadrapalegia. Motor skills are irrelevant to this discussion. I spent a number of years doing direct care in the same profession and find the comparison a real stretch. Some of the people I worked with were extremely disabled, both cognitively and physically. I've also known someone who languished for a time in a vegetative state. What makes this woman, and the guy I knew, different from those people I worked with is an awareness of themselves and the world around them or lack of same. For the most afflicted in the latter group that level of awareness isn't much, but it's there. They eat, drink, make sounds, follow the movement of people in the room with their eyes, salivate at the mention or sight of favorite foods and in some very subtle ways react to and interact with the world about them. A brain dead person does none of these. As Virgina Wolf said of Oakland: "There's no there there" I also know some families that would be quite hurt at the comparison of their loved one to a person in a vegetative state, regardless of ones opinion in this matter. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Steve, As soon as there is no hope for my recovery, I will go without food and water for four days. Hopefully until I die. As long as the government respects my wishes and I don't become a political tool. Speaking of tools... If you want you may send me a PM. Include constructive arguements. |
![]() ![]() |
Member![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Let her die! Anyone who knows anything about dehydration/starvation knows it is not painful and she "looks" much worse than the state she is really in and will die peacfully. Something her parents needed to let happen years ago. I wonder if her parents got their way who would take care of her when they had passed on. Her parents would rather her be 61 years old with no family but alive in her fugged up state than meet her in heaven since they are supposedly religious. Funny, how they want her to live but have not stated what would happed to her if they were to die. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Daytona Bill - 2005-03-25 11:30 PM Steve, As soon as there is no hope for my recovery, I will go without food and water for four days. And who will you believe that there is no hope for your recovery? When will you "give up." After 1 doctor says so, after 5, after 10? In my mind, I don't care if I'm a vegatable. My will to live will not go away. I will never give up any "hope for recovery" no matter what anyone says...ESPECIALLY doctors. I'm not saying that Terri should have this same drive to live but doctors can be wrong...and believe me THEY ARE wrong quite often because they're just human like you and me. What about the girl (I can't remeber her name) who was in a coma for over 7 years. Should we have pulled the plug on here since ALL the doctors said there was "no hope for recovery"? Good thing they didn't pull the plug, because she awoke and now enjoys a full recovery! I realize this example is not the same (sry about that). My point is, if a doctor tells me that I have no hope for recovery, I'm going to tell him something I can't type here. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Motivated - 2005-03-22 10:58 PM #1 The right to live or die should never be a case of "he said, she said". If it's not written down in a living will, notarized and validated, then the benefit of the doubt should be with keeping the person alive. A person's life or death should never be in the hands of another who stands to benefit materially from the decision. It should never exist outside of any statements that cannot be directly attributed to that person, without absolute credibility and certainty. All issues in courts are decided by weighing the evidence (which often isn't in writing) and deciding what should be done. Many of these cases involve life and death. If she had told someone she wants to be kept alive no matter what her condition I'm sure you would accept that as fact. #2. We don't treat stray dogs the way we're treating this woman. Exactly, a pet would be given the benefit of a quick painless death. Wouldn't you prefer that? Maybe she should move to Oregon? Why not put a gun to the back of her head, what's the difference? Its a 170 grain bullet and instantaneous relief versus two weeks of absolute torture. That would be better for her but the law doesn't allow it. #3. For those of you who have children, don't your hearts break for the parents who have to sit and watch their child slowly starve to death, regardless of her condition? If it were my child I would accept that she was not coming back and let her go if those were her wishes. It would break my heart much more to see her being forcibly kept alive. And for the record, I feel terrible for the parents. There is not one shred of evidence, not one, beyond her husband's statements, that she in fact desires to be dead. Her husbands statements are a pretty strong bit of evidence,the courts have decided that repeatedly. If his statements supported your argument you can bet he would suddenly have credibility in your eyes. What makes you folks all experts in who should live and who should die? What makes you an expert? I never want to be in a place where I have to make that decision for another, not pretending here on BT, not on any blogs, not in any friendly debates, and not certainly in real life. I'm sure her husband doesn't want to be in that position either but he is. #4. I spent a lot of my time as a young adult working with the mentally handicapped. There were many people who couldn't feed themselves, I personally fed a few of them. What makes this woman so different? If the difference between a woman who has no cerebral cortex and expressed her wishes to not be kept alive in such a state and a mentally handicapped person escapes you then you must have trouble understanding some really simple things. #5. I am really saddened by this entire situation. So am I, as I'm sure all parties on either side of this argument are. You can debate the merits of the Iraq war... So we have your permission to debate a war in which thousands are dying but we can't discuss this woman's situation? but why on God's green earth would you offer an opinion in support of her death from where you sit? From where else would we offer our opinions? You're just guessing, basing your opinion on what you've heard on CNN. As are you. You should be either in support of her life or silent. Ok, now you have established that you are not to be taken seriously. We should all either agree with you or shut up? You're an idiot. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Just some food for thought: I've heard a lot of people say that if the decision is based upon a "he said-she said" then we should err on the side of preservation of life. I have also heard people say that we should not trust the husband because he has some pecuniary interest in the outcome. (What I'm not sure, but lets assume a life insurance policy) My points are the following: 1. How many of us married couples have life insurance with our spouses as primary beneficiaries? My guesse is the majority of us do, it's the responsible thing to do. Thus accordingly we all have some pecuniary interest in the death of our spouse. Does that mean anyone who has a life insurance policy on their spouse cannot be trusted regarding what was said in the marital bed? It's a ludicrous proposition that just because someone has a life insurance policy on their spouse they are lying. Or that some other evidence besides the spouses word is required. Hitorically we have recognized that spouses tell each other things that they don't tell others. We even have the spousal privilege and certain hearsay exceptions that are based upon this concept. 2. While this entire thing has been going on I realized that my wife and I had discussed this issue a great deal. I had told her my wishes regarding continued medical care during a catostrophic illness and she had expressed her wishes. But I have never talked to my mother about this issue, and my wife has never discussed the matter with her parents. My guess is that the majority of married couples have discussed this issue between themselves but not with their parents. How many of you have talked to your spouse about this issue? If you have, have you spoken to your parebnts about your wishes? I bet you haven't. With that said, why is it so unbelievable that Terri discussed this with her husband and NOT her parents. My experience has been that that situation would be the norm. And as a trial lawyer, that specializes in the prosecution of sex crimes against children I can tell you that everyday in America people are convicted on He said-she said evidence. It's common. Lets face it, very few people molest their children in front of other people. Because of this we are left with just the testimony of the victim. Does this mean we can't convict based upon just the word of the victim? I hope not, because a great deal of criminals will get away with their crimes if that is the fact. Likewise the majority of people DO NOT have living wills. Thus Courts are left with trying to determine the wishes of individuals based upon what ever evidence can be utilized. |
![]() ![]() |
Got Wahoo? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Ultimately my feelings in this case are colored by the fact that the "Schiavo Family The Schiavo's are a tool of a truly evil, delusional and ignorant forces in this world who are so full of their self worth and godly sanction, people who's devine concept is so tenuous and fragile, they can brook no differing opinion,outcome or belief other than their religious justifications. They will lie, cheat, maim and kill rather than allow for the possibility that they are wrong. I do not know enough about this case. I doubt that even if I were speaking to both groups that I ever could. What I do know is that I am damn fed up with religious fanatics insisting at every turn how I should live my life. Speak for saving Terri or be silent? Do you realize how simple you sound? Do you realize how contrary your ideology is to liberty, freedom and to the ideals that, at one time, made this country a shining beacon to all the world? The truly bizarre thing is, those with that type of mentality would be shunned by the savior with whom you justify all your hateful and bigoted actions with. The teachings of Jesus Christ, fictional or not, are diametrically opposed to your logic, emotions and most particularly you superior dogma. I don't know what should happen with Terri (though I lean towards her husbands point of view just based on my own preferences in this matter), but I do know is telling me to shut up will guarantee me in you face. The bottom line is this case was picked up because it serves the fundamentalist pro-life agenda. The hypocrisy and shallow, lowest common denominator preaching is beginning to piss me off. These fanatics have done Terri the ultimate disservice: they have stolen her humanity, her dignity and her memory, without a stray thought for the woman who should have met her own maker long ago. She is not being protected, she is being used. Terribly. I am not sure what is worse, the way she is being used, or the blind manner by which the religious right think and parrot what they are told by anyone who says they are acting in the name of god. ...and if you don't agree with me... you should. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() On a tangent, I'd like to know why all the Family-Values-Sanctity-of-Marriage types aren't down there in Florida defending Michael Schiavo's rights as a husband. Consistency, anyone? |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Probably because there is no "sanctity of marriage" for him, as evidenced by the fact that he has already started a new family with another woman while trying mightily to kill his wife so he can collect her insurance and/or lawsuit settlement money and marry his mistress. His cruelty and asinine attitude are reflected in the fact that he would not allow her to have communion given to her last night. Why? Is there ONE good reason why he wouldn't allow this? The only reason that is clear is because he is an ass. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Another issue of this situation which hasn't been brought up is this: The same folks who intervened last weekend from the President on down to Congress are the same folks pushing for caps on mal-pracrtice suits. They are also to same folks pushing to cut medicaid. These are the 2 funds which pay for her care. If they cap mal-practice suits AND cut medicaid, how are all those medical bills be paid let alone how will "proper care" - all those therapies from physical to occupational to speech - be afforded by the average American. Just speaking for myself, my husband and I pay $600 a month in speech therapy alone for our son who suffers from Apraxia. I don't know how many families can afford this kind of additional expense which we know will eventually end, but therapy for Terri will be never ending. As for Terri, may she be with God soon and may her husband, parents and siblings find comfort in that she is with God. Edited by houston-tri-mamma 2005-03-27 8:48 AM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() OldAg92 - 2005-03-27 7:01 AM Probably because there is no "sanctity of marriage" for him, as evidenced by the fact that he has already started a new family with another woman while trying mightily to kill his wife so he can collect her insurance and/or lawsuit settlement money and marry his mistress. His cruelty and asinine attitude are reflected in the fact that he would not allow her to have communion given to her last night. Why? Is there ONE good reason why he wouldn't allow this? The only reason that is clear is because he is an ass. I don't even know where to start with this, it so full of falsehoods. 1) Terri's own parents encourage Michael to date. He introduced them to her parents!!! 2) There is no life insurance. The only money is from the lawsuit, which according to all accounts is all gone, having been consumed by the court battles and her ongoing care. 3) Michael studied nursing so that he could care for Terri, that is how/where he met his current "girlfriend", who in point of fact also has supported him in caring for Terri. Apparently, you've decided to pre-judge without bothering to do the basic amount of research as to the facts in this case. The parents claim to be on the side of religion, therefore in your eyes, that is enough for you decide that they must be in the right and all who differ in opinion are evil and have malicious intent. That's a wonderful way to decide right and wrong. |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Hmm... May I suggest you stop using the National Enquier or equivalent as your source for information... The court documents don't even come close to presenting any such information nor were the issues you present ever an argument. Why? ... because they are wrong. It's sad to see some push their ideologies to the point that they become blinded by the facts. {heavy sigh... shaking head} FWIW Joe Moya |
![]() ![]() |
Got Wahoo? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() They probably refused to allow her communion because they want her to burn in hell. ...well, that or they probably don't want any of your ilk within 10 feelt of her - oh, and the fact that she cannot swallow might pose some difficulties as well. Choking on the body of christ would not be good for any concerned, don't you think? Just another diversion by the fanatical right. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() OldAg92 - 2005-03-27 7:01 AM Probably because there is no "sanctity of marriage" for him, as evidenced by the fact that he has already started a new family with another woman while trying mightily to kill his wife so he can collect her insurance and/or lawsuit settlement money and marry his mistress. His cruelty and asinine attitude are reflected in the fact that he would not allow her to have communion given to her last night. Why? Is there ONE good reason why he wouldn't allow this? The only reason that is clear is because he is an ass. So the only people whose marital rights count are the ones who behave as we think they should? Maybe the state should annul my marriage if I don't obey my husband? |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Whew, this thread has become hostile. Just FYI, if you go back and read my post, I did not personally attack anyone on this board...all I did was state an opinion about Michael Schiavo's conduct. In turn, I am being attacked. That, my friends, is pathetic. For what it is worth, I do not think Terri should be kept alive in this condition, or used as a pawn for someone's activism. If it was her wish not to be kept alive in this state, then her wish should be respected. That doesn't excuse the way Schiavo has handled all this. Also, on the communion issue, she would not have choked on it. They wanted to put one tiny crumb and one drop of wine on her tongue....if Schiavo had an ounce of dignity or class, he would at least allow her parents to share communion with her on Easter before her death. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I'm with you OldAg. While I don't want to get into any more legal or ethical discussions, I just can't figure out why Terri's husband just doesn't divorce her and give Terri's custody back to her parents. Terri is simply beyond caring at this point. I just don't understand why Terri's husband is causing all of this pain to her parents. Terri obviously didn't feel strongly enough about this when she was able to execute a living will, and I'm sure her life expectancy with a feeding tube isn't all that great at this point, so why go through all of this? Denying communion, if true, just seems incredibly mean-spirited. Terri's husband has won all of the legal battles; he can't let go enough to allow Terri the rite of communion? I just don't get it. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() lynda - 2005-03-27 4:11 PM Denying communion, if true, just seems incredibly mean-spirited. Terri's husband has won all of the legal battles; he can't let go enough to allow Terri the rite of communion? I just don't get it. Actually, this seems to me like the most theologically and legally consistent position Michael Schiavo could take. He says there is no Terri there anymore, just the physical shell that used to house her mind and soul. It would be sacrilege to perform the rite if you believe this is true. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Lynda: yes Michael could divorce Terri, which would have the result of granting the decision about medical care to her parents. And we know what her parents decision would be, to re-insert the feeding tube. Perhaps that is precisiouly why he hasn't divorced her. According to the court appointed Gaurdain Ad Litem, Michael hasn't divorced Terri for preciously that reason. That he wants to ensue that his wifes wishes are carried out, that is, that medical treatment in this situation not be conducted. By divorcing his wife, which would allow her parents to re-insert the feeding tube, he would be going against his wifes wishes and would continue to watch his wife "live" in a persistant vegitative state. For an indeterminant time, without any real hope of any type of quality of life. And, as an aside, why is it only Michael that is causing all of this pain. Why don't the Shindlers give up and stop causing pain to Michael. There's all this assumption that Michael is an uncaring, cold person. Why? Why don't the Shindlers give in and accept the possibility that their daughter would not have wanted to live in this state, and that Michael is carrying out Terri's wishes. Are we making the assumption about Michael because, unlike the Shindlers, he isn't constantly parading in front of a T.V. camera. Or that he is uncaring because he has followed the legal process and has accepted the legal rulings of 20 different courts and hasn't appealed to Congress. Is it because Michael has been relatively silent? It's unfair. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I guess I believe most of us are moral, kind people. If Terri's husband believes she is already dead, why would he care whether she received communion or not? Wouldn't that be something for God and Terri to talk about? It would certainly comfort her parents, i.e., the living, and that is the sort of thing I don't get. The Catholic church has already condemned the removal of the feeding tube, so I doubt that they'd quibble over communion. I know the bible doesn't address this, so why not allow her parents some comfort? I don't get it. My husband has made it clear that he doesn't want a feeding tube, ever. Me? I'm not so sure. My only request to him is that we don't make the news. Usually I can see both sides of a compelling story. I just don't see Terri's husband's position. He has clearly moved on. His actions just don't make sense to me. But, thank God I'm not in his position and I don't need to make the choice he has. I just don't see a rational motivation for his action. I see a personal one, and it doesn't speak well of him. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Micheal can't win in the public's eyes. If he divorced Terry, he would be painted as an uncaring man unwilling to committ the time to care for a comatose wife (and I believe he did spend many years doing that ..???), and unwilling to fight for what he believes his wife wanted. Bottom line, I am glad the discussion of living wills is so passionate, but in terms of judging her parents or her husband NO ONE can do that, no one can know what's in their hearts. But I agree, most people are moral and good. And I can only assume it's heart-rending and painful for everyone involved. Can you imagine if the media and the public got a hold of a personal and painful issue in YOUR life? You could be painted anyway they see fit, damn the facts. Especially if only one side was willing to talk to the cameras. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Got Wahoo? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() His reason for doing what he is doing is that she wanted it that way. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Lynda: You said your husband has indicated to you that he doesn't want a feeding tube ever. Has he told the same thing to his parents? Have you executed a living will? If the answer is "no" to either of those questions, you are now in the same situation as Micheal Shiavo before Terris illness. What if something happened to your husband and knowing his wishes you tried to comply with them, but some other family members entered the picture and said that your husband had different wishes from what he told you. Would you try to comply with what you thought your husbands wishes were/are or would you give in to the wishes of his family? How would you feel if the State and Federal government passed laws specifically designed to prevent you, and you alone, from carrying out what your husband had told you he wanted done? What if after you had the feeding tube removed from your husband, based upon his wishes, you were called a "monster" and a "murderer" ? I'm going to assume you and you husband have life insurance policies. What if when you refused to have a feeding tube put in your husband people pointed at you and said you were only doing it for the money because you would receive the proceeds of an insurance policy upon his death? I don't think Michael Shiavo is a bad person. I truely believe he is enduring this public venom because he believes he is carrying out what he feels are the wishes of his wife. based upon their life together. And I believe he has been characterized unfairly. I mention all of the above not to put you personally on the spot, but to illustrate what a difficult and horrible situation Michael is in. His wife is in a vegatative state, doctors have said she will never recover, he's doing what he believes she would want, and he is being portrayed as the villian in this situation. Sad. Unfair. Unwarranted. Unjust. |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() lynda - 2005-03-27 7:24 PM I guess I believe most of us are moral, kind people. If Terri's husband believes she is already dead, why would he care whether she received communion or not? Wouldn't that be something for God and Terri to talk about? It would certainly comfort her parents, i.e., the living, and that is the sort of thing I don't get. The Catholic church has already condemned the removal of the feeding tube, so I doubt that they'd quibble over communion. I know the bible doesn't address this, so why not allow her parents some comfort? I don't get it. This former Catholic will try to explain; maybe practicing RC's can do a better job if I misinterpret the rite. Holy Communion is not a passive act; it is an active affirmation of the faith. Only Mr. Schiavo knows why he disallowed it, but a logical guess would be that if you aren't "there" (vegetative, unconcious, brain dead, in a coma), then you can't receive the eucharist simply because there must be a desire to receive it. Michael Schiavo believes Terri has no desire for anything because he believes she is long gone. One doesn't take communion to make our parents or the living feel better. One takes communion as a symbol of one's acceptance of JC as one's savior. If you believe Terri is brain dead, going through the rites of communion would be like asking Terri to play scrabble. Kind of cruel even if their intentions were good. If you believe she is not vegetative, as her parents believe, then you could probably convince yourself that Terri is actually participating in the rite. |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I just read that Terri Schiavo received communion, a drop of wine on her tongue. So much disinformation roiling around this topic. |
|