Terri Schiavo (Page 6)

There are ways to end her life more quickly, but I don't think anyone who has problems with removing the feeding tube is going to be open to some form of euthanasia, so it's really a moot point.

Charitable organizations are not the answer to our lack of universal health care.

Sharon, you are mistaken in your "facts."

Michael Schiavo won the malpractice suit in 1992. He first petitioned the court to remove her feeding tube in 1996.

Renee,

Yes...I watched my dad die, but he was truly in a coma. Well, I was a kid, but I did watch him deteriorate before he went into the hospital. My sister made a heartwrenching decision to remove him from life support. He was way beyond a Terri Schiavo state. He was in a bonadfide coma.

The point is that she wasn't "dying" until the feeding tube was removed. I guess I didn't know that food/nutrition is considered "medicine." But, I'm not a MD, so maybe it is?

We could debate this all day. We all have our thoughts on this...and that's fine.

I thought this board was for all to voice opinions. It seems like I'm being attacked, for mine.

And...I saw those "facts" on CNN the other night. Maybe they have their "facts" wrong.

I think I'll keep my thoughts on this to myself now. I just don't get why I'm being attacked for my thoughts on this. It's ok to feel compassion for Michael Schiavo, but not for Terri? That's pretty scary stuff to me.

Have a good one,
Sharon

I apologize if I got my "facts" wrong...I don't personally know the families, so I obtained some facts of the case like everyone else--the media. The facts change depending on what network you listen to, as well....haha CNN reports one thing, Fox another....But, I apologize for misstating any "facts."

*sigh* That being said...I'm not sure what there is to gain by inferring that I'm foolish, Renee?
Oh well....onward upward...

Enjoy what's left of today!

Sharon

Sharon: Just one point of clarification, and I understand that you got these facts from CNN, but they are only partially accurate, and that is most likely the fault of CNN for trying to over simplify a legal matter. Yes Michael Schiavo won a civil medical malpractice suit on his own. he was awarded approximately $300,000 for loss of consortium for his wifes state. Additionally, Terri won individually a civil suit for medical malpractice in which she was awarded approximately $700,000. My understanding is all that all of the award was used for her care. And by all accounts there is only about $40,000 remaining. I just wanted to clarify that because I keep hearing that Michael won a $1,000,000 civil suit and that isn't exactly acurate. And just so we're clear I'm blaming that inaccuracy on the media, not you.

And I understand your dismay about Terri "starving to death" and I respect your opinion on the matter. My opinion is that at first blush it does seem harsh, but what is the alternative? Continue to feed and hydrate her, through a tube inserted directly into her stomach, for how long? Especially, if there is an indication that she would have refused such treatment. (And there has been a judicial determination that Terri would have refused such treatment) Isn't letting someone languish in bed with no hope of recovery, and no possibility of any cognative functioning, when it is against his/her wishes, just as cruel. Maybe even crueler?

Oddly, on a personal note, I spent four hours yesterday drafting my "living will" the first line of my statement of intent reads "I believe that all life is sacred. However I also believe that the quality of that life is just as sacred."

I just couldn't resist responding to this. I certainly don't think Michael has things both ways; I think he has things neither way. Do you think what he wants is to stay married to a woman who can't be his partner and who is daily being made to exist in a state contrary to how he "knows" she would want to exist and not be able to marry the woman with whom he has children? Do you think it is impossible to love and be committed to two people at once? I don't think so. But he certainly doesn't have the best of both worlds, he's got a partial part of both.

I can't imagine seeing the husk of a person I loved languishing for so long. Everyone needs love, active love. It is almost as important as physical sustainence. Though all couples go through periods where one needs more support than the other, and one or both must make sacrifices, it is inhumane to ask someone to do so for 15 years just so he can stop her wishes from being thwarted.

Edited by akabak 2005-03-29 4:29 PM

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. :=)

I downloaded forms from the Florida Bar website. I'm struggling with deciding who to name as my healthcare surrogate. My inclination was to name my mother, but I think that might be too much to ask of her. She already let me know that if she were Terri's mother, she would want to care for her. I don't want my mother to have to act against her maternal instincts.

Whether one would feel lonely and depressed while living with and taking care of a spouse in such a state us up to the individual but not inevitable. It is not cruel and pointless to expect this of someone it is the whole point of commitment. Marriage is not about finding someone to make you happy it is about committing your life to another person. That is what Michael Schiavo did when he took his wedding vows.

Nice to see another side to this discussion today.
Thank YOU!

Sharon

It just needs to be someone who is fully aware of your wishes and will honor them. You can even make it your lawyer if you know him/her well enough. Might be hard on your mom if she ever had to act! There was some good advice earlier to make your wishes as widely known as possible. There was a columnist who wrote up his living will in the Chicago Tribune. That might be taking it a bit far.

And that's OK.!!!!

Regardless, whether we believe that removing the feeding tube is the right thing to do, or not removing the feeding tube is the right thing to do, this goes back to one of my original arguments, which is: Either way it is a personal decision, that is effected by may different things in a persons life. But above all, that personal decision should be honored and the Government, whether State or Federal should not interfere with that decision.

If someone wants every possible medical procedure done to them and they are to be kept alive by any means so be it. If someone wants nothing done for them so be it. It's their decision.

I think the point is that this commitment is between two people. It's not anyone else's place to say what I owe to my husband or he to me.

I am posting this in response to the many who have said on this thread that it is only the right wing religious fanatics who think that Terri should not be allowed to die by starvation and dehydration. This is also a rebuttal of those who say that the public record clearly shows that this is what Terri would have wanted.

All it takes to see that something is not right here is to not believe everything in the media and not believe the Florida court system is perfect. This is a long post but I think that an atheist with a long history of supporting neither the right or the left could add something.

If you read nothing else please read the last three paragraphs.


Village Voice
Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder
Her crime was being disabled, voiceless, and at the disposal of our media
by Nat Hentoff
March 29th, 2005 10:59 AM

For all the world to see, a 41-year-old woman, who has committed no crime, will die of dehydration and starvation in the longest public execution in American history.

She is not brain-dead or comatose, and breathes naturally on her own. Although brain-damaged, she is not in a persistent vegetative state, according to an increasing number of radiologists and neurologists.

Among many other violations of her due process rights, Terri Schiavo has never been allowed by the primary judge in her case—Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, whose conclusions have been robotically upheld by all the courts above him—to have her own lawyer represent her.

Greer has declared Terri Schiavo to be in a persistent vegetative state, but he has never gone to see her. His eyesight is very poor, but surely he could have visited her along with another member of his staff. Unlike people in a persistent vegetative state, Terri Schiavo is indeed responsive beyond mere reflexes.

While lawyers and judges have engaged in a minuet of death, the American Civil Liberties Union, which would be passionately criticizing state court decisions and demanding due process if Terri were a convict on death row, has shamefully served as co-counsel for her husband, Michael Schiavo, in his insistent desire to have her die.

Months ago, in discussing this case with ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, and later reading ACLU statements, I saw no sign that this bastion of the Bill of Rights has ever examined the facts concerning the egregious conflicts of interest of her husband and guardian Michael Schiavo, who has been living with another woman for years, with whom he has two children, and has violated a long list of his legal responsibilities as her guardian, some of them directly preventing her chances for improvement. Judge Greer has ignored all of them.

In February, Florida's Department of Children and Families presented Judge Greer with a 34-page document listing charges of neglect, abuse, and exploitation of Terri by her husband, with a request for 60 days to fully investigate the charges. Judge Greer, soon to remove Terri's feeding tube for the third time, rejected the 60-day extension. (The media have ignored these charges, and much of what follows in this article.)

Michael Schiavo, who says he loves and continues to be devoted to Terri, has provided no therapy or rehabilitation for his wife (the legal one) since 1993. He did have her tested for a time, but stopped all testing in 1993. He insists she once told him she didn't want to survive by artificial means, but he didn't mention her alleged wishes for years after her brain damage, while saying he would care for her for the rest of his life.

Terri Schiavo has never had an MRI or a PET scan, nor a thorough neurological examination. Republican Senate leader Bill Frist, a specialist in heart-lung transplant surgery, has, as The New York Times reported on March 23, "certified [in his practice] that patients were brain dead so that their organs could be transplanted." He is not just "playing doctor" on this case.

During a speech on the Senate floor on March 17, Frist, speaking of Judge Greer's denial of a request for new testing and examinations of Terri, said reasonably, "I would think you would want a complete neurological exam" before determining she must die.

Frist added: "The attorneys for Terri's parents have submitted 33 affidavits from doctors and other medical professionals,all of whom say that Terri should be re-evaluated."

In death penalty cases, defense counsel for retarded and otherwise mentally disabled clients submit extensive medical tests. Ignoring the absence of complete neurological exams, supporters of the deadly decisions by Judge Greer and the trail of appellate jurists keep reminding us how extensive the litigation in this case has been—19 judges in six courts is the mantra. And more have been added. So too in many death penalty cases, but increasingly, close to execution, inmates have been saved by DNA.

As David Gibbs, the lawyer for Terri's parents, has pointed out, there has been a manifest need for a new federal, Fourteenth Amendment review of the case because Terri's death sentence has been based on seven years of "fatally flawed" state court findings—all based on the invincible neglect of elementary due process by Judge George Greer.

I will be returning to the legacy of Terri Schiavo in the weeks ahead because there will certainly be long-term reverberations from this case and its fracturing of the rule of law in the Florida courts and then the federal courts—as well as the disgracefully ignorant coverage of the case by the great majority of the media, including such pillars of the trade as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Miami Herald, and the Los Angeles Times as they copied each other's misinformation, like Terri Schiavo being "in a persistent vegetative state."

Do you know that nearly every major disability rights organization in the country has filed a legal brief in support of Terri's right to live?

But before I go back to other Liberty Beats—the CIA's torture renditions and the whitewashing of the landmark ACLU and Human Rights First's lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld for his accountability in the widespread abuse of detainees, including evidence of torture—I must correct the media and various "qualified experts" on how a person dies of dehydration if he or she is sentient, as Terri Schiavo demonstrably is.

On March 15's Nightline, in an appallingly one-sided, distorted account of the Schiavo case, Terri's husband, Michael—who'd like to marry the woman he's now living with—said that once Terri's feeding tube is removed at his insistent command, Terri "will drift off into a nice little sleep and eventually pass on and be with God."

As an atheist, I cannot speak to what he describes as his abandoned wife's ultimate destination, but I can tell how Wesley Smith (consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture)—whom I often consult on these bitterly controversial cases because of his carefully researched books and articles—describes death by dehydration.

In his book Forced Exit (Times Books), Wesley quotes neurologist William Burke: "A conscious person would feel it [dehydration] just as you and I would. . . . Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucous membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining.

"They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water! . . . It is an extremely agonizing death."

On March 23, outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo was growing steadily weaker, her mother, Mary, said to the courts and to anyone who would listen and maybe somehow save her daughter:

"Please stop this cruelty!"

While this cruelty was going on in the hospice, Michael Schiavo's serpentine lawyer, George Felos, said to one and all: "Terri is stable, peaceful, and calm. . . . She looked beautiful."

During the March 21 hearing before Federal Judge James D. Whittemore, who was soon to be another accomplice in the dehydration of Terri, the relentless Mr. Felos, anticipating the end of the deathwatch, said to the judge:
"Yes, life is sacred, but so is liberty, your honor, especially in this country."

It would be useless, but nonetheless, I would like to inform George Felos that, as Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said: "The history of liberty is the history of due process"—fundamental fairness.

Contrary to what you've read and seen in most of the media, due process has been lethally absent in Terri Schiavo's long merciless journey through the American court system.

"As to legal concerns," writes William Anderson—a senior psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and a lecturer at Harvard University—"a guardian may refuse any medical treatment, but drinking water is not such a procedure. It is not within the power of a guardian to withhold, and not in the power of a rational court to prohibit."

Ralph Nader agrees. In a statement on March 24, he and Wesley Smith (author of, among other books, Culture of Death: The Assault of Medical Ethics in America) said: "The court is imposing process over justice. After the first trial [before Judge Greer], much evidence has been produced that should allow for a new trial—which was the point of the hasty federal legislation.

"If this were a death penalty case, this evidence would demand reconsideration. Yet, an innocent, disabled woman is receiving less justice. . . . This case is rife with doubt. Justice demands that Terri be permitted to live." (Emphasis added.)

But the polls around the country cried out that a considerable majority of Americans wanted her to die without Congress butting in.

A March 20 ABC poll showed that 60 percent of the 501 adults consulted opposed the ultimately unsuccessful federal legislation, and only 35 percent approved. Moreover, 70 percent felt strongly that it was wrong for Congress to get into such personal, private matters—and interfere with what some advocates of euthanasia call "death with dignity." (So much for the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process and equal protection of the laws.)

But, as Cathy Cleaver Ruse of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out:

"The poll [questions] say she's 'on life support,' which is not true [since all she needs is water], and that she has 'no consciousness,' which her family and dozens of doctors dispute in sworn affidavits."

Many readers of this column are pro-choice, pro-abortion rights. But what choice did Terri Schiavo have under our vaunted rule of law—which the president is eagerly trying to export to the rest of the world? She had not left a living will or a durable power of attorney, and so could not speak for herself. But the American system of justice would not slake her thirst as she, on television, was dying in front of us all.

What kind of a nation are we becoming? The CIA outsources torture—in violation of American and international law—in the name of the freedoms we are fighting to protect against terrorism. And we have watched as this woman, whose only crime is that she is disabled, is tortured to death by judges, all the way to the Supreme Court.

And keep in mind from the Ralph Nader-Wesley Smith report: "The courts . . . have [also] ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, they have ordered her to be made dead."

In this country, even condemned serial killers are not executed in this way.

Sounds like a healthy relationship to me... <-- Sarcasm

Scott: This is a great op/ed piece that is filled with a number of inaccuracies. For instance: The issue reagrding the MRI and PET scan. The lead court appointed neurologist stated as recently as yesterday on CNN that an MRI would have shown less then the CT scan that was done. That the CT scans that were done were medically recognized to diagnose her condition. That the CT scans distinctively showed liqufication/atrophy of her cerebral cortex. Additionally, Terri has been seen by at least 5 seperate neurologists. All of whom, with the exception of the one choosen by the Schindlers agreed with the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state.

The Due Process arguements are ridiculous. What more Due process is warranted? There have been 20 seperate court proceedings in this case, including three seperate appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. The argument regarding Federal review is interesting because arguably this idea violates ideas of State's rights. Issues regarding end-of life laws have been continuously held to be state's issues.

Again there is no State action here, which is required to trigger Federal jurisdiction. The issue is one of interpreting Terri's wishes. The simple fact that a court has rendered a decision between private litigates does not rise that decision to one of State action. Just some basic civics: If there is no State action and the issue does not encompass something that is based upon Original jurisdiction of the federal Courts then there is no Federal jurisdiction (Very simplified but as boiled down as I could get it in this space) Thus the analogy of Terris case to a death penalty case is specious at best. In a death penalty case the State is seeking and imposing the death penalty. Definite state action. In this case the State is not imposing a death penalty. Contrary to what everyone would like to think. The only action by the government is to interpret based upon the evidence what Terri's wishes would have been. Thus imposing terri's wishes.

It's a nice article in the sense that there are no spelling errors or no gramatical errors. But it, like most of the media coverage, has a definite position and is doing what it can to support that pposition. It is far from neutral. If someone can tell me where the Florida courts erred, based upon LAW I'd love to hear it. The Federal courts found no error.

Civil war in Florida. Good going gubner.

I left on a trip the day after I started this thread. I was able to read parts of it a few times, but didn't have enough time to respond in a thoughtful way. I'm home and settling back in, so I'd like to add to the discussion.

One thing first. My intent was not to create divisiveness within the BT community. If my own writing and thoughts, or the act of starting the thread itself, contributed to divisiveness, I apologize. Perhaps, though, this is the best type of place to air out our thoughts on this topic. We share a common love and a certain level of trust. Although they don't need my permission, if Ron or other mods decided to shut this thread down for the good of the site I would not protest.

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of one side by the other. It goes both ways. I thought I might offer my profile so that folks could link a specific person with a set of beliefs and not have to wonder where he was coming from.

I'm a forty-seven year old straight married man. I have three children and one due in May. I was a strict secular humanist for twenty-five years, an atheist for half that time and an agnostic for the other half. I am a Catholic of the Roman variety. I hold fairly orthodox beliefs, although I am not in full communion with the Church due to the status of my marriage. (for non-Catholics that means that I can't receive the sacraments, except for confession in some very specific circumstances) My wife is a Quaker and has been since birth.

I'm a Democrat. I'd describe my politics as being in the middle, after starting my adult life with them on the far left. I was raised in a military family and, after considering a career in the Air Force, decided not to serve.

I work as a self-employed commercial photographer.

I hold what I hope is a consistent right to life position. I believe that capital punishment in a developed society is always morally wrong. I believe that euthanasia is always morally wrong. I believe that direct abortion is always morally wrong. (direct abortion being those where the intent of the procedure is to kill the embryo or fetus, as opposed to indirect abortion where an embryo or fetus may die in the process of trying to save its mother's life)

Three basic questions have come up for me in reading the posts over the past week.

1. What is the proper place for the federal judiciary, legislature, and executive branches in the United States in regards to euthanasia, abortion, and capital punishment?

2. Does a person who holds religious beliefs have the right to voice political opinions whether or not those opinions are informed by their religion's teachings?

3. Is it necessary for our society to define when life begins and when it ends in order to come to consensus regarding euthanasia, abortion, and capital punishment? If so, how do we do it?

Here are some quick thoughts on these three questions.

1. I've been following this case for over two years and have done what little I could to try to stop Terri's feeding tube from being removed. One thing that I did not see coming was the involvement of the congress or the president.

At first, I was very pleased with their intervention. After reading posts on this thread, though, I began to have doubts that what they did was proper. I'm still not fully sure what I think about this. On the one hand, I believe removing her tube was immoral. On the other, I believe that it is a good thing to live under the rule of law. So, was what the congress and president did unlawful?

We know that Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War. He might not have won the war without doing so. Was this a justifiable action? Was trying to prevent the South from seceding justifiable? Was the Emancipation Proclamation constitutional?

For now, I'd say that what Terri's parents have done in trying to involve the congress and the president was the right thing for them as parents to do. At the same time, I'd say that what congress and the president did was wrong. I disagree strongly with the court, and I do believe that it is biased, but I agree that it was within its bounds to do what it did and that it's decisions should have been the end of it.

It's seems to me that the best place for now to make determinations about the issues of euthanasia, abortion, and capital punishment is on a state by state basis. The state legislatures should make the law, the state courts should interpret the law, and the federal courts should get involved rarely if at all.

2. I hold religious beliefs. I'm also able to use reason to come to conclusions about matters, including political ones. In fact, it is a teaching of my religion that I use my reason in discerning secular matters. Should my opinion not count because I'm a Catholic? If it counts , do I have a right to vote for candidates and positions based on those opinions? If I don't, why not?

3. When does life begin and when does it end? The Catholic Church teaches that we are to protect human life from conception to natural death. To my knowledge, it does not, however, teach that a human person begins at conception. It can't teach such a thing because there is no empirical evidence for it.

Biologist teach that the beginning of a human being is conception. Does a human person also begin at conception? The concept of personhood is important. I think it's one of the major things we're talking about with Terri Schiavo.

The Catholic Church teaches that since we cannot know for certain when personhood begins, we must consider the possibility that it begins at conception. The same is true at the end of life. We must consider that Terri Schiavo possesses personhood until she dies.

If life does not begin at conception, when does it begin? (I'd say that when Catholics use the word life they generally mean personhood) If personhood may end before natural death, exactly where is that point? How can you prove it?

I look forward to your responses.

- Don



Edited by dontracy 2005-03-29 6:45 PM