First, the facts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2971-2003Oct22.html

And some more facts heard on NPR (I believe her family's side):

- In a malpractice lawsuit, $1,000,000 was placed in a medical trust fund for Terri. This money is to be used only for her treatment--until she is dead, at which point her husband will receive the remainder.

- Since this award was granted, Mr. Schiavo has has directed that Terri only be sustained in a nursing home. He has also twice instructed her caretakers not to medicate her for potentially fatal infections.

- Since this award was granted, Mr. Schiavo has withheld all medical information from Terri’s family, and demanded that her caretakers not reveal any medical information either.

- Since this award was granted, Mr. Schiavo has refused to allow any doctors to examine Terri other than the ones he personally selects.

- Mr. Schiavo has used Terri's medical fund money to pay the legal costs to be granted permission to have her feeding tube removed.

- Mr. Schiavo has a fiancée of seven years. They have a child, and have announced their plan to marry--as soon as Terri is dead.
And also regarding her state, I'm not sure how this jives with the WaPo article and the source is obviously one with an agenda:

She responds to stimuli, with laughter, smiles, vocalizations, and facial movements. She can follow very simple instructions (such as "open your eyes wide") given by her doctor. She was able to track an object with her eyes. (There are RealMedia videos of this available here, which were denied admission as evidence in court). http://www.terrisfight.org/downloads/index.html
And the legal dilemma:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/national/23STAY.html?ex=1067486400&en=b4659aa661c88fea&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

There is so much here. And best of all, it ain't got nothing to do with Iraq.

*ouch*

Man, I don't know what to say on that one. Obviously, a conflict of interest. Although, it's been 13 years and the nural pathways just ain't what they used to be. Have hope and all that, but sometimes you let go and remember as best you can. I would think the cash and resources would be better spent toward disease processes.

Also, keep in mind that NPR is as Tree-Hugger as it gets (second to UCB, mind you), and factor that into the final equation.

EJ - And what's wrong with trees? Perhaps you can find yourself a nice big industrial, toxic tube to "hug." :grin:

Let her die. I opt to believe the cited medical opinions. Were that me, I would not want to be kept alive. As far as keeping the parents away from her, her husband is a scumbag. She should still be allowed to die, though.

Personally, if I was in Terri's position I wouldn't want to burden my family or live as a vegetable. I think it would be an insult to be kept alive in that state.

That video is total propaganda (and not even effective propandanda). Thankfully, I've gotten into a good habit of checking Laches' sources.

*Terri is asleep*
Doctor (loudly): Terri, open your eyes!
Doctor (loudly): Terri, open your eyes!
Doctor (loudly): Terri, open your eyes!
*Terri wakes up and stares off into space*
Doctor: Good job! Good job!

By god! She opened her eyes after I woke her up! Inconceivable!

This is a serious issue though.

I don't agree with Jeb Bush's abuse of power in the matter. Not because I disagree or agree with his position on the issue. But because he got the legislature to create a new law to make him look like some sort of hero, even though he is a grade-A scumbag. The only reason he cared was because it was front-page news. Period.

I guess the real question is should the husband let the family decide? I say yes. Obviously, Terri was not his soulmate if he has decided to get married again. So I say he should let the family decide and he should go on with his life.

I am all for the family keeping her alive. As long as they are paying for it and not the state.

[ October 24, 2003, 03:39: Message edited by: InquisitorX ]

@InquisitorX - I am not sure what it is you are implying about Laches and his sources. I re-read his post and he takes no position here, for or against. As for the video, he specifically says

And also regarding her state, I'm not sure how this jives with the WaPo article and the source is obviously one with an agenda The next part is something quoted from elsewhere. In fact, he correctly identifies the source as one with an agenda.

Thus, I don't understand your attack on Laches. If you disagree with his position elsewhere, that's fine, we're all entitled to our own opinions. If you disagree with his position here, please lend me your crystal ball so I can play the lottery, as you must be looking into the future for his position.

As for Jeb Bush, I think this is clearly a political ploy on his part to drum up support from a conservative constituency. It's pretty transparent and it's also a usurpation of the traditional role of the courts. In fact, it's a two-on-one gang up between Florida's legislative and executive branches against its judiciary branch, and I expect that the Florida courts won't get a chance to decide it. It will probably go to Federal District Court and then on to whatever Appellate Circuit Court that oversees Florida's District Courts (I forget, it's been a while since law school). I doubt that the Supreme Court would be particularly interested in picking the case up, but you never know. I think Scalia and Rhenquist would have a field day with this if they decided to take it and I expect that the acid tongue-lashing that they would bestow on the Florida legislature (and hopefully Jeb) would be rather fun to read.

As far as the husband goes, I have mixed feelings. He's a scumbag if he is truly denying the family the ability to see her, he is a bigger scumbag if he is trying to legally kill her to get the money. He is less of a scumbag if she truly did tell him at some point that she would not want to be kept alive. His decision to marry again is understandable. No matter if the woman was his soul mate or not (an opinion for which we don't have enough evidence to make), having your wife be a vegetable for six or seven years and then meeting someone else does not necessarily preclude the first woman being a soul mate nor does it necessarily reflect poorly on the husband. (I must confess, though, that it looks like he's doing it for the money and that it looks like he is a spiteful, nasty person to keep her family away.)

I originally thought this euthanasia case was legal ratcheting from conservative politicians to endorse their own beliefs over others without considering the cultural borderlines that separate them.

Upon reading more about the Schiavo case and some suspicious ties the husband has to funds that are most benefited if and only if Terry dies, I find this is less and less about euthanasia. Ploys to politically maneuver the situation to one's own political agenda serve to cloud the issue (The AP release is disgracefully thin and frames the issue wrongly).

Terry's family hate Terry's husband. Terry's husband, may not really care whether or not Terry dies, but has financial interests unfulfilled as long as she lives. Terry's a vegetable. We will never truly know if she wanted to live or die in the event of such severe brain trauma, lest we take the husband's words at face value.

To me it is strange that the husband should want Terry to die so soon. It is strange Jeb has pooled his resources into sustaining Terry's life. It is strange that this is national news, when it isn't exactly a shining light of scrutiny on whether or not euthanasia is humane/should be allowed/within the limits of discretion by the ones eligible for it. Terry cannot tell any of us whether she wants to live or die. I believe that since she has not, she should be given a chance to live, just by default. Corollary interests have fought bitterly over her right to live or to die, their agendas are ever more potent than hers, or her family's, or her husband's.

This says nothing about whether someone should choose to die or not. This merely tells us whether or not we can, depending on the legal or familial capacity we serve, decide if a woman should die, having no former information on her wishes. I think the answer to this is no, we cannot. It is better to err on the side of caution. Anyone who has not expressed a wish to die should not. An additional precondition should be the cost, and Jeb should not allocate federal funds for this task - It should be forwarded to the immediate family, and paid out of his pocket like a private citizen.

There is a lot of discrepancy regarding the amount of money in the fund initially and now. The husband’s attorney said that there was ~ 700k to start with, that ~300k has gone to legal fees, and that currently there is ~50k. Others say that according to the jury verdict in the underlying med mal case that the initial award was 9.4 million reduced to a present day value of 4.3 million further reduced as Fl is a comparative negligence state to 1.29 million. A separate med mal suit was reportedly settled for 250k and there were 50 k in donations so that you had a total of about ~1.6 million that should have been in her trust to start with. The attorney for the husband though has reportedly “sealed” the accounting.

There are also varying reports regarding what the husband received. I’ve seen reports that he received 300k and other reports that he received 600k. I was interested in this and that’s how I came across all of the above. I anticipated the husband received loss of consortium money and I was curious about how much. I don’t know what amount he received but I think it is a safe bet that he received a relatively substantial amount.

Really knowing the facts involved is hard – different newspapers are reporting different facts depending on who they’re talking to.

Like dmc, I've mixed emotions regarding the husband and family. I can understand how a family might fight and hold out hope - even though I personally feel like in that situation I'd consider my daughter/sister to truly be deceased. I can't blame them for their feelings however, even though I may not agree with them. Likewise, I can't blame a husband for wanting to remove the life support - I would view it as an undignified and slow death and would not want to see someone I loved go through it.

The one thing that bothers me though is that the husband could, with regards to the money, say: "I'm not going to take any of the money for myself instead I'll donate it to... some coma research group or doctor's without borders or... something." This is how I would like to think I’d approach the situation – a peace offering of sorts.

It's just an ugly mess.

I think the case brings up two interesting fundamental questions: 1) who should decide whether to remove life support when the family disagrees and what should the process be and, 2) which branch of government gets to do what?

I also agree with dmc in that I think that the courts will rule that the Fl legislature overstepped its bounds. I think this is the right result. The legislature shouldn’t be in the business of determining the result of litigation on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, I could see how one might argue that it is rather common for legislatures to react to court decisions they dislike by enacting new legislation to make those rulings moot; this is done rather frequently actually. The difference is that in this case they’ve made their legislation so narrow that the practical effect is to usurp the court system’s role. I do think that had the legislature acted a little differently, creating a broader piece of legislation, they’d have been in the clear.

I guess the moral is: if you want a D.N.R. make sure you get one in writing. If you don’t want to be removed from life support, better put that in writing too. How many people here have written D.N.R.’s?

Another issue is that according to the husband’s attorney, the fund is almost depleted and now Medicaid will start to pick up part of the tab (reportedly ~5k per month). Above someone mentioned federal funds shouldn’t be used so I’ll just make sure that everyone knows that Medicaid is overwhelmingly funded and administered by the states and so these aren’t federal funds (unlike Medicare); if that makes a difference to you. Should Medicaid or Medicare ever be picking up the tab for something like this? What about Social Security benefits or something that is purportedly not a welfare program but tied to what you paid into the system - an "entitlement" it is argued.

If the fund is truly almost depleted (and whatever scrutiny is necessary reveals that the depletion was proper), then the dilemma is intensified. If the family wants her alive, the family can pay for it. Were I a Florida taxpayer, I would not, under any circumstance, want my tax money used for this.

Laches - you are right. Legislatures very often change laws based upon cases they don't like. However, the changes are broad-based applications, not narrowly tailored situations obviously designed for one person. Also, the changes are almost always prospective, so they are a reaction to a case that the legislature thinks is bad to keep the same thing from happening to others. They are not generally applicable to the very person at the heart of the earlier case.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Sorry to bring back an old thread, but this is back in the news:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050318/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_63


Any prognosticators want to go on record as to whether she will be allowed to die?

Considering the past history it is rather iffy. I have a living will for just this sort of situation. I recommend it to everyone of legal age.

Anyone remember what movie won the "non english movie" Oscar? a Spanish movie called Sea inside (Mar adentro) and is a true story about a guy who was paralised from the neck to the toes; he went on a trial because he didn't want to live anymore and judge said that he had to live anyway; he had a woman who helped him to do everything and one day he asked her to kill him what she did giving him poison, but, the fact is that she gave him the poison and he was the one who took it; he also asked a camara and in the moment he wanted to die he asked her to put the camera on and to give him the poison; so, after years (7 I think) nobody knew who gave him the poison, he had lots of money so there were people fighting for it, and finally, nobody got that money because he didn't leave to anybody, anyway, few weeks back (by the time the movie was fighting for an oscar) the woman came out from nowhere and presented the video in which the guy said what happened, the family tried to take the woman to jail but the "crime" (helping someone to kill himself or suicidal helper) has proscribed (err, is no longer legal or some such).
I wish I could explain it better but all the articles are in spanish.

Well, I guess this is it for Terri.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/schiavo.brain-damaged/index.html

I live in Florida and work for a TV news station this has split the reporters and anchors into two separate groups and it has been hell for the grunts.

Hopefully she will go quickly and be at peace. This insane story has gone on long enough.

The problem is that she's alive and she does react to her family. She's cut off from communicating but she isn't a plant yet, so we are basically discussing euthanasia. The husband wants the money, the parents want to save their child - I can't help being sympathetic towards the latter rather than the former.

Chev,

Personally, I disagree with that. She has been tested by various neurologists and they have determined she is essentially brain dead. The people who "See her communicating" are seeing what they want to, not reality (my opinion).

To claim that the husband is in it for the money is also people reaching for an excuse. The man has been through hell and back. Then the righteous pull him back into hell again.

The way I see it she has been in a vegatative state for fifteen years. For fifteen years she has been kept alive by a feeding tube. In my opinion that isn't being alive. I firmly believe if she had any faculties at all she would beg for death. I know I would.

The selfishness of her parents is amazing to me. That hunk of flesh in that bed isn't the little girl that they loved and raised. How people can claim she is better off as she is now rather than being at peace is beyond me.

EDIT: And now I see the idiots in Congress feel the need to step in. How this is a federal issue is completely beyond me. I hope the Supreme Court smacks them on the hand for over-stepping their reach.

Well, in theory, if she's brain dead, she's not feeling any pain or agony or...

I hope (not being a neurologist myself).

I agree 100% with Snook here. We have really sunk to an all-time low in America when I don't even have the right to not exist as a vegetable adn am forced into playing rallying symbol for the pro-life cause.

She is dead. She has been dead for 15 years. Conservatives are offering up the idea that maybe God will miraculously restore her brain-functions but that he cannot do so if she is taken off life support.


Nonsense all around.

The selfishness of her parents is amazing to me. That hunk of flesh in that bed isn't the little girl that they loved and raised. How people can claim she is better off as she is now rather than being at peace is beyond me.We aren't the judges of whether she's at peace now or not. Even if she isn't at peace but in a condition opposed to that, it implies some sort of consciousness still remaining, which makes shutting down the machinery an act of homicide.

She is dead. She has been dead for 15 years. Conservatives are offering up the idea that maybe God will miraculously restore her brain-functions but that he cannot do so if she is taken off life support.People have returned to life from states close to brain death, even after many years. It is not a matter of waiting for a miracle as those people might as well be waiting for God to raise her from the grave, if we are at it. The idea is that it can't be proven that she is actually brain-dead and that she can't return to her normal state at any time in the future.

I believe it's pointless to prolong the life of the body if the brain is really dead and the person is confirmed to be unable to return to conscious life in the future. However, we can't take guesses. We need to be sure.

The problem he is that there is no such certainty and the cause is being made into playing rallying symbol for the pro-choice cause.

What they are going to do is to starve her to death. The argument that she can't eat or drink the normal way is a fallacy as the same can be said of a person with all limbs removed or incapacitated, especially a paralysed person. So long as the food and water meets its proper destination and purpose even when artificially provided, it needs to be provided. Otherwise, it's homicide by starvation. Note that the food and water is necessary for life, so withholding it from someone is inflicting death rather than allowing the person to die. Thus euthanasia. However noble the motives, this is essentially homicide. Note again that she's able to breathe on her own. Dead people don't breathe. Providing food and water is not a means of medical care, it's nourishing. A normal function of the body. She's still a human being and not an item, even if deprived of full consciousness. However, she does still react to stimuli and she's even able to track objects with her eyes. She reacts with laughter or smiles or vocalisations. See Laches's opening post for more details.

As for the husband, Judge Greer extended the emergency stay by 48 hours late in February to consider the parents' lawyer's arguments that Mr Schiavo was unfit to be Terri's guardian because of abuse. The parents claim Terri has been beaten by the husband, leaving signs such as broken bones. It is also quite obvious that the first and foremost thing he wants is his wife dead. He wants the money. He wants the freedom. He doesn't step short of withholding information and disturbing correct medical practice by choosing doctors sympathetic to his ideas.

The death that is going to be inflicted on her is not merely a cessation of bodily functions, but a painful death of dehydration and starvation over the course of a couple of weeks. This is not even mercykilling. She has done nothing wrong and this method isn't suitable even for executions of serial murderers. Heck, Florida laws prohibit repeated or excessive suffering from being inflicted on animals destined for slaughter.

This is forced euthanasia and the modern society has been increasingly tolerant of this, up to the point of allowing euthanasia to requested by and performed at the request of someone else than the person being put to death. Now it's mentally limited people and newly born infants. Who's next? Perhaps people with AIDS or permanent incurable diseases? Mutilated people conscious but unable to survive on their own?

[ March 20, 2005, 22:46: Message edited by: chevalier ]

We can speculate until the cows come home about how nefarious the husband may be or what his "true motives" may be but as far as knowing Terri's wishes on the matter go, we have no other alternative but to allow the husband, who was in the best position to know, to speak for her. IF it turns out that he is a liar and we find some document she had written saying "Whatever you do, don't let him take me off life support because he is after some money!" or something then fine but until then...
I admit I am more concerned in this matter for my OWN rights than for Terri's. I am someone who has severe enough medical problems that I may well not live beyond "middle age". I don't care even if I am NOT brain dead, if I am ever in a position where I cannot move my arms and legs and turn my head, then I want OUT! My mother and siblings know this and if such a hypothetical were to come to pass I would not want some Church group butting in to prolong my existence for whatever imagined reason they might want to do so(like holding out hope they might "save me" before I pass).

If there is one civil right that should be beyond contention, it is the right for someone to decide they are NOT all that impressed with existence and to be able to check out. The people who live with me should be the ones to determine whether I would have wanted to go on. Not some emotionally crippled parents or grandparents who cannot accept that I have gone brain dead and it is time to let go.

The husband gave her nearly 15 years to show some sign...ANY sign that she was improving or recovering her neurological functions. Not happening. SHe is a vegetable. it happens. It is tragic and yeah, we would ALL like to believe in magic and the indominatable human spirit overcoming impossible circumstances...yada, yada, yada. But she is gone. Let her go.

we have no other alternative but to allow the husband, who was in the best position to know, to speak for herWe have an alternative and this is to consider her rights as a human person.

IF it turns out that he is a liar and we find some document she had written saying "Whatever you do, don't let him take me off life support because he is after some money!" or something then fine but until then...Quite the contrary. He claims she said something and bases his claims on that. He should be able to offer proof, but he can't. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the opposition.

Terri's own rights to choose death would be debatable if she did make such a choice, let alone her husband's. At any rate, even if she had expressed a wish not to be artificially kept alive by medicine, providing food and water is not medicine, so such a wish wouldn't apply. Feeding people is not medical care. Guardianship never includes the right to terminate the entrusted person's life. Should parents be allowed to demand an injection for sickly infants, for example?

My mother and siblings know this and if such a hypothetical were to come to pass I would not want some Church group butting in to prolong my existence for whatever imagined reason they might want to do so(like holding out hope they might "save me" before I pass).It's not to "prolong existence". It's to prevent termination of existence. Any human would die without food and drink. Withholding food and drink is not leaving someone to die, it's directly killing that person.

The husband gave her nearly 15 years to show some sign...ANY sign that she was improving or recovering her neurological functions. Not happening.Untrue. See Laches's post and links in it, along with videos.

It is tragic and yeah, we would ALL like to believe in magic and the indominatable human spirit overcoming impossible circumstancesHer brain is damaged but not destroyed. She smiles, laughs and responds to simple commands. She has at least some mental and intellectual faculty which manifests externally. We aren't inside her head and we can't determine how much more happens in there.

SHe is a vegetable.She is a human like you or I.

I reluctantly agree with Chev. In this particular case the removal of the feeding tube would cause her death. If she can breathe on her own then removing the tube would be to starve her to death.

I repeat myself: Having a Living Will is important as it means that what you want is clearly stated. Mine was drawn up by a lawyer. I do not have DNR. I do have that I am not to be kept alive by artificial means if there is no reasonable hope of recovery. My doctors know this. The local hospital has a copy and my next of kin has a copy.

I just have to add that I believe those videos are a false hope. Who knows how much video they had to shoot to find something that even remotely makes it look like she is cognizant. Even a plant will bend its leaves to the sun, it doesn't mean that it is aware. Fifteen years is a long time to be like that.

All I can say is that I am bloody glad that it is not me that has to make the decision on this one. I don't believe it is as black or white as you guys are making out. I think it's just a really really tough situation that does not have a right or wrong answer. Whatever decision is made has negative implications.

I received a pm that this had been resurrected from the dead. A lot has happened since the initial post.

Here is what strikes me as a pretty good link if anyone is interested:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

The author focuses on the legal part of it and, from my point of view, does a pretty good job of maintaining his neutrality.

Chevalier pointed to my initial post and the videos as evidence of improvement or potential recovery. Those tapes are fairly old, and they've been addressed by the courts considering the case. The link has this to say with respect to the videos:

What about the Schindlers' claims that Terri is conscious and responds to stimulation?

When the Second District first reviewed the trial court's decision that Terri would chose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others…" In October, 2002, as a result of Terri's parents' claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri's cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue. The trial court did so, and in the course of that trial the parties litigated whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state.

The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:


At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.
The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."

Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.
and

What about the video clips that show Terri reacting to her mother?

The court opinions indicate that similar videos were viewed in their entirety by the trial court, which found that Terri's actions were no more than reflexive and could not be reproduced with any consistency. The Second District affirmed that decision.
That may be more than anyone is interested. But I thought I'd just provide the link if anyone is interested.

I have an idea. Make sure that the husband will get no money whatsoever in any way shape or form then we'll see if he still wants her to die , if he still believes that she deserves to die with dignity. Dignity is pretty easy to picture when you're picturing lounging on the beach in the Dominican Republic.

Give her enough morphine to stop her heart. Don't starve her to death. Don't give the first CENT to the husband. Give all the money to a charity that concentrates on neurological problems or Lou Gerighs (sp?) disease. Start doing research on stem cells. Execute any of those friggin' arch conservative christians that argue about the sanctity of life. You know the kind I'm talking about, the ones that go to the funerals of homosexuals that were beaten to death and wave signs like "God Bless AIDS" and "Burn in HELL Fag!" And the ones who agree with them. And don't talk to me about the right to freedom of speech. That's bullsh*t in this case. Ack. Sorry for the rant. My opinion. One more thing, let the parents be there when they stop her heart. Screw the husband if he doesn't like it. Period.

edit: P.S.- I apologize if I offended any Christians or anyone else for that matter. I believe in a God that would cringe at some of the stuff some of His most rabid supporters do. Like argue and protest and rant about the sanctity of life in cases like this where it is pretty obvious that the poor woman will never live a full and happy life, even if by some miracle she wakes up. Just send her soul to God, and let her and her family be at peace.

Good ploy, Ravynn...execute those we don't agree with to demonstrate your humanity. Make sure you don't forget to line up the handicapped, mentally retarded and elderly for your gas chamber spree.

Look folks...it's all pretty simple. Mike Schiavo is a scumbag. He wants his wife to die so he can collect the insurance and be a widower and then marry the woman he's already with. What a prince.

The only people who truly care about Terry are her parents and her siblings...they want to keep her alive and are willing to bear the burden of doing so. They should have the legal right given to them to make decisions for her welfare in light of Mike's abdication and Terry's lack of a living will.

Congress hasn't over stepped it's bounds either. Any State Capital case is automatically reviewed by Federal Court. When the State granted removal of her feeding tube...this became a Capital case.

Oh yeah...she isn't "brain dead"...all her doctors agree that her medical condition is "brain damaged"...heck...that definition could apply to most Liberals ;)

Errr - Hack. Are you sure that there is money there? Are you sure that Terry didn't tell Mike at some point that she wouldn't want to be kept alive in a situation like this? Are you sure that Terry's parents aren't doing this to punish Mike Schiavo for some perceived slight?

Neither am I. My understanding, however, is that most, if not all, of the money is gone. As a practicing attorney, I can tell you that constant litigation takes a huge toll out of any party, and that Mike Schiavo feels strongly about something to keep this going and to be the face that people associate with it, whether he's spending any of his own money at all.

Given that the only possible people who would have knowledge about whether Terry told her husband that she wouldn't want to be kept alive are Terry and her husband (and given that no one at all has ever claimed that she will be able to remember anything and tell the world her side of the story), we are left with weighing Mike Schiavo's testimony, as, apparently has happened at least once in a full trial.

Sorry, I don't buy the "Mike is a scumbag" argument any more than I buy "Terry would want to die," because I just don't know.

However, for the US Congress to make a specific law about a specific person is nothing more than politicians using this case to promote their own agendas. They may be right on, they may be wrong, but I seriously question the motives.

We'll see what the upshot is, but this is in no way a simple black and white case.

Turns out the "Mike Shiavo is a scumbag" crowd were WAY off. Multiple sources are now reporting a few interesting tidbits:

1)Mike has been offered as much as one million dollars to keep his wife ON life support(and BTW there is no money for him to claim in the event of her death. This was largely inuendo and "internet legend") and he turned them down.

2)Terri's father offered Mike $700,000, to keep Terri on life support as well and guess where the father got that money? The "Right to Life" foundation. Again, Mike turned down the money.


3)TWICE during previous trials, friends of TERRI's have substantiated Mike's story that while watching a TV program on the subject of euthenasia or assisted suicide, Terri stated that if anything ever happened to her she would not want to live on life support.

4)As DMC already pointed out, the video that is constnatly being shown that almost appears to indicate Teri is not vegetative, is not only from 1994(and no more video showing such has been made since) but it is 2-3 minutes out of several HOURS, taken out of context where Terri's reflective movements could be construed as responses to external stimuli.


For sources you can go to any news site from CNN to FOX NEWS but will edit later with links.

Even better go to the site Laches posted. One of the more interesting tidbits (and there are plenty) are that it is no longer Michael's decision. When this first started he went to the Florida courts for them to make the decision. He had to do this because there wasn't a living will. If you look at all the subsequent legal moves, the Florida judge is the one being sued and Michael is listed as an interested party. Even if Michael said she should have her tubes reinserted, he has no authority to do so.

Surely there are 1000s of similar people on life support all over the USA and the world and there always has been.

Why is this one particular case (tragic though it is) such big news, resulting in the sort of emergency law making that only usually happens in times of national crisis (e.g. during a war)?

Because in the wake of all of Bush's admin' being repeatedly caught with their pants down at every turn, this case represents a chance to a)appeal to their hardcore constituents in the religious right and b)it is a distraction from the war/rising fatalities, gas prices, economy, etc.

The greatest dilemma in this, IMO, is that Schiavo is not fully vegetative, nor is she on life support. She can't eat or drink, and will never leave care, but her life is not directly threatened by anything except removal from feeding tubes at this point. Since there is no hard evidence of her wish to be allowed to die, it's hard to justify the decision to remove the feeder tube - harder still, given the nature of her imminent demise. Terry can't make the decision now, and it falls to a consideration of hearsay versus dogma. Well, I'm not about to support either of them without knowing more; however, I would (somewhat reluctantly) agree to release Schiavo into the care of her family.

/me takes deep breath to stave off rant against religious conservatism

Her parents dispute that, saying she could get better and that their daughter has laughed, cried, smiled and responded to their voices. Court-appointed physicians testified her brain damage was so severe that there was no hope she would ever have any cognitive abilities. Well, barring a miracle, she'll never leave intensive care. People tend to see what they want to see; I have no doubt that Terry Schiavo can respond to external stimuli, but so does any living creature - the issue (for me, at least) is not whether she is alive, but what the quality of life and prospects for recovery are. From what I can tell, that's around zero on both counts.

The case has garnered attention around the world and served as a rallying cry for conservative Christian groups and anti-abortion activists, who flooded members of Congress and Florida legislators with messages seeking to keep Schiavo alive.

Outside Schiavo's hospice, about 30 people keeping vigil dropped to their knees in prayer when word spread of the judge's ruling calling for removal of the tube.

"What can wash away our sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus," they sang. Messages on protest signs included "Impeach Greer.com," a reference to the judge, and "Execution — It's Not Just for the Guilty Anymore." Oh please. Don't play that card. This is one of the reasons why the religious right attracts so much hatred - they presume to sit in divine judgement on a matter of personal principles. Yes, I have a problem with the manner of Schiavo's probable demise - I think it's cruel and unusual. Do I think she should be starved to death? No. Does she have any prospects for recovery? Short of a miracle, no. I wouldn't wish this situation on anybody, but I wonder what some of these sanctimonious people would do in that situation - especially if it was costing them money.

What I find most galling are the legions of pro-lifers who hold her up as a sacrifice to their beliefs. It's hardly as though she's only been near-vegetative for a couple of weeks or in an induced coma. She will never have quality of life again, never have the ability to function normally. What is crueller - starving someone to death or forcing them to live in a body that cannot sustain itself? Maybe she is unaware of her suffering, maybe not - I simply do not know. What I am sure of is that there is no moral high ground to be had on either side of that fence, and anyone who feels otherwise is deluding themselves. It's a tough decision, one I'm glad not to be making, but neither option is palatable. However, not choosing is a choice at this point, since the tube either stays out or comes back, and there's no room for fence-sitting.

@ Chev:
I agree with you in principle - I think that, in the absence of any fatal condition, removing the tube is tantamount to homicide and there are better options available.
The parents claim Terri has been beaten by the husband, leaving signs such as broken bones. It is also quite obvious that the first and foremost thing he wants is his wife dead. He wants the money. He wants the freedom. He doesn't step short of withholding information and disturbing correct medical practice by choosing doctors sympathetic to his ideas.Of course he does. Do you honestly believe that the parents and relatives wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing - meeting their objectives/agenda - if they could? It's not as if he induced the heart attack and went straight for the cash - he wanted to see her recover as well until he was told that there was no hope; if he wanted to kill her for the money, then why get her rushed to hospital? You're vaulting to conviction without enough evidence.

@ Ravynn:
There's a fundamental difference between refusing treatment and euthanasia. While I agree that an overdose of morphine may be the most humane option, the fact remains that Terry Schiavo is not dead and does not rely on life support machines to keep her breathing or her heart beating. It's still homicide, although arguably merciful than subsistence on a tube, and not a particularly pleasant way to go.

@ Hacken Slash:
Nice reductio ad absurdium. However, I think you're criminally over-simplifying this by using the time-tested "resort to emotionality".
The only people who truly care about Terry are her parents and her siblings...:bs:
I'm sure that if her husband didn't care, he wouldn't still be fighting for her right to self-determination (by proxy). His motives may be unclean if there is a lot of money involved, I'll grant that in the absence of proof either way. But if there isn't a huge payout to him upon her death, then why the hell would he still be trying to get her feeding tube removed after 15 years? Sorry, Hack - without proof, that argument won't fly.
They want to keep her alive and are willing to bear the burden of doing so. They should have the legal right given to them to make decisions for her welfare in light of Mike's abdication and Terry's lack of a living will.I can't argue with that in the absence of any hard proof to the contrary. As much as I wouldn't want to live that way, if there is someone who is willing to take responsibility for her care, then I cannot say they should not be allowed to. Let her "scumbag" husband move on and hand over to the family, then - he has moved on from the wife he knows is gone and has been effectively dead for several years. Unless the money is a big factor, I don't find anything at all wrong with that; and even if it is, one would presume that his wife would have wanted him to be secure if he had to be alone.
Oh yeah...she isn't "brain dead"...all her doctors agree that her medical condition is "brain damaged"...heck...that definition could apply to most LiberalsShe's got some autonomic nervous responses left and is "existing" without support. She has little to no cognitive ability, can't communicate effectively and can't survive without extensive assistance that she will never be able to acknowledge. In short, she can't move, she can't think, but she can breathe and make noises. Many rationalists and religious conservatives meet that definition too. :p

@ HB: RuneQuester is right on, IMO. Maybe not quite as cynical as that, but the heart of it is right.

[ March 22, 2005, 05:13: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

I'm stunned that this poor person has become a political football. In many ways, this is a bigger issue than the dilemma over her rights (not wanting to demean the value of a person's life, but you know what I mean).

At any rate, even if she had expressed a wish not to be artificially kept alive by medicine, providing food and water is not medicine, so such a wish wouldn't apply. Feeding people is not medical care. Sorry Chevalier but I have to call you out on this one. I am not familiar with how this is done in foreign countries, but I can't imagine it being very different from here (the US) either. Feeding through this sort of apparatus is termed parenteral nutrition, and it isn't simply grinding up a steak and potatoes in a blender and hanging that in an IV bag. It is quite complex and requires someone with advanced training to prepare and administer (usually a pharmacist :cool: ). It is medical care being given by a professional.

However, I do also agree with you in that this unfortunate woman should not have her feeding tube removed. She is a living (even if it is in the most basic sense of the word in that she can breathe without assistance) human being whether or not she responds to stimuli or family members. She represents the lowest common denominator of humanity because she has had her individuality and opinions stripped away from her by her condition, which leaves only the physical shell of what she once was. Starvation/dehydration is a method of killing that is regarded as cruel and unusual and is not allowable for use on anyone or anything, even criminals or livestock animals. It would be inappropriate to use here as well regardless of whether or not she would "feel" it.

@Hack

The handicapped, like my brother for instance, did not chose to be the way they are, and they have done nothing wrong or in my opinion immoral and hypocritical, those a$$holes did, and are, therefore they would not be a part of my "gassing", although in my opinion, gassing's letting them off easily. This world would be a much better place if all those intolerant muckers were executed. *That probably includes myself* . Now back to the topic at hand.

What right do total strangers have in the decision of an individual to end their own life? I and I assume most or all of the people posting here are merely expressing our opinions, not lobbying the government to pass laws concerning things that's nobody's damn business but the family involved, or picketting outside the hospital, or harassing the family. The government should legalize euthanasia and people should express in writing whether they want DNR's or not. Those that do not should be left alone, but it should be the families responsibility, or preferably that of their insurance provider, to pay to keep a person alive. They should not be allowed to keep a person on a machine if that person doesn't want to be kept alive. Physician assissted suicide is legal in Oregon, it should be legal nation wide. I know PAS is different from euthanasia, I think both should be legalized. These politicians should be impeached for what they are doing to this poor woman.

Let individual's decide for themselves if they want to stay on life support. The most the government should be involved in this process is to pass laws legalizing euthanasia and PAS.

That's not a good idea. Some legislative areas need to consist of black and whites. If you're introducing grey areas (euthanasia) to issues like life or death you're opening the door for abuse - however well meant your intentions have been in the first place.

Whereas I feel that individuals are free to decide whether they want to live or die, the state is in no position to say "go ahead, kill yourself, it's all the same to me." The state is more than just the sum of its subjects.

I don't really see the issue with Terri, though. If she's brain dead - well, then it is completely insubstential whether she lives or dies. She's dead inside. Being nourished means nothing to her. Being switched off means nothing to her. If, however, she has a glimpse of what is going on around her - however unlikely that may be -, then switching her off would indeed be homicide.

In one case our decision has no impact on her whatsoever, in the other case it is an issue of life and death. The decision seems to be clear to me then: let her live.

The one and only point speaking against her prolonged life seems to be money. Keeping her in the comatose state is costly. Should that be an issue? How unethical.

If this would happen in Germany, it would only be the tiniest bit of all the billions we spend on our health system. What is the fuzz about?

All the other issues (dignity, Terri's notional wish, the feelings of relatives) are just that: the feelings of other persons who are not Terri. Hence they should see how they cope with themselves without involving Terri. What does dignity mean to Terri right now? And why do people feel that she has no dignity in her current state?

Because of the following: we are projecting our full life with all the activities and possibilities onto Terri's state - and find a gap between what we feel a life should be all about and what Terri is capable of doing.

One solution to the problem would indeed be to switch her off "to maintain her dignity". The other way would be to rethink the approach we have towards the concept of dignity and what human life is all about.

Terry can't make the decision now, and it falls to a consideration of hearsay versus dogma. Well, I'm not about to support either of them without knowing more; however, I would (somewhat reluctantly) agree to release Schiavo into the care of her family.Newsflash - Michael Schiavo IS Terri's family. In this country, when someone can no longer make their own decisions that power goes first to the spouse, then any adult children, and only then is the jump backwards to parents and siblings made. Perhaps this is based on Genesis 2:24, a Biblical passage that the right-wingers are conveniently forgetting. :rolleyes:

I haven't followed the case rigorously - how certain are the Schindlers the Terri wouldn't want to have the tube removed "in accordance with ther Roman Catholic beliefs"? I was raised RC but I never bought into the vast majority of the Church's social stances (which is why I left, but that's another post). Can the Schindlers say FOR CERTAIN that Terri wasn't one of those thousands of Catholics who go to church every Sunday but have a box of condoms in the bedside table, for example? A lot could have happened in the time between her departure from her parents' home and the accident that left her in her current state. I know that my parents and sister are unaware of quite a lot of things that have shaped my personal beliefs.

So who's projecting on who, and which agenda should be sanctioned? The Schindlers are no less guilty of this than they accuse Michael Schiavo of being.


I'm stunned that this poor person has become a political football. In many ways, this is a bigger issue than the dilemma over her rights (not wanting to demean the value of a person's life, but you know what I mean). Here's the other side of the issue, and the one that really toasts my bread. :flaming: How DARE the Republican party, the so-called conservatives who are SUPPOSED to be in favor of smaller government and less interference in peoples' lives, get involved in this?! Oh that's right, Bill Frist, that House Majority Leader, said that the right to life trumps everything. What's that supposed to mean - the Republicans will support my right of personal autonomy as long as I live in accordance with their established values, and they'll take legislative action if I don't? Talk about stepping out onto a slippery slope.

Maybe Darkwolf and I will get lucky, and this case will create the schism that the Republican party so desperately needs. It would be great if the religious right went off on their merry way and left the rest of the party behind to represent true Republican values - fiscal conservatism, small government, and SOCIAL NEUTRALITY.

Sorry for the AoLS rant. If you haven't guessed by this point, I support Michael Schiavo - let this circus end. Starvation is a horrible way to die, but being a cabbage is a horrible way for a person to live.

p.s. - As I was writing this, Judge Whittenmore ruled that the tube should not be reinserted. On to Atlanta.

This bill signed into law in Texas in 1999 by Bush while he was governor there, which has been making the rounds of the internet, seems to demonstrate the duplicity of the Republicans on this issue:

(Section 166.046, Subsection (e)) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient …Note that the attending physician here is given the ultimate power to decide whether or not this (incredibly expensive) treatment is viable. In the Schiavo case, a series of lawsuits have established: 1) that not only the attending physician, but also a consensus in the medical community as shown in these lawsuits, believe that treatment isn't viable in this case; 2) that Schiavo's husband is indeed her guardian; and 3) that Schiavo has had not just 10 days, but 15 years of government support to maintain her in her persistant, hopeless vegitative state.

If you add in the astronomical costs born by the public to support a series of extended public trials culminating in essentially renting out the entire US Congress for several days, keeping Schiavo on life support has to be running into the hundreds of millions of dollars by now. If these kinds of protections were afforded to every person who fell into a vegitative state, the healthcare system would be bankrupt in no time. People might object to the cruel logic of saying that public healthcare is limited, and that choices need to be made how to spend public funds. (Of course, private healthcare and insurance does this calculus very well, tho you don't hear about it as often). But it seems utterly absurd that Schiavo's parents believe that the vast costs of their unrealistic hopes should should be borne by the healthcare system, at a time when many US citizens aren't recieving even basic healthcare.

Note that the Bush bill essentially says if the doctors think there's no hope, and you can't afford to fund the life support yourself, you are SOL. In fact, I'm sure that insurance lobbyists had alot to do with this bill, as they didn't want to have to bear the costs of keeping people on life support. Where was the vaunted conservative compassion for life then? Didn't they know that life is miraculous, that sometimes people come out of comas (and vegetative states, lol) all the time? Why only ten days? Why wasn't Bush a murderer then, for sponsoring and signing into law this bill? This Schiavo thing is nothing but a show trial, and I hope the Republicans get what they deserve for encouraging it.

First, wow thanks Rally, I don't think anyone else has every so succinctly or kindly stated my political views! :thumb:

I hate this issue. It is hard to determine the facts, but it seems as though the truth lies somewhere in the middle, probably closer to the husbands view than the parents. It is hard for any parent to give up their child, and they will often hold on to any hope. At the same time, the establishment is making this as difficult as possible to make this a clean break for the parents by making them sit and watch their little girl starve to death (which is a visually gruesome way to die), and giving them false hope. At the same time, the husband watched the woman he supposedly loved languish for a number of years, and then he decided that there was no longer any hope for a recovery, and has moved on, in my opinion understandably. I know that there are claims of abuse by the family, but the time for such claims have long since passed, and there obviously was not sufficient evidence to claim that this alleged abuse contributed to Terri's condition, or the husband would have been charged with a crime. I also know that there are claims that the husband is after the money, but it has been reported that he has been offered $10 million to walk away, and he refused it, so that is rather hard to believe.

Given what I have seen so far, I am mostly sickened by the fact that no one seems to be willing to give Terri a peaceful easy death. I have to agree with Ravynn, euthanasia is in order here. We wouldn't treat a child molesting sociopathic torturing murderer this way, so why are we doing it to Terri? This death is going to be a trauma that her parents may never reconcile. If she were put to death peacefully it would be an easier pill for the parents to swallow.

As for the political ramifications, well, I hope a lot of politicians will be unemployed in the next few elections, including the Governor of Florida. I don't think it will happen though. This is the time that the press could really present the facts and allow the people to decide, but a large portion of the public no longer trusts the press anymore, so shills like Hannity and Rush will motivate the extreme right with their distortions, while the rest of us sit in the middle shaking our heads.

Just as a note, I have been out of pocket, so I have not been able to come in and see what's up lately. I quickly read through the posts here, so if I missed something or duplicated another’s views, and it is apparent in my post I apologize.

Last night while playing Vampire – Bloodlines something popped into my head. It isn’t a fully fleshed out idea, but it’s a work in progress that may have some large holes at this point. I was, and am, of the opinion that Schiavo is dead. I believe that the part of her brain that made Terri Schiavo Terri Schiavo is now liquid and that it won’t come back. I think that this view is common among those who feel the feeding tube should be removed.

I want to focus on what matters with respect to Terri Shchiavo. I’m talking about issues such as dignity in death, suffering, autonomy, etc. There are other issues too – pragmatic issues like who pays, the distribution of finite medical resources, the emotional impact on the parents and the husband, etc. For the purpose of this idea, I’m limiting myself to the first set of issues – those specific to Terri. I feel that these issues are of primary importance ethically speaking and trump the latter issus.

Suppose I’m right. Suppose that the part of Terri’s brain that makes her unique is liquid and that she is gone permanently. If I’m right, then the whole issue of whether to have the feeding tube in or not is irrelevant with respect to Terri. (There may be other issues, but they aren’t related to what is best for Terri). What is best for Terri at this point doesn’t matter because there is no Terri. Terri is gone. All that is left is a husk, an impressive machine - but just a machine. If you’ll excuse the crude 1980’s analogy, it’s like someone took Kitt from NightRider and ripped the computer that is Kitt out. You still have a car that people can drive, but Kitt is gone. And whether you put the car in the trash compactor or not doesn’t matter to Kitt, because there is no longer any Kitt in the car.

The only way it matters to Terri whether the feeding tube is put in place or not is if Terri is still there in the body. The only way that it matters, is if the parents are correct in saying that Terri still is there, somewhere. The medical evidence that supports that there is no hope for recovery seems to suggest to me that Terri isn’t there – it’s just a corpse with still functioning organs. So the supporting evidence for the husband suggests that it doesn’t matter to Terri what happens because there is no Terri anymore, only a body. It is only if Terri is there, or could be there, that it matters to Terri what happens to the body. And this is the parent’s side of the argument.

So, if you believe Terri is gone, like I do, it’s a big fight over a bag of bones and a sack of blood and fluid. If you believe that Terri is there, or could come back, then it is a more crucial issue. But it seems to me that if you believe like I do, then maybe I should step back and so long as the other issues unrelated to Terri specifically don’t outweigh the issues specific to Terri, let the parents do what they want. After all, if I’m right, what does it matter what is done to that hunk of meat? What does it matter to you and me what happens to our bodies after we’re dead? Once I’m dead, trn me into soylent green or place me in state in the Cistine Chapel (sp?), I don’t care at that point. If Terri’s parents are right though, if Terri is there or could come back, then doesn’t it make some sense to reinsert the tube?

The caveat to all of this is that there is no living will. The other caveat is I haven’t read the trial transcripts. The courts feel that the evidence indicates that Terri wouldn’t want to have the continued life-sustaining measures continued. If that is true, then even if the parents are right and Terri is there, Terri’s autonomy is implicated in the decision and so you may still pull the tube. The above idea is really only works where there isn’t strong evidence of what Terri would want. And, frankly, I’m not sure that a conversation during a T.V. program is particularly compelling evidence.

That’s just an initial thought. I haven’t thought it through, and it could have gaping holes.

@ Bion -

With respect to the Texas law signed by Bush in 1999, I think the internet postings by the Daily Kos and the emails are somewhat incomplete. It is true, from what I can tell, that the law in Texas was signed in 1999. It is true, from what I can tell, that the Texas law allows the husband to make some decisions regarding continued medical treatment in some circumstances. It may now seem like the federal bill by Bush is inconsistent with the past in that it seems to be seeking to allow life-sustaining measures to continue even though this is contrary to the wishes of the husband.

However, a google search will put the 1999 law into context. According to the news articles that I saw from that time, and news releases by agenda-driven “right-to-life” groups, the Texas bill was motivated by a desire to allow the continuation of life-sustaining measures. According to the releases, in Houston prior to the bill, doctors had the ability to decide to remove life-sustaining measures when a group of them determined there was no hope, even if that was contrary to the family’s decision. The purpose of the Texas bill was to prevent the removal of life-sustaining measures. Looked at in this way, the motivation of both the Texas and the federal bill are not inconsistent at all and you can see how the same person may sign both bills. The means may be different, but the ends seem to be similar – to continue life sustaining measures.

The above isn’t meant to express an opinion on the federal or Texas bill beyond saying that they may not be quite as inconsistent as they appear at first look. Personally speaking, I feel like the federal bill was a mistake. If you’re interested in following the discussion, check out the Volkoh Conspiracy for some law profs and students (and non-legal field folks) discussing the constitutional implications of the federal bill.

@ Chevalier -

see the link above in my previous post for the Florida statutes regarding whether the feeding tube is medical treatment, etc.

I essentially agree with Laches here. The only issue I have is that a court of apparently competent jurisdiction has already ruled that Terri Schiavo intended for this never to happen. That ruling has gone up as far as it can on appeal. Thus, IMO, and specifically admitting I know nothing of the facts, testimony, evidence, etc., it seems to me that her adjudicated wishes should be respected. If Florida has laws that say a feeding tube CANNOT be removed absent a written document specifying it (i.e., a living will), then that would be different. However, my further understanding is that Florida does not have any such law applicable to this case.

You know what I find strange? I know literally dozens of people who have talked about this case that say that if they were in a position like Terri's, that they wouldn't want to live. That they would prefer to be allowed to die. That life in that form is not life at all. On the other hand, I know of absolutely no one who says they would prefer to be sustained in such a state.

Laches and Darkthrone have stated their views rather elequently, and present a very good arguement for keeping the feeding tube in. However, my question is simply this: Does in not appear that Terri is merely existing and not living?

Regardless of whether money is a motivation for the husband or not I think is irrelevant at this point. It was several years after this happened to Terri that he met someone else, fell in live with her, had children with her, and wishes to marry her. I see many practical areas where I understand why he wants Terri to die. I do not think he is any type of scumbag for wanting this. I think it is a simple fact that he has been able to accept and move on from what has happened to Terri, while her parents have not.

Aldeth, I've seen two polls that show similar results: about 2/3 of respondents are in favor of letting Terri die. Now, these are just casual, non-scientific internet things (one on MSNBC.com and one on another board I read) but the similarity of results is what I find interesting.

And so the 11th Circuit denies the Schindlers' appeal, and they vow to file another - I guess with the Supreme Court this time? But they've already turned down the case once. After all these years in the courts, exactly how can the Schindlers claim that Terri right to due process has been violated? :rolleyes:

Edited to add:

...and here's yet another politician who needs to be fired! :flaming: Apparently the dissenting vote on the appeals panel argued that not re-inserting the feeding tube wasn't in line with Congress' intent in passing their emergency law calling for review of the case. I call :bs: Can anyone doubt that Congress had any intent other than currying the favor of the religious right? Maybe they're hoping to drag things out long enough for some Bush appointees to take the bench? How many times to the courts have to agree with Michael Schiavo before the Schindlers and their posse will accept that the law is not on their side? Oh yeah, I forgot - they'll just work to get the law re-written. :rolleyes:

So now they're appealing to the Supreme Court yet again, after having been turned down once. I'm reminded of the old definition of insanity: doing the same things over and over again, expecting different results.

[ March 23, 2005, 14:14: Message edited by: Rallymama ]

I think that the demonization of the Michael is unjustified and sad. I also disagree with the parents belief that their daughter is still alive. However, I can understand how the parents can believe as they do and act as they are. I don't see them and their supporters as a 'posse' hellbent on circumventing the law, I see them as a group who really thinks Terri Schiavo is still alive and wouldn't/doesn't want to have the feeding tube removed. For that reason it is difficult for me to look down on the Schindlers much like it is difficult for me to look down on Michael. If you honestly believed you were doing something to protect your child's life, I can see how you might keep fighting.

I have no doubt that some of the politicians involved jumped on board to pander to certain voting blocks. But I also believe that many of the politicians honestly believe that what they're doing is the right thing to do. It's easy to paint 'politicians' with a broad brush as self-serving s.o.b.'s, it's like telling a lawyer joke comparing the lawyer to a shark - easy, but I haven't really seen anything to suggest that the politicians voting for the bill were motivated for reasons unrelated to their belief about Terri Schiavo.

I still believe Terri Schiavo is dead. I still think the federal law was a mistake and of questionable constitutionality. I still believe that the best option is for the tube to remain removed (actually, I think the best option is euthenasia). But the whole fight is, in my opinion, being engaged in by two opposing groups largely made up of sincere believers. They may be mistaken, they may be foolishly pressing on, but I don't think anyone is filled with nefarious intent, and I can see how one might press on.

Your mileage may vary.

@ Aldeth - I spoke with two people yesterday, Rachel and her husband Tom, who would want to have the feeding tube kept in if in Terri's situation. Here is something from another site I regular, and what someone there wrote:

Even with a Living Will, it's an extremely difficult situation and not always clear cut. When my friend was dying last fall, I held her Medical Power of Attorney, knew her wishes explicitly, AND she had a Living Will. Everything I knew and everything that was legally documented said she would not want extreme measures to be used to keep her alive if there was no significant hope of recovery.

It's that "significant hope" that gets you. Three times my friend was on the very brink of death. Each time, before she became incoherent, I'd ask her if she was hopeful, if the pain so awful that she had given up hope. And each time, she said she wanted to keep fighting. Since her husband had died only 18 months earlier after a struggle with cancer, we had many, many occasions where we talked about pain and suffering and death, and I never would have believed she'd wanted to keep fighting as long as she did. But she did. I don't regret telling the doctors to keep trying, because they thought she had a chance, albeit a slim one, and in the end, she wanted that chance.

In Schiavo's case, I still think her husband is the one who should have the ultimate decision, but now that I've had this personal experience, my views are much less black and white than they used to be.
I think the parents, and her supporters, honestly believe there is hope. Rachel and Tom yesterday kept saying we don't 'know' what it's like to be in Terri's situation, and we don't know about new advances, and felt there was hope. I don't think there is hope, but others do. *shrug.

Can anyone doubt that Congress had any intent other than currying the favor of the religious right? Certainly they are playing to their base. But, IMO, they see this as another chance to pigeonhole the Democrats and other political opponents. Their new buzzword is "the culture of life." Perhaps they were hoping that the dems would be more vocal in this matter of letting her die. That would of course make the dems opposed to the "culture of life."

There must be a smug satisfaction that comes with painting those with whom one disagrees with ideologically as enemies of the "culture of life" and as "baby murderers" and "killers" of helpless invalids. There have been reports that the Republican memos, loaded with "talking points" are already floating around, citing this as a "great issue for Republicans in Floridia." How sick is that?

With that said, I have to say that I believe that the tubes should not be removed. I don't believe for a moment that Michael is doing it for the money. Or for some other motive of personal gain, except maybe some desperate need for closure regarding what he sees as a prolonged, painful situation that has robbed his wife first of her life, and now, whatever human dignity she has left. Nor am I going to fault the courts. They have given all parties due process of law and followed the Constitution in this matter, at least as they see it. Some may disagree.

But I am also a parent, and if the parents wish to conintue, then why rob them of whatever slight hope they have left? I can't say how I would react as a parent in their situation. It may seem hopeless to the rest of us, but to see the daughter they rasied from childhood, starved to death. What a horrid thought. If they harbour some degree of hope, well....

Sorry Chevalier but I have to call you out on this one. I am not familiar with how this is done in foreign countries, but I can't imagine it being very different from here (the US) either. Feeding through this sort of apparatus is termed parenteral nutrition, and it isn't simply grinding up a steak and potatoes in a blender and hanging that in an IV bag. It is quite complex and requires someone with advanced training to prepare and administer (usually a pharmacist ). It is medical care being given by a professional. No matter if it's a steak with potatoes and beans or specially prepared food, it's still food. People who are by no one sane called dead still receive extremely unusual food in case of some diseases. My point is that providing nutrition is not an act of medical care. Everyone needs to eat and drink. The manner in which the food and drink is prepared doesn't change anything. It's just the diet being adjusted to the patient's current needs. For example, giving soft food or thick liquids to someone who can't bite or gnaw is not medical care. It's just giving him the kind of food he can take. This is the case with Terri here. She is incapacitated from eating and drinking in the normal process, so she receives her food and drink through the tube. The need for digestion or part of this process is removed, but the food and drink still meets the proper destination and nourishes the cells in her body.

Of course he does. Do you honestly believe that the parents and relatives wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing - meeting their objectives/agenda - if they could? It's not as if he induced the heart attack and went straight for the cash - he wanted to see her recover as well until he was told that there was no hope; if he wanted to kill her for the money, then why get her rushed to hospital? You're vaulting to conviction without enough evidence.It takes more "nerve" to refrain from calling an ambulance (which would be an obvious crime and just about any normal human would be repelled by the idea) than to insist on getting the tube removed in a process approved by the law and courts. It's also easier to justify in one's mind.

@ Chevalier - you are incorrect from a legal standpoint. You can check the links to read the relevant material in greater detail, but a quick cut and paste:

Terri is given food and water through tubes. Is disconnecting a feeding tube the same as ending life support?

Yes, under Florida law, which governs the ability of each person to determine, or to appoint someone to determine, whether each of us should receive what the Legislature terms "life-prolonging medical procedures." The Legislature has explained:


The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care.
§ 765.102(3), Florida Statutes.

The Legislature has also defined what is a "life-prolonging procedure":

"Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.
§ 765.101(10), Florida Statutes (italics added by me).

@ Chev: in other forums, like the Rape one, I have heard you mention a need for proof of wrong doing instead of word vs. word. So I ask you where is the proof that Michael Schiavo beat his wife? Where is the proof that he wants her dead because he is a selfish greedy bastard? Wasn't he offered money to keep her on the feeding tube (IIRC, it was around $1 million, and surely there is not anywhere near that much left in her fund.) So, where's the proof? Was there ever a police report about her being beaten? Do his actions suggest he wants to kill her for the money? While you may argue, correctly, that this doesn't mean he didn't hit her or doesn't want her money, I would say that you are mistaken, and I would take his word over the parents, provided you can't produce evidence of the above. Further, she is no longer a human being. She is a vegetable, and she will never get better. Let her go, she will likely be in a far better place after she dies than in a hospital bed hooked to machines. I say likely because it can't be proven that there is a heaven or hell, not that I think she will go to hell because of anything she did, I don't.

@Ravynn: I didn't say that he beat her with full certainty. I only said the family said that and, reportedly, there were traces like broken bones. I don't know if this means he beat her or not. As for his motives, it's speculation. And she is a human, as good as you or I.

@Laches: It's obvious I disagree with the Legislature then, with all respect. Feeding is not medical care, it's providing the necessary food like for everyone.

[ March 23, 2005, 20:17: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Regarding the evidence of physical abuse, you can read about it at the Abstract Appeal site. Basically, nobody knows. There has been testimony though that the evidence is consistent with bulemia, which is what is thought to have been the root cause of the heart attack in the first place. I do agree with Ravyyn, without any supporting evidence, questioning the husband's motives is not particularly compelling.

Regarding the 'are feeding tubes medical care' question, this probably states my opinion better than I could:

Pope's Directive Undermines Patients' Medical Rights (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4669899/)

I know Chevalier is Catholic and follows the Pope's directives and thus I don't intend to argue and try to change anyone's mind, it can't happen in this case I think. But, that article is the other side of the coin.

@ chevalier - by that logic an iron lung or a tracheotemy would not qualify as medical care - all they do is provide the patient with the necessary ability to breath like everybody else.

Last time I checked the staff who work at senior citizens residences assisting them with the basic daily activities of living are considered to be providing medical care. If that is the case then certainly feeding a brain dead patient via a feeding tube would qualify.

Giving food alone of its own can never be considered treatment. Food is not treatment for hunger - hunger is a complication resulting from lack of food, but this doesn't make it an illness.

Assisting with basic daily activities is care but not medical care. It doesn't remove an illness or anything. Is giving someone a blanket medical care, too?

"She said she didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means. So I have to respect her wish and I forbid everyone from giving her the blanket."

By the way, would we let someone die rather than make him a tracheotomy because he didn't like artificial ways? I doubt it.

"No no. She said no artificial means. So no tracheotomy. Yes, let her choke to death. And give me my million."

Nah, sounds too gross even for our times.

As for wishes, people don't have any right to choose to die and commit suicide or obtain euthanasia. This isn't any right to respect, although some people would have us believe the opposite. Refusal to accept treatment is passive suicide. If food or water is the only thing one needs to continue living, withholding it is homicide. Refusing is suicide.

It's a Supreme Court ruling what decided that providing food and water is medical treatment, anyway, and they have the power to call white black. So what? Does it make the grass more or less green if they say so?

And I really can't understand the whole thing about "Pope's order undermines their rights". The Pope is a moral authority, the head of a religion. So now religions can't have moral rules because they undermine your liberties?

Let's say, does "thou shalt not commit adultery" limit your sexual freedom now, for instance? "Thou shalt not kill" has already been opposed on similar grounds.

Religion is about your relation with the higher powers and about leading a moral life, not about your liberty. Since when does calling something immoral restrict someone's freedom, anyway? It's rubbish.

People just want the psychological comfort of doing what they want and being told it's morally OK. :rolleyes:

But, sad as this may be, no one has a basic human right to have his decisions approved and applauded by the Pope or any religious leader or any person whatsoever. :rolleyes:

Or, finally, on the Judgement Day, Sorry, God, but the Nth Amendment protects me from this commandment. Brilliant.

[ March 23, 2005, 21:08: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Laches, that link to the Pope's directive makes me do one thing - refuse to ever set foot in a Catholic hospital for fear that my wishes will not be respected. We'll leave the question as to why the Pope expects the whole world to live in accordance with Catholic dictates for another thread. ;)

BTW, welcome back. It's good to hear from you again, and I hope the new formats can induce you to stick around. :wave:

Well chevalier, the governments of both the United States of America and Canada disagree with you on the definition of what constitutes medical care.

I happen to agree with my government's definition but as you obviously don't I see no reason to argue this any further.

I would go on the record once again to say that I support the right of a person to choose to end his/her own life but again I know that I won't ever be able to change your opinion about this.

Personally I don't see how we can say that it is humane to have the family pet put to sleep in order to end its suffering and yet insist that a human be forced to live on in pain until he/she passes away - but that is hardly relevant to someone who is brain dead and thus wouldn't be in pain anyway.

It's pretty clear that living wills are acceptable here. Whether you want to call them government sponsored suicide is up to you. There are religious sects that refuse blood transfusions and certain medical care because they believe that such threatens their souls and they'd rather lose the body than the soul. How does that fit into the equation?

Also, unless someone can point to some real proof that there's this pot of gold waiting for Michael Schiavo once he sees his wife dead, I think we should refrain from all of the "scumbag" comments and the "gimmee my money" comments. It's rhetoric that adds nothing to the discussion and just inflames certain passions about this case.

All credible evidence indicates that Michael was offered more money than he could possibly get from any settlement fund to abdicate his position as her legal guardian.

It's a theoretical case, really... but I suppose most people would not want to "live" like that. Are you, after all, really alive in such a state? You are practically "lingering," your organs are functioning only artificially (those that still function), you are as sentient as a vegetable - for the person themselves, what would be the difference between that and actually being dead?

Has the "it's not her time to die" side considered that perhaps it WAS her time to die 14 years ago, and medical science has been interfering with God's plan for her all that time?

I think this little side-debate just boils down to whether you believe in personal autonomy. A focus on authoritarianism vs. a focus on individual self-determination.

Ain't gonna' change anyone's mind on that.

@Rally: Pretty much everyone expects everyone to live in accordance with "don't kill", regardless of religion or anything. That e.g. some priest of a pagan religion believe it's OK for him to make human sacrifices doesn't mean we believe it's OK for him to do. Same way if someone believes it's OK to cut people from food and water if they are brain-damaged, doesn't mean we have to allow him to do it just because his beliefs are OK with it. If you believe something to be homicide, you don't sit with your arms folded as it happens, do you? This is the same principle.

As for her time to die and God's plan, it can be everyone's time to die when an opportunity arises and still none of us in this discussion would think twice before saving a person in lethal danger.

@JSBB: I rely on different bioethicists than the US and Canadian governments do. Governments aren't so much concerned with ethics, anyway. Liberties stuff is politics and definitions of even simple terms get adjusted to fit schemes. By changing the definition one changes the concept. Change the concept and you have changed the reality.

@dmc: It's more complicated than just that. There's money, there's also freedom to get. He already has children with a different woman. I find it hard to believe in unselfish motives on his part. But, anyway, since when is a legal guardian entitled to choose between life and death for you? And I don't think a tale about her comments during watching a TV docummentary about euthanasia are any proof or anything.

@Laches: There are certain limits to personal liberties. I don't believe in an individual's freedom to mutilate or kill himself.

I think chev hit the nail on the head perfectly a few posts ago...

If denying oneself food and water (eg. a hunger strike) is suicide...

...denying food and water to another is murder. Can't have one without the other.

Haven't seen it put so clearly any other way.


Interesting note...Michael has been with his "fiance" for over seven years now...I'm surprised someone isn't calling him common law married, accusing him of bigamy and attempting to end his marriage to Terri...which would return the decisions for her medical care to her parents...


Yeah...welcome back Laches...hope you're back to stay!

@Hack,

No it wouldn't. Go to Laches "Abstract Appeal" weblink. The courts basically have custody of her. It appears if he would jump up and down and say insert the feeding tube, he doesn't have the authority to do so.

Is Michael really just looking for money?

I have no way to know. I know what the Schindlers say to reporters, but then I know that the Second District's first decision in the case used these words to describe Michael's care for Terri:


Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.
Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer.

Even if Michael divorced or was divorced from Terri Schiavo, it wouldn't change anything. Michael Schiavo didn't decide to have the feeding tube removed. Michael Schiavo petitioned the court to decide what Terri would want.

Also, I don't really think a hunger strike would be the equivalent of suicide. I don't think Gandhi attempted suicide.

Not speaking legally for the moment, and looking at this particular case, you can't murder someone who is already dead. I believe Terri Schiavo is already dead. All that is left is a resource consumption machine. That's a truly awful description I know, I don't intend it to be inflammatory, just descriptive.

Not speaking legally for the moment, and looking at this particular case, you can't murder someone who is already dead. I believe Terri Schiavo is already dead. All that is left is a resource consumption machine. That's a truly awful description I know, I don't intend it to be inflammatory, just descriptive.For all intents and purposes, I agree, Laches; there is nothing left of Terri Schiavo, and she isn't coming back. I don't believe that any person should have to die in the manner that she will, and an overdose of painkiller would be a much more humane way to end this. Legally, it's murder (act and intention); morally, I cannot find fault with it.

She has been gone for 15 years; her body lives, but Terri does not. All that has happened is that the suffering and trauma involved in her demise have been extended, not diminished. If ever I heard of a case for "mercy killing", this is it. While I don't believe morality should always trump law, I fail to see how either could justify keeping this woman's body alive.

Chev - what I am saying is that all available evidence shows that Michael Schiavo is not in this for money. Thus, unless something arises to the contrary, calling him a money-grubbing scumbag, or the equivalent, is unfair, untrue, inflammatory and not part of this debate.

As for the fiancee, etc., if he just wanted to be rid of Terri to go on with his life, he could have had a divorce in no-time, and her parents would probably have ushered it through the courts for him.

Let's focus on the legal and moral issues surrounding this particular case. If you want to start discussing the moral viability of living wills, extraordinary medical attention, various religions and their takes on the same, why the various legislatures are or are not morally culpable, etc., there are a whole host of threads to open.

Not trying to gang up on Chev' here but I am confused about your assertion that no one has the right to end their own life. I was not consulted pre-birth about my existence. I was never asked if I wanted to be brought into the world. I am also not suicidal or depressed myself but if I, as a rational hyuman being decide that life is not as great as most make it out to be(in the same way that some people do not think "The Lord of the Rings" movies were worth sitting through) then why do I not have to right to check out? Isn't that like kidnapping and forcing someone to go to a Nascar race adn telling them they do not have the right to leave before the race is over and further asserting that if they do not think highly of the auto-racing they must be mentally unstable?

You will excuse me if I kindly reject your offer to protect me from myself and laugh at your moral evaluations of me if I , at some point and for whatever reason(including being ona respirator or somesuch), do not share your lust for life.

We humans have an annoying habit of placing entirely too much importance on our own lives, but only as it suits whatever political or religious axe we have to grind. If allowing Terri Shiavo to die is murder then owning wood furniture is also murder. A tree was killed to make your coffee table(and Terri is as sentient as a tree right now).

THe planet is too crowded and overpopulation too big a problem for us to be wasting resources preserving the "lives" of serial killers(insane or no), the brain dead and such.

I know, I know...horribly insentive, blah, blah, blah. I am speaking practically here. Regardless of how you or I might feel about life in general or human life in particular, we simply cannot go on like this. One way or another we will be killing people off. I am not saying that allowing Terri Shiavo to die will be what prevents the inevitable genocide we have in store when the Earth's population reaches the boiling point. I am just saying that, from a practical POV, we should be putting our efforts into saving people we KNOW are alive adn do not deserve to die(thrid world children etc.) rather than these dog and pony shows for the comatose, non-sentient and irredeemably sociopathic.

Nobody is to blame here. Just another example of how technology has outpaced humanity. Would I starve a fellow human being to death. NO...but its not my decision

15 long years and this farce still continues.
IMO there should be a time limit on these things. Missing people are declared dead after 7 years have passed from the date of their going missing. Her brain has been dead/missing for 15 damn years now. She should be declared brain-dead and thus technically dead. Pull the feeding tube or use some other method of euthanasia. Just get it over with.

This is no simple case, I agree. However, just because her body can be sustained artificially does not mean she should be kept on them indefinately. There are a lot of things that we have no answer for. Time should then be taken as the answer. Citing a couple of cases does not mean that we should remain idecicive on every such case.

A time comes when the state should (and has) say enough is enough. This inane prolonged legal procedure must come to and end and the parents should let go.

Citing a couple of cases does not mean that we should remain idecicive on every such case.It worked for death penalty ban, shouldn't it work for people who have done nothing wrong, as well?

Missing people are declared dead after 7 years have passed from the date of their going missing. Her brain has been dead/missing for 15 damn years now.She isn't missing, she's here. With missing people, it's the fact you neither have a sign of life nor the body. If the person shows up after those 7 years (it's much more in some countries), he isn't kept legally dead but the declaration is voided.

By the way, I remember that case when my former civil law teacher almost declared someone dead after many, many years (she's a judge) and all of a sudden he popped up on a different continent.

You are right that she is not "missing" Chev'...she is DEAD. Has been for 15 years. She has not responded to anyone or anything and has shown no signs of life other than a heartbeat.

At what point DO we concede that a brain dead person is in fact dead? We are not talking about someone whose mind is active but she has just lost her motor reflexes or ability to communicate. She is not there. She has no more thought going on than John F. Kennedy does right now.

Like I said, a tree is technically "alive" but still we make furniture out of it(re: kill it) because we recognise the importance of sentience in the 'life equation'.

Look what I found here in Poland

http://www.koliber.net/ts/?id=3151

INTRODUCTION

This is an unofficial site of Polish support for the family of Terri Schindler Schiavo, a victim of long term abuse and miscarriage of justice.

Terri is in danger of being put to most cruel death by starvation and dehydration, as that is the wish of her adulturous husband, a biased judge and a euthanasia activist.

The court has ruled, contrary to the obvious truth that Terri is in Permanent Vegetative State. The mainstream media are misinforming the public that Terri is in coma and on life support and should be allowed a dignified death. All this is lie.

Terri is aware and breaths on her own. The only equipment she needs is a plastic feeding tube, but doctors have said that she could probably learn to swallow. She reacts to people and expresses emotion. Starving and dehydrating will be unimaginable torture to that helpless human being trapped in her disabled body.

Yet that's what the court and her husband want to do. All in the name of a corrupt ideology, under the cover of 'justice'.

This horror is not happening in a WW2 Nazi concentration camp. This is taking place in 21st century United States of America, in a hospice in Florida, before the very eyes of Terri's loving family who have been fighting for years now for the right to take their daughter and sister home, feed and rehabilitate her.

It is the duty of every human being of good will to stand up and fight against such outright crime against mankind, whether it is happening next door or across the ocean. Americans have been doing what they can, but it's not been enough. Now it is time for international community to join in.

On this webpage you will find information about Terri in Polish, though for technical reasons in very scant amounts, as we are lacking resources to run the campaign. So if you want to help (e.g. translating English articles into Polish), please contact me at asia@koliber.net

We have also sent President Bush and Governor Bush a letter asking them to prevent that cold-blooded murder.

Questions, comments, help - write asia@koliber.net

Join in the fight!

It does not surprise me that there are people in Poland who are misinformed about this case and the American legal system in general but the flat out stupidity behind the blatantly false allegations against Micael Shiavo are disturbing.


To reiterate:


Terri is NOT aware by any stretch of the imagination. She is incapable of thought or aknowledgement or reaction to external stimuli of any kind.

The mainstream media have gone out of their way to paint a different picture, using a few scant seconds of video from 11 years ago where Terri's movements almost seemed to coincide with the examiner brought in by her parents to say that she was not a vegetable. She does little more than breath now. Every chance she had at dignity has been stripped by well meaning but misguided politicals and religionists.

@ Chev: The pope, and many of his followers, religious leaders in Spain especially, also says using condoms to prevent AIDS or unwanted pregnancies is immoral and against the wishes of God. And he told people in Central America to keep having children, that God was proud of them, when they can't even feed the people they already have. The Pope is just another man, he is as fallible and prone to being wrong as the rest of us. God didn't appoint him because he has the truth of what's right and wrong, morally speaking, or that he is smarter or more understanding of God and His laws than the rest of us. This is not to say that he is a bad person, and he certainly isn't the worst pope the world has ever seen. But I still think he is wrong on some issues. As to the ammendments on Judgement Day, explain to me please why only 2 of the ten commandments, the ones against stealing and murder, are actually laws. Not only that, but one of our own ammendments grants us the right to practice any religion we wish, which is in direct contradiction to the commandment of having no gods before God. Also, a lot of businesses are open on Sunday. I could possibly go on, but my point is, agreeing with the Pope doesnt make you a good person, and disagreeing with him doesn't make you bad. What right does he have to dictate world policy like he understands everything? By that I mean telling the rest of the world if we don't do things exactly like he says, we'll burn in hell. How does he know he's right? Finally, more on topic, what gives him the right to try to dictate medical practice when he isn't even a friggin doctor? Recently, he has been in and out of the hospital for various reasons. Let's say hypothetically that he was in a state like Terri. Would the Catholic Church be willing to go without a leader until he dies naturally? If medical science could prove he was in excruciating pain, would they force him to stay on a machine indefinitely? I personally believe that God gave us FREE WILL for a reason. It is between you and God and NO ONE else if you chose to end your life. The Pope is here to guide people like any other religious leader, not dictate policy that he has no business getting involved in.

I just saw that the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case (again). It seems like that should settle it - there's no additional court to appeal to.

Saw a report on the news last night. They showed a video of her which I found gross. Let the poor woman die in peace.

@Ravynn: If you want to talk about the Pope, open a separate thread for that and I'll answer your questions, but they aren't relevant in this thread.

There were postings on the pope earlier in this thread, which is why I posted that. Rereading it I can see it is a bit of a stretch. Sorry about that.

I was watching CNN last night and :rolleyes:
Now that each and every court has found against Terry's parents the pro-lifers want the governer to overrule the entire judicial system and keep IT on artificial life support and reinsert the feeding tube.
*shrug* When will this madness end :nono:

After reading all the posts here and with what time I've had to keep up with this case, I must say the same points nag at me:

Like Chev said, Dead people don't breathe.

There are people that want to help. Call it religious or pro-life hoopla, but there are people willing to give their own money to pay for Terri's feeding tube and make it no burden to taxpayers.

To me this whole case just hits a fundamental core of what I do daily. It's part of my humanity. I wake up to go teach in my special education classroom everyday. And while, I myself do not teach severe and profound mentally retarded students, I work in a field that does. I study it. I live it. I breathe it. I put up with seemingly countless frustrations of all magnitudes everyday and yet with persistence, I see learning, I see improvement with my students with moderate and mild mental retardation. I have first hand seen how the brain is a crazy thing. No matter what label we slap on a person, no matter how much we think we have them scientifically figured out, they can always throw us curveballs and do things we never thought possible. I understand that we do not know everything there is to know about the human brain and how it works.

What disturbs me mostly is that she has not been released to the care of folks who are willing to pay for her to receive better medical services than simply hospice or nursing home care. If as much money had spent on therapeutic medical services and good doctors (not just ones selectively chosen by the husband)as on all these legal fees, I can't help but wonder if we'd see a different Terri today.

Terri still has a role in this world. Even if it is only for us to think long and hard about our humanity. And that is a noble role IMHO.

God Bless you Terri.

@Big B,

I think you have become lost in all of the hoopla and emotion. This case isn't about money. Nobody is complaining about the cost of keeping her alive. The issue is that a competant court determined that she wouldn't want to be kept alive under these circumstances. This isn't just the husband against the parents. There were numerous (once again I suggest you go to the site Laches posted) witnesses that expressed to the court that Terri would not want to be kept alive like this.

Money has nothing to do with it. Wouldn't it be the height of cruelty for people with money to keep someone alive against their wishes?

The courts are doing everything they can to honor Terri's wishes. Her wishes should be the only ones that matter in this case.

She has received the Last Rite and Holy Communion. The priest says she realised his presence and tried to say something.

That would be it about Michael's promises made before the court in order to be appointed her only guardian. Out of the million, 300 thousand was supposed to go to him and 700 to her treatment. He promised to stay with her until death and care for her as best he could. When he got the guardianship, surprise. New house, new car, lots of girls and ultimately getting a child with another woman and ordering his wife put to death.

Humans and promises...

Where did you see that about the priest saying she tried to speak Chev? I've looked in the Chicago Tribue, the Tampa Florida paper (where she was from and is quite extensive), WaPo, NYT, and I couldn't find that. I even looked at the Christian Broadcasting Network and couldn't find that. All of those news sources report that Rev. Thaddeus Malanowski gave last rites, put a drop of wine in her mouth, but her mouth was too dry for the bread. None of them say anything about the priest saying she tried to speak. Do you have a link please?

Also, do you have a link showing how much of the money was spent on medical care and how much was spent on other things? What amount of that money was spent taking her to California for rehabilitation for example? How much of that money was spent on the "new house, new car" would be interesting to see. If you have that information, that would be very interesting as well.

I did see the that the family filed a motion to re-open the case because Terri Schiavo said, "Ahhhhhhh Waaaaaaaa." (I'm not trying some type of joke, that's actually what the motion says she said) That's the only thing I've been able to find about her trying to speak recently. And, of course, that didn't have anything to do with the priest. So, I'm most interested in seeing what the priest had to say since other than what I mentioned above I haven't been able to see anything about it.

I'm with Laches here. Everything I've been reading about Micheal has been he's a decent guy caught up in a nightmare -- I certainly wouldn't want to go through what he's been through. IIRC he's been going to see her nearly every day, bathing her, making sure she has no bedsores, for 15 years now. That sounds pretty committed to me -- that he needed some companionship should not be a surprise. I won't fault him for being human and needing affection from someone.

A new car, a new house -- come on it's been 15 years. I know of people who get a new car every two years and 'move up' every five years. Also, $300,000 will get you those things in many areas of America. Is he working? That could have something to do with getting a new car or house.

What Terri is going through is tragic. But what Michael has been going through for 15 years -- and especially the past two years -- is equally tragic.

@Laches: Someone, probably a reporter, asked the priest on the spot and he said that. A new house and car Mike bought after he got the money, so it's pretty much self-explanatory.

What reporter? What news source? Where did you see it? I'm just interested since I haven't seen it. Can you provide a source and a link?

Also, are you saying that you don't really know what amount of the 700,000 was spent on personal belongings for Michael Schiavo - such as the house and car? The mere fact that he has a house and car alone doesn't mean he has siphoned off funds from the 700k. I assumed you had support for this assertion.

Well, now at least we know what happened and why he wanted to kill Terri. The guy received $1,000,000 in compensation, $300,000 for his own expenses, and $700,000 to keep Terri alive. This didn't require much—put the money in a bank, and the interest alone would have been enough to pay any and all expenses.
We don't know, and we will never know, what the guy did with the $700,000. What we do know is that he severed ties to Terri's family, built himself a house, bought a luxury car, and has a daughter with an unnamed friend.

As is often said: "When you don't know what's