Plight of Terri Schiavo: Facts, Emotions, and Outcomes

[faust9]

Are you saying you know Terri's wishes? If you are, how? If not, then who should be the one to best interpret her wishes? Who was in the best position to know? Who did Terry give this responsibility to?


No Russ, are you? Who should be best to interpret her wishes... there is not just one person. Seriously consider it. Putting someones life in one persons hands...way to close to playing God. But if the decision was given to a group of people that could be trusted, then that is different. At least it includes different peoples views, views made by those who love her.

(yes, these questions have a straightforward answer...)

A straightforward answer? Meaning what? This is no classroom for you to teach at, no church for you to preach at. In this case there are no clear answers, so I hope you are not saying those were rhetorical questions. I pray you are not saying you have the answers. And God help us if you say that her...spouse ( )is the one that would be in the best position to know.

Her husband is her guardian. Her husband knew her wishes best. She told others. Why can't you grasp this? Why does it bother you so much that a wife would confide in her husband more than her parents? Why do you find this situation so vexing? Oh, also are you married? I am. My wife and I talk about things we don't with our parents. That's part of marrage. I'm sure Terri and her husband did the same thing.

 

[Shadow]

http://www.terrisfight.org/timeline.html

Also go http://www.terrisfight.net/ and click on "myths about terri"

 

[faust9]

Yeah, they don't have a vested interest do they. Just go ahead and disregard the fact that the Schindlers have never presented anything this side of credible. Go ahead and look over the fact that the courts have sided with the husband almost 30 times in a 15 time span. Go ahead and ignore the fact that judges from all political and moral perspectives have found for the husband.

Here's a rebuttal site: http://www.outlawslegal.com/arms/bread-kills.htm

Start think out side the box. Look at the facts.

 

[faust9]

http://www.terrisfight.org/timeline.html

Also go http://www.terrisfight.net/ and click on "myths about terri"

Also, 30 seconds of fact checking(Time has a timeline of their own) shows that your Terri site is actually wrong on a few of those points. Your little save Terri site couldn't even get the value of the malpractice award right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

Hmmm if they don't take the time to get even the most simple of figures correct, then I wonder how factual the rest of their timeline is(rhetorical BTW)?

 

[russ_watters]

No Russ, are you? Who should be best to interpret her wishes... there is not just one person. Seriously consider it. Putting someones life in one persons hands...way to close to playing God. But if the decision was given to a group of people that could be trusted, then that is different. At least it includes different peoples views, views made by those who love her.

You still didn't answer the most important question: who?

A straightforward answer? Meaning what? This is no classroom for you to teach at, no church for you to preach at. In this case there are no clear answers, so I hope you are not saying those were rhetorical questions. I pray you are not saying you have the answers. And God help us if you say that her...spouse ( )is the one that would be in the best position to know.

Legally the answer is straightforward. That's why the courts have been pretty much unanamous over the past decade.

 

[Shadow]

I admit I have to think outside the box, but I follow my beliefs. And unless there is solid evidence that terri ever said that if she were in this state she would like to have her feeding tube removed, I have to believe life should prevail. It only seems right.

My question for you is, do you look outside the box? Have you looked at the evidence pointing to what this Judge greer has done in the past? Into her husbands past? Heh, I'm not married I'm a student. My parents have been married for 20 years and did not discuss the situation until this case came up. My grandma, 65, had never discussed it with my grandpa before he died in 1994 (the topic came up at Easter dinner...quite the discussion.) My point is that times were different, as my grandma said, (my grandpa was on a machine awaiting a heart transplant in 1992 when he died.) and they never felt the need to discuss it. Although, my grandpas situation, along with terris story has made her wish she had. My point is, terri was only married 6 years before she collapsed. Its entirely possible they did not discuss it.

However I do want to thank you. For reminding me that I do have to look outside my box, and that there are other views, just as logical and illogical as mine. But I will defend my beliefs and I hope (well in your case, know) that you will defend yours.

 

[faust9]

I admit I have to think outside the box, but I follow my beliefs. And unless there is solid evidence that terri ever said that if she were in this state she would like to have her feeding tube removed, I have to believe life should prevail. It only seems right.

My question for you is, do you look outside the box? Have you looked at the evidence pointing to what this Judge greer has done in the past? Into her husbands past? Heh, I'm not married I'm a student. My parents have been married for 20 years and did not discuss the situation until this case came up. My grandma, 65, had never discussed it with my grandpa before he died in 1994 (the topic came up at Easter dinner...quite the discussion.) My point is that times were different, as my grandma said, (my grandpa was on a machine awaiting a heart transplant in 1992 when he died.) and they never felt the need to discuss it. Although, my grandpas situation, along with terris story has made her wish she had. My point is, terri was only married 6 years before she collapsed. Its entirely possible they did not discuss it.

However I do want to thank you. For reminding me that I do have to look outside my box, and that there are other views, just as logical and illogical as mine. But I will defend my beliefs and I hope (well in your case, know) that you will defend yours.

Yes I have. I've posted that I had to make this decision myself. I've asked others of your opinion to spend some time with people in Terri's condition. I've watched my grandmother track my finger(natural instinctinve responce) while a doctor poked her at various points with ne response. I've seen people in Terri's condition smile, cry, laugh, and do many other things--for no reason. I've volunteered at hospices and met more people like Terri than most posters here will in a life time. I read what doctors who have examined Terri have to say(not just from a TV screen looking at a total of 5 minutes of video taken over a 15 year time span).

I've looked into the case. I've looked into her parents pleas and wrongful accusations. I've not found any credible evidence from their camp. They have had 15 years to show some truth to their claims. They have not.

Also, WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THE FACT THAT TERRI TOLD MORE THAT HER HUSBAND HER WISHES WITH REGARD TO LIFE SUPPORT?

What credible evidence do you have that Terri would want to be on life support? Your not married so you really have no idea about how most married couples interact. You are basing your decisions on pure emotion with little to no idea of what a husband and a wife talk about. I hate to sound like an ass but you actually have to idea what mothers and fathers talk about when you are out of ear shot. You haven't the foggiest idea of what transpires between a husband and a wife over dinner or following a movie.

Terri told others of her wishes. You are in denial for some personal reason. You've let the emotional cries of a distraught mother cloud your judgement. You blindly accept the facts as presented by the parents while lambasting the vindicated husband. I don't know what transpired between those two but I do know how I and my wife interact. I do know more that Mr. Schiavo spoke with Terri about life support.

At least that's the way I see it. There are many reasons to keep someone on life support. Coma patients 'may' come out of a coma(brain scans of coma patients show brain activity). Terri will not.


[edit]softened my tone a little.

Also, you've managed to avoid russ's 'WHO' question.

 

[Kerrie]

Your not married so you really have no idea about how most married couples interact. You are basing your decisions on pure emotion with little to no idea of what a husband and a wife talk about. I hate to sound like an ass but you actually have to idea what mothers and fathers talk about when you are out of ear shot. You haven't the foggiest idea of what transpires between a husband and a wife over dinner or following a movie.

If our government wants to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" (remember the gay marriage uproar last year), then this situation is a perfect example of doing so. Marriage is a legal contract that is binded by two consenting adults and ends any sort of legal attachment that a parent and that consenting adult can have. The judges have sided with Terri's husband and I am pleased they have done so. Perhaps those who have not had a loving marital relationship do not understand how special it can truly be. Terri's parents have done their part in smearing whatever blissful marriage they may have had in their short time together for reasons that seem selfish.

Does anyone believe that if Michael Schiavo had insisted the feeding tube kept in the judges would have ruled it be kept in? I do.

 

[russ_watters]

And unless there is solid evidence that terri ever said that if she were in this state she would like to have her feeding tube removed, I have to believe life should prevail. It only seems right.

Why?

My question for you is, do you look outside the box? Have you looked at the evidence pointing to what this Judge greer has done in the past? Into her husbands past?

Yes, and you do know that Judge Greer isn't the only one who has ruled on this case, right?

Also, you've managed to avoid russ's 'WHO' question.

And now I've asked another "w" question...

edit: actually, he may have answered it. His above reply suggests that there should be no decision without a living will: that in all cases life support should be indefinite.

 

[fifiki]

My question for you is, do you look outside the box? Have you looked at the evidence pointing to what this Judge greer has done in the past? Into her husbands past?

I am very curious about what these so called FACTS are. Seriously I am. Beyond pure speculation and accusation, can you provide any credible evidence at all for your claims?

Also, I just wanted to add that the Supreme Court judges, in not deciding, in a way did decide. The most liberal to the most conservative of them all decided the same way (and Scalia being one of the most religious person on the bench or outside of the bench). The facts speaks for itself and all the courts gave it's resounding opinion. For some reason these facts you speak so highly of were curiously missed by almost 30 courts and how many was it? 19 judges? Oh dear, what negligence!

 

[adrenaline]

By Jonathan Alter
Senior Editor and Columnist
Newsweek


April 4 issue - When he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush presided over 152 executions, more than took place in the rest of the country combined. In at least a few of these cases, reasonable doubts about the guilt of the condemned were raised. But Bush cut his personal review time for each case from a half hour to a mere 15 minutes (most other governors spend many hours reviewing each capital case to assure themselves that there's no doubt of guilt). His explanation was that he trusted the courts to sort through the life-and-death complexities. That's right: the courts.

I bring up that story because it's just one of several ironies that have arisen in connection with the Terri Schiavo saga, in which the president said that the government "ought to err on the side of life." Fine, but whose life? The inmate who might not be guilty? The poor people across the country denied organ transplants (and thus life) because Medicaid—increasingly under the Bush budget knife—won't cover them? ...

Or how about Sun Hudson? On March 14, Sun, a 6-month-old baby with a fatal form of dwarfism, was allowed to die in a Texas hospital over his mother Wanda's objections. Under a 1999 law signed by Bush, who was then governor, cost-conscious hospitals are empowered to decide when care is "futile." The Hudson case is the first time ever that a court has allowed bean counters to override the wishes of parents. "They gave up in six months," Wanda Hudson told the Houston Chronicle. "They made a terrible mistake." Wanda apparently was not "cable ready," as they say in the television world, and she failed to get Randall Terry and the radical anti-abortionists on her side. Tom DeLay never called.

Could there be—perish the thought—politics at work here? ....

The same conservatives who have spent the last generation attacking "judicial activism" and federal intrusion in state jurisdictions were suddenly advocating what they had so long abhorred.....


In a complex world, consistency is usually asking too much. (Seeing Democrats talk about "states' rights" last week was also a little rich.) But if you're going to accuse Michael Schiavo and the judiciary of murder (right-wing blogs and talk radio) or commit virtual malpractice by "examining" a patient long distance via outdated and heavily edited video (Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist) or advocate breaking the law by sending in state troopers to reattach the feeding tube (Pat Buchanan and William Bennett), you'd better be willing to look in the mirror.

As a father myself, I can sympathize with Terri's frenzied parents. There must be nothing harder in the world than watching a child die. And I still don't understand why Michael Schiavo didn't turn over custody and get a divorce. He says he's trying to carry out his wife's wishes and at the same time preserve her dignity. But the endless litigation and public spectacle have hardly achieved that goal.

The right wing should be ashamed of the way it has treated this man, who spent the first seven years after Terri's collapse doing everything imaginable to save her—even training as a nurse. For instance, Fox and CNN gave air time and credibility to one Carla Iyer, who accused Michael of shouting "When is the ***** going to die?" and claimed hospital authorities doctored her nursing charts—preposterous charges with no substantiation.

When this excruciating circus leaves town, the only sensible conclusion is a morally and constitutionally nuanced one. It should be possible to argue both that Terri Schiavo's case didn't belong in court—and that the courts are the only place to resolve such wrenching disputes when families cannot. That custody laws should contain a little more flexibility where the wishes of the patient are unclear—and that the president and Congress did real damage to their own principles by sticking their nose in this mess. They replaced reason with emotion, confused law with theology and allowed politics and tabloidism to trump the privacy this agonizing family tragedy deserved.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

for the full article

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7305206/site/newsweek/page/2/

 

[faust9]

Here's one for the hypocrit record books:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay27mar27,0,5710023.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Tom Delay did in 1988 what he is criticising today. Man you got to love that GOP!

 

[faust9]

actually, he may have answered it. His above reply suggests that there should be no decision without a living will: that in all cases life support should be indefinite.

I don't buy it. Shadow must know that people are taken off life support every day(maybe not that often but close). Some have living wills. Some are taken off at the behest of family members. Some are taken off at the will of medical personel sanctioned by the state(Texas) to make these life and death decision to the objections of parents. Shadow has an opinion about who, where, and when Terri should be allowed to die. Maybe answering a direct question raises questions about convictions and choices and mortality. Who knows--one person does. IMHO though I think answering the Who, Where, and Why questions and then asking Why again about the answera might lead to an uncomfortible place.

Who?
"Terri's Parents of course."
Why?
"Because they are her parents."
Wasn't she married? Doesn't the marriage ceramony include the father giving the daughter away?
"Well yes but..."
Then why would the parents be more suited?
"Because they love her."
Didn't the husband love her?
"Well yes but he wants to kill her now."
Why would a husband want to kill his wife if he loves her?
"He doesn't love her he wants the money."
What money?
"The money from the lawsuit."
The 50,000 dollars left vice the 1 or 10 million offered?
"Well he can't give in now he would look bad."
How much worse could he look?
.
.
.
Why does judge Greer--he wants to kill her too?
"Well, hasn't this case been through the courts for 15 years with many judges, including the supreme court, looking at the facts?"
Yes but how does Greer know what she wanted?
"Didn't multiple people testify to that fact?"
Yes but I bet they were all lying.
"Why would they all lie?"
To kill Terri of course!
"Why?"
For the money.
--see above--

That's my little Q/A session the Schindler family supporters are not going through. If more of the people went through a process like that I'd say this whole scha-bang would drift into oblivion.

My 2 cents.

I think I'm done with this thread BTW. Thanks for the conversation. Hopefully everyone turns out better in the end. Terri will be at peace, the parents will move on. The husband will move on... It'll be rough (15 years of fighting then what is there to do).

[edit]I spell like a two year old and type like a blind person with no fingers :)

 

[russ_watters]

I don't buy it. Shadow must know that people are taken off life support every day(maybe not that often but close)...

I really don't know. It seems clear to me that the parents have lost touch with reality. But in such an emotional situation, that's understandable. Could others be under the same illusions? Certainly.

 

[Astronuc]

Federal Judge Condemns Intervention in Schiavo Case

Federal Judge Condemns Intervention in Schiavo Case
By ABBY GOODNOUGH and WILLIAM YARDLEY

PINELLAS PARK, Fla., March 30 - A federal appeals court in Atlanta refused Wednesday to reconsider the case of Terri Schiavo, with one of the judges rebuking President Bush and Congress for acting "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our founding fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/national/31schiavo.html?
registration required

 

[russ_watters]

She died this morning...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-31-schiavo_x.htm

 

[Moonbear]

She died this morning...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-31-schiavo_x.htm

I just heard that a few minutes ago. May she finally rest in peace.

 

[russ_watters]

May she finally rest in peace.

Unfortunately, its not going to happen - the fighting continues between her parents and husband.

 

[Moonbear]

Unfortunately, its not going to happen - the fighting continues between her parents and husband.

Sadly, yes. How are they even going to hold a funeral when they can't be in the same place together?

 

[FredGarvin]

The one thing I have not been able to find any substantiation for in this mess was for the parents' claims that Terry could have gotten better. I have seen plenty of references to the contrary though. Has anyone seen any credible source say that she could have even somewhat recovered?

One other thing that I have started thinking about was the notion of a living will. After seeing the legal/congressional grandstanding, I am beginning to believe that even if you had a living will that was signed the day before, it probably wouldn't stand up.

 

[Astronuc]

One other thing that I have started thinking about was the notion of a living will. After seeing the legal/congressional grandstanding, I am beginning to believe that even if you had a living will that was signed the day before, it probably wouldn't stand up.

A living will 'may not be valid' depending on 'State' laws. Best to execute a 'durable power of attorney' which takes effect only when one is incapacitated. One should see a lawyer in one's jurisdiction.

 

[Loren Booda]

How applicable toward future cases are the lessons learned from Ms. Schiavo's dying?

Can we trust those who encourage child molestation, or threaten all others to obey their own God, to legislate American lives?

 

[Loren Booda]

Thank God that her soul is now free of her body.

 

[Evo]

The one thing I have not been able to find any substantiation for in this mess was for the parents' claims that Terry could have gotten better. I have seen plenty of references to the contrary though. Has anyone seen any credible source say that she could have even somewhat recovered?

No, there is no doubt, she could never recover.

Here is the transcript of "The Abrams Report" interview with Dr. Cranford.

CRANFORD: Her CT scan shows severe atrophy or shrinkage of the brain. Her EEG is flat and there's absolutely no doubt that she's been in a permanent vegetative state ever since 1990. There's no doubt whatsoever, Dan.

ABRAMS: Let's talk about the CT scan. You actually have the CT scan.

CRANFORD: Yes, this is a CT scan of Terri Schiavo taken in 2002, the most recent CT scan done on her, 2002.

ABRAMS: Tell us what it means.

CRANFORD: Well it shows extremely severe atrophy. Where those black areas are, that should be white. That should be cerebral cortex, and so really there is no cerebral cortex left. It's just a shrinkage of the cerebral cortex. It's a thin band of white on the outside and any neurologist or any radiologist looking at those CT scans will tell you that her atrophy could not be more severe than it is. So even if she were mentally conscious, which she's not, she's irreversible. She's been like this for 15 years, Dan, and that CT scan shows the most extreme severe atrophy of the higher centers of the brain.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/

 

[stoned]

hypocritical america is divided about this poor lady live,and we hear how precious even one american live is,meanwhile almost no one gives a damn about lives of hundred of thousands of afghani,palestinian,iraqi people killed or wounded.

 

[russ_watters]

Thats pretty crass - using a trajedy as an excuse to flame the US on an unrelated issue. Shame on you.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Thats pretty crass - using a trajedy as an excuse to flame the US on an unrelated issue. Shame on you.

But it's a standard freeper tactic too. "Noam Chomsky cares about xyz but he doesn't care about [whatever the current freeper hoohah is]!" It's almost sure to come up in any of the loving textual analyses they call "fisking".

 

[russ_watters]

But it's a standard freeper tactic too. "Noam Chomsky cares about xyz but he doesn't care about [whatever the current freeper hoohah is]!"

I've never heard that - its always just, 'Noam Chomsky's ideas are crap.'

 

[motai]

So I turn on the TV recently and I still hear about the Terri Schiavo incident... ahh it refuses to end! She has already passed away and our lives should move on.

Just so long as the Schindlers don't tie up the judicial system after her death and congress/president doesn't overstep their boundaries, we should all be fine for now. And our lives can move on without having a media circus all over the place on this one single issue that has been dominating for a solid week (other issues such as the recent 8 magnitude shock in Indonesia seems far more pressing imo).

 

[infidel]

Don't you believe it. The religious right has already threatened to use this to oust those politicians they feel did not do enough to help her. They have equated it with murder. Several states are already considering changing their end-of-life laws, and no doubt congressional Republicans will be looking at the federal laws. There's much to gain politically here. It's not over yet.

hypocritical america is divided about this poor lady live,and we hear how precious even one american live is,meanwhile almost no one gives a damn about lives of hundred of thousands of afghani,palestinian,iraqi people killed or wounded.

Or the hundred some-odd death warrants Bush himself singed while governor. Guess it depends on who's doing the dying.

 

[selfAdjoint]

As for the hooh-hah going on, DeLay has announced he's going to ask the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the judges who wouldn't play along with the circus.

 

[infidel]

That is f*&#ing ridiculous, especially since many of these guys are lawyers and actually know better. These judges followed a very clear and unambiguous law. There is exactly ZERO cause for investigating them. If I were one of them, I'd resign in protest, though I guess that only gives them a chance to appoint one of their cronies.

You know, when the gay marriage thing was going on the Republicans complained about "activist judges." Now that's apparently exactly what they expected in this case. Jeezy Creezy, how can the American public be so freaking blind to their raging hypocrisy.

Who was it that said, "We get the government we deserve"?

 

[hypatia]

I have a neighbor who is dieing, because she can't afford the medicine to save her life. Her 12,000 dollar a year pension makes her to rich for state aid.
Now these are laws which should be changed!

 

[Rejjeye]

As for the hooh-hah going on, DeLay has announced he's going to ask the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the judges who wouldn't play along with the circus.

I read somewhere earlier this week where tom DeLay pulled the plug on his own father who was suffering in from a similar ailment. Is he also now going to investigate himself? Or does he consider himself above the law he tries to enforce on others?

 

[Rejjeye]

Or is it more than likely just guilt on his part?