What has happened to my country? (Shiavo related)

[Lee]

The joke is tasteless and insensitve.  Personally, I believe that her death is the only humane part of her "life".  Tom Delay lost what little respect I had for him.  I can't wait for the next call asking me for money.

[possenti]

I'm not going to argue anymore about this, but I'll tell you that I agree 100% with you,  MaterDei.

I'm shocked that HighRoad (and APS) members have bought the "she's braindead/PVS/not worth saving" media propaganda.  You'd think these guys would be a little more skeptical about the mainstream's BS, after seeing what they've done to our second amendment rights in the "public opinion polls".  

Everybody's rushing to get a living will made up, but we are now on the slippery slope.  When you're being starved to death by the state, what good will a piece of paper with your name signed on it do?  Hell - our "leaders" don't even honor the most important piece of paper - the Constitution!  When the courts and legislatures want to snuff you out, they'll snuff you out -  and their willing accomplices (conspirators?) in the media will make sure the public agrees it's the right thing to do.

Sad, sad state of affairs in my country...

[Sean Smith]

Everybody's rushing to get a living will made up, but we are now on the slippery slope.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy.  Grown-ups should know better than to even bring it up.  

I'm shocked that HighRoad (and APS) members have bought the "she's braindead/PVS/not worth saving" media propaganda.

Did you not see the CAT scan that showed she had a hole in the middle of her brain the size of my fist?  Or are you hiding from any evidence that contradicts your worldview?  Or do you not realize that the courts did not rule on if she is worth saving or not at all, but what SHE stated on the matter?  Did you even read any of the ruling in question?

The "propaganda" is the whole notion that the courts ruled on if she is "worth saving" or not at all.  They didn't.  They ruled on if she met criteria allegedly SET BY HER for having her life stop being artificially sustained.

The courts may have made a ruling without the burden of proof being met.
They may have made some kind of legalistic error all the appeals missed somehow.
They did NOT just rule out of hand that her life was "not worth saving."  That is a straightforward lie.  

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

[InfidelSerf]

Hmm this i very interesting.. I hadn't read any threads on the whole Shiavo issue.. well basically because of I've been sick of watching it on TV and hearing about it on the radio.

I think its a very disturbing yet interesting case.

My personal opinion is that she was murdered. But not by the courts or by the removal of her feeding tube.

I think one of the major differences of opinions are due to the term "life support"
I'm not sure I would consider a feeding tube as a life support machine.  
Many people are kept alive on feeding tubes for periods of time while parts of them heal then they go through therapy to learn to swallow and eat on their own.  To me life support are machines that keep your body alive by doing the vital functions for them.. i.e. breathing for you and beating your heart for you.
She was living on her own.. but wasn't capable of eating without therapy.

The thing about this case that is wierd is that the husband even refused to allow the family to attempt physical therapy.
His control over her.. even though he had broken the marital vows, was just bizarre.

He even refused her the wine of sacrement for her last rights.  I'm not catholic but I can respect a persons beliefs and traditions.

This whole case would be completely different had the guy done one of two things.. either a) never taken in a common law wife and stayed by her side with the family.  or b) divorced her years ago when he met the new woman in his life and let her go with her parents.  

These are why I question the motive of the "husband"
While I agree he had the law on his side all along... I don't see how it couldn't have been taken down via marital law. Since he broke the vows.
Why did he not allow any cameras in the room for the past 5 years  (that's correct all the video and images we saw were at least 5 years old.
Why did he wait 7 years before ever bringing up her desire to not live via machines.  (And did she mean life support as I described?)
Why did he refuse the family visitation during her final minutes and refused to allow the last rights wine.
I mean who the hell refuses family and has their lawyer in the room with them!!
Why has the media not discussed the relationship between his lawyer and several right to die groups.  That a good number of the hospice board of directors are members of a right to die group.
Why has he refused to allow newer more modern test to be performed on her. Those xrays are years old.
Why has he refused noted professionals to examine her.
Why is he insisting on having her cremated and buried in his family lot.. when he has gone on with his life and has a new wife and two children by her.

You would think that women rights organizations would be up in arms.. because she has basically been treated like a piece of property.. for Mr. Shiavo to do with as he wishes.

As for this being a case of her wishes being upheld.  I don't buy that.  It's unfortunate that she did not have these wishes written down.
If we are going to allow hearsay in the case then what about the statements from friends that he told her if she ever got as big as she used to be he would divorce her. The claims and the police report by the hospice nurse, that was fired for reporting a potencial attempt on her life by him years ago.
I would have believed Mr. Shiavo had he stuck by his wifes side with the family.  But once he took another wife without divorcing her and insisted on maintaining his legal control over her. That's when it all changed.. interestingly enough this all took place during the time the lawsuit settlement was being worked out.  Prior to that he and the family were joined together in their efforts to help her.
The settlement came through he did spend alot on her.. but he also put himself through school with the money. (I can buy that it was in her interest.. but once again he moved on)
He met another woman and at that point he should have worked with the family to hand her care over to them.  I think they would have understood and this case would never have been in the spotlight.

But no... he chose to squeeze every legal angle in favor of himself from then on.  It's just bizarre.  It's almost as if he stuck with it to ensure she died without talking to anyone else.. Like he knows if she were to recover it would hurt him.
I don't know.


As far as congress getting involved.  It was right for them to ensure this woman received the same rights as a savage criminal before being put to death.  (Which refusing any water or food whatsoever in any form.. even icechips for comfort.. that's a sentance to death no matter what your ailment)
However its sick to see such a case being used for political gain.  The problem is.. when doing the right thing isn't popular or IS popular.. no matter what your going to be accused of using it for political gain.  So I don't put much weight in those claims.. especially considering the number of Dems that also voted.

JMHO

[MaterDei]

Well said, veloce851.  For whatever reasons those that supported her killing don't want to consider these facts.  It's just another bizarre aspect to this whole tragic tale.

[stevelyn]

Once again, she had become a potted plant. She did not wish to "live" under those conditions. The courts and her husband were only carrying out her wishes.

[Phantom Warrior]

veloce851 summarized my position on life support vs. a feeding tube quite well.  That's what I was trying to say earlier.  


Also, I agree that it peculiar that her husband went to so much trouble to have her killed when he could have divorced her and her parents would have GLADLY accepted responsibility for her.

She did not wish to "live" under those conditions. The courts and her husband were only carrying out her wishes.

What proof is there of this?  I'm skeptical, but I am legitimately wondering what this is based on.

[Chuck Jennings]

Also, I agree that it peculiar that her husband went to so much trouble to have her killed when he could have divorced her and her parents would have GLADLY accepted responsibility for her.

It has often been said that the opposite of love is not hate, it is apathy.  If I were in a situation where I knew that my wife's wishes were not being carried out, I would not submit to anyone.  I would see it out to the end.  IMO, "washing your hands" of the situation is the more cold hearted thing to do.

[Feanaro]

She was living on her own.. but wasn't capable of eating without therapy.

What therapy? If her autopsy(Requested by her husband, I might add.) reveals what I think it will, no therapy in the land could help. If she has no cortex, or very little, what besides a new brain could aid her in eating on her own? Even if we are speaking of assisted feeding by another person(no feeding tube), it doesn't seem likely. She had no swallow reflex*(page three, top).

The thing about this case that is wierd is that the husband even refused to allow the family to attempt physical therapy.

I have heard this before without any evidence to support it. Even the parent's sight shows some treatment was done. He might have refused later but it seems he did admit some treatments.

He even refused her the wine of sacrement for her last rights.  I'm not catholic but I can respect a persons beliefs and traditions.

The courts ruled it was uncontested that Terry cannot swallow well enough to live without a tube. If so the Sacrement might have choked her to death*. Though one could say that's no different than starving her.

Why is he insisting on having her cremated and buried in his family lot.. when he has gone on with his life and has a new wife and two children by her.

I guess it's out of the question that he loved her? And still does? If foul play is suspected, he is being a little stupid to have an autopsy done on her.

*: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder0300.pdf

[Guest]

What proof is there of this?  I'm skeptical, but I am legitimately wondering what this is based on.

Well her condition resulted from heart failure due to bulimia. A person who literally barfs their way into a coma in order to look thin is probably not overly concerned about their health. Every bulimic I have ever met is at least verging on being outright suicidal, so I cannot imagine that she would want to be a potted plant for the next 30 years.

[RealGun]

It is easy to quickly get a belly full of these value judgment debates. I have read enough sanctimony for awhile. I found that too many overlooked the actual legal basis of the case and fell off the deep end with related moral issues. What I would have changed or would want to have been free to specify for myself would have been a lethal injection 15 years ago. Deprivation of fluids is a deliberate decision to kill someone (euthanasia). Might as well do it quickly.

As a matter of fact, if the duration of my lack of pulse was known, I wouldn't want the paramedics to revive me like they did Terry Schiavo, knowing perfectly well that they would be looking at irreversible brain damage. All this technology for prolonging life is often counterproductive or a way for relatives to delay facing the facts. I think decisions are made when people realize what continuing care is going to cost, and for what?

[horge]

Life is not solely defined by cognitive ability is it?
Sanctity of life ought to prevail, though it is sometimes trumped by the temporal right of self determination.

If Mrs. Schiavo expressed a desire not to be sustained in such a state, and such a last wish takes any primacy,
then there still could have been other means  --more humane means--  to release her.
They have all this technology to sustain her vital signs, but none to grant her a quick and dignified end?

[Andrew Wyatt]

I think it says something that removing an army captain is tried for murder to executing a greviously wounded iraqui (which is rather swift) while it seems perfectly okay to starve someone to death.

[RealGun]

A unilateral decision would be the problem with propriety. I think that was the essential problem with the assisted suicide controversy, aside from the pro-life debate.

[DustinD]

Why did he not allow any cameras in the room for the past 5 years  (that's correct all the video and images we saw were at least 5 years old.

If your family member was in the hospital in that situation would you allow them to be part of a media circus? I do not see how keeping her out of the circus act is evidence of any guilt or conspiracy.

There is nothing inhumane about starving someone without a functioning brain. Also it is the only legal method thanks to some people forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else.

[lwsimon]

As mankind acquires the means to prolong life farther and farther, there should be a mechanism in place to terminate one's own life.  Under no circumstances should a third party be allowed to decide when it is right for someone else to die.  Terri Shiavo's case was complex - I was not in the courtroom, I can't tell you is Michael was doing what he thought his wife wanted him to do - but if he was doing it for his own reasons, his just retribution will come in the next life.  There were plenty of appeals available, and the family simply could not come up with convincing evidence that Michael and the others that heard Terri say she didn't want to be maintained were lying.  Perhaps they were.  Any justice system WILL have failures, that's a fact.  Ours isn't infallible, but its pretty darn close.  

Now, starvation is just stupid in today's society.  Some of you cite the work of Heinlein in your sigs.  In "Time Enough for Love", Heinlein wrote about a society of people who lived extremely long, almost indefinate lives.  One of the primary rights of that society was the right to die.  Lethal injection is much more humane than starving someone.  Heck, a bullet is more humane than starving someone.  We have the technology to keep people alive with a non-functioning body, yet fully aware mentally.  This was NOT the case with Terri, but there are many people out there like this.  Think of Stephen Hawking.  His condition is getting worse and worse, but he still fights on.  Eventually, he will only be able to control the movements of his eyes, if that.  There should be a way, if he chose it, to end his pain.  

I don't know what the way is.  The key here is to make it impossible for someone else to decide "its your time".  That's why our laws are set up the way they are now, so people can't go offing their elderly relatives that are putting a financial burden on them.  Whatever method we use should be able to be triggered ONLY by the ailing party or someone explicity designated by them.

[Waitone]

Terri Shiavo's case was complex - I was not in the courtroom, I can't tell you is Michael was doing what he thought his wife wanted him to do - but if he was doing it for his own reasons, his just retribution will come in the next life.

Dead nuts on!  Problem is there exists people and organizations (including both in government) who will use what just happened as a way to normalize euthanasian (?sp).  And like all human endeavors it will be carried to an extreme.  It will be used as a solution to the impending health care crisis.  Decisions to terminate life will be taken from the person and family and handed to those in black robes.  "They've had a full live, and now is the time to let them go. . . ."  In my view every disabled person in this country had better be jumpy.  Every person in the boomer bulge ought to be paying attention because you are looking right into the face of a solution to the upcoming healthcare crisis.

Whether or not the courts did good and congress did bad remains for me to determine.  I want to see more facts of the case before I decide.  But what is crystal clear to me now is we as a society have crossed a line, for good or ill.  It will take time for me to determine if the reason was legit.

[Yooper]

All I know about the case is what I've read, but a few things seem clear enough.  Terry put herself (along with everyone else) in the position she was in.  Her husband, due to religious convictions, would/could not divorce her.  His religious convictions allowed him to start a new family, however.  Her parents became antagonistic toward the husband when they found out that they would not share in a settlement from a lawsuit.  It seems aparent that the parents' first concern is themselves, not Terry.  It seems that the husband's first concern is how he appears with respect to Terry, not Terry herself.  One could also argue that Terry wasn't all that concerned with Terry or anyone else.  Under these circumstances, why should I care?

[Chuck Jennings]

I honestly don't see the slippery slope here.  The court made a determination of what Terri's wishes were based on the best available evidence.  There was no line crossed that is going to normalize euthanasia.  The substantive and case law still upholds the rights of the patient.  It is up to everyone to make their wishes known!!

[crt360]

It seems that a lot of people are confused about the definitions and law surrounding this issue.  This isn't new stuff that some court fabricated out of thin air so a husband could pull the plug on his wife.  There is no slippery slope.  This happens every day, hundreds of times, families grieve and everyone goes on quietly about their own business.  If you have an issue with starvation and dehydration, you'd better let your attorney, family and health care provider know because artificial nutrition and hydration are defined as life-sustaining measures which may be withdrawn.  Since I'm from Texas, practice in Texas, and know a handful of others here are from Texas I will post this link to the Texas statutes on this matter:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm

On a lighter note, here is someone's idea of a new living will form that another attorney sent me:

I, _________________________ (fill in the blank), being of sound mind and body, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means.  Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of peckerwood politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if their lives depended on it.  If a reasonable amount of time passes and I fail to sit up and ask for a cold beer, it should be presumed that I won't ever get better.  When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my spouse, children and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes and call it a day.

Under no circumstances shall the members of the Legislature enact a special law to keep me on life-support machinery.  It is my wish that these boneheads mind their own damn business, and pay attention instead to the health, education and future of the millions of Americans who aren't in a permanent coma.

Under no circumstances shall any politicians butt into this case.  I don't care how many fundamentalist votes they're trying to scrounge for their run for the presidency in 2008; it is my wish that they play politics with someone else's life and leave me alone to die in peace.  I couldn't care less if a hundred religious zealots send e-mails to legislators in which they pretend to care about me.  I don't know these people, and I certainly haven't authorized them to preach and crusade on my behalf.  They should mind their own business too.

If any of my family goes against my wishes and turns my case into a political cause, I hereby promise to come back from the grave and make his or her existence a living hell.



 ____________________________________
                            Signature




 ____________________________________
                           Witness


____________________________________
                           Witness

[PaulV]

I guess it's out of the question that he loved her? And still does? If foul play is suspected, he is being a little stupid to have an autopsy done on her.

$750,000 of malpractice settlement that won't be spent on care/therapy can sure create a lot of "love".

An autopsy was required by law.  Sure makes the "grieving" hubby look good to "request" it.

[Sean Smith]

An autopsy was required by law.  Sure makes the "grieving" hubby look good to "request" it.

Conversely, it made a good lie to say that he opposed it because he hadn't asked for it.  Then when he asks for it, you then say it is meaningless because it was going to be done all along.  Which just goes to show that people are just twisting facts like a pretzel to "prove" their a priori judgements.

[Harold Tuttle]

i hope her soul is happier now that its not chained to an undead husk

15 years of existential torture are over, and Charon finally has his long promised passenger.

[cordex]

Don't know what Terri wanted, and frankly neither do any of you.

If she wanted to die when in that condition, then I'd say the right choice was made.  But if she really wanted to die, I'm not sure why so much time went by (what, 7 years?) before her good ol' hubby said "Oh yeah ... she said she didn't want to live like this."  I don't buy it.  If she said it, he should have brought it up immediately, even if saying "Let's wait a few years just to be sure, though."

I don't think Terri had any chance whatsoever of recovering, but don't believe she (or her "soul") was suffering by living in that state.  If you make the argument that she wouldn't suffer from two weeks of starvation, how can you make the argument that she was so miserable in her current state that she would want to die?  She didn't know what was happening ... period.  As long as her parents were willing to cover the expenses for her care, I think she should have been kept alive absent a clear declaration of her desire to die in those conditions.  If her hubby wanted to move on, fine.  Seems that he already had and had done so without her death.  I don't buy religious prohibition against divorce either ... he was schtupping some other broad and had kids by her.  Does he claim that his faith prohibits divorce but allows extra-marital affairs?  Yeah right, pal.

I feel sorry for the lady, but as much as her "will" was bandied about by both sides of this issue, I don't think it ever really entered into consideration.  Her parents were hanging onto the physical body of their daughter and would use any justification to do so.  Her husband wanted the body dead and gone and was willing to go to any lengths to make it happen.  Neither side gave a rodent's duodenum what Terri really wanted because I don't think either side really knew.