Terri Schiavo
 

I'm just wondering what you guys think of this whole thing? Its really one of the saddest situations I have ever heard of. I really dont even know which side I'm on; I understand both sides of the story. However, I think its rediculous that a court gets to decide if this woman lives or dies. I'm just throwing it out there too see what peoples thoughts are on this?

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

I've been wondering all day whether to post a thread on this. It's such a sensitive topic. I'm really torn on it but as you say why should the court be the ones to decide this

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

Yeah, I'm torn too. But, the courts need to decide the issue because it is about Terri's legal rights, her husband's right to speak for her, her parents' right to have any say about her medical care, and the general right to die under certain circumstances.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I've been wondering all day whether to post a thread on this. It's such a sensitive topic. I'm really torn on it but as you say why should the court be the ones to decide this[/QUOTE]

Its been a heated debate at my Yankees fans website. My only issue is that Bush and Congress (Dems and Repubs) overstepped their bounds by flying back in and wasting taxpayers money to write a law, that may be unconstitutional anyway. It is so hard to pry Bush away from his ranch in Crawford (even during Iraq War), but for Mrs Shiavo he hops on a plane late at night? There have been numerous court decisions on this and yet this keeps going until the one side gets a ruling they like. I don't really know jack about Mr and Mrs Shiavo, the parents, family, or friends, other than what we are hearing through the media. Neither does Bush or Congress, but there they were trying score political points. Between Terri Shaivo and steriods we've had one giant waste of taxpayer's money week!

When are Bush and Congress going to fly back in the middle of the night and fix health care? There's lots of people dying due to the crappy or non-existant health care they are currently receiving. If they are so "pro-life", then really prove it!

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

Courts shouldn't be ruling on moral issues and I'm glad they've stuck to their guns.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

I firmly believe in what her husband is doing. He's the person who is supposed to know her wishes on this type of matter the best and seems to be carrying them out. I know if I were in the place of this poor woman, I would hope that my family would do what I wish and let me go. Don't let me suffer or make those that I love suffer by having to see me like that and have to take care of me both mentally and emotionally but also financially. I can easily understand both sides of this situation, but every doctor involved in this case has said there is practically no chance at all for any type of recovery from her brain damage. The courts should not be getting involved in this decision and politicians should not be using this woman's suffering as a way to appease their constituents.
Sometimes it amazes me how fearful some extremely religious people are so afraid of a loved one being let go and passing on.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

I agree with skinsfanthru&thru!

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

They are also the same ones against stem cell research... VERY hypocritical.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

What I don't like about this situation is how the media is handling it...they make each side look bad. The husband is just out for the insurance money or the parents are too afraid to let go. Also, when the media keeps saying that without the feeding tube she is "starving to death", the media fails to mention that the doctors are doing everything they can to hydrate her and medicate her so that she does not feel the same effects as someone who is stuck in the middle of the desert with no food and water for two weeks. The media needs to step away from this one and let the families deal with it. I believe without all the media attention, the courts would not be as involved or neither would the President.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

I might not be that informed on this subject, but isn't this the same type of situation as something "pulling the plug"??

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]I might not be that informed on this subject, but isn't this the same type of situation as something "pulling the plug"??[/QUOTE]
No, 'pulling the plug' normally results in a near immediate death as the patient is being kept alive artificially on machines. Ms. Schindler-Shiavo's condition is more self sustaining than that. Her body is able to keep all the required organs working in order to maintain life. She cannot, though, feed herself and has a feeding tube surgically implanted through her abdomen. When they pull the plug in her case, she will starve to death.

I can understand all sides in this situation, believe it or not. Mr. Shiavo wants to move on with his life and carry out what he feels is his wife's unwritten living will by letting her die. The Schindler family wants to keep her alive in belief that she can make progress given proper treatment and therapy. I would imagine that their position also rests on the fact that it is very hard to 'give up and let go'.

It is a very hard decision, no matter which opinion you side with.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

Most definitely. Honestly, I couldn't imagine being in either side's position.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

[QUOTE=cpayne5]No, 'pulling the plug' normally results in a near immediate death as the patient is being kept alive artificially on machines. Ms. Schindler-Shiavo's condition is more self sustaining than that. Her body is able to keep all the required organs working in order to maintain life. She cannot, though, feed herself and has a feeding tube surgically implanted through her abdomen. When they pull the plug in her case, she will starve to death.

I can understand all sides in this situation, believe it or not. Mr. Shiavo wants to move on with his life and carry out what he feels is his wife's unwritten living will by letting her die. The Schindler family wants to keep her alive in belief that she can make progress given proper treatment and therapy. I would imagine that their position also rests on the fact that it is very hard to 'give up and let go'.

It is a very hard decision, no matter which opinion you side with.[/QUOTE]

Right now I am swaying towards Mr. Shiavo's side but if this were my daughter I would probably be the other way around. I don't think I could ever let my daughter just die. In fact, I know I would never let my daughter die if there was even the tiniest bit of hope.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

[QUOTE=cpayne5]No, 'pulling the plug' normally results in a near immediate death as the patient is being kept alive artificially on machines. Ms. Schindler-Shiavo's condition is more self sustaining than that. Her body is able to keep all the required organs working in order to maintain life. She cannot, though, feed herself and has a feeding tube surgically implanted through her abdomen. When they pull the plug in her case, she will starve to death.

I can understand all sides in this situation, believe it or not. Mr. Shiavo wants to move on with his life and carry out what he feels is his wife's unwritten living will by letting her die. The Schindler family wants to keep her alive in belief that she can make progress given proper treatment and therapy. I would imagine that their position also rests on the fact that it is very hard to 'give up and let go'.

It is a very hard decision, no matter which opinion you side with.[/QUOTE]

Yes, no matter what your position is or the outcome, there are no winners regardless of what happens.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

What the parents are contesting is not only the possibility that Terri's situation may improve, but also the possibility that Terri never told her husband she wanted to be disconnected from life support if she was in a vegetative state. The husband supposedly wants to pocket money he got in a malpractice suit that is contingent upon her never returning from her vegetative state. Moreover, the husband cannot marry his girlfriend of over one decade until Terri is dead. So, the parents say the husband is lying to get money and married. Whether their allegations are true is subject to endless debate.

As for the court ruling on "moral issues," I think for one the Court should rule on moral issues. It does so every single day - whether its immoral to sentence to death minors or the mentally retarded, etc. Moreover, it's not just about moral issues; it's about who has the right to tell doctors to severe the life support for another person. That's a pretty serious issue.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

the husband honestly probably knows her wishes better... the things a mess, and one of the big problems is that euthanasia is so frowned upon in this country... sometimes its time to go... a living will would have prevented this, but even though they're important things to have, very few people write them. Congress should have stayed a million miles away from this... I think what they've done is really disgusting (hey look, i'm a champion of the ill cause it'll help me get re-elected, but i couldn't tell you the name of this woman'ss mother, how long she's been married, her favorite color or anything else that'd prove i actually knew her :P bite me.)

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

I do not agree how this country looks upon euthanasia. I mean we, as humans, take better care of our pets than we do ourselves. I am not sure about everyone but if my dog was terminally ill, I would have a vet do the right thing and end my dogs suffering, meanwhile my poor grandmother has to lie in a hospitle bed suffering just waiting to die, I know that this might sound morbid but its true.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

My thought on the situation is this.... she should be kept alive today; weather that is what she wanted or not. It should have been in writing and she should have signed a DNR or somthing. I just think if the is that one little off-chance that the husband is not telling the truth about this; it would be absolutley shameful. In addition, like Cpayne pointed out; its not like an "Immediate Death", this sucks. Shes been without food and water for seven days!! What the hell is that??? God I dont even know what side of the fence I'm on, but this situation is awful. I think awareness should be increased(and by this case it proboly is) about having a living will, incase somthing like that happened to you or a loved one. I could never imagine living like that. I feel awful for her parents too; just watching your kid die like that, truly terrible.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

Living wills are a difficult thing to think about but they are very important. My family went through that with my dad this past fall (luckily he's better now) but it was pretty gut-wrenching to sit at the dinner table with my family every week and talk about what to do should the need arise.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

The problem is, she is a human being and you can't euthanize a human. The other problem is, she would most likely live on life support until her dying days... The type of death she is suffering right now is a slow one.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

The big question, in my mind, is whether or not she actually is suffering? I'm sure she's aware, but does she feel the pain?

If it we're me in her situation I'd want people to remove the tubes very soon. I simply don't feel that a partial recovery, which would be rare to none, would be worth the pain and suffering of my family for years upon years.

I agree with the majority of the posters that a living will is the only way to go. There's a time when you just need to let people go. I distinctly remember my whole family standing around my grandfathers hospital bed at Walter Reed, and just telling him it was okay to go. The next morning he passed away, and though we were sad -- we were also relieved that his suffering was over.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

My problem with her husband making this decision is three-fold.

1) He didn't remember her "wish to die" until after he became engaged to another woman (with whom he is living and has two children).

2) He refuses any tests (even though he wouldn't have to pay for them) that would confirm or refute her Persistant Vegetative State.

3) During the malpractice suits he filed (and won) he claimed all the monies would go toward her care, and his doctors estimated her life span to be for many years from now. He now wants to "carry out her wishes" with money still in the bank.

I'm pro-euthanasia, I believe in the right-to-die with dignity, and wish Congress and the courts could have stayed out of a messy situation. I just don't think he has his wife's best interests at heart.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

it is definitely a mess that i am glad not to be a part of. not sure how i would handle it if i was on either side of the coin...

i despise Jeb Bush for sticking his nose in it (he is now trying to push to have state custody placed upon Terri Schiavo, so that the tube can be re-inserted), and i despise Congress getting in the middle of it as well. the Florida courts have made their case over and over again...

[url]http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html[/url]
i found this site to be pretty unbiased when it comes to this case, as the author of the blog states he is more interested in the laws pertaining to the case than the case itself.

in listening to Elliot in the Morning today...i found it very ironic that her heart attack was partially based on the fact that she was bulimic, yet they are fighting over whether to continue to feed her or not...

i also don't buy that the husband still has any money...whether or not he kept it for himself (supposedly the malpractice suit split the monies, 750k went to Terri and 300k went to Michael), he still has extensive legal fees and such. it is a bit odd that he first wanted the tube removed when he met his current girlfriend.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

Life is precious and we as humans don't haev the right to extinguish it. Ms. Schiavo had no living will and therefore it is basically Mr. Schiavo's word versus the parents. In that case since we cannot know beyond all doubt her intentions we cannot morally allow this woman to starve to death. It is sad that it has come to this.
[QUOTE=skinsfanthru&thru]Sometimes it amazes me how fearful some extremely religious people are so afraid of a loved one being let go and passing on.[/QUOTE]
I am probably not the only one who finds this statement overtly offensive. First off are we even sure the Schindler's are strongly religious? I am not sure whether they are or aren't but either way it is irrelevant. The foundation for one's opinion on this type of issue doesn't have any relevance upon the validity of said opinion. They are her parents and they honestly don't feel that they should let her be killed by starvation. Why should they? The woman isn't suffering in her current life style so depriving her of food is killing her.

Your statement insinuates something negative about people who have strong religious values. Whish is woefully misguided. You are entitled to believe what you want but don't belittle someone else's beliefs. Just because these so called "extremely religous people" value life unconditionally doesn't mean they are "fearful". They respect life and believe you, I and they shouldn't have a hand in granting it or not.

By the way...I would never in a billion years allow my daughter to be starved to death without her expressed consent to be allowed to die in these type of situations. She is the most important part of my life and as long as she is not suffering I would do ANYTHING to keep her alive. You could ask anybody who knows me, I am not an "extremely religious" person either.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

I am in no way belittling anyone's religious beliefs, so don't start putting words in my mouth or misconstrueing(sp?) my statement. Through my life expiriences I have met many religious people who speak of how glorious it is to be with God and that is the greatest gift that can be bestowed upon someone when their time has come, but yet seem to become somewhat hypocritical when a situation arises when someone they know is being taken away from them. I recently had to go through something of a similar situation with my Grandmother before christmas, but because we knew she wanted to be at peace with my grandfather away from the pain, we let her go when it came time to make that choice.

I was just stating how fearful some people of faith suddenly become when someone they love might soon be gone and I can understand them not wanting her to go or go suffering, but if they are as devote in their faith as they claim, why are they so reluctant to let her be at peace? I'm in no way trying to start a religious argument or trying to "belittle" anyone's beliefs so don't make it out to be that I was. I am sorry if I offended anyone with my previous statement but that was not my intent, it was just a statement of life events that I have personally witnessed.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

Didn't mean to get argumentative.

I think the error in your statement comes from using the term "religious people" or "people of faith". I don't think not letting go is contained to that group of people. I would say that for those people they believe the only person who can decide the question of life or death would that person explicitly. The Schaivo case no longer has anything do with Terri's wishes. We don't even know her wishes honestly. Both the parents and the husband hate each other and there are legitimate reasons to doubt the sincerity of Mr. Schaivo at the very least. Not to mention that now the political sides have turned this into a take-no-prisoners battleground that is totally disprespectful of Ms. Schaivo.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

Here's a good link...

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050324/ts_usatoday/schiavonotlikelytoexperienceapainfuldeathneurologistssay[/url]

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

Living wills are not as strong as one thinks. The woman is being feed only. Big difference then artificle LIFE support. Life should be allowed to run it's natural couse.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

Argument #1: If life were running it's natural course in Terri's case, she would die of starvation because she is incapable of feeding herself. So if we're sticking to God's plan (in the case of a religious argument) he apparently wanted her to die by starvation. He was ready to take her soul to a better place, but we here on Earth are keeping her here by feeding her.

Argument #2: It was God's plan for Terri to fall into a vegetative state and for us here on Earth to keep her alive in that state indefinitely. By removing the feeding tube, we're going against God's wishes for her to remain alive. He'll take her soul when he's good and ready, and until then we should keep her alive.

As you can see, those are two completely conflicting viewpoints based on varying perceptions of what God's plans are. Problem is, NOBODY KNOWS what God's real plan is for her. So in my opinion, basing any decision regarding Terri's life on religion is completely wrong. Religion needs to stay out of the equation, because religion is open to too many interpretations.

I also don't care if the husband is a sleezebag. He probably is a sleezebag, and that's why the parents needed to step in to begin with. If he was a good guy, the parents and him probably could have sat down and worked things out. But the bottom line is this case went to the courts and by a preponderance of the evidence it was revealed that dying was what Terri would have wanted. When it comes down to it, the parents could not present any evidence that Terri would have wanted to live in this state. The husband was able to make his case, and the courts ruled that Terri would have wanted to die. That's the bottom line, this case should be decided based on what she would have wanted.

It's heart wrenching for her to have to die this way. But from a purely scientific standpoint, her brain is already dead. She's just a ball of neurological reflexes at this point. You could argue that there is a soul in there, but that would be a religious argument, open to too many interpretations, and has no place in our court system.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

Philosophical questions at work here:

Is there a soul inside Terri Schiavo?

If there is a soul, is it a tortured soul that can't wait to get to heaven? Or is it a soul that is content to stay here on Earth while on a feeding tube?

Is there a God?

If there is a God, is it His plan for Terri to die of starvation? Or is it His plan to have us keep her alive until he's ready to take her?

People may think they know the answer to the above questions, but the fact is they don't. These are things you BELIEVE in, and beliefs are personal.

The final philosophical question:
How do you know your beliefs are right?

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Philosophical questions at work here:

Is there a soul inside Terri Schiavo?

If there is a soul, is it a tortured soul that can't wait to get to heaven? Or is it a soul that is content to stay here on Earth while on a feeding tube?

Is there a God?

If there is a God, is it His plan for Terri to die of starvation? Or is it His plan to have us keep her alive until he's ready to take her?

People may think they know the answer to the above questions, but the fact is they don't. These are things you BELIEVE in, and beliefs are personal.

The final philosophical question:
How do you know your beliefs are right?[/QUOTE]

Nice. Good questions all.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]I also don't care if the husband is a sleezebag. He probably is a sleezebag, and that's why the parents needed to step in to begin with. If he was a good guy, the parents and him probably could have sat down and worked things out. But the bottom line is this case went to the courts and by a preponderance of the evidence it was revealed that dying was what Terri would have wanted. When it comes down to it, the parents could not present any evidence that Terri would have wanted to live in this state. The husband was able to make his case, and the courts ruled that Terri would have wanted to die. That's the bottom line, this case should be decided based on what she would have wanted.

It's heart wrenching for her to have to die this way. But from a purely scientific standpoint, her brain is already dead. She's just a ball of neurological reflexes at this point. You could argue that there is a soul in there, but that would be a religious argument, open to too many interpretations, and has no place in our court system.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more. I haven't been following the situation too closely but hope it is a situation I never have to face.

As others have said, it is a shame that 1) The parents and the husband couldn't work it out; 2) An extremely personal decision (BTW - I mean Terri's decision) required the intervention of a 3rd party mediator (the judicial system); and 3) the decision has become politicized and the focal point of groups whose interests are only tangentially related to the real wishes of Ms. Schiavo.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Philosophical questions at work here:

Is there a soul inside Terri Schiavo?

If there is a soul, is it a tortured soul that can't wait to get to heaven? Or is it a soul that is content to stay here on Earth while on a feeding tube?

Is there a God?

If there is a God, is it His plan for Terri to die of starvation? Or is it His plan to have us keep her alive until he's ready to take her?

People may think they know the answer to the above questions, but the fact is they don't. These are things you BELIEVE in, and beliefs are personal.

The final philosophical question:
How do you know your beliefs are right?[/QUOTE]

That was deep! With this and your cap knowledge you're like Socrates meets Milton Friedman!

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]But the bottom line is this case went to the courts and by a preponderance of the evidence it was revealed that dying was what Terri would have wanted. When it comes down to it, the parents could not present any evidence that Terri would have wanted to live in this state. The husband was able to make his case, and the courts ruled that Terri would have wanted to die.[/QUOTE]
Woah... not really. Neither side has been able to present any concrete eveidence either way. In cases like this the hudicial is supposed to determine what the person would want "as best they can" . This is where the real argument is coming down. There are those who say to side with life becasue we don't know fro an absolute fact what she wanted. And there are those who seem to simple want to believe Mr. Schiavo blindly and have her starved to death.

You do realize that two independent investigators for the state determined that there was no evidence either way what her wishes were? These are two people with no stake in this and they were both ignored. Why were they ignored? They were ignored because of the rule of law. The rule of law in this case has been applied correctly throughout it seems. The arguments are therefore only philosophical. This is going to lead to a new rule of law down the line I am betting.

Also...on a philosophical note I would argue that is should not be the parents who have to prove that she would have wanted to die. It should be Michael Schiavo's responsibility to prove she would want to die.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Also...on a philosophical note I would argue that is should not be the parents who have to prove that she would have wanted to die. It should be Michael Schiavo's responsibility to prove she would want to die.[/QUOTE]

See this is what I get for talking before I get all the facts. I agree with this analysis. It seems to me anyone asserting that the incapacitated person wished to die should bear the burden of proof. From Schneed's earlier post, I thought this had happened.

FRPLG - If a judge or jury ruled that the husband credibly testified to the fact that Mrs. Schiavo wanted to die, then he probably did meet his burden of proof if it was by a mere preponderance regardless of the independent investigators.

A related question: what is the burden of proof someone should have to satisfy in cases where the incapacitated individual's decision is disputed: Mere preponderance? Beyond a reasonable doubt? or something in between?

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

This is a perfect example of why stem cell rsearch is needed.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]A related question: what is the burden of proof someone should have to satisfy in cases where the incapacitated individual's decision is disputed: Mere preponderance? Beyond a reasonable doubt? or something in between?[/QUOTE]

It's technically a civil case (one party suing another for monetary damages, custody of a house or children in a divorce case, or legal right to guardianship as is the case here), which needs only a preponderance of the evidence. The very nature of the lawsuit (one on one, you either find for the defendant or for the plaintiff) requires that you go with the preponderance of the evidence. The point to make here is that Michael Schiavo was not legally required to show that his wife's wishes were to die in these circumstances, because by default the spouse is considered the legal guardian and is responsible for making the decision in this case. If Terri had a living will, then the decision would be made, but since there was no living will the decision falls in the hands of the legal guardian. The question isn't what burden of proof is needed regarding her wishes, the question at hand is what burden of proof is needed regarding Michael Schiavo's incapability as legal guardian. The crux of the lawsuit was that Terri's parents had to show that her husband was unfit to be her legal guardian. They wanted to be granted the legal right to be her guardian so that they could make the decision regarding her life.

Now, I'm not arguing what the ethical responsibility is, because that can go either way, and depends on the personal belief system I was rapping about before. I just mean to clarify the legal situation at hand. If you're put into a vegetative state, or if you're being kept alive by life support, and you have no living will, then the decision legally falls into the hands of your spouse. If you don't like that idea, you better get a living will, because the only way to prevent your spouse from being in charge of your life is having someone prove that your spouse is unfit to make that decision.

Whether Michael Schiavo was unfit to make that decision is up to debate, but one thing is for sure, Terri's parents couldn't provide any evidence that he is unfit.

Personally, I don't think anything needs to change with the legal system. It's this simple, if you trust your spouse to make the right decision for you, then you don't need a living will. If you don't trust your spouse, then you need to get a living will.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

Nice post Schneed. Thanks for the run down. As is often the case in hotly disputed cases, at its most basic level, this comes down to two competing issues which are "foundational' to many people believe system.

The sanctity of marriage - in that a spouse is given priority in making choices for an absent or otherwise incapacitated spouse.

Versus the right to life.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

I personally trust my wife to make the call for me. I've told her before that I'd want to be given about one year to see if I snapped out of whatever coma I was in or whatever. After that, I'd say go ahead and pull the plug.

I think she'd carry out those wishes for me if the situation ever presented itself. Then again, maybe it'd be better to get a living will anyway, because then if my parents didn't want the plug pulled, my wife could point to a document in writing saying this is what he wanted.

Would make everything so much easier.

Re: Terri Schiavo
 

living wills are not as strong as one may thin-do some research in regards to them