"Persistent vegetative state," while not the same as a coma or brain death, still means no cognitive function. The lights are on but nobody's home. The person who was Ms. Schiavo no longer exists, and, medical experts agree, never will. Her family should have mourned her loss years ago and moved on. Her death by "benign neglect" is not immoral, epecially if it is in accordance with her stated wishes while she was lucid. Only right-to-life nuts would dare call it "murder."
In any case, Congress has no business interfering (apparently for no other purpose than grandstanding for their conservative constituents). Doesn't Congress have a more pressing agenda?! Don't they know that there are no legal precedents for overriding state and judicial sovereignty in such matters? *************************************************** *************************************************** 03-20-05, 04:39 PM Vixen I agree with Professor's post. I was amazed when I heard on the news that the American Government, and even the President, are getting involved in this!
Making the decision to have the feeding tube removed must have been a very difficult one for her husband. All the demonstrations and State interference can only be upsetting him more. Doctors have said that Terri Schiavo will not return to any semblance of a normal life, so why prolong the agony for everyone?
03-20-05, 04:53 PM edgeview I agree with Professor. I am sort of a right to lifer. I don't agree with abortion unless my daughter needs one. But I am also a right to die-er. I have a living will so that this will never happen to me. I want the right to die.
03-20-05, 05:01 PM shelster Yup, agree completely with Professor. The whole thing is a mess, and congress needs to stay out of medical issues.
03-20-05, 05:25 PM FredPuli First question from "Confused of Europe" Wink : One report here says that the Supreme Court would not intervene at all, by which is meant that they would not hear the case, if I read it aright. If so, why not? (What have I misread or misunderstood here ? Confused)
Second question : Why does it require a new law ? This bill is intended just for this one case. Evidently there are technicalities whereby the bill is so made but without naming names, by the sound of it. It is to address one case and one question, of whether or not this woman's feeding tube is to be, or stay, removed. What do you have judges and appeal courts for, if it is not to decide individual cases ?
Third question: Why such a cumbersome procedure? It requires that no legislator votes against the bill before the action proposed in it can be carried out. Appellate courts could hear the case the same day, within hours or minutes, if only to make an interim order to keep the tube in, and a decision very shortly, any further appeal included.
03-20-05, 06:30 PM Kelleygirl My God, isn't 15 years of this enough? Her parents, understandably, don't want to give up but they are in denial believing that she will ever have any recovery. And why the politicians have to enter the picture is ridiculous. First, it was W's brother Jeb and then to the rescue --Tom DeLay who is so involved in his own graft with all kinds of illegal junkets, that he could easily find himself indicted at any time. So he needs a plan to make it appear that he is some kind of hero and so he's jumped on the soap box. And now it's W's turn --what a righteous crowd! (And these are some of the same people who cry "we need government to stay out of our private lives"?) This, in fact, is a procedure that is done often without the lords of the manor sounding off. Terry, supposedly, told her husband and her friends that she would not want to be kept alive in such a manner; let's respect her wishes and put a stop to this three ring circus that's been created to benefit everyone but Terry Schiavo.
03-20-05, 07:17 PM frankvan Tom DeLay, Geo W. Bush, and assorted nuts. Hey, what more needs to be said?? This so-called "murder" takes place in hospices every day without any interference or political grandstanding. Roll Eyes
03-20-05, 10:06 PM jusork Yeah, if she's not going to get any better while in this state, there's no reason to prolong. I was listening to a right-winger on TV talk against it and he seemed as if he thought she would get better. Hmmm. Roll Eyes
03-21-05, 05:54 AM shelster I am kinda wondering when all these politians got their medical degrees?
I just found out all my guys here in PA, except one voted FOR the law to re-insert the tube.
Surgical reinsertion...now THATS compassion...
In her case, the insertion site may be fairly easy to reaccess because of scar tissue etc, but if not, they have to poke another hole in her belly.
This is awful.
03-21-05, 08:18 AM frankvan Shelster, I don't think they actually remove the tube, it stays in and the accessible end is just closed off. I believe it has already been repeated more than once, thanks to crown-prez Jeb, heir presumptive. Wink
03-21-05, 09:08 AM Kendor When I saw this thread I thought I'd open it up and read all kinds of tearjerking crap about why they should keep her alive, and I was going to rebut loudly. Now I see that I am far from alone in thinking that this has gone on long enough. My apologies.
EVERYONE close to the case is burdened by this hopeless biological maintenance. Most of all, Terri.
03-21-05, 09:08 AM shelster I hadn't thought of that frank, they just keep talking about removing the tube, so I assumed, a complete removal.
Of course, as many times as this has been going on in court, it would make more sense just to leave the thing there, but capped off. (another source for infection)
03-21-05, 09:40 AM Fritzzs
quote: Persistent vegetative state," while not the same as a coma or brain death, still means no cognitive function. The lights are on but nobody's home
As quoted by the Professor...
I agree with the professor except for one thing...Her brain IS dead...Terri Schivo has no brain left.. It is soaked with Spinal fluid and has been rendered totally and permanently USELESS....Her "smile" is a permanent facial fixture 24 hours a day...She has only a body that can do the basic bodily functions..
This is the most blatent, obscene,disgusting and what every description one could use to call this episode of Terri Schiavo nothing more than political bull crap...What is happening is absolutly political motivated..
Congress has NO business interferring in a States right... Congress business is to make laws ... This is where Libertarian side in me comes to the surface..
Hopefull the Federal Judge this afternoor will either refuse to hear the case, or rule that the tube stays out... \ Nuff said...
03-21-05, 01:08 PM gizmogram I feel for her parents but as a parent, I cannot believe that they think she could possibly WANT to live this way. I know I wouldn't want to.
A very good example of why a living will and DNR order is necessary. 03-22-05, 01:22 AM honilov Terri's feeding tube should be removed and the political nuts need to switch roles with her.
03-22-05, 05:53 AM Fritzzs The Judge, about 20 minutes ago stated that the tube CANNOT BE INSERTED AGAIN.....
Hopefully this nonsense is over...
03-22-05, 06:13 AM shelster Good!
Thank you Fritzzs
03-22-05, 08:58 AM Georgia85 Denial of nutrients and water seems like inhumane treatment and I for one am aghast that there is such a large support for such an action. We can never know what she is experiencing inside her shell. Imagine if she can feel the slow pain that comes from starvation. Apparently it is not her time to go or she would have passed away 5 years ago. I realize I am the 1 percent on the boards that feels this way. I am merely posting my opinion, not posting to be berated are chastized for feeling the way that I do.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2037 | Location: U.S. | Registered: 06-03-02
Georgia, I can appreciate your thoughts on this. I have seen many cancer patients die without food or water, and none of them ever showed any discomfort from the lack of water or food.
From another site, I couldn't have said it better myself:
quote:
First, one cannot "starve to death." One simply starves--starvation is the act of dying through lack of nourishment.
But that's semantics. Schiavo has no cerebral cortex, and thus cannot conceptualize pain. Not that starvation produces pain, anyway. Starvation produces discomfort and malaise--which are conceptualized in the cerebral cortex.
Even if there was pain associated with it, according to the news reports I've read, physicians are applying palliative measures (i.e., painkillers) to ameliorate any discomfort that could be felt, had she a functioning cerebral cortex.
The only "pain" Schiavo can feel is associated with her autonomic nervous system--the same system that prompts her to eyes to blink, her heart to beat, etc.--and this isn't pain how conscious, aware humans conceive it.
This is a private issue between a husband and his wife. Unless someone can prove with a preponderance of evidence that Terry Schiavo wished to have extraordinary measures applied to keep her alive in a persistent vegetative state, the argument ends there.
The husband has the right to make medical decisions on her behalf. This right has been affirmed--specific to this case--by 17 different courts. It's absolute hypocrisy that so many Republicans--particularly those who advocate minimalist government intervention in private lives--are irresponsibly wielding legislative power just to keep this woman's feeding tube in.
**************************************************** 03-22-05, 10:42 AM Georgia85 It is highly disputed as to whether someone in PVS experiences pain or not. Paul Schotsman, a Dutch medical ethicist, notes that if PVS patients experienced pain it would "fundamentally change the discussion of the withdrawal or withholding of nutritin and hydration." (Paul Schotsmans, "The Patient in a Persistent Vegetative State. An Ethical Re-Appraisal)
The confident assertion that PVS patients cannot suffer or experience pain is premature. Replying to a letter noting this, the Multi-Society Task Force on PVS (MSTF) admitted that "a minority" of neurologists believe some PVS patients could be conscious, and "an even smaller minority" maintain PVS patients experience pain and suffering.
According to the MSTF, patients in PVS show no evidence of awareness or thinking, and do not communicate. None of their actions appear purposeful, learned or voluntary. However, the brain stem often functions normally in PVS, allowing a much greater range of activities than seen in related syndromes. Most patients in PVS continue to breathe on their own, circulate blood normally, have periods of waking and sleeping, may move their limbs, smile, shed tears and respond to external stimuli. Some may grunt, groan or scream.
It is important to remember that someone in PVS is not brain dead. In total brain death all brain functions cease. There is no sleep-wake cycles and no spontaneous respiration. However, PVS is similiar to "locked-in" syndrome which is when a person is almost completely paralyzed yet can move their eyes to show consciousness. So, are PVS patients unconscious? It's a common assumption by the MSTF who state that patients in a vegetative state are unconsious because, although wakeful, lack awareness. But there is no way to determine this as there is no way to monitor consciousness. There is a lack of behavioral evidences for consciousness with the absense of consciousness. There is proof of motor activities amongst those in PVS...which led A.A. Howsepian, MD to state "of course, if these movements are purposeful, then there is evidence of psychological awareness im some of these patients.(A. A. Howsepian, "The 1994 Multi-Society Task Force Consensus Statement on the Persistent Vegetative State: A Critical Analysis,")
So back to the initial topic...did you know that some patients in PVS can chew and swallow food on their own? (Maureen Tudor, "Persistent Vegetative State: Some Clinical Observations") For those dependent on a feeding tube for their nourishment, is artificially administered food and water considered ordinary care? Or extraordinary care? Ordinary care is generally viewed as obligatory. Some view food and fluids, even those artificially administered, as ordinary because they are basic to survival, and symbolic of care and comfort. Others view artificially administered food and fluids as extraordinary because they are medical technologies and, in PVS, do not heal or lead to improvement in the patient's status.
So if a patient's quality of life is poor, it's up the the courts, doctors, family, etc to see no obligation to continue feeding and hydrating? If PVS patients are actually dead, there should be little argument over withholding or withdrawing their food and fluids. But they are not.
03-22-05, 10:46 AM Fritzzs I do not think that starving to death is all that inhuman... I remember reading stories of POW's from WW11 who when rescued weight less than 90 pounds.. They stated that after a lenght of time they did not
03-22-05, 10:48 AM shelster Again, I have seen people, many people, pass away after not having food or water for a week. It was not a difficult death. They were coherant and could tell their family and nurses if they were uncomfortable.
Besides, if this is the case, there are medications to make her more comfortable.
03-22-05, 03:45 PM doñadiana I didn't vote on this because I simply do not know what is the right answer. We are being fed so much (mis)information based strictly on emotions that I doubt that any of us are really qualified to make a decision. However, there are some questions that bother me on both sides of the question.
1) We have been seeing the same pictures on TV of the balloon and Terri following it with her eyes, etc. How old are these pictures? I wonder what her real condition is at this moment. Are we being led to believe that she is more responsive than she actually is?
2) Her husband says that she once said that she would never want to be kept alive artificially or something of the sort. No witnesses. But even if she said it, it is easy to say things when you are young and healthy and don't really believe it to be a possibility. I don't think that it is a valid point for making a life and death decision in the absence of witnesses or something in writing.
3) Have her parents (especially mother) sacrificed the other children on the altar of devotion to Terri and the cause of keeping her alive?
4) Why doesn't the husband just divorce her and pass custody to the parents? He already has another wife and family. I can't believe that the Catholic church can't find some grounds to annul the marriage. They have done it for less valid reasons. This would leave her parents free to devote the rest of their lives to her if that is what they want to do.
I suppose that the bottom line is this; if she really is brain-dead then she will not suffer from the effects of the tube being removed; if she begins to show physical distress or signs of suffering from the starvation, then she isn't as brain-dead as some seem to think and the tube should be re-inserted immediately.
DD
03-22-05, 04:13 PM doñadiana
quote:
Originally posted by FredPuli: First question from "Confused of Europe" : One report here says that the Supreme Court would not intervene at all, by which is meant that they would not hear the case, if I read it aright. If so, why not? (What have I misread or misunderstood here ? )
All I know is what I hear on TV also, but it seems that the State governments are supposed to have jurisdiction over these cases rather than the Federal government. The Southern States seceded in 1860 and a bloody civil war was fought because they felt that the Federal government was trampling on States Rights. So you have to understand that this is a very serious matter.
Second question : Why does it require a new law ? This bill is intended just for this one case. Evidently there are technicalities whereby the bill is so made but without naming names, by the sound of it. It is to address one case and one question, of whether or not this woman's feeding tube is to be, or stay, removed. What do you have judges and appeal courts for, if it is not to decide individual cases ? Evidently there is already a precedent that says you do not dedicate a bill to a specific person. Congress is also worried that the bill might be used by unscrupulous lawyers to keep criminals on deathrow from being executed, so they are quite concerned that it be worded in the way that reflects the purpose for which it is intended and nothing more.
Third question: Why such a cumbersome procedure? It requires that no legislator votes against the bill before the action proposed in it can be carried out. Appellate courts could hear the case the same day, within hours or minutes, if only to make an interim order to keep the tube in, and a decision very shortly, any further appeal included.
I suspect that there is something quasi-legal or perhaps even illegal about this whole thing and that is why the legislators are dragging their feet. It is a case of emotion vs. legality. Maybe Methos can give a more accurate answer.
03-22-05, 08:36 PM Kelleygirl And now behind the politicians, come the Hollywood stars' (from the right) pleas. On "Entertainment Tonight", the show today was about stars Patricia Heaton ("Everyone Loves Raymond"), Pat Boone, Mel Gibson, and Randy Travis have become vocally opposed to the rulings made by the court to remove said feeding tube. Ms. Heaton has criticized Michael Schiavo saying that the actions he's taken were for his purposes not Terry's. Wonder if she knows that an attorney from the Keys offered Michael a mere $10MM to give up custody of Terry to her parents; Michael refused saying that he is going to stand by Terry's wishes to die.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kelleygirl, 03-22-05 11:18
03-22-05, 10:49 PM Professor Georgia85 makes some good points. But
quote:
It's a common assumption by the MSTF who state that patients in a vegetative state are unconsious because, although wakeful, lack awareness. But there is no way to determine this as there is no way to monitor consciousness.
...might be hard to defend in the face of flat-line cortical EEG activity.
There's an interesting and well-documented commentary in Slate that portrays the parents as cluelessly in denial. A rather sober medical-ethical discussion appears in New England Journal of Medicine. It says
quote:
The trial court judge ruled that the diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state met the legal standard of “clear and convincing” evidence, and this decision was reviewed and upheld by the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. Subsequent appeals to the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court were denied a hearing.
and concludes that
quote:
If the data about the patient’s wishes are not clear, then in the absence of public policy or family consensus, we should err on the side of continued treatment even in cases of a persistent vegetative state in which there is no hope of recovery. But if the evidence is clear, as the courts have found in the case of Terri Schiavo, then enforcing life-prolonging treatment against what is agreed to be the patient’s will is both unethical and illegal.
03-23-05, 09:49 AM Georgia85 Donadiana - just to clarify something you commented on:
"Why doesn't the husband just divorce her and pass custody to the parents? He already has another wife and family."
He actually is not married but he is living with a women with whom he has fathered 2 children. He cannot divorce Terri because she is cannot consent to a divorce nor sign papers. There have been cases where the guardian of an incompetant patient has filed for divorce on the patient's behalf (Murray v. Murray 310 S.C. 336, 426 S.E.2d 781 (1993)) but Supreme Court ruling now states that a divorce action cannot be maintained unless the plaintiff "is capable of exercising reasonable judgment as to his/her personal decisions, is able to understand the nature of the action and is able to express unequivocally a desire to dissolve the marriage." 03-23-05, 10:17 AM doñadiana Georgia, I didn't know about that. Seems like a catch 22 situation. I am not surprised that the husband wants to put an end to the situation. It is very sad that it has had to come to this point.
DD
03-23-05, 11:09 AM DvdGStwrt Not only should they pull the tube (and leave it out) they should also make a deadly cocktail of sedatives and poison and end this now.
03-23-05, 04:33 PM Fritzzs Shhhhhhhh... Thats the next step if everything else fails.....
03-24-05, 12:17 PM shelster We talked about this at work last night, again. Its a hot topic on my unit because we deal with end of life issues all the time.
What I find to be quite ironic, is the whole reason Terry is in this state is because she had an EATING disorder. She was either anorexic or bulemic, which threw her potassium off, damaging her heart and causing the heart attack. How can people even begin to argue she didn't want to starve? When her starving herself is the direct cause?
Also, one of the things people are saying is that Michael is just in it for the money...well why did he refuse a $1 million dollar offer to turn care of Terry over to her parents?
The videos they show of her having reactions, are years old. I wonder how many videos equally as strong for no reaction there could be, if Michael felt like violating Terrys right to privacy and dignity? Her parents are being very disrespectful.
I wonder how long it will be before they write a book or sue the government? Who is in it for the money?
03-24-05, 12:28 PM shelster
quote: When it comes to end of life care and our interventions lose the prospect of cure and become steps which can affect only the method of dying rather than the actuality of dying, we must as you have suggested consider better and worse ways to die. The assertion above that death by dehydration entails terrible suffering is completely wrong. Dehydration leads to kidney shut down resulting in the buildup in the system of a chemical called urea--a condition known as uremia. Uremia is painless. It brings about a gradual loss of consciousness and a peaceful slip into death.
Starvation is much worse but takes much longer. Thus, if one were to provide fluids but not nourishment one would then consign the person to death by starvation while depriving them of the opportunity to die peacefully from uremia. Look at it this way: God, or nature, whatever, made sure that when a disease takes away the ability to eat or drink, which is one common way disease causes death, one dies softly from dehydration long before one has the opportunity to painfully starve to death unless some misguided caregiver (or misguided patient wish) maintains hydration only thereby ensuring continued painful consciousness while doing nothing to prevent the ultimate result of death.
As to the comment above about needing morphine to treat pain, that is obviously pain caused by the underlying disease, not the absence of hydration. Dehydration does not cause pain. It causes uremia which gradually eases pain.
When it comes to a point when all we can do is influence the ultimate method of dying, dehydration is actually frequently a preferable alternative and not an inherently painful one.
03-24-05, 01:52 PM Georgia85 At age 33, Kate Adamson collapsed from a devastating and incapacitating stroke. She was utterly unresponsive and was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Because of a bowel obstruction she developed, her nourishment was stopped so that doctors could perform surgery.
Adamson eventually recovered sufficiently to author "Kate's Journey: Triumph Over Adversity," in which she tells the terrifying tale. Rather than being unconscious with no chance of recovery as her doctors believed, she was actually awake and aware but unable to move any part of her body voluntarily. (This is known as a "locked-in state.") When she appeared recently on "The O'Reilly Factor," host Bill O'Reilly asked Adamson about the dehydration experience:
O'REILLY: When they took the feeding tube out, what went through your mind? ADAMSON: When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I thought I was going insane. I was screaming out in my mind, "Don't you know I need to eat?" And even up until that point, I had been having a bagful of Ensure as my nourishment that was going through the feeding tube. At that point, it sounded pretty good. I just wanted something. The fact that I had nothing, the hunger pains overrode every thought I had.
O'REILLY: So you were feeling pain when they removed your tube?
ADAMSON: Yes. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. To say that--especially when Michael [Schiavo] on national TV mentioned last week that it's a pretty painless thing to have the feeding tube removed--it is the exact opposite. It was sheer torture, Bill.
Dehydration: The mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material. The lips would become parched and cracked. The tongue would swell, and might crack. The eyes would recede back into their orbits and the cheeks would become hollow. The lining of the nose might crack and cause the nose to bleed. The skin would hang loose on the body and become dry and scaly. The urine would become highly concentrated, leading to burning of the bladder. The lining of the stomach would dry out and the sufferer would experience dry heaves and vomiting. The body temperature would become very high. The brain cells would dry out, causing convulsions. The respiratory tract would dry out, and the thick secretions that would result could plug the lungs and cause death. At some point within five days to three weeks the major organs, including the lungs, heart, and brain, would give out and the patient would die~~Comments made by Judge Lynch of the Massachusetts Surpreme Judicial Court on the 1986 Brophy Case involving removal of feeding tube in man in a persistant vegetative state.
03-24-05, 02:31 PM Georgia85 Shel, just so you know, I respect your views as you respect mine. I'm just offering an opposite set of facts to considered as often times there are 2 sides to an issue in which no-one knows for sure what happens without actually experiencing it themselves. Smile
(how refreshing to disagree in this forum with someone without it becoming a flame war!)
And I agree, none of us will ever know what Terry is experiencing.
03-24-05, 02:35 PM shelster ...oh...and all the above symptoms can be controlled with medications, good hygeine and mouth care.
Wink 03-24-05, 03:09 PM
Georgia85 Yes it is Shel - see everyone, it is entirely possible to disagree in a totally civil manner and to post evidence to your view instead of just ranting.
That being said, Shel, if it is possible to control those symptoms with medication wouldn't the administration of that medicine be going against the "living will" principle that seems to be the issue here. If it's alright to administer those medicines, why not just administer the food and water and then there would not be a need for that medicine?
Makes me think..."ok, I'm gonna kill you by shooting you but I'm gonna chop of your head first so that you don't feel it.." Wink Kinda a double edged sword here.
03-24-05, 06:16 PM shelster Thats an interesting point Georgia, but none of those medications actually Prolong life. And thats the living will issue here. They just make the end of life more comfortable.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2177 | Location: USA | Registered: 09-13-03
Originally posted by Georgia85: Adamson eventually recovered sufficiently to author "Kate's Journey: Triumph Over Adversity," in which she tells the terrifying tale. Rather than being unconscious with no chance of recovery as her doctors believed, she was actually awake and aware but unable to move any part of her body voluntarily. (This is known as a "locked-in state.")
I would be very interested to know if Ms. Adamson, based on her experience, would also tell us what it felt like to be in the 'locked-in' state for however many weeks or months or years it was, and whether she feels that being in a 'locked in' state for 15 years or 30 years or a lifetime is preferable to tube withdrawal. Anyone know?? ******************* 03-25-05, 07:30 AM methos
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: First question from "Confused of Europe" Wink : One report here says that the Supreme Court would not intervene at all, by which is meant that they would not hear the case, if I read it aright. If so, why not? (What have I misread or misunderstood here ? Confused)
The Supreme Court had declined to hear the case several times and has declined it again since the new law. Since they did not give a reason, we can only guess as to why, but typical reasons for denying hearings are that the appeal has no merit or that the Supreme Court does not feel it has jurisdiction.
quote: Second question : Why does it require a new law ? This bill is intended just for this one case. Evidently there are technicalities whereby the bill is so made but without naming names, by the sound of it. It is to address one case and one question, of whether or not this woman's feeding tube is to be, or stay, removed. What do you have judges and appeal courts for, if it is not to decide individual cases ?
I wonder some of the same things. The purpose of the bill is specifically to move the case into the federal courts. There is some debate over whether or not it is constitutional, but none of the judges have addressed that. Since the Supreme Court has declined to hear the case, I suspect there will never be a ruling as to whether or not it is constitutional. One misconception on your part, though - the act does specifically mention Terri Schiavo several times. It was only able to pass because of this (there was not enough support for a more generalized bill). The act specifically limits itself to this case by stating that it only applies to "Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo," only applies for the next 30 days, and sets no precedent. Of course, just because the bill says it sets no precedent doesn't mean that it really doesn't.
quote: Third question: Why such a cumbersome procedure? It requires that no legislator votes against the bill before the action proposed in it can be carried out. Appellate courts could hear the case the same day, within hours or minutes, if only to make an interim order to keep the tube in, and a decision very shortly, any further appeal included.
I'm not sure what you mean, perticularly by "It requires that no legislator votes against the bill before the action proposed in it can be carried out." The laws seems no more cumbersome than others to me as it requires just a simple majority in both houses and the signature of the President.
quote: (by doñadiana?) (2) Her husband says that she once said that she would never want to be kept alive artificially or something of the sort. No witnesses. But even if she said it, it is easy to say things when you are young and healthy and don't really believe it to be a possibility. I don't think that it is a valid point for making a life and death decision in the absence of witnesses or something in writing
Not so. At least 3 people (Michael Schiavo, Scott Schiavo, and Joan Schiavo) witnessed her making such statemenst and have testified in court.
quote: 4) Why doesn't the husband just divorce her and pass custody to the parents? He already has another wife and family. I can't believe that the Catholic church can't find some grounds to annul the marriage. They have done it for less valid reasons. This would leave her parents free to devote the rest of their lives to her if that is what they want to do.
According to him, he is not doing this to get out of the marriage but because he believes this is what Terri would want.
quote: Evidently there is already a precedent that says you do not dedicate a bill to a specific person. Congress is also worried that the bill might be used by unscrupulous lawyers to keep criminals on deathrow from being executed, so they are quite concerned that it be worded in the way that reflects the purpose for which it is intended and nothing more.
Many bills have been made for the benefit of specific individuals in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to pass bills for the benefit of a single person or entity but not to punish a single person or entity.
quote: (by gerry) I would be very interested to know if Ms. Adamson, based on her experience, would also tell us what it felt like to be in the 'locked-in' state for however many weeks or months or years it was, and whether she feels that being in a 'locked in' state for 15 years or 30 years or a lifetime is preferable to tube withdrawal. Anyone know??
Adamson was communicating within 6 weeks of her stroke and had recovered to such a degree less than 2 years after her stroke that she was testifying before Congress (asking for more funding for stroke treatement and research). Unlike Terri Schiavo, large portions her brain had not been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. What she does have to say about her experience is this: "I was totally trapped in my body screaming, silently, helplessly." "I was trapped inside my body, and I was terrified. I never knew if I was going to make it through the night."
quote: The “culture of life” is a not-terribly-subtle reference to the antiabortion movement in the United States, which received significant encouragement in last year’s presidential election. The movement may now view itself as strong enough to generate new laws to prevent human embryos from being created for research and to require that incompetent patients be kept alive with artificially delivered fluids and nutrition.
And an excerpt from one of the appeals court judges quoted in his essay:
quote: [In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct.App. 2001)]:
Despite the irrefutable evidence that [Schiavo’s] cerebral cortex has sustained irreparable injuries, we understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from conception would hold out hope that some level of cognitive function remained.
If Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not hold to such faith. But in the end this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo’s right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband. . . . It may be unfortunate that when families cannot agree, the best forum we can offer for this private, personal decision is a public courtroom and the best decision-maker we can provide is a judge with no prior knowledge of the ward, but the law currently provides no better solution that adequately protects the interests of promoting the value of life.
Couldn't have said it better.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 625 | Location: Boston | Registered: 06-13-02
: One report here says that the Supreme Court would not intervene at all, by which is meant that they would not hear the case, if I read it aright. If so, why not? (What have I misread or misunderstood here ? 
)
