posted on March 23, 2005 02:22:22 PM new
What I don't understand about all this, is who would want to live in a vegative state whether they signed a living will or told anyone or whatever. Why is it so important to keep this girl alive?
posted on March 23, 2005 02:38:26 PM new
Because her parents are unwilling to accept reality. Experts have said that it would take the hand of god to reach down and recreate her brain (her cerebral cortex is filled with spinal fluid) for this woman to ever have any hope of recovery. Even the original state appointed guardian has confirmed that she is gone but no one seems to want to accept it. Much better to spend a million a year in tax payers dollasrs to care for her. Ironic that is is those that believe that she would be going on to a better place that are so bound and determined to keep her here.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 23, 2005 02:48:01 PM new
KD - Most of those who support Terri's case being re-evaluated say they, themselves, wouldn't want to live in her present state. Any many of those people give many different reasons just why they don't think she should be starved to death. But they are still 'fighting for her not to be killed' on her husband's word only.
Fenix - you speak of the money issue again. Other than the feeding tube...which many disabled need who are without brain damage....shall we remove their feeding tubes also. Many thousands lay in 'care' facitilies with a 'quality of life' we, ourselves, might not want to be kept alive in. But to me that's choice for ONLY the patient to make....not a husband's as it is in this case.
posted on March 23, 2005 03:04:42 PM new
DBL - OK - I grant that starvation bugs me. It seems so much more human to induce death rather than wait it out.
Linda - I don't think that the cost factor should be an issue but I find it incredibly ironic that the exact same people that voted that this woman should be kept alive are the ones that advocate cutting the funds that would be used to care for her if they were successful.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 23, 2005 03:10:12 PM new
""But to me that's choice for ONLY the patient to make....not a husband's as it is in this case.""
And certainly NOT the U.S. congress !!!!
But, Uh, without a cerebral cortex decision making is impossible.
If the Republicans uphold what they say about the "sanctitiy" of marriage they would let the spouse decide which is only right.
And NOT the U.S. congress !!!!
Do research on "starving" the terminal. If you listen to an expert on it they will explain that it is not the same as a healthy person starving. The terminal are usually on morphine to the degree family or doctors can determine to make them as comfortable as a dying person can be. She is NOT being tortured to death as some would lead you to believe. Her case is like many others and the process is much the same.
This is hardly the first case of pulling the plug.
posted on March 23, 2005 03:13:32 PM new
fenix - Just to be sure we're on the same 'wave length' here. I was one who felt the FEDERAL Medicaid should be cut. BECAUSE it's my belief the fed government doesn't need to be duplicating what the states could/should be [imo] managing on a more local level.
Not the same thing as wanting to cut medicaid period. Hope you can see the difference.
posted on March 23, 2005 03:27:19 PM new
I agree, twig, and I hope they do in this case. All these judges are ruling on FL law that allows the husband to make this decision for Terri.
-----
For me personally, after listening to what her caregivers have said, after listening to what her friends have said about Michael's physical mistreatment towards Terri before and after this happened...and her parents statements also, I have grave concerns about this particular husband being the one that decides if she lives or dies.
She's not even being given the same 'constitutional rights' that convicts get before they're murdered under the death penalty. That's why this Congress stepped in.
posted on March 23, 2005 03:30:22 PM newDBL - OK - I grant that starvation bugs me. It seems so much more human to induce death rather than wait it out.
That is a big part of it! Although I did see them speaking on TV and saying her death would be managed with meds like terminal cancer patients,etc.
But isnt assisted sucide (never mind executions for innocent people by means of starving - a cruel and unusal punishment even the most evil in our CJ system dont get) - well, still that against the law except in Oregon or something? We locked-up Kovorian up, right? Why is this okay in Florida now?
What really irks me, is any other case, that husbands saying Terri said that would be considered "hear-say." Nobody can ever prove she said that. How this guy lives with himself after all this, I'll never know.
posted on March 23, 2005 03:36:17 PM new
and crowfarm, the difference is SHE IS NOT TERMINAL. So meds or not, they are putting her to death. Denying basic food and water is not the same as pulling the plug that is mechanically operating her organs.
posted on March 23, 2005 03:37:06 PM new
And, on top of that dblfugger, her close friends and workmates have said because of her strong Catholic convictions...not only did they never hear her say any such thing...but that doesn't 'jibe' with her religious faith.
They also brought up another question I pondered on. That was IF, as her husband states, this really WAS something she said....them why did he wait almst 9 years....to decide he wanted her starved to death. Especially since BOTH those issues coincided with him receiving the large insurance settlement and his 'new' relationship with the now other mother of his children. Just a little TO convenient for my tastes.
posted on March 23, 2005 03:43:55 PM new
Yep, Linda. And there are allegations of him denying therapy or requesting it ceased back in the beginning when the nurses say she had some cognitive ability.
I just dont know why she has to be dead for him to have a life without her.
posted on March 23, 2005 03:50:57 PM new
dblfugger - Well her friends I watched being interviewed said he was an EXTREMELY controlling husband. Another man who worked from the beginning of their marriage to isolate her from her long time friends and family.
Plus...after all this time he WANTS to win...imo, just to hurt her parents more than he already has and so that under the 'rules' of his Catholic faith he'd be free to re-marry after she dies.
The ONLY thing I can find that is positive in any way about this case is that I've heard the number of people filling out living wills has REALLY increased. So...even if they do continue to starve her to death this subject has brought attention to the need for ALL of us to have in writing our wishes for when we can't speak for ourselves.
posted on March 23, 2005 03:55:03 PM new
Yes, Linda. She sure has served a greater purpose at any rate. But what you mention...the mother. I dont think she is burdened by Terri's life, I think it gives her purpose...sometimes our lives are not our own to be meaningful of? - You know what I mean?
Okay, and for fenix, I just read this. Please note the last paragraph, last sentence. Taxpayers money my aaaz!......
Cost of Schiavo's care may exceed $1 million BY PATRICK KAMPERT, Chicago Tribune
CHICAGO - (KRT) - At Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Fla., where Terri Schiavo edges closer to death each hour, her care costs between $150 and $200 a day.
"It can get higher," said Jay Wolfson, the University of South Florida professor who served as Schiavo's court-appointed independent guardian 16 months ago and asked hospice officials about the cost. "But there's very little medical care."
Over a 15-year period - Schiavo collapsed in February 1990 - that calculates out to a cost between $821,000 and $1.1 million.
In 1992, Michael Schiavo received a settlement from a malpractice case in which he pledged to take care of his wife for the rest of her natural life, and she was expected to have a normal life span. After costs, Terri Schiavo's guardianship account netted $700,000 and her husband received $300,000 for loss of consortium.
Little is left of the guardianship money. Some of it has gone to Schiavo's care and much of it has been used to press the legal case as Michael Schiavo has sought to fulfill what he says were his wife's end-of-life wishes. But even if all the money had gone to Terri Schiavo's care, it wouldn't have been enough.
Back in fall 2003, George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney, said he had an agreement with the hospice to settle Terri Schiavo's bill when the case was over. That day appears to be coming soon.
Gary Karr, spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the agency hasn't seen a request for payment of any kind for Schiavo's care in three years.
"The care is being paid for privately," he said. "She's spending her own money."
last time
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Mar 23, 2005 03:57 PM ]
posted on March 23, 2005 03:58:11 PM new
Double, the point is, even if she didn't say anything to her husband, who would opt to stay in that state? Have there been any living wills where the people choose to stay vegetative? She's deaf, she's blind, she can't swallow, she can't sit up, she can't communicate, etc, so other than not wanting to let go, what is the reason for keeping her alive?
posted on March 23, 2005 04:07:29 PM new
dblfugger - I may be giving the wrong impression via my wording. I think by all means she should be left to die a normal death. It often comes when the disabled have other illnesses, not related to their current condition.
And KD - She has swollowed...she has swollowed her own saliva since this happened...and according to one caregiver she's swollowed jello that they 'snuck' in to her without her husbands knowledge. And I've mention before that even stroke victims can be re-taught to swollow when recovering from stroke. But if one doesn't get the needed therapy, that this husband has forbit, them of course they wouldn't let her eat soft foods...she'd be likely to inhale them into her lungs.
edited to add:
Have there been any living wills where the people choose to stay vegetative?
Living wills are to state your individual wishes....like at what point YOU don't want anymore medical treatments. That I'm aware of no one has ever said they don't want to receive food and water.
And yes, I can see many of faith who believe suicide is wrong....according to the teachings of their faith/church. And Terri was a devout Catholic...her religion forbids it.
posted on March 23, 2005 04:13:24 PM new
Kraft, I am sorry you cannot figure that out for yourself. The point is, we dont kill people in this country. without committing a crime. And you know what, kraft? I once saw Christopher Reeve in an interview. And that was early on before he made so much progress. As bad as he was, from what he was, a movie star, he didnt want to die. If he did, he could have.
posted on March 23, 2005 04:37:42 PM new
I think what everyone is ignoring here is that there is NO CHANCE this woman is going to recover. Yes, Linda is right, her husband has declined PET scans in recent years but it's not as if one has never been done. There have been PET scans done and they clearly showed that her cerebral cortex is blown and they don't exactly grow back. The area is filled with spinal fluid. They can "rehab" her to their hearts content but the only purpose would be to placate her parents.
DBL - this is not illegal. In fact, Bush signed a bill into law while he was the Governor of Texas that allows doctors to orverride the wishes of the family in cases exactly like this. As for the insurance settlement - he recieved 300K the rest went to pay for the care of Terri all of which was overseen by an independent executor.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Mar 23, 2005 04:39 PM ]
posted on March 23, 2005 04:40:24 PM new
DB - Christopher Reeves was a living conscious vibrant human being who suffered from paralisys. Hardly the same thing as a brain damaged woman in a vegatative state.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 23, 2005 04:49:30 PM new
fenix - I know the info. WE get is from varying sources. But I'd sure like to see whose stated she's received PET scans. They weren't even available when this happened to Terri.
AND it's also been my understanding that no MRI was EVER done either. In the early years of her situation only cat scans were done.
And no one knows for sure...every doctor has different opinions to what MAY be brought back....but no one knows as no therapy has been allowed. They're making educated 'guesses' that's all.
There was a woman on Fox yesterday....been injured and in a long term coma. I KNOW...different but still...she stated that had HER husband not gone against what the doctors had recommended and chosen to FIGHT for her recovery....she wouldn't be here right now.
Point is....no one is God in these situations, not even doctors....no one KNOWS, positively, what will or won't happen. Doctors go on averages of what usually has taken place in past cases.
I don't think there are many people who think she will/can be brought back to the person she once was. That's the point those who agree her life should be ended keep harping on.
Do we, as a society, when there are no 'patient wishes in writing' feel we have arrived at the place where we start killing all disabled people whose life isn't what WE think it should be? I, for one, certainly hope not.
And I believe, in reading about Terri's case that is just what's being done somewhere in Europe....panels of doctors are deciding when each patient isn't worth spending for medical funding on....and then ending their lives. Again....I certainly hope we NEVER get that heartless.
edited to add:
fenix - all of which was overseen by an independent executor.
I don't know who you've read that 'overseer' was. But what I read was it was the same judge that has backed Michael's actions all along. AND that there had been NO court ordered proof of what care had been ordered for her, etc. in a number of years. Meaning .. this judge [Greer] was not reqiring her husband to follow the 'normal procedures' of court ordered guardianship.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 23, 2005 05:02 PM ]
posted on March 23, 2005 05:53:17 PM new
Linda, the woman on Fox yesterday was in a coma for a month. Terri Schiavo has been in her PVS for 15 years---a big difference. She has had many CAT scans, the most recent showing that her cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed and replaced by spinal fluid. That is a devastating brain injury. Only her involuntary reflexes (blinking, breathing, etc.) are basically in tact. The cortex controls your thought process, feelings, emotions, your being. Regarding her husband---the court appointed guardian ad litem said that he was over the top in getting the best possible care for his wife--to the point that the nursing home wanted to ban him for being demanding of the best possible care for his wife. For many years he took her to hospitals and doctors all over the country. Unlike her parents, he finally came out of his denial.
posted on March 23, 2005 06:07:15 PM new
"Starved" is a meaningless term. A person with a brain suffers with deprivation and "starves".
A collection of cells uses all of its' available energy and dies.
Stop referring to this as "Terri Schiavo". "Terri Schiavo" was the couple of cups of brain matter that died years ago. There is no pain, no suffering, just alive or dead.
posted on March 23, 2005 06:12:06 PM new
I'm in Florida. The husband was on the news and said that he "wished the b&tch would die". Nice, huh?
There was no written directive. As such, this should not be treated as a DNR. And, she should still have her feeding tube. What good is a directive, if the husband states (which is heresay) that she didn't want extra measures taken to keep her alive?
This case really disturbs me and has and will continue to set legal precedents.
posted on March 23, 2005 06:24:03 PM new
desquirrel, I rarely disagree with you, but I think/believe this will be a painful death
Terri Schiavo has not received any nourishment since the tube was pulled Friday afternoon. By late Tuesday, Terri's eyes were sunken, her skin was parched and flaking and her lips and tongue were parched, said Barbara Weller, a lawyer for the Schindlers.
Doctors have said she could survive one to two weeks without the feeding tube.
posted on March 23, 2005 06:25:03 PM new
Are you saying that the husband actually said that on television? That is very difficult to believe. Or did someone say that he said that. So many accusations have been hurled at the husband and, so far, none have been deemed factual. He is a reasonably intelligent man. He even went to nursing school subsequent to his wife's coma so that he could take care of her. A lot of people
don't seem to be mentioning that. Maybe it makes him sound too caring.
posted on March 23, 2005 06:35:50 PM new
Nearthe Sea..I know it sounds terrible, but experts tell us that this lack of food and water produces a euphoria in patients with no devastating brain injury. In Terri's case, she has no awareness of surroundings, hunger or thirst. Though it is not remotely similar illness, my own mother was dying of cancer. Two weeks before she died, she decided to stop eating and drinking. Those 2 weeks were the most peaceful in her long battle. I sat by her bedside and she looked at peace and beautiful--almost angelic. She was able to make that choice herself, but I would have done it if I had to.
posted on March 23, 2005 06:49:11 PM new
coincoach - You say you watched the program...and yet you state that 'experts say' they don't feel pain.
Did you not hear what the woman who was in the coma said? She was in GREAT pain. She heard them talking about her, her case, etc. but she couldn't respond. And she stated she WAS in GREAT pain.
Again, experts don't know everything nor do they feel what the patients feel. What those who have come out of these situations have STATED themselves they felt....even though there doctors told their families they weren't feeling pain.
And cat scans do not show, to the same extent what MRI's nor PET scans do. That's why doctors normally order these tests after a cat scan has assured them somethings wrong. They want to see which area is effected....exactly.
And patients in coma's ofter are worse off as far as needing 'equipment' help than are those who have been diagnosed with PVS.
AND if anyone would read a medical site...they will learn that being about to follow objects with one's eyes...is the first indication that the patient is [b]improving[/i]. Terri does this....we've all seen it.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
this subject has brought attention to the need for ALL of us to have in writing our wishes for when we can't speak for ourselves.
