• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Terri Schiavo

MoeFaux said:
Thanks for the update, Denise. I hadn't looked at the site yet today.
I'm really surprised how little news coverage there is of this.
It seems that I've already read all the recent stories searched on google news.
I'm also surprised no one has done a hunger strike yet.
Click to expand...

I'll admit right out that I am obsessed with this case. I remember months ago when the feeding tube was removed for 60 hours. I had a very abusive ex husband, and I can't imagine if he were in control of my medical care with a large settlement. I'm not saying that I'm convinced that Terri's husband is abusive, but I'm thinking along the angle of how helpless her parents feel because they have no say in the decision.

No hunger strike yet, but a group of Republicans are going to burn their voter registration cards in protest over Jeb Bush not intervening and will officially change their party affiliation. Don't laugh!

With the absence of anything in writing from Terri about what her wishes would be, and in view of the fact that her condition is not, in and of itself, terminal- I believe that the withholding of her feeding tube to be murder. So there. I said it.
 
I want to add that I am not a big fan of Operation Rescue and their kind. But, in this case, I feel they are on the right side. What was that saying about strange bedfellows?
 
FWIW, I don't believe that an advance directive or a medical power of attorney would have prevented this particular legal battle - althought he existence of one or both would have shortened it considerably.
 
reprise said:
FWIW, I don't believe that an advance directive or a medical power of attorney would have prevented this particular legal battle - althought he existence of one or both would have shortened it considerably.
Click to expand...

What if Terri had a living will stating that she wanted all medical intervention no matter what?
 
Denise said:
What if Terri had a living will stating that she wanted all medical intervention no matter what?
Click to expand...

An advance directive that broad in nature would have ended up before the courts for interpretation extremely quickly, if only because its broad scope would set a precedent for doctors being required to resuscitate people who've been "dead" for longer than the currently accepted medical parameters and to maintain those people on life support indefinitely. A literal interpretation of such an order would mean that life support for that person could never be turned off. While it might be an interesting scientific experiment to see how long a human body could be maintained on a ventilator, it's not an experiment that I can see any court ever endorsing.

Advance directives - like other forms of wills - can be challenged, interpreted, and overturned.
 
An interesting ethical dilemma for you Denise.

Let's suppose for a moment that there was a great deal of evidence that prior to her collapse Terri Schiavo talked often about her intention to have children with Michael Schiavo and that her having done so could be proven to the satisfaction of a court.

Let us further suppose that Michael Schiavo had - as Terri's guardian - applied to the court for permission to be given for the couple to have a baby using IVF. This would require harvesting ova from Terri and also require the use of her uterus or that of a surrogate mother's uterus for the duration of the pregnancy. Do you believe that it would have been unreasonable for the court to refuse such a petition had it been made by Michael Schiavo? If so, why?
 
People can live for years on respiraters. I believe medical intervention only applies if the patient is not clinically dead. Although, most living wills seem to be for people to state what they do not want done, I imagine that some write what they do want done. I googled for court cases in which a person stated in their living will that they wanted all measures taken and the courts intervened. I couldn't find any- they are maybe out there, and I would be interested in seeing them.

Found this webpage with a man suffering from ALS you might find it interesting.http://www.alsisnotfatal.com/because.html
 
"What I do want done" advance directives would always be limited by the capacity of the person's estate to finance those wishes - as are the wills of deceased persons.

I don't think there are many people on the planet who aren't aware that people with ALS retain full mental capacity - Stephen Hawking is a dramatic demonstration of that point - but Terri Schiavo's condition bears no resemblance whatsoever to ALS. Those with ALS are extremely capable of understanding their condition and making decisions about accepting or not accepting supportive and life-prolonging measures.
 
I believe medical intervention only applies if the patient is not clinically dead.
Click to expand...

Medical intervention is given to clinically dead people all the time - that's what resuscitation is, reviving the clinically dead - and I'd be extremely surprised if Terri Schiavo didn't require resuscitation immediately following her collapse.
 
reprise said:
"What I do want done" advance directives would always be limited by the capacity of the person's estate to finance those wishes - as are the wills of deceased persons.

I don't think there are many people on the planet who aren't aware that people with ALS retain full mental capacity - Stephen Hawking is a dramatic demonstration of that point - but Terri Schiavo's condition bears no resemblance whatsoever to ALS. Those with ALS are extremely capable of understanding their condition and making decisions about accepting or not accepting supportive and life-prolonging measures.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of any state that has removed ventilation, or a feeding tube against the families wishes. I would be very interested in such a case. Although one must spend down all their own money, the state does take over when all the money is spent. All the cases I'm aware of, with a patient in a similar situation as Terri's, are the families fighting the states so that care will be withheld.
 
Breaking news from Terrisfight.org

PRESS RELEASE

Special Session Called in State Legislature
Speaker of the House, Johnnie Byrd to introduce “Terri’s Bill”

Clearwater, FL October 19, 2003: The Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, has called a special session of the Florida Legislature for Monday, October 20, 2003. At that time, Florida’s Speaker of the House will introduce “Terri’s Bill”. By Florida law, two thirds majority vote are required to have a topic entered.

Volunteers with the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation have learned that Senate President, Jim King is against this bill.

The Bill would put an immediate moratorium on all dehydration and starvation deaths currently pending in Florida.

We have come to a time when the merchants of death have created a constitutional crisis and a justice gridlock, while the rightful life of Florida’s disabled and vulnerable citizens tragically hang on Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s court ordered dehydration and starvation death.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder what impact the passage of such a bill would have on the rights of those whose advance directive specifically state that nutrition and hydration are to be withdrawn under certain circumstances.

FWIW, euthanasia advocates generally dislike this particular form of "passive euthanasia" every bit as much as pro-lifers. I would personally like to see its use restricted to a couple of extremely specific situations, but I don't think that will happen until the issue of euthanasia in general is addressed.
 
Denise said:
I am not aware of any state that has removed ventilation, or a feeding tube against the families wishes. I would be very interested in such a case. Although one must spend down all their own money, the state does take over when all the money is spent. All the cases I'm aware of, with a patient in a similar situation as Terri's, are the families fighting the states so that care will be withheld.
Click to expand...

You may very well be right. The impression I get of the US health system is that high technology or high cost medicine is less available to those without substantial financial resources in the US than it is to the affluent - something I would have assumed extended to hospice and nursing home care as well.
 
reprise said:
I wonder what impact the passage of such a bill would have on the rights of those whose advance directive specifically state that nutrition and hydration are to be withdrawn under certain circumstances.

FWIW, euthanasia advocates generally dislike this particular form of "passive euthanasia" every bit as much as pro-lifers. I would personally like to see its use restricted to a couple of extremely specific situations, but I don't think that will happen until the issue of euthanasia in general is addressed.
Click to expand...

It would stop all removal of feeding tubes for the time being, and caused those that have been removed to be reinserted. Terri is probably the only case for right now that this is going to affect. I guess I would have to see how the bill is worded.
 
Denise said:

It would stop all removal of feeding tubes for the time being, and caused those that have been removed to be reinserted. Terri is probably the only case for right now that this is going to affect. I guess I would have to see how the bill is worded.
Click to expand...

I want to take you seriously, but that green witch is making it impossible at the moment.

I agree with your first post, that the husband should walk away and let others worry about the matter. I can't blame him for giving up after a 10 year drama (or however long he held up for).
 
American, read the links I gave to the legal stuff earlier about how the current order to remove the feeding tube came to be made by the Guardianship Court. Although you'd never know it by reading the Schindler's website, it's actually the Guardianship Court whose legal authority to make this ruling which is being challenged, not Michael Schiavo's right to make decisions on behalf of his wife.
 
reprise said:
American, read the links I gave to the legal stuff earlier about how the current order to remove the feeding tube came to be made by the Guardianship Court. Although you'd never know it by reading the Schindler's website, it's actually the Guardianship Court whose legal authority to make this ruling which is being challenged, not Michael Schiavo's right to make decisions on behalf of his wife.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that her husband is not her legal guardian? I'm confused. Don't all courts make a decision on which side to support? If there was no dispute would the courts have ruled to have her tube removed?
 
Denise said:
Are you saying that her husband is not her legal guardian? I'm confused. Don't all courts make a decision on which side to support? If there was no dispute would the courts have ruled to have her tube removed?
Click to expand...

The last ruling by the Guardianship Court was made by them effectively acting as Terri's guardian. It was a direct order that her feeding tube must be removed, not an order that any request by Michael Schiavo to remove her feeding tube must be complied with. There was no need at the time the order was made to remove Michael Schaivo as Terri's guardian and appoint an alternative guardian as there were no longer any issue of substance to be dealt with by her guardian - the court found no compelling reason to appoint an alternative guardian for the short period it was assumed compliance with their order would take. The court had ordered the removal of Terri's feeding tube on a specific date and it is only the various legal actions launched by the Schindlers which resulted in the tube being reinserted and have delayed it being removed again until last week.

Should the proposed bill you referred to above be accepted, I would expect that Michael Schiavo will make application to the Guardianship Court for the court to assume guardianship of Terri. Given the courts previous rulings, it seems unlikely that Terri's parents would be granted guardianship as their wishes are at odds with what the court has already found to have been Terri's wishes. Appeals about that finding have been unsuccessful, with the appellate court ruling that the court of original jurisdiction ruled correctly.

If the proposed bill is accepted, there is nothing to prevent the Guardianship Court assuming guardianship of Terri and putting a DNR and palliative care only order in place, pretty much guaranteeing that the next infection she contracts will bring about her death.

It is also possible that Terri has suffered sufficient organ degradation since the feeding tube and hydration was withdrawn last week that restoring them tomorrow would not prevent her death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom