• 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

Denise

Master Poster
D
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
2,858
Terri Shiavo

From Cnn.com

PINELLAS PARK, Florida (CNN) -- A woman in a coma-like state for 13 years will no longer be fed after 2 p.m. Wednesday, since a state appeals court Tuesday rejected motions from her parents to continue the feedings and keep her alive.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal. Her husband wants the feedings stopped, the rest of her family wants her to continue to be fed. I didn't think a feeding tube was an extraordinary medical measure. She is breathing on her own. I think the husband should divorce her and walk away. Check out the family's website. www.terrisfight.org
 
I watched footage of this lady tonight on TV. I tried to block out an emoitional response to this. She seems to be a vegetable acting only through reflex (which is the opinion of many doctors who have examined her).

Currently, the law says her husband has the final say in this.

She may be able to learn to eat baby food in her state and live without the tube. Now there is a life! Reacting to warmth, light, movement, and being fed baby food by someone else.
 
corplinx said:
I watched footage of this lady tonight on TV. I tried to block out an emoitional response to this. She seems to be a vegetable acting only through reflex (which is the opinion of many doctors who have examined her).

Currently, the law says her husband has the final say in this.

She may be able to learn to eat baby food in her state and live without the tube. Now there is a life! Reacting to warmth, light, movement, and being fed baby food by someone else.
Click to expand...

Is that the same footage that is on terri's site? Apparently, there has been no attempt at any type of rehabilitation.
 
Unfortunately, there is no living will in this case. It's the husband's hearsay on what his wife would have wanted. I just don't think it's enough to withdraw her feeding tube. On the tapes on the site it sure looks to me like she is responding.
 
This is the first I have heard of this case. After watching the video I am not convinced that she is really reacting. The problem I have is that there is no way to be sure that the video and audio really match. Even when she is "interacting" with her mother it seemed to me that the mother was manipulating her. And even if she is responding she seems very infant like.

I am glad I put my preference in a will so that my family would not have to make the decision
 
The balloon video is the most misleading. It appears to be a simple reaction to motion.

However, the emotional side of us sees a human being looking at a ballon and tries to attribute thought or emotion to the effort.
 
Isn't following something with the eyes more than just a reaction? She seems to be focusing on something. Even if her mother is manipulating her- could a vegetable be manipulated? I don't think so.
 
Regardless of if she is in a permanent vegetative state or not, if her mom and dad want her alive, why does her husband insist on removing the tube? He has a girlfriend and a child, why does he not just walk away? She is not in pain.
 
The family's website is very, very biased, but the case itself raises a number of issues.

One of the most significant issues in this case is that the husband has chosen to maintain legal control over the medical care of his wife by not divorcing her. He is in sole control of the three quarters of a million dollars which was awarded for the express purpose of her care and which is probably close to all spent by now. He is in another relationship by which he already has one child and his mistress is pregnant by him with another child.

Although I'm a passionate advocate of euthanasia, I believe there is a clear and demonstrable conflict of interest in the husband's exercising his power to make this decision.

If the parents of Terri Schiavo are willing to assume the cost of her continued medical care, then I believe that guardianship should be awarded to them - there is no compelling reason why a decision needs to be made about Terri's future medical care at this point in time. If not, then I believe the decision should be made by an independent party. There are just too many questions about Terri's husband's motivation for making this decision at this point in time (he's had over a decade in which to make decisions based on her "quality of life") for it to be legally acceptable for him to do so.
 
I agree with Denise that in this particular instance whether or not Terri is in a PVS should be a secondary issue. If her husband didn't want the tube removed, no court would be forcing the hospital to do so. He is still able to exercise his spousal right over medical care despite has having created a new family unit because Terri is unable to divorce him. He should not be able to exercise that right until the petition for divorce lodged by Terri's parents has been heard.
 
reprise said:
The family's website is very, very biased, but the case itself raises a number of issues.

One of the most significant issues in this case is that the husband has chosen to maintain legal control over the medical care of his wife by not divorcing her. He is in sole control of the three quarters of a million dollars which was awarded for the express purpose of her care and which is probably close to all spent by now. He is in another relationship by which he already has one child and his mistress is pregnant by him with another child.

Although I'm a passionate advocate of euthanasia, I believe there is a clear and demonstrable conflict of interest in the husband's exercising his power to make this decision.

If the parents of Terri Schiavo are willing to assume the cost of her continued medical care, then I believe that guardianship should be awarded to them - there is no compelling reason why a decision needs to be made about Terri's future medical care at this point in time. If not, then I believe the decision should be made by an independent party. There are just too many questions about Terri's husband's motivation for making this decision at this point in time (he's had over a decade in which to make decisions based on her "quality of life") for it to be legally acceptable for him to do so.
Click to expand...

The site is fairly biased against Terri's husband, however I'm with you on the conflict of interest. Terri's husband clearly has monetary and other gains to be made by the death of Terri, and doesn't have seemed to put much into her recovery effort.

I would be curious if Terri and her husband had ever discussed the options if something like this happened. I doubt it because of Terri's age when the damage was suffered. My wife and I have an agreement to pull the plug if either one of us ends up like this.
 
peptoabysmal said:


The site is fairly biased against Terri's husband, however I'm with you on the conflict of interest. Terri's husband clearly has monetary and other gains to be made by the death of Terri, and doesn't have seemed to put much into her recovery effort.

I would be curious if Terri and her husband had ever discussed the options if something like this happened. I doubt it because of Terri's age when the damage was suffered. My wife and I have an agreement to pull the plug if either one of us ends up like this.
Click to expand...

I hope you have it in writing. I do. One of the major problems, to me, is that she had nothing in writing. Her parents are pretty religious and against it, so we only have her husband's word. And, of course the site is biased against the husband. They think that he is trying to kill their daughter!
 
I am not totally sure, but I think the law is on the husbands side. Without a living will, he has the final say-so on pulling the plug. It doesn't matter what she told who.
 
Denise said:


I hope you have it in writing. I do. One of the major problems, to me, is that she had nothing in writing. Her parents are pretty religious and against it, so we only have her husband's word. And, of course the site is biased against the husband. They think that he is trying to kill their daughter!
Click to expand...

Just for extra security, I had it tatooed on my butt (J/K). Now, I'm not saying that my butt is big enough to fit a legal document on it. I'm not saying it.

Here's some more on the story:

"I think Terri's wishes should be carried out. This is what she wanted," Schiavo said in an interview with CNN last year. "This is Terri's wish. It's not anybody else's wish, it's her wish."
Click to expand...

Comatose woman will stop being fed

If she can sit up and look around, she's not really comatose, is she? :confused:
 
corplinx said:
I am not totally sure, but I think the law is on the husbands side. Without a living will, he has the final say-so on pulling the plug. It doesn't matter what she told who.
Click to expand...

It isn't really a plug though- is it? We are talking about a feeding tube. I don't think she has a chance of recovery, but others in her state have recovered. Maybe not to their former selves but they are alive. Do we really know enough about the brain to know for sure if someone is aware or not? I was reading some websites and it said that tracking of objects with the eye often indicate that someone is coming out of a vegetative state. Remember that cop that came out of a coma after many years? He later died, but talked for hours.

I am against the execution of criminals because some might be innocent. Why execute a brain damaged person that might be conscious. Starvation and dehydration is a slow death.
 
corplinx said:
I am not totally sure, but I think the law is on the husbands side. Without a living will, he has the final say-so on pulling the plug. It doesn't matter what she told who.
Click to expand...

The law IS on the husband's side in this case. The law is also clearly an ass in this case in that it is allowing the husband's spousal right to make medical decisions when he quite clearly is only in a "spouse" in the sense that the marriage hasn't been legally dissolved.

The question which won't go away is "why NOW"? Why didn't he withdraw feeding long ago and before he established a new family if it would not have been his wife's wish to persist in her current state. Have her wishes only NOW become relevant?
 
PVS and coma are not the same.

People who have entered PVS often exhibit instinctive behaviours which are controlled by the "primitive" or "reptilian" brain, but have lost all higher brain function.

I am strongly opposed to so-called "passive" methods of euthanasia such as feeding and fluid withdrawal. There is no reason why they should not be replaced by hospice protocols (ie, do not actively treat any pneumonias or other medical conditions which develop), even if we are unprepared to sanction active euthanasia.

Coma and persistent vegetative state

Edited to add link
 
http://www.petersnet.net/browse/831.htm

If definitions are uncertain, diagnosis and treatment plans are even more so:


• Out of 40 patients diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, 17 (43%) were later found to be alert, aware, and often able to express a simple wish. The study is one of the largest, most sustained analyses of severely disabled people presumed to be incapable of conscious thinking, communication, or awareness of their surroundings. The author, London neurologist Dr. Keith Andrews, said, "It is disturbing to think that some patients who were aware had for several years been treated as being vegetative."[2]


• Studies show PVS patients feel pain — indeed, a Univ. of Mich. neurologist, in one of the most complete studies, concluded that, when food and fluids are withdrawn [to impose death], the patient should be sedated.[3]


• A study of 84 patients with a "firm diagnosis" of PVS found that 41% regained consciousness by six months, 52% by three years.[4] These statistics certainly discredit the terms "persistent" and "permanent".
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom