Terri Schiavo

RoastedTwinkies · Post by **RoastedTwinkies** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:27 pm

I'm sure everyone has heard about the situation. I need to say in advance that this is a highly sensitive and controversial topic and I got permission from Tiff to post it. *hides behind the authority of Tiffu* While I am not a mod, but I'm going to say this beacuse I don't want to see the topic get locked. Guys, please be civil about this and don't insult one another because their opinion is different from yours. Let's agree to disagree about this, okay?

For those of you who didn't follow the story, here's the lastest post about it at msn:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7356531/

I personally believe that Terri's husband did the right thing by allowing her to die, since she had been in a persistant vegetative state for 15 years with no hope of recovery. While I honestly am afraid to find out what is beyond this world, I would rather be dead than live a life like that. I believe that everyone is put on earth because they have a purpose. If you aren't able to fulfull that purpose, than what's the point in living?

On top of that, while Terri was in the hospital, her husband met another woman, got engaged and had kids with her. While people who cheat really anger me, I can understand where he's coming from. He can't be by himself all the time. It would be awfully lonely. He couldn't even divorce Terri because she was in no condition to go to court. He needs to move on with his life.

That's my two cents for now. What are your opinions?

peachvampiress · Post by **peachvampiress** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:55 pm

I don't know. I not fully convinced that he was completely sincere in his decision. And I think he was being a bit of a jerk to her family. He wouldn't let her siblings be in the room with her when she died. Okay, he wanted to be alone with her. Good for him, but Terri had family members that were suffering through this as well and I think he should have let them be with her. They had just as much reason to be with her as he did, probably more since they're her flesh and blood. And I find this whole thing about him taking her ashes and not telling her family when and where he'll bury them is pathetic. So ya, I'm not ready to believe that her husband is this nice guy just doing what she wishes.

Post by **Tiff** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 12:19 am

Hrm..it's kind of hard to formulate an opinion.

First off, how long has this woman been on life support? How long has she virtually been a vegetable?

Secondly..How long after she was on life support did her husband wait to become engaged with another woman and get her pregnant? Becuase that has a lot to do with my opinion.

I agree that the husband was pretty bastardly to keep her family away. Couldn't they ALL have had some alone time with her? My brothers would have dragged my husband out by his neck had he tried to keep them from me. That's just cruel and heartless of him, to act like that. Not to mention childish.

But all in all, the woman is an adult...And that means her parents really have little to no say in her life decisions. Her husband is her "family", legally, now. It is, ultimately, her and her husband's decision to cut her from life support.

I agree with RT on the subject about not wanting to live life like that. My mom and I have talkeda bout this subject before, and we both agree that if either one of us ends up in a vegetable state, and there's little to no hope of recovery, then cut the damn cord. I want to live my life.

Sailorasteroid · Post by **Sailorasteroid** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:02 am

To answer your first question, Terri enterd this state in 1990 after her heart stopped and was restarted. The cause of the stoppage was complications of undiagnosed bulemia. A settlement was won on the missed diagnosis, but Michael Schiavo's attorney claims that money has all gone into care for Terri. I think this contention seems true, but I haven't seen fully conclusive evidence.

Now, this has been an odd issue for me. Normally, I'm an arch-conservative, and getting my news from the right-wing media suits me fine. I considered the removal of Schiavo's tube the best move in the situation, though I think the proper thing to do would have been to euthanize her. Yet all those media outlets are on the other side, and for once I'm standing with so many of my liberal friends and family, like my father. And the people supporting the Schindlers' position have been just vicious in their protestations. Over and over I hear the term "culture of death" used to impugn my morality, I hear people declaring that I'm supporting murder, and that god is going to rain down punishment on me. It insults me, and attempts to discard my position without argument.

I'm sorry, but from what I see, the right wing as it stands knows as much about the moral dilemmas of modern medicine as the left wing knows about its economics, which is to say, very little. Maybe "erring on the side of life" made sense when medicine consisted of antibiotics when someone was sick, and putting a broken bone back together and making sure it didn't move; but today we have the ability to put someone like Schiavo into this position to begin with. Medically, "life" can continue so long as oxygen is reaching the brain. In the practical sphere, "life" means doing things like communicating, progressing, thinking. And in that sense, Terri's life ended fifteen years ago.

I've seen some of the most devious fact-stretching on this case for an agenda that I've seen. "Terri spoke! Terri's eyes moved! Terri is responsive!" It reminds me of the Monty Python scene: "I'm not dead yet! I feel happy!" She had a flat EEG. To me, that says what's going on in her brain a lot more than half-uttered sylablles or movement that's probably involuntary.

Then there's the smear job done on Michael Schiavo. He's in it for the money. He abused Terri. He caused the heart stoppage. He's an adulterer and his children are bastards. Excuse me? His first wife has force-vomited her way into a permanant stupor, and his moral duty is to spend the rest of his life chained to her hospital bed, spending all his money and love on something that can't appreciate it? Is this what we expect? That's not morality, that's Schadenfreude. And is there any doubt that if it were the parents trying to end her life and the husband trying to preserve it, that all these accusations would never come to light, but that rumors of child abuse and other underhanded dealings would be levelled against the parents?

But as I said, it's the arrogance of the media personalities that offends me. One source even referred to the death as an "American Holocaust." And I'm just to accept that their "support of life" is superior to the "culture of death." But they refuse to explain the logic of why living in a hospital bed with the only options being pain and unconsciousness is superior to choosing eternal rest. Personally, I think they have no logic. Their agenda is based on inertia, outdated dogma, and fear. Fear that if people reach the end of their lives and choose to determine the own hour of their death, that it will remove the teeth of the beast. Death is only "fair" to them if it comes at a random time for everybody.

Now, I will say that I think neither the judges on the court nor the Congress and president committed any major outrages. The judge looked at the medical records, looked at the law which favors the husband as the guardian, and looked at his statements that Terri wouldn't want to live as she was, and made a call. It wasn't unconstitutional or a usurpation of power. Neither, however, was Congress's bill. All it said was that a federal court should look at the case. It didn't order that court to reverse the lower court's decision, just said that this case was important and deserved extra scrutiny. Frivolous perhaps, but not really overstepping their authority.

Well, long post, but it's an issue I've put a lot of thought into. I want to get back to issues I'm cut and dried on, like enriching the wealthy through capitalism and increasing our military and cultural power over the world.

yoshmaster5 · Post by **yoshmaster5** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:57 am

my parents thought that it was horrid, that the huge deal was made. these kind of decisions were made all the time, and my making it a huge deal, they thought it was a move by the government ot say, "they supported life" and everything...

*points to all asteroid said* VERY true. it's this kind of thing that disgusted my parents, my thought to all the people going insane about her dying is: put yourself in the husbands place. he didn't do anything to get her in this condition. it's been 15 years. he wants to move on with his life. he parents, to me, didn't want to move on with their life. but what he did when she died, I can understand he was completely pissed off at her family, but it was too extreme. If I was in the family's situation, I'd want to kick his ass. his reactions at the end were too extreme.

that is all I'm going to say. I don't want to get into a huge argument. It's my opinion, and I don't want to force it on anyone here. I agree with my parents, and I'm glad this case is over.

Jed-kun · Post by **Jed-kun** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:40 am

I have to say that I think the husband made the right choice in letting her die. However, I don't know how true either side (parents or husband) was to her wishes. There wasn't any documentation, which I know of, saying that she would want to die in that kind of situation. However, her husband stuck by her for many years so I'm kind of inclined to believe that he didn't just want to get rid of her to move on a.s.a.p. So, basically, all I can say is what I'd want. It's not life in my opinion. I've seen the videos and from my work with and study of the ill I can say that I don't think she was actually responding on a higher level at all.

Short version: I think letting her go was right, but I would have preferred if they euthanized her because it's a very cruel way to die. However, I'm not even sure if she was there enough to know the difference anyway.

Now, I'm going to throw out an opinion of mine that is probably controversial and very "liberal conspiracy theorist" of me. If you don't wanna hear it please stop reading right here. Thank you.

I've noticed the Bush's making a lot of comments lately about how they're hands are tied, we can't do anything, we don't have enough power. While this may just be them trying to not get the blame for not doing anything I also worry that it's them trying to get more power. I mean, now would be the prefect time to strike. Talk about how you could have saved this poor innocent girl if you just had enough control. Lord knows there's enough blind support out there at the moment that they could do it. It's what happened with the "Patriot Act." People were scared and the governmental powers that be were able to pass something that is so grossly unconstitutional, in my view, that it's a wonder constitutions around the nation didn't spontaneously burst into flames.

Basically, I'm looking for the Bush's to spin this (more) and use it to their advantage.

usachan · Post by **usachan** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:27 pm

I'm sort of torn on this issue. I think this whole thing was just dreadful and I was very sad when I learned she died. She wasn't really on life support, she was being fed through a tube. Had she been on life support she would have died the instant she was taken off, rather than fifteen days later. I don't really know if her husband made the right choice or not, I just know it was a horrible way to go.

jupiter23 · Post by **jupiter23** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:04 pm

While you believe it was a bad way to go, Schaivo was on morphine, and a lot of it. So she didn't feel anything when she died. She essentially died in peace.

I believe her husband made the right desicion, and that her parents were causing themselves more pain by fighting the battle so hard the way they did. I agree with whoever said that if her parents wanted to keep her alive, then they should have tried to gain care of her long ago, and not when her husband decided to pull the tube. Being in a vegetative state is no way to live, I believe.

Sailorasteroid · Post by **Sailorasteroid** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:16 pm

Something else that occurred to me today is that people have been looking at different issues when it came to Schiavo. The people who favored keeping her alive seemed to be concerned with the moral image of our society at large, while the other side seemed to be internalizing the issue. I know for me, I constantly asked myself, "If my wife, or my daughter, or myself, was in this state, what would I want." But I think the keep-alivers either weren't asking this question or were considering it secondary to the issue of Schiavo herself. So a large part of the contention could have been due to miscommunication. I would not have been particularly disturbed if they had kept her alive, as long as they stipulated that doing so wouldn't affect anyone else's decision when it comes their time.

jupiter23 · Post by **jupiter23** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:45 pm

You make a good point there. When I decided my stance on this, I asked myself the same question. I would want the plug pulled if I were ever in that state.

DuoTheShinigami02 · Post by **DuoTheShinigami02** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 10:42 am

I agree that Michael not allowing Terri's family is kind of selfish, but to have the right-wing people exploit Terri to further their causes is uncalled for!

And of course, much of the backlash falls on Tom DeLay, who've promised to "make an example" out of the judiciary committee.

RoastedTwinkies · Post by **RoastedTwinkies** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:40 pm

UPDATE! A few days ago, the results of the autopsy were released. They said that Terri died of starvation and dehydration, but that's obvious. They also mentioned that the husband wanted to publically release the autopsy pictures. Specifically, Terri's brain. According to the news, there was so much tissue damage that Terri's brain was half the size it was supposed to be and that no amount of treatment therapy could change it. I never took biology in high school, so my knowledge in that area is very limited. They said that there's a certain kind of tissue in the brain that can't rebuild itself if it ever gets damaged. I forget the name of it. Bio people, help me out here!

But the parents still argued that they felt that in their hearts that they could reverse the damage. I really think this belongs in the WTF thread o_O

jupiter23 · Post by **jupiter23** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:18 pm

Yeah, I was watching this on the news when it happened. I am sorry to sound like a heartless bitch here, but her parents need to let her go and give it up. You can berate me for saying that all you want, but that is the way I feel. Her brain damage was irreversible and untreatable, and the doctors knew this from the moment she first collapsed, as they put it. They also found that the part of her brain that controls vision was dead. She was completely blind in her vegetative state. The report also said that she only died of dehydration, not starvation (correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is what it said.) They also said there was no way she would have been able to ingest food or drink through her mouth, and the only way she was able to survive was by the feeding tube.

By the way, I heard on the Associated Press website that her parents are planning to sue Terri's husband anyway, but a date for that had not been set as of the time I read that story (which was a few days ago).

RoastedTwinkies · Post by **RoastedTwinkies** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:56 pm

jupiter23 wrote:Yeah, I was watching this on the news when it happened. I am sorry to sound like a heartless bitch here, but her parents need to let her go and give it up. You can berate me for saying that all you want, but that is the way I feel. Her brain damage was irreversible and untreatable, and the doctors knew this from the moment she first collapsed, as they put it. They also found that the part of her brain that controls vision was dead. She was completely blind in her vegetative state. The report also said that she only died of dehydration, not starvation (correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is what it said.) They also said there was no way she would have been able to ingest food or drink through her mouth, and the only way she was able to survive was by the feeding tube.

By the way, I heard on the Associated Press website that her parents are planning to sue Terri's husband anyway, but a date for that had not been set as of the time I read that story (which was a few days ago).

Don't get me wrong here. I agree with you completely. They need to let her go and drop the lawsuit in my opinion.

yoshmaster5 · Post by **yoshmaster5** » Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:10 pm

RoastedTwinkies wrote:
jupiter23 wrote:Yeah, I was watching this on the news when it happened. I am sorry to sound like a heartless bitch here, but her parents need to let her go and give it up. You can berate me for saying that all you want, but that is the way I feel. Her brain damage was irreversible and untreatable, and the doctors knew this from the moment she first collapsed, as they put it. They also found that the part of her brain that controls vision was dead. She was completely blind in her vegetative state. The report also said that she only died of dehydration, not starvation (correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is what it said.) They also said there was no way she would have been able to ingest food or drink through her mouth, and the only way she was able to survive was by the feeding tube.

By the way, I heard on the Associated Press website that her parents are planning to sue Terri's husband anyway, but a date for that had not been set as of the time I read that story (which was a few days ago).
Don't get me wrong here. I agree with you completely. They need to let her go and drop the lawsuit in my opinion.

*reads* ... *shakes head* they need to stop...