March 23, 2005
A life worth living
Who should decide the fate of Terri Schiavo? Her husband? Her parents? Herself? None of the above is the right reply. Congress stumbled onto the correct answer, although for the wrong reason. They understand that this question must be decided ultimately by us - we the people. Technology permits human bodies to endure long after any reasonable quality of life has abandoned them. It is wrong.
The body is just not worth maintaining, at some point. We can no longer leave the decision about when to shuffle off this mortal coil exclusively to the individual. An individual may well insist that he be kept alive "no matter what". But few people can pay for heroic care for an extended period. What he is demanding is that we pay for him to be kept alive no matter what. As a taxpayer, I decline to pay. If taxpayers are to pay the bills, they have a stake in the decision.
What if it was your daughter? That is the trump question you would ask me if I said that it was not worth the cost to save a life. Of course I would spend the whole GNP to save my daughter. That is why you - society - can't let me have the power to make the decision. That is why we as a society cannot write a blank check to anybody. People die. Sometime death is preferable to a low quality life. No matter what we say when we are hale and healthy, in the event most of us turn coward. We cling to that small hope and claw at that sliver of life. Until recently nature and nature's God disciplined us and constrained our options. Technology has run ahead of ethics. Now we might need human rules if we are to avoid having human bodies sustained like grotesque house plants.
Let's not shrink from this because it is hard, because we are all uncomfortable and because we look like villains even for thinking about it. Keeping Terry Schiavo alive is not the moral thing to do and certainly not worth the money we are spending, no matter what she would have wanted. The same goes for a brain damaged baby, who might live another seventy years, or even a severely disabled adult. How cruel that sounds. Our parents and grandparents never faced with these decisions. They could always choose life because they didn't have the technologies to keep their promises. We have now achieved "life", but we have yet to decide what life means in the context of our recently acquired powers to maintain it indefinitely.
These are not decision we choose to make, but it is our duty to make these decisions.
Jack,
Are you going to set the standards of what is, or not “a low quality life” ?
If its just a money issue do you propose eliminating everyone that that will only take money from the pot, with little to no chance they will ever add to it?
Wouldn’t that include most of the retarded and disabled?
I understand the point you are trying to make, but don’t you think you are painting with a rather broad brush on the standards?
Posted by: Beagle at March 23, 2005 12:23 PMYes it is my decision to make – and your and all of ours. We have been avoiding it. Even now, in the case of Schiavo, many people on both sides are secretly hoping she will just die soon so we can go back to avoiding the issue. We can once again pretend that it is an individual choice and that all life is precious until the individual decides it is not.
The good that might come of this Schiavo fiasco is that maybe we will think about it. It can’t be left to experts or the courts.
Jack,
If memory serves me, you live in a blue state, perhaps you can get your senators to sponsor such a bill.
It could be the “Hillary/Schumer eliminate the un-needed” bill.
I personally would support ending medical treatment to those in prisons serving life without chance of parole, why are we wasteing money on them ?
Posted by: Beagle at March 23, 2005 12:57 PMBeagle
I live in the great Commonwealth of Virginia with two Republican Senators.
This is an issue that won’t go away when the Schiavo case is over.
It happens in this case to have Republicans on the one side. In the hypothetical you mention about prisoners I expect the tables would be turned. Should the state pay for a heart transplant for a prisoner on death row? In general, how much is too much? What rights do people have to medical care and for how long? New technologies mean that we can do many things we shouldn’t do.
It is a debate we need to have. We can’t just say that we choose life, or we should let the individual decide. The debate makes nobody look good, but we should not avoid it.
Jack,
I apoligize for for puting you in NY, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, let alone someone I like…lol.
I can agree its a debate that should happen, I think that useing Terri to bring it forward will be a non-starter.
To much media coverage, to political, and to emotional right now.
She puts a face on it, and her “husband” (if you would call him that) doesn’t add much to the side of letting her go.
Posted by: Beagle at March 23, 2005 01:19 PMI think it’s interesting that a woman who is basically dead is all over the news and web is getting all this attention and the kid who killed 9 people is being over shadowed. 10,000 cameras outside a hospice filled with dieing people. Another thing if the christians do believe Terri is one of God’s loved creations; why not let her go to the god that loves her? Operation Save America tried to give her a cup of water. The individuals were arrested who trespassed in their attempt to give her water. A preacher who is a representative for OSA said “the US government has ruled against this book (the bible)”; is it just me or do we have a seperation of church and state.
I have a question about morality; how much of the morality of the United States should be based on the Bible? The individual voters in America can have individual views about what should be done and can bring God/Jesus into their decision. But, should a politcian? We have freedom of religion in this country and religious affiliation shouldn’t play a part in the election process but, it does. The reasoning behind voting for a person based on religious affiliation being; if the person your voting for is of the same faith, they have the same values and morals. How much of America’s values should be religious based?
We as Americans live in a free country governed by laws created by man. Yet, if we are the minority we may be forced to follow the laws created by God. Which is in confliction with our freedom of religion. If we have leaders who pray to god before they make a decision, is it them or God making the decision? Religion will then be playing a role in the government, and creating and enforcing laws on a supposed free society. Is this right or, did the supreme court do the right thing?
This case should have an influence on cases similar to it in the future. I think it’s great that it’s in the open. Should the religious conservatives decide your fate or, should your legal guardian/husband? Who would know better, some guy who read about you in the newspaper or the love of your life? Her parents don’t want her to die because they think she can understand them and can respond/recover. But, her parents would think that if all she could do is blink. The parents have been going to see her for 15 years. This woman has laid in a bed for 15 years unable to do anything for herself. What brain processes does this woman possess? What kind of a life will she have? Are the parents saving her life for her or are they saving her life for them?
Posted by: chad at March 23, 2005 02:06 PMMy response here may seem contradictory to that which I made elsewhere, but I believe what I say here works in symmetry to my statements on the other side.
I would say that people should not give up easily on these issues.
I would lay out three issues concerning the standards of care in these instances:
1)Some recoverable injuries do not seem so at the outset. This includes brain damage, though the extent is important. Fatalistic snap judgments at the outset may become regretable.
2)In the absence of formal or informal input from the person in question, or any legal complication, the judgment of the next of kin or parents should be deferred to. This is a private and painful decision, and should be treated that way.
3)The Lives of those with brain damage, whether that brain damage came from birth, or from an accident, should not be considered cheap or otherwise expendable. Were Terri Chiavo not in a Permanent Vegetative State, I would be far more insistent on hard evidence of her wish not to be kept alive under those circumstances, and even then, I would consider it questionable. The standard here should be that enough of the brain has been destroyed, or has failed to develop, that the patient in question has been already extinguished by the nature of their injuries. Not merely reduced, but extinguished.
All in all, my position is one of not trying to force an outcome out of nature that nature has already precluded, but at the same time not getting to expedience-minded in terms of dealing with those suffering brain injuries, terminal diseases, and other disabling or despair-inducing conditions. In making peace with the laws of nature, we should not presume to know everything about what it allows.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2005 02:54 PMBeagle:
“her “husband” (if you would call him that)”
Yeah, I’d call a man who has visited his drooling brain dead wife almost every day for the past fifteen years, a husband. In fact, because the man choose not to divorce that wife, even when it would have been far easier to just walk away from the entire grotesque situation, as well as the adversarial relationship that subsequently developed between him and his inlaws, but who instead, because he loved that wife, spent the last seven years in the courts trying to do what he believes she would have wanted, I’d call that man a damn fine husband, indeed.
Which brings me to the question - What about the Republican’s Much Vaunted, God-blessed Holy Sacred Sanctity of Marriage between a Man and a Woman?
I guess it doesn’t count among the Neocon’s if the husbands and wives aren’t Evangelical’s and therefore, don’t go along with the “Culture Of artificially-maintained Life” that they’re currently peddling?
I think most people wouldn’t want to be kept alive the way Terri Schiavo is being kept alive. She’s long gone - and her laying in that bed serves no purpose to Anyone - not herself, not her husband, or her parents.
I consider her situation to be a perfect example of where the Hippocratic oath has been allowed to go too far in artificially preserving life at ALL costs. In my opinion, such instances in actuality break with what it means to be human as well as humane.
I am one of those people who also support advocates like Dr. Kevorkian - doctors who would much rather display their humanity by showing mercy to those critically ill people who request their assistance for a much less painful and far more dignified death.
It is a law set by our President that we cannot let Terri die. Now, these arrogant, liberal and incompetent judges are betraying their country! How can we trust these judges to punish the terrorists when we catch then?
President Bush and GOP should pass a bill that allow us to throw these stupid judges out of our court! They assist murder!
Posted by: Amy at March 23, 2005 04:51 PMWow. Amy’s the most obvious troll I’ve seen on these boards in a long time.
Remember, don’t feed the trolls. Take a look, but walk on without bothering them.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 23, 2005 05:05 PM“Remember, don’t feed the trolls. Take a look, but walk on without bothering them.”
I’m TRYING LawnBoy I’m TRYING!
On another note, I hear that Terri’s physical condition is degenerating a lot faster than doctors thought it would. They estimated that Terri’s “life” would last about 2 weeks after her feeding tube was removed, and it has been five days. Like-as-not that she’ll just die before this whole mess is sorted out. What a waste of blog space.
Ok, I just couldn’t resist the urge to point out a few flaws with Amy’s logic.
“It is a law set by our President that we cannot let Terri die. Now, these arrogant, liberal and incompetent judges are betraying their country!”
So, if you don’t agree with laws set by one person you are betraying your country? Sounds characteristic of dictatorships doesn’t it? By the by, Shrub’s bill doesn’t explicitly say we cannot let Terri die, it just gives the federal courts an opportunity to make that decision.
“How can we trust these judges to punish the terrorists when we catch then [sic]?”
Uh, what terrorists? You mean the ones in Iraq? I don’t think the judges in Florida convict POW’s… Looks like another victim of propaganda/fear campaigning.
“President Bush and GOP should pass a bill that allow us to throw these stupid judges out of our court! They assist murder!”
You know that President Shrub supports the death penalty right? So pretty much every judge that convicts someone of the death penalty is stupid and should be thrown out? And I fail to see how pulling the feeding tube out of a vegetable is murder.
Anyways, welcome to Watchblog Amy!
Posted by: Zeek at March 23, 2005 05:38 PMZeek:
“And I fail to see how pulling the feeding tube out of a vegetable is murder.”
I think its pretty feckin’ horrible that as the law now stands we have to allow her dehydrate/starve to death. I think lethal injection would be the only humane thing to do in these situations.
“Like-as-not that she’ll just die before this whole mess is sorted out.”
Looks like Jeb is bringing in a last ditch quack for full political effect.
The woman’s brain is nothing but pockets full of spinal fluid where grey matter used to be, and they’re claiming she might one day miraculously improve. It’s positively Nutty.
“What a waste of blog space.”
Yeah well, no worse than putting our collective feet up in the stirrups for yet another abortion thread, IMO.
And in some ways this is very similar to the abortion argument. What it always comes down to is this:
Do we really want the government to dictate morality to We the People?
Yes ( ) or, No (X)
I think it’s pretty frickin horrible that 10 people were killed in a school shooting at Redlake 3 days ago. Yet that is being overshadowed by the fate of one, already dead, person. Which, I guess, just makes it even more frickin horrible,
Posted by: Zeek at March 23, 2005 06:31 PMZeek:
“I think it’s pretty frickin horrible that 10 people were killed in a school shooting at Redlake 3 days ago.”
It sure is, but I’d still rather die by taking a fast bullet than be a total vegetable laying in a bed for fifteen years, after which I’m made to dehydrate/starve to death. Wouldn’t you?
“Yet that is being overshadowed by the fate of one, already dead, person.”
I completely agree. But then, I’ve gotten quite used to seeing the real news fall by the wayside in favor of all the mindless, sensationalistic crap we’re being force fed. Not that I LIKE it, you understand, I’m just getting used to having to go digging for the Actual News of the Day online.
“Which, I guess, just makes it even more frickin horrible,”
Definitely, but life’s too short to constantly dwell on the frickin’, or in my case the feckin’, horrible all the time.
Toward that end, you might want to check this out…
What? Me a troll? I am stating the most obvious logic and fact. What are you, lawnBoy and Adrienne ? Are you in ‘presistent state of coldbloodness’?
Neil Cavuto from Foxnews put it just right. he said, “I think our presumed bias should be toward life. Let other countries explore euthanasia and killing someone mercifully. My fear is that as such logic progresses, it isn’t always merciful.
Something is very wrong in a country that can throw you in jail for not giving your dog food and water, but not even care if you do the same to a human being.”
Right on! Only French will think that it is OK to kill a live because she happens to be immobile. Remember who you are, LawnBoy and Adrienne! (OK. Maybe you are not American afterall…)
The judges are insane in this country.
Amy,
Since you seem actually to believe what you say, I’ll risk feeding you once.
It is a law set by our President that we cannot let Terri die.
No, the law Bush signed said that case would be reviewed at the Federal level. It did not require any particular solution from judges because such a requirement would be unconstitutional.
The judges were required by law to consider the case. Then, they were required by law to judge the case based on the merits of the case and whether there was a specific reason to set aside the previous decision. Since they did their job according to the law instead of according to the emotional pleas of a minority of the country (quite courageously and patriotically, considering the unreasoned reactions and misunderstandings of parts of that minority), they found that the earlier rulings could not be overturned.
Since you didn’t even know what the law said, I could stop now.
Now, these arrogant, liberal and incompetent judges are betraying their country!The judges are not arrogant; they are doing their jobs. They are not particularly liberal; judges across the political spectrum have agreed on this. They are not incompetent; they did their jobs as they should have based on the law and the experience and the evidence instead of basing their decision on your opinion. Thankfully, they upheld the Constitution and the foundations of American society by doing so; letting threats from an impassioned group sway their decision would have been a betrayal to the country.
I’m not saying that a decision to re-insert the tube would have been a betrayal, necessarily. If the evidence and the law supported such a decision, it would have been the right decision. However, coming to such a conclusion as the result of political, religious, and media pressure would have been a betrayal of their duty for the country.
How can we trust these judges to punish the terrorists when we catch then?If you think the proper role for judges in terrorism would be to ignore the law and institute mob rule, then you’re probably disappointed. However, if you hope to trust these judges to punish terrorists as required by law, then you should be very happy.
President Bush and GOP should pass a bill that allow us to throw these stupid judges out of our court! They assist murder!No, they follow the law. That’s their job.
What? Me a troll? I am stating the most obvious logic and fact.You may be stating what comes most quickly to your mind, but logic and fact are quite lacking.
What are you, lawnBoy?I’m a person trying to come to a real understanding of the issue. I’m not flame baiting.
Are you in ‘presistent state of coldbloodness’?No.
Neil Cavuto from Foxnews put it just right. he said, “I think our presumed bias should be toward life. Let other countries explore euthanasia and killing someone mercifully. My fear is that as such logic progresses, it isn’t always merciful.That’s a valid argument, and he should propose a law based on his beliefs. However, trying to change the law as it is practiced through intimidating judges is incredibly dangerous for our society and our government.
Something is very wrong in a country that can throw you in jail for not giving your dog food and water, but not even care if you do the same to a human being.”Who’s not caring? I haven’t heard a single person think it’s a great thing that her story would end this way. However, it seems to be in accordance with the law, with her wishes, and with the wishes of her legal guardian. Rule of law needs to be maintained.
Right on! Only French will think that it is OK to kill a live because she happens to be immobile. Remember who you are, LawnBoy and Adrienne! (OK. Maybe you are not American afterall…)I am American, and I understand that America is about more than trying to intimidate judges when I disagree with the law. I understand that the greatness of America comes from the Constitution and respect of law and citizen that it embodies. I’ll assume you were just mistaken and not that you were being a troll in starting a “you have to agree with me to be American” fight.
And why the gratuitous and nonsensical French bashing? How bizarre. I have to say, that’s very troll-like…
The judges are insane in this country.If by “insane” you mean “care more about law and society than about agreeing with the illogical rantings of someone commenting on a blog,” then you are correct. If you are using a more common definition of “insane”, you need to take a few civics classes again to understand the role of the judiciary in society. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 23, 2005 09:21 PM
Amy-
Schiavo has fluid where she should have neurons. The particular neurons that she’s lost are those which she would need to exist as a human being. Terri Schiavo has been dead for fifteen years. Her body and basal brain structures just haven’t figured it out yet.
The judges heard this case, and have found that her husband knew both her wife’s situation and wishes better than her parents. They followed the law, such that the appellate court could not decide for the parents.
The commentators up at FOX news cannot seem to understand that the congressional interventions, both state and national not only invaded the privacy of the Schiavos, but also compromised the separation of powers in the process.
Regardless of our intentions, there are lines that shouldn’t be crossed in government. Our constitution kept the Congress out of the judge and jury business, and forbade it from rewriting past jurisprudence after the fact. This has served to put our legal system on a firm foundations of stable interpretation, making it to where change is measured and consistent, and justice resistant to the ebbs and flows of political fortune.
The real insanity is creating a precedent for an abuse of power that could one day be used against your party. If the Republican majority can legislate its will in court cases, what would keep a rival majority from doing the same? What can be used to oppose Euthanasia, can be used to legitimize it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2005 09:23 PMStephen,
I listened to a bit of Hannity on my way home from dinner tonight (not a common habit, for sure). He had a guest who apparently used to be a nurse for Terri Schiavo. This nurse claims that Terri definitely liked some things and disliked other things, and she occasionally formed words. This nurse thought there was a true difference between Terri’s condition and the condition of other patients in Persistent Vegetative State.
I have no idea if what she says is true, or if it used to be true and no longer is. I can only hope that the legal process is followed and hope that the determination of the court-appointed doctors evaluating the case were correct.
However, I can definitely understand the emotion of the life lobby on this issue. Hearing many stories from a full daily diet of Conservative media like what I heard tonight could easily lead one to believe that a truely grievous wrong is about to be committed. Unfortunately, people like Amy have heard these stories so much that they’re willing to throw out the Constitution and its protections and guarantees to change this one case.
I don’t know why the courts and doctors decided Terri’s brain had no chance. Perhaps you’re right about the CAT scans (do you have a source?). Perhaps the nurse was right. Perhaps the nurse made connections to random events that weren’t really guides by an active intelligence anymore. I just don’t know. Either way, I hope rule of law is maintained.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 23, 2005 09:40 PMI didn’t have a chance to read the other comments but I agree 95% with what you wrote here.
Posted by: Chris Edwards at March 23, 2005 10:10 PMBelieve it or not LawnBoy, nurses can lie. (Feel free to gasp at this point).
I doubt that after 7 years in court the Florida judges have not yet had ample time to determine the authenticity of CAT scans and EEG’s of Terri’s brain.
The CAT scans reveal that Terri’s brain has been atrophied in certain areas and replaced with spinal fluid (which is irreversible by the way). The EEG’s reveal that her brain isn’t what dictates Terri’s movements and shows no signs of activity when Terri moves. In essence, this means that Terri’s state of existance is an irreversible condition of complete mental oblivion.
This is probably the 5th time I’ve said this so let’s hope people stop thinking Terri still has attributes of a living person.
Posted by: Zeek at March 23, 2005 10:15 PMGood Job!!! I see you have read the GOP Talking Points on this Issue. Don’t forget to bash those Activist Judges too!!! Keep the pressure up and the Religious Right will Vote for you again. Brilliant!!!
Posted by: Aldous at March 23, 2005 11:30 PMAmy:
“What? Me a troll?”
Well, as the old saying goes, if it quacks like a duck…
“I am stating the most obvious logic and fact.”
I must have missed something, because I can glean nothing logical or factual in what you have written so far…
“What are you, lawnBoy and Adrienne ?”
Human beings. Man/Woman. From there the details become much more personal - and would probably bore everyone on this blog to tears should we begin to divulge them. However, I do think it safe to say that neither one of us are trolls.
Are you in ‘presistent state of coldbloodness’?
I wonder how anything I said could be construed as cold-blooded? Or what Lawnboy wrote for that matter?
I’ll not comment on being labeled “presistent”, as I’ve never encountered that word before…
“Neil Cavuto from Foxnews put it just right.”
Uh huh.
he said, “I think our presumed bias should be toward life.”
And I think our presumed bias should be toward reality and mercy.
An artificially maintained life like Terri Schiavo’s is grotesque and wrong in my opinion. Interestingly, two recent polls placed my sentiments on this issue alongside the majority American’s who participated.
“Let other countries explore euthanasia and killing someone mercifully.”
While we withhold mercy from those who most need it? Sorry, but I for one won’t go along with that simply for the sake of someone else’s religious beliefs (though I realize that they are perfectly entitled to hold those beliefs and to act on them personally), perhaps I feel this way because I’ve actually been a volunteer caregiver to terminally ill people.
Nor will I ever go along with this in order to placate a certain segment of our society who wants to turn America into a moronic backwater, rudely and ignorantly disparaging other peoples of the world, simply because they aren’t American.
“My fear is that as such logic progresses, it isn’t always merciful.”
And my fear is that the mindset you seem to be championing will keep truly merciful, humane, and responsible laws from ever going forward. That illogical right-wing religious ideology will increasingly become the law of our land - annoyingly accompanied by mindlessly jingoistic phrases like “culture of life”, when in actuality what we are talking about is woman being artificially denied her death, who has been laying in a bed for fifteen years like a zombie, while her husband and her family have been emotionally torn apart.
“Something is very wrong in a country that can throw you in jail for not giving your dog food and water, but not even care if you do the same to a human being.”
Again your logic is weak, for what I said was that I thought it would be more humane if a person like Terri Schiavo received a lethal injection rather than be made to suffer a slow and horrible death through dehydration and starvation.
“Only French will think that it is OK to kill a live because she happens to be immobile.”
Quack!
“Remember who you are, LawnBoy and Adrienne!”
What he and I really must remember is to critique the message, not the messenger. I suggest you do likewise, Amy.
(OK. Maybe you are not American afterall…)
I am indeed an American. But contrary to what you may wish to believe, we aren’t all expected to think alike. We never have been, nor would it be wise for us to start thinking we ever should.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”
Thomas Jefferson
“The judges are insane in this country.”
Oooh, nice sweeping generalization, there.
Thanks for all the laughs.
Here’s the facts on the case, in detail. Precise. Without spin:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
CAT scan:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/schiavo_reconsidered
Since 1990, Theresa has lived in nursing homes with constant care. She is fed and hydrated by tubes. The staff changes her diapers regularly. She has had numerous health problems, but none have been life threatening.
Over the span of this last decade, Theresa’s brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition.
Posted by: Julia at March 24, 2005 04:04 AMWho should decide the fate of Terri Schiavo? … Congress stumbled onto the correct answer … this question must be decided ultimately by us - we the people.
Yikes! Why don’t “we the people” start dictating what you eat every day so you stay healthy? Trust us, it’s for your own good. :/
Jack, having the federal government make intensly personal and private decisions for us is just a silly idea, and it’s a good example of how far astray from conservative values Bush-fans will go to support the current GOP leadership’s wacko agenda.
If a liberal suggested that the government should decide when you can die, you’d crucify ‘em - and rightly so.
Let the individual or their family or guardian make the decision whether to pull the plug. The system we have in place now (or had, until the wacko GOP got cynically involved for political gain) respects our privacy with recourse through the courts if necessary, and most of the time it’s not necessary. It’s a good system.
I just re-read your post, Jack. Are you saying that the government is paying for Mrs. Schiavo’s treatment? If so, that’s the first I’ve heard of it. I’ve never heard of the government stepping in to keep anyone alive using federal funds to pay for hospital bills. Not on this planet.
Posted by: American Pundit at March 24, 2005 08:24 AMAP
AP
As I understand it (and I have been too lazy to do extensive research) he stay is being paid for by a combination of Medicaid and the kindness of the hospice.
What I want is not the Federal government necessarily to decide when a person should die. But it is clear that Federal law will almost certainly dictate when insurance, Medicaid or Medicare will continue to foot the bills. The Feds ultimately regulate insurance and you see people taking their insurance providers to court to demand some treatments.
I take here a cold-blooded approach that is mine only. I would not characterize it as liberal or conservative. I don’t think we (taxpayers or through insurance) should pay “excessive” bills for anyone. We would have to decide what it means to be excessive, but the Schiavo case clearly qualifies. 15 years @ 80-100,000 for what?
You know that there are whole families that don’t spend that much to stay healthy for their lifetimes. Our medical priorities are just silly. We spend too much on keeping the marginally alive on this earth.
In all candor, the Schiavo case is very much like her parents keeping a pet. There is no human life there. Leaving the decision to maintain that “life” up to the individual or family is fine, as long as they are paying for it. As far as I am concerned, they can keep her alive as long as they want as long as THEY can afford it.
Yes, the rich will be able to buy more medical care of this type than the poor. In this case, maybe its not an advantage to be rich. Everyone would have been better off if doctors had been unable or unwilling to “save” Terri Schiavo fifteen years ago.
Jack has laid out the answer to Social Security problem here.
Posted by: George at March 24, 2005 09:30 AMThey must kill her now, If she were to live she would surely have a solid case against the State of Florida and the United States on grounds of cruel and unusual punishment.
Posted by: George at March 24, 2005 09:36 AMJack, as far as I know, Mr. Schiavo is using the millions he got from a court settlement and private donations to pay for his wife’s care.
If she was getting care fully on the govt. dole, I’d probably agree with you. But I’m pretty sure it’s not the case, and to the small extent it might possibly be happening with MediCare, I’m not even worried about it.
In fact, I read recently where doctors pulled the plug on a 6-month old because the family couldn’t pay the bills. I don’t the topic of this article is much of an issue since it’s not happening on a scale that makes a difference.
This case goes beyond the typical arguments for technology superceding our ethics and quality of life issues. Surrounding the debates years ago regarding euthanasia and doctor-assisted-suicide, many said that the “quality of life” reasoning in support of these allowed for a slippery slope upon which it was only a matter of time before we would allow people to be put down who never requested it. Others called that a slippery slope fallacy. Well, here we are. There is no evidence of this lady’s request to end her life. We have the word of her husband, who, relatively speaking, has only known her as his wife for a brief period years ago, and we have the word of her family who raised her and have known her intimately for her entire life. This is not a case of technology keeping Terri alive. Her body has the capacity to remain alive on its own. What she lacks is the ability to feed herself. Based on the claim of Terri’s husband, a move has been made not to prevent technology from keeping Terri alive, but rather to starve Terri to death. And this to a lady who has never made this formal request and does not have the ability to object.
Those who said that doctor-assisted suicide was not a slippery slope were very much mistaken. We are now witnessing the intentional starvation of a woman who has not requested it, and who cannot voice her objection. What slippery slope has this created? How long before the Scott Peterson’s of the world are able to capitalize on the misfortune of wives and use the same arguments as Terri’s husband in order to dispose of inconvenient spouses? Some would say that is a slippery slope fallacy, but that’s what they said years ago.
And here we are anyway.
Posted by: Ed at March 24, 2005 09:53 AMI used to think that Terri’s parents should let her go. I myself would not want to live in a state such as hers, and I can’t imagine anyone else to that matter, either.
What made me change my mind were a couple little commented on facts.
Terri has not had “meaningful” therapy since 1993, after the “falling out” between the parents and her husband. This “falling out” occured when Mr. Shiavo advised the doctors not to treat Terri for an UTI, putting her at risk for death from sepsis (which he acknowledged in a deposition he knew would happen). Her parents naturally were upset and sued (and won), and from that point on, Mr. Shiavo has seemed to wield his “guardian” card over Terri’s parents, and put in her charts not to give her anymore therapy, and to not revive her should she stop breathing. That’s a cruel vindictive thing to do, and who wouldn’t think that it was done for cruel intentions, not by this “verbal” wish of Terri’s?
I wish I understood why the judge has dismissed the ad litem even when that person had advised Mr. Shiavo to be removed as guardian. I wish I understood why his guardianship wasn’t removed when he publically anounced his engagement to another woman and proceeded to have two children by her. I do not understand how Judge Greer could rule that Mr. Shiavo still retains Terri’s best interests for her care in light of his new family without her. Surely, if Terri were able to, they would be divorced, and would not have permitted him to be married to her yet live with another woman.
So, my mind was changed, also because with all the advances in science (if not the corrections we’re making to previous misunderstandings of the working of our own brains), how can we assume that Terri’s working parts of her brain cannot be coaxed to take over?
She’s not completely a “vegetable” She responds, if even in a little way. I would much rather think she’s severly disabled.
I think that all avenues have not been explored to improve her condition, and if they haven’t how can the courts decide when she should die? Give the parents the opportunity to give her therapy, and if she doesn’t improve AFTER this, THEN I would think there were no other options. Right now there are, but Mr. Shiavo has put orders in not to use them.
It’s a sad situation, and I’m confused a bit about the decisions the courts have come to, but in time, I’m sure we’ll all find out why.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at March 24, 2005 10:10 AMThere is no evidence of this lady’s request to end her life…We are now witnessing the intentional starvation of a woman who has not requested it.Your statements on this are contrary to the facts of the case:
Was Michael the only person who testified about Terri’s supposed statements on her views about living on life support?[Abstract Appeal] Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2005 10:17 AMNo, others did as well, and when making the decision in the case, the trial judge took into account all of that testimony and additional evidence. As the Second District explained:
We note that the guardianship court’s original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo’s earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See � 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo’s values, personality, and her own decision-making process.
Ever since this story hit the news, I’ve been wondering why some people feel so passionatly about interjecting themselves into this family’s lives (and this includes our government).
My wife and I have talked about our wishes if this type of tradgedy should befall one of us, and as far as we’re concerned, it’s none of y’alls business. I’m sure you would agree that you don’t want me meddling in your personal affairs like that.
Anyway, the only conclusion that I’ve come to is an overwhelming fear of death. Jack, you mentioned it in your article. It seems to be so common for people to look back on their lives and say, “gosh, I watched a lot of TV.”
Do I look forward to death? Heck no. But, for me living is about the experiences, mental pursuits, and being a contributing member of my family, community and society. If you take much of that away, then I really don’t see the value. If something should happen to me today, I’d be losing out on a lot, but I feel great about the time I’ve had.
It’s distressing to me that others, who seem to be less secure than me and who don’t share my beliefs regarding the “afterlife” and what constitutes living, would want to decide under what conditions I live and die.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here (for the most part) but thought it was worth saying.
Oh, and BTW, my local news cited a survey last night that said 60+% of people agreed with the court ruling and 80+% thought it was wrong for congress and the Pres to get involved.
Posted by: Tad at March 24, 2005 10:48 AMWe are supposed to be a Country of Laws. There are state laws written for this situation. Those laws were followed. Yet, it amazes me how many people think they know better than the participants in this drama.
Now, the GOP has decided they could increase their fund raising by making this private issue into a more public one. They violated the constitution and its reservation of powers in so doing. They and the president have proven themselves to be the ultimate hypocrites. I can not forgive them for continuing to use religion for purely political power grabbing purposes and dividing and perverting our nation in the process.
To hell with them. My money now goes to the Democrats.
Thank you for the comment. I don’t think your statement necessarily addresses the lack of “request”. General statements about Terri’s comments are not the same as formal requests found in cases of doctor-assisted-suicide. However, that witness testimony did not address her current situation. Mr. Shaivo contends that Terri would believe “life-prolonging procedures” to include feeding. All, of us, even you, are subject to this “life prolonging procedure” right now, but unlike Terri, you have the ability to feed yourself. The claim that Terri’s intention of withdrawing “life-prolonging procedures” includes refusing to feed her if she becomes disabled and cannot feed herself is only taken as her husbands claim that it is her intent. Again, those arguments of “life prolonging procedures” become weak in this case when we are talking about refusing nutrition from one who is dasabled. There is no testimony other than from Terri’s husband that indicates Terri’s request to be denied nutrition in the event she cannot care for herself, and in the absence of a formal “request” such as might be seen in a case of doctor-assisted-suicide, the reliance on her husband to not only recount what Terri has said (even with others verifying) but to also know that she would include this circumstance is weak.
Posted by: Ed at March 24, 2005 11:03 AMYou’re right, Ed. Any private conversation can be second-guessed or mis-remembered or mis-interpreted later. The courts have consistently concluded that Mr. Schiavo is correctly exercising his rights as legal guardian, but it’s impossible to say for sure in this situation.
Which is exactly why my wife and I have set up Living Wills.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2005 11:17 AMMichael Shaivo waited for years before telling the court that his wife did not want the feeding tube. Am I to believe him? NO!
With all the argument about who is to do what let us just err on the side of life. Let the feeding tube stay in and when life has taken its normal course then its is over. There are too many people trying to be GOD. There day is the judgement day. For today let Terri live. A sentence of death for her not doing anything to deserve it is just plain murder.
Michael Shaivo waited for years before telling the court that his wife did not want the feeding tube. Am I to believe him? NO!At what point should he have pressed the issue in the courts? Would you believe him if he had gone to the courts in the first weeks on months? Of course not - then he would have been much to eager to cash in on her death.
We don’t know how he decided to go to the courts when he did. Was is precipitated by a change in Terri’s condition? A fight with the Schindlers? A new girlfriend? A fifth opinion from a specialist that her condition would never improve? Had he talked about her wishes in private for years but avoided the courts until he lost all hope?
We just don’t know, but you’re willing to distrust him without knowing the facts. I prefer to let the doctors and courts decide because they have studied the issue intensively, know the people involved, and have proper legal authority on the matter.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2005 11:30 AMOk, I probably approach this from a slightly different perspective, as I have health problems and in fact spent 3 days on life support once. (I was on a ventilator with pneumonia. Both lungs were totally full of fluid so this was the only way I could breathe.) I also had a feeding tube down my throat at the time, since you can’t eat with a tube going into your lungs. It was not the most pleasant experience in the world, but it was definitely much better than dying. Of course, I had most of my faculties intact(being that sick did make my mind work differently, and not as well) so I am not comparing this to the Schiavo case.
I have a few points to make. First of all, just where are you going to draw the line on who should live and who should die, Jack? Would you have allowed me to die 10 years ago because I didn’t have insurance. (Don’t worry, the government didn’t pay for my care either. I was at a private hospital, and my bill was paid partially by donations and also partially written off by the hospital. I can’t get insurance due to pre-existing conditions unless I find a job where the group insurance has to take me. And I make too much to qualify for medicaid.) What about when I was 3 months old and needed blood transfusions through the soft spot on my head, and the doctors couldn’t even figure out why I was continuously anemic and jaundiced? Would you have thought that putting a little baby through that was cruel and an unjustified expense? Or perhaps when my mother was pregnant with me? If doctors had been able to do a genetic test,(which they probably can do today, at least for one of my pre-existing conditions) and could have seen that I would have arthritis at 21(and due to a blood problem, be unable to use any of the usual arthrtis medications, even aspirin), and need new knees by the time I was 40, and that I would nearly die several times, and that my medical care would probably cost over a million dollars by the time that I do die(assuming I live into my 60’s or 70’s), would you have recommended, or even tried to force her, to have an abortion so I wouldn’t have to go through all that and waste all that money?
Setting regulations for medicaid and medicare spending might be ok, but what Jack is suggesting is dangerously close to totalitarianism. The government has no business deciding what measures should be taken to save someone’s life, or to keep someone alive, except to make sure that people are NOT arbitrarily or prematurely killed. The idea that the government could decide which lives, or what kind of life, are worth living is repugnant. There are some people who would hate living in a wheelchair, but that does not give them the right to decide that everyone in wheelchairs should be denied medical care and just allowed to die at the first illness. I’m sure Jack wouldn’t take it that far, but there are others that would and if we start down that slope then there is no way to know where it will lead.
In my opinion, unless an individual has expressed either in writing, or through some sort of recording, that they do not want to live on life support, then all measures should be taken to save them and keep them alive. If they have not expressed their wishes in a way that can be documented, then in instances where there are more than one close relative(spouse, parents, children, siblings), at least 2 of them should agree that the individual would not have wanted heroic measures or life support before that support is cut off. Just allowing a single relative, especially when that relative stands to inherit or otherwise potentially benefit from the death (as is evidently the case with Schiavo) to make the decision without any proof of the patient’s wishes opens up the possibility that the relative will make a decision based more on their own priorities than on the patient’s. In such cases, requiring a second relative to agree with the decision (preferably one who does not stand to benefit from the death or inherit anything or receive life insurance money) would better protect the patient’s rights.
If a second relative is unavailable, then in my opinion at least two separate doctors should agree with the decision.
As for those who support so-called “mercy killing” or assisted suicide, I would ask you the same questions I asked Jack above. Where are you going to draw the line? What gives you, or anyone, the right to decide when a life is worth living? If we start down that road, what is to stop others, with even less respect for life, from deciding to kill anyone who is retarded, or has any handicap or disability? Will we eventually reach the point where everyone is mercy killed at 90, or 80, to keep them from going through the infirmities of old age? Will we eventually reach the point where anyone born with a genetic defect that can’t be cured will just be killed right then and there, to keep them from suffering later in life? Has my whole life been a waste of money?
It takes the wisdom of somebody who has been there to see the light of day. Thank you Bill for the insight. Mr. Shaivo sought to have his wife killed after he received the large money settlement. The examination of all the facts still says let Terri live!!!!!
Posted by: Tom at March 24, 2005 11:53 AMJulia - great links!
Lawnboy:
“We don’t know how he decided to go to the courts when he did. Was is precipitated by a change in Terri’s condition? A fight with the Schindlers? A new girlfriend? A fifth opinion from a specialist that her condition would never improve? Had he talked about her wishes in private for years but avoided the courts until he lost all hope?”
After looking at the timeline link that Julia put up previously - it appears that he must have lost all hope. It was eight years between when she first had the heartattack and when Michael Schiavo first filed to have her feeding tube removed. By this time, she had already had aggressive therapy at a rehabilitation center, was taken to California for experimental therapies before going to another rehabilitation center, then went to a nursing facility where they made more attempts at aggressive physical therapy as well as speech therapy. It seems to me that coming to terms with the fact that her brain damage was going to be completely irreversible and could only get worse must have had a lot to do with why he’d go to court to have her feeding tube removed at that time.
AP:
“as far as I know, Mr. Schiavo is using the millions he got from a court settlement and private donations to pay for his wife’s care.”
From the link:
“1993 - Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri’s care; jury had ruled in Michael’s favor on allegations Terri’s doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal”
She was in nursing homes until 2000, then went to hospice care - I’d be willing to bet that most of the money was gone before that happened.
Lisa Zeimetz:
“I wish I understood why his guardianship wasn’t removed when he publically anounced his engagement to another woman and proceeded to have two children by her.”
Good for him. I’m glad his entire life doesn’t only consist of daily visits to a hospice center - which I understand he still does every day regardless of having a family.
“I do not understand how Judge Greer could rule that Mr. Shiavo still retains Terri’s best interests for her care in light of his new family without her.”
Perhaps the judge realizes he has always taken his wife’s best interests very seriously - otherwise he could have easily relinquished her guardianship, and divorced her to marry the mother of his children.
“how can we assume that Terri’s working parts of her brain cannot be coaxed to take over? She’s not completely a “vegetable” She responds, if even in a little way. I would much rather think she’s severly disabled.”
Also from the above link:
“Her brain had suffered enormous damage from the heart attack. As time passed, her brain further deteriorated — to the point where much if not most of her cerebral cortex (the portion of the brain that controls conscious thought, among other things) was literally gone, replaced by spinal fluid. Doctors hired by Terri’s husband say the deterioration of Terri’s brain left her without thoughts or feelings, that the damage is irreversible, and that Terri’s life-like appearance is merely the result of brain stem activity — basically involuntary reflexes we all have. An independent doctor hired by the court reached the same conclusions. Doctors hired by Terri’s parents did not dispute the physical damage done to Terri, but they claim there are new therapies that could improve her condition. In two separate trials, the trial court found such claims of potential improvement to be without merit. Terri’s body continues to function without her cerebral cortex.”
Bill,
I don’t think anyone here was suggesting that those with Physical Ailments, Severe Retardation, Autism, or various other disabilities be allowed to die - perhaps because those people do have thoughts and feelings. This is really what constitutes life.
In addition, if you read the court transcripts, it states that Terri’s parents and family based their beleifs on her opinions from a conversation she had with them when she was 12, and the rest of those who testified based her opinions on what she said when she was in her 20s, and her grandmother went to teh hospital. Aparrently her grandmother did really badly, and she said that if she ever got to a point where she was that bad off, she would just want to be let go, it wasn’t worth it.
In addition, Michael and her were together for 8 years, he had an extremely close relationship with her parents after she fell ill. (which later turned out badly), he actually learned how to be a respiatory therapist so he could take better care of her.
In any case, you should really actually read the facts and court abstracts if you are going to make claims about MIchael Schiavos character, or lack of it.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
You’re left with a husband who lived with his in-laws following Terri’s heart attack, who apparently provided care and therapy for years but who later came to believe Terri would never recover. He believes she would not have wanted to be kept alive in this brain-degenerated condition by a surgically implanted tube. He is apparently willing to continue his fight to achieve what he believes Terri would want despite ridicule, hatred, expense, and threats.
You’re left with parents who were once allied with Terri’s husband in an effort to care for Terri and restore her but, unlike Terri’s husband, they never lost hope. They believe Terri reacts to them and has conscious thoughts. They believe Terri would not want, and does not want, her feeding tube removed, and that some cognitive function could be restored through new therapies. Terri’s parents are willing to continue their fight to achieve what they believe Terri would want despite ridicule, hatred, expense, and threats.
You’re left with judges who have been placed in the utterly thankless position of applying Florida law to this impassioned situation. Florida law calls for the trial court to determine what Terri would chose to do in this situation, and after a trial hard fought by Terri’s husband and her family, where each side was given the opportunity to present its best case about what Terri would do, the court determined the evidence was clear and convincing that Terri would chose not to continue living by the affirmative intervention of modern medicine — that she would chose to have her feeding tube disconnected. In a second trial, brought about by Terri’s family’s claims new therapies could restore her and that the existence of such a therapy would make her “change her mind,” the trial court again heard evidence from all sides and determined that no new therapy presented any reasonable chance of restoring Terri’s brain function. The propriety of these decisions — from the sufficiency of the evidence to the appropriateness of the procedures used — has been unanimously upheld on appeal each time.
Julia
Adrienne,
I know that no one on here would kill people with disabilities. But, I do believe that there are people out there that would eventually argue for such a thing if we so much as crack the door. There are people now who believe in “mercy killing” or “assissted suicide” for people with cancer who have severe, chronic pain. If a person wants to kill themselves, that’s their business, but if anyone else helps them, whether they have an MD or not, it is murder and only a few steps away from people wanting to get rid of anyone who has severe medical problems. I have severe, chronic pain in my knees, and have done so for over 10 years now. Pain that can only be controlled with narcotics, because I’m only 34 and my doctors don’t want to do a knee replacement until I’m at least 40. I would be willing to bet that if I had lived in the same state as Kevorkian, and gone to him, he would have agreed to kill me in order to end my pain, despite the fact that my condition is NOT TERMINAL.
This is why I would much rather slam the door on this right now, before those who are more radical and less respectful of life take advantage of the opportunities that “assisted suicide” or “right to die” would give them to do what I consider to be unthinkable.
Posted by: Bill at March 24, 2005 03:30 PMi think we should just let the parents of terri support her they offered to, would’nt this just solve everything and her husband be divorsed from her, maybe i don’t know all the details, but instead of murdering an inocent individual let them take on the responsability.
Posted by: alan at March 24, 2005 03:44 PMMr. Shaivo is not paying one red cent for his Terri’s rehab or medical costs. After he received the court judgement of a million dollars, he stopped paying for any of her costs. He then went to court to say she did not want to be in this condition, so remove the tube. There is testimony of a nurse who said that when Mr. Shaivo visted Terri on one occasion he had his girl friend with him and was quoted as saying something like isn’t the bitch dead yet? That should say a lot about a “devoted” husband.
Posted by: Tom at March 24, 2005 03:54 PMTom,
Do you have any sources for these strong claims?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2005 03:55 PMLawnboy,
Various news agencies have reported this as news as well as interviews have given same testimony.
Ahhh… various news agencies. I remember seeing that link now. Of course, now I see that your exquisitely prepared evidence easily trumps all contradictory evidence. It was silly of me to consider the other evidence that has been provided previously with useful links and explanations and supporting court documents.
After all, if it’s been reported, it must be true, right?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2005 04:44 PMBill:
“But, I do believe that there are people out there that would eventually argue for such a thing if we so much as crack the door.”
There are people who will argue for anything and everything, but terminally ill people, or brain dead people like Terri Schiavo, deserve laws formed by reasonable, caring people - who fully understand just how far that door should be allowed to open.
“There are people now who believe in “mercy killing” or “assissted suicide” for people with cancer who have severe, chronic pain.”
Yes, I am one such person - but only when and if the patient is terminal. As I said in an earlier post, I believe that doctors should be allowed to feel as much responsibility toward ending the suffering of terminally ill people as they do as they do toward saving peoples lives. When the patient with the support of their family requests such assistance, I feel they should have the right to die - when they want, and in the way they want.
“If a person wants to kill themselves, that’s their business, but if anyone else helps them, whether they have an MD or not, it is murder and only a few steps away from people wanting to get rid of anyone who has severe medical problems.”
I don’t agree, rather than murder, it is mercy - an idea which stems from the very best of what it means to be human. As for people wanting to kill themselves, this often isn’t possible - by the time they wish for death to take them, they often cannot do anything to help, or hurt themselves. And I think it is too cruel to expect a family member to do the job for them - besides, allowing that might very well lead to the kind of moral danger to our society that you’re so fearful of.
“I have severe, chronic pain in my knees, and have done so for over 10 years now. Pain that can only be controlled with narcotics, because I’m only 34 and my doctors don’t want to do a knee replacement until I’m at least 40.”
I’m truly sorry you’re living with so much pain. Have you ever thought about trying accupuncture treatments for your knees? A skilled practitioner might be able to alleviate quite a bit of your pain and allow you to take a much lower amount of pain meds.
“I would be willing to bet that if I had lived in the same state as Kevorkian, and gone to him, he would have agreed to kill me in order to end my pain, despite the fact that my condition is NOT TERMINAL.”
I don’t agree. People like Dr. Kevorkian aren’t ghouls - they’re just fighting a battle against the idea of saving every life at ALL costs - situations where doctors are even operating on patients and giving painful procedures when there is absolutely no point, and the person is weeks, or even days, away from death.
“This is why I would much rather slam the door on this right now, before those who are more radical and less respectful of life take advantage of the opportunities that “assisted suicide” or “right to die” would give them to do what I consider to be unthinkable.”
What I consider unthinkable, as well as immoral, is to slam the door in the faces of suffering people - withholding mercy from them for the mere sake of an ideology or a narrow mindset. Our laws should be able to reflect both a reverence for life, and willingness to face death in a way that minimizes pain, acknowledges our fellow humans right to dignity, and respects their final wishes in the last moments of life.
Posted by: Adrienne at March 24, 2005 04:45 PMI’m so prowd of the regulars here that labeled a first time? poster as a Troll.
Even if the comments/ opinion were a lil outragous or over the top, I didn’t see where she was bashing anyone personally ?
When I first found this site I posted some stupid things too, I thought it was like all the other “I bash you…You bash me” sites, I found that it wasn’t, you could slam opinions but not someone personally, I can’t express in words how refreshing I found that on a political website.
I wouldn’t want anyone to get in trouble over that, I just hope everyone could stop and think about it a lil.
To me Watchblog is the “cream de la cream”, nothing else on the net even comes close, for everyone that ever posts anything here, there are a 100 or 1000 that read it.
Sorry for venting….respectfully, Beagle
Posted by: Beagle at March 24, 2005 04:49 PMAdrienne,
I want to know how you come to the conclusion that Mike was a devoted husband that took his wife’s condition very seriously. He did not consider her death at eight years after her condition, he considere it much sooner than that. In the November 1993 deposition he clearly states that he was aware that by ordering Terri’s UTI NOT to be treated, it could be fatal. That is not the action of a devoted husband. That is not an action of a person that takes Terri’s life/condition seriously. Also, Mike received a $600,000 settlement himself, and Terri received a $1.2 million settlement, which the judge approved he could use for attorney expenses. Now, I mean TERRI’s money, not his. He even put her cats to sleep, and I don’t see how a grief stricken husband could do that. It sounds too bizarre.
His ex girlfriend, Cindy Shook even contacted the media on record stating that when he would visit Terri at the nursing home, that Terri would cry when he would leave. Is that the behavior of a vegetable? I think that is more than brain stem activity.
I think what makes this case so emotional is that Terri IS more than a vegetable. She only needs a feeding tube, and perhaps with time, not even that, because Mike made sure she would never receive the therapy to find out. She DOES cry, and she DOES smile and react to the people around her. Terri’s Fight has the videos and depositions on the time line they have on the site. If you take out all the opinion, and only leave fact. You have the videos, and you have the court documents. It doesn’t make Mike look good.
I’m not here to bash him, I only point these things out, because I feel that he has not done all he can for his “wife” and as a “guardian” and I think the parents have merit in the courts with their claims. This is a personal issue, but we have the courts to make sure that people like Mike are doing what the title of “guardian” bestows upon them, and that is to provide what is best for them. People can argue whether she should die or not, but I still don’t feel that all her avenues have been explored, and Mike being the guardian, that was his duty.
Look at Bill, he has more medical problems than any of us would want, and I’m sure because he persued the best treatments possible for his conditions, he surely has improved. If those treatments and therapies were withheld from him because his parents (the guardians) were to decide against it, wouldn’t we call that abuse? Should he die because of his parents’ decisions that ultimately caused that death? Why can’t we see this in the same context for Terri? Were she to have received therapy to learn to swallow (she never did) we wouldn’t even be having this disscussion. She’d be “disabled” and this could turn into the “assisted suicide” issue.
I apologise for sounding redundant.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at March 24, 2005 04:50 PMLawnboy,
I have read the documents in this case ( not all of course, and there is enough discrepancy in so much of the statements, charges, rebuttals, etc. that one only has to sort out the tares and absorb the facts. The only reason Terri is dying is that the feeding tube has been removed. She did respond to stimulation in the timely manner one should expect. She did show emotion in the timely manner one should expect. She did show movement in the timely manner one should expect. These all indicated that Terri was alive and would progress if the proper therapy and help were provided. It is purely wicked to not let her mother put ice cubes on her lips. It is evil to not let her mother do anything to assist her in this very trying moment. Judges must be removed that do not see the value of life.
Beagle,
I’m sorry if I upset you with my guess that Amy was a troll. For those not familiar with the phrase, here’s an explanation. Actually, her comment is better described as flame bait instead of trolling, so I was wrong.
I’ll try to refrain from labelling people so quickly in the future, especially when I violated my own advice by responding to her.
She didn’t personally bash anyone here, but she did refer to the professionals and civil servants who help keep our society together as arrogant, liberal (which is probably an insult in her mind), incompetent, treasonous (betraying the country), stupid, and accomplices to murder.
It was just way too much, especially based on a flawed premise of what the law was.
I’m glad you have a high opinion of WatchBlog. I hope we can keep it that way.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2005 05:06 PMTom,
You’re right that there are a lot of documents and a lot of contradictory testimony. Some doctors say her responses so some awareness, while other doctors (the majority in the relevant court cases) say that they are random firings of lower brain activity consistent with persistent vegetative state. Who’s right? You’ve decided which doctors you agree with. I lean the other way, but I’m not sure.
Judges must be removed that do not see the value of life.And this is where we disagree. Judges must be removed that do not see the value of the law. If the law values life above all else, then your statement is fine. However, if judges value any personal belief above the law, our nation and our democracy are doomed. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2005 05:25 PM
That’s supposed to be “show some awareness” in the second sentance.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 24, 2005 05:26 PMAgain, Lisa and Tom, please visit
Abstract Appeal
I too visited the terrisfight sight, and was immediately convinced. Then I read the abstract appeal site and saw the evidence in its straightforward form. It changed my mind. I suggest you view a less biased source before you make a decision on Michael Schiavo’s character.
All of your concerns WERE addressed in court, you can see the testimony, you can view why some scientists opinions were taken and others weren’t, you can view the evidence on Terris chance of recovery. And you can decide for yourself.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at March 24, 2005 05:58 PMJulia,
I’ll have to pop over there tonight when the kids are in bed. I haven’t been to that website before, and if you have been to Terri’s site, and this site changed your mind, I’ll HAVE to see it for myself.
I wonder why the courts ruled the way they did so consistently, so hopefully this will be my answer.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at March 24, 2005 06:12 PMThe site is really full of information, so I extracted one link, but you can go through it as you please, of course.
This is the link about the courts decision on the matters of the doctors credibility, the balloon tracking, the likelihood of Terris condition improving, etc:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt
Posted by: Julia at March 24, 2005 07:16 PMAdrienne,
So you don’t think Dr. Jack Kevorkian would kill someone who wasn’t already terminally ill?
On Oct. 23, 1991, in one of his first “assisted suicides” he killed a woman(Marjorie Wantz-age 58) whose only problem was severe pelvic pain. She was not terminally ill. Phsychiatrists say that she was depressed, and that her pain was in fact possibly pyshosomatic. Her autopsy showed no physical cause for her pain. And you don’t think that is murder?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kevorkian/interviews/index.html
On Nov. 26, 1994, Kevorkian helped a 72 yr. old woman(Margaret Garrish) who had arthritis and osteoporosis. Again, she was NOT terminally ill, although in this case she had lost her legs and had lost sight in one eye. Kevorkian’s lawyer, Geoffrey Fieger, had announced to reporters several months earlier(March 28, 94) that Kevorkian would do so unless a doctor came foward who could help her with her pain. Dr. Pavan Grover, a pain specialist read about the press conference, and attempted to call the lawyer’s office.(The name of the woman had not been given, so he couldn’t contact her directly.) He says that although he called several times, he was blown off and doesn’t know if the woman ever knew of his offer of help or not. He firmly believes that he could have helped her with her pain, and therefore she did not need to die. I guess that wasn’t murder either. I’m glad I never went to him any of the times I got depressed because of the pain I was in.
http://members.aol.com/jtcrawford/kevorkian_rd.htm
Jack Kevorkian was not a “mercy” killer, he was just a killer, pure and simple.
Posted by: Bill at March 24, 2005 07:47 PMBill, I don’t think Dr. Kevorkian went after people to kill them. You don’t want the good Dr. killing you, don’t contact him. See, pro-choice.
Posted by: ray at March 24, 2005 08:49 PMLisa:
“I want to know how you come to the conclusion that Mike was a devoted husband that took his wife’s condition very seriously. “
Terri and Michael Schiavo’s story has been in the news for quite and I read an article about him a long while back that lead me to believe that he simply wouldn’t have continued to visit his wife so faithfully over all these years or gone through all the legal battles that he has if he didn’t take his guardianship responsibilities seriously and care deeply about respecting what he believes her wishes would be about keeping her body alive when her mind has been dead for so many years.
I admit that reading about those frequent visitations of his struck an emotional chord with me, because as I mentioned earlier, I have been a caregiver for critically ill people with AIDS in a hospice setting - and many of those folks come to think of the people who help take care of them as being closer to family than their own - who very often don’t come at all, or visit only rarely - even when they stand to inherit the ill person’s entire fortune.
Honestly, read both of the links that Julia gave - I think you’ll see that there really isn’t any hope for Terri’s brain function, and that her caring and attentive husband certainly doesn’t deserve to be bashed.
Posted by: Adrienne at March 24, 2005 09:36 PMBill,
You’ll note that in both instances where I mentioned him, I said people LIKE Dr. Kevorkian - as I was fully aware that there seems to be a few questionable situations regarding the people he has assisted with suicide. Still, I assert that the core idea behind what he has done in the past is a good and humane one, however.
I’m a little surprised by your post - after my last reply, I expected a bit more than an attack on Kevorkian alone.
ray:
“Bill, I don’t think Dr. Kevorkian went after people to kill them. You don’t want the good Dr. killing you, don’t contact him. See, pro-choice.”
Nicely put! :^)
Posted by: Adrienne at March 24, 2005 09:50 PMI agree with others, by the way, that we should take this case as an example of how we really should create living wills and discuss quality of life issues with our family (especially our aging parents). I know of so many people who face this issue. We actively requested my grandmother state her wishes, after suffering through my grandfather slowly dying of colon cancer, and she still never did. I guess she thought she would get around to it at some point. Then she had a massive stroke that left her partially paralyzed and unable to speak. We spent th next four years struggling with whether or not we were doing what she wished us to do. (She couldn’t even reliably communicate by pointing to pictures).
We need to get over this reticence about talking about death, especially since advances in medical technology mean that all of us face a very high likelihood of a lingering, rather than a quick death. Some of us are like Stephen Hawking, perfectly willing to live a life primarily of the mind. Others of us aren’t.
What will you do if your mother falls and hits her head, or has a stroke, or a massive heart attack? If she’s 87 years old and faces years of therapy just to speak… is that what she wants? Maybe it is. Sometimes you have only a matter of hours to make these decisions, and knowing the other persons wishes makes it all so much less traumatic and painful. Take the time. Talk to your loved ones.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at March 24, 2005 10:49 PMThanks, Beagle !
I am an occasional reader of this site. But definitely not a troll or whatever.
I am very offended when these guys talked of Terri as if she is a corpse. A history. A passive object. Lying there awaiting some treatment dictated by some judges disconnected from reality. To many people, including all people I know in church, she is very much ALIVE.
This incident highlights the need for people with faith to unite and support a devoted christian in Power. We have to stop the humanity be steamrolled over by some liberal, leftist and immoral atheists.
Anyway, my point is made and I’ll say no more.
Posted by: Amy at March 24, 2005 11:26 PMWe have to stop the humanity be steamrolled over by some liberal, leftist and immoral atheists.
This is a big problem that the Democratic party is facing, and I don’t know if there’s anything we can do about it. Judge Greer is a Republican and a Southern Baptist. The first Supreme Court justice to review the case (because of geography) was Judge Kennedy, a moderate on the bench. The entire bench, which has a conservative majority (and I think no atheists), declined to hear the case without a single dissent
Despite this non-partisan application of the law by people on all parts of the legal continuum, the Conservative media has been very successful as painting this legal process as driven by immoral liberal atheists. There’s absolutely no truth to the claim, but people like Amy accept it and will be attacking the Democratic Party with no justification for years on this. We’re blamed for decisions we didn’t even make.
Nowadays, whenever a ruling happens that the Conservative media and Religious Right don’t like, they can energize their base by accusing “activist judges” pressing their liberal, leftist, immoral, and atheistic agenda. Facts don’t matter. The law doesn’t matter. The base is energized, and Amy doesn’t even see how she’s being manipulated.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 25, 2005 10:01 AMAdrienne and Ray,
So, what Dr. Kevorkian did is ok because those people went to him, instead of him looking for them? You’ve got to be kidding. A person who is depressed goes to a doctor, seeking an end or just relief for their suffering, their pain, and instead of exploring any other options, of trying to find pain relief or psychiatric help for them, he just kills them, and that’s ok? Another pain specialist attempts, repeatedly, to contact one of the women through Kevorkian’s lawyer, which he had asked other doctors to do in a press conference, and is blown off so that Kevorkian’s agenda of euthanasia can be furthered, and that’s ok too?
Kevorkian preyed upon weak, sick, depressed people to push a radical political agenda, with no thought at all about whether the people he was killing really were without hope, without even worrying about whether or not they had terminal illnesses. Adrienne says she supports people “like Dr. Kevorkian.” Anyone who is “like” Dr. Kevorkian would take the exact same measures as Dr. Kevorkian, and would be just as guilty of murder. If you support “assisted suicide” for those who are truly dying and suffering agonizing pain from their illnesses, find someone else to use as an example. Kevorkian is only an example of pure evil.
Posted by: Bill at March 25, 2005 02:11 PMBill and everyone else too, you should have a choice. Assisted suicide may not be right for you but I’ll be damned if I want to say that it is not right for anybody. We don’t know what kind of pain some people are in with no chance of a better life,ever. So I guess we’ll just have to always be at odds on this one,Bill. I truly feel for you and the physical pain you say that you have. Do what you want. I still think we need a Dr. “like” Dr. Kevorkian. Do you have any proven examples of the preyed upon people he is alleged to have killed? Or is it something that has been repeated a few times and now is “fact?”
Posted by: ray at March 25, 2005 07:50 PMBill, and others too. I went back a few posts and read the link about Dr. K. Sorry I replied before I read that, though I’m sure my last post’s premise would be the same. “Don’t contact the Dr. of Death or whatever those that disagree with him are calling him, but why not let that decision up to the individual?” You like to make your own decisions, do you not?
Posted by: ray at March 25, 2005 08:00 PMRay,
I’m not arguing against making your own decisions. What I’m saying is that there are people with severe, chronic pain who are not terminal that often become so depressed from the pain that they consider suicide before they have exhausted all the options for managing the pain, or being able to get help for the depression that they are feeling. They need a doctor who will help them control their pain and depression, and even if they go to a doctor asking to be killed, that doctor should first make sure they can’t be helped in some other way. We should never assist someone who is merely depressed to take their life. There have been several times in the past several years when I have become depressed and wondered if life was really worth what I was going through, but fortunately I had good doctors and family and friends around me that kept me from getting to the point of actually considering suicide. And I don’t like the idea of a single, individual doctor being allowed to decide to just go ahead a kill someone who really just needs better pain management or counselling. Kevorkian just wanted to kill as many people as possible to further his agenda of having euthanasia legalized, and made no attempt, at least in the 2 cases that I cited in my earlier post, to treat the pain or the depression of those 2 women who came to him for help. I would hope that even if, in a fit of depression, I went to a doctor and asked him to help me kill myself, that he would first examine me and realize that I needed pain management and psychiatric help instead of just going ahead and doing it without exploring other options.
This is why I will always oppose “assisted suicide” or “mercy killing” or “euthanasia.” There is simply too much room for abuse if we allow this to become legal.
Posted by: Bill at March 26, 2005 07:21 PMBill,
What do you think about the way Oregon has handled it? As I understand, you have to meet a number of standards to be able to choose to die. (I suppose it isn’t actually assisted suicide, so maybe this isn’t what you are talking about).
Julia
Posted by: Julia at March 27, 2005 03:49 AMIsn’t it rather ironic that an eating disorder (bulimia) was what got this woman into the situation in the first place? And now it comes down to a feeding tube? While it’s undoubtedly a good thing that the case may get even young adults letting someone know what they would want in such a situation, it’s unfortunate that more of the dialogue has not been upon the dangers of eating disorders …
