Judge extends stay keeping brain-dead woman alive

[thaiboxerken]

TAMPA (AP) — A judge gave Terri Schiavo's husband permission to remove the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube in three weeks, handing him a victory in his effort to carry out what he says were his wife's wishes not to be kept alive artificially.

The ruling by Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer will allow the husband, Michael Schiavo, to order the tube removed at 1 p.m. on March 18. In the meantime, the woman's parents, who want her kept alive, are expected to ask another court to block the order from taking effect.

The judge wrote that he was no longer comfortable granting delays in the family feud, which has been going on for nearly seven years and has been waged in every level of Florida's court system. He said the case must end.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-25-schiavo-extension_x.htm?csp=15


The story is says "brain damaged", however, as I understand it, doctors agree that she's brain dead. Am I wrong here?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
TAMPA (AP) — A judge gave Terri Schiavo's husband permission to remove the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube in three weeks, handing him a victory in his effort to carry out what he says were his wife's wishes not to be kept alive artificially.

The ruling by Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer will allow the husband, Michael Schiavo, to order the tube removed at 1 p.m. on March 18. In the meantime, the woman's parents, who want her kept alive, are expected to ask another court to block the order from taking effect.

The judge wrote that he was no longer comfortable granting delays in the family feud, which has been going on for nearly seven years and has been waged in every level of Florida's court system. He said the case must end.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-25-schiavo-extension_x.htm?csp=15


The story is says "brain damaged", however, as I understand it, doctors agree that she's brain dead. Am I wrong here?

No, you are correct.

How many trys do these idiots get to keep her carcass alive? It seems like the husband keeps winning the rulings, and then when a date is set to unplug her, some other judge grants a stay. This went all the way up to the SCOTUS, didn't it? If so, then how can this continue?

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think it ever went to SCOTUS. I doubt it even made it to Florida Supremes.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I don't think it ever went to SCOTUS. I doubt it even made it to Florida Supremes.

OK, thanks. But I'm guessing that several appeals have been heard. How many appeals do her parents get before it is over?

[thaiboxerken]

I have no idea. If it was a matter of money, it would've been over a few years ago. However, they have the financial backing of jesus freaks to keep this corpse breathing.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
No, you are correct.



Do you have a reference? My understanding is that she was NOT brain dead and that is the entire basis for the legal struggle. Regarding the parents, I don't think it is a religious thing that keeps them fighting, rightly or wrongly, to keep her alive; I think it is...lack of words...parental instinct.

[thaiboxerken]

She has no cerebral cortex = brain dead.

She does have some good talents left. She can emulate an ashtray, for instance

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
She does have some good talents left. She can emulate an ashtray, for instance

Dude, you're sick!!!


So why am I laughing?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
She has no cerebral cortex = brain dead.

She does have some good talents left. She can emulate an ashtray, for instance

Do you have any references for your assertion?

[nightwind]

Yes, the girl is obviously pretty much a vegetable, with no quality of life at all.

I admire the husband for trying to help her die peaceably.

And, while they try to spin it to make it sound like they are horribly starving her to death, medical caregivers in the know will tell you that this is a very humane way to die.

I got an email from the American Family Assoc. on this today, requesting mass emails to the judge, to sway him into letting her live. They provided the text, and encouraged you to provide the subject, I guess so as to customize it. Ha. So it looks as though the evangelicals are trying to weigh in as always, and as always are pretty clueless. But I am sure he will get thousands of emails from these fanatics.

Hopefully this farce won't continue to go on much longer, and the young lady will be allowed to depart from her misery.

[thaiboxerken]

http://biology.about.com/library/organs/brain/blcortex.htm

# Determines Intelligence

# Determines Personality

# Interpretation of Sensory Impulses

# Motor Function

# Planning and Organization

# Touch Sensation

No cerebral cortex = brain dead.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I don't think it ever went to SCOTUS. I doubt it even made it to Florida Supremes.

It did, actually. Well, sort of.

What happened was the Florida legislature passed a law specifically to keep the feeding tube in. The law was struck down by the Florida Supreme Court as unconstitutional (Florida's constitution, not US). Schiavo's parents challenged that ruling to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS refused to hear it, letting the FL SC ruling stand.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
http://biology.about.com/library/organs/brain/blcortex.htm

# Determines Intelligence

# Determines Personality

# Interpretation of Sensory Impulses

# Motor Function

# Planning and Organization

# Touch Sensation

No cerebral cortex = brain dead.

Your conclusion may or may not be correct. I'm pretty sure it is not correct in the legal sense and I doubt it is correct in the medical sense...but I could be wrong. Do you have a reference?

[thaiboxerken]

Actually, it should be your burden to provide a conscious being that doesn't have a cerebral cortex.

[geni]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Actually, it should be your burden to provide a conscious being that doesn't have a cerebral cortex.

Why? Rob Lister hasn't made any claims either way. At present the information presented in this thread is insuficent to come to a valid conclusion either way. Despite this you have. As such it is fair to ask you for evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

"Defining consciousness as arousal and awareness of the external and internal world, people for whom the cerebral cortex is dead are dead"

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Lord2.html

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by geni
Why? Rob Lister hasn't made any claims either way. At present the information presented in this thread is insuficent to come to a valid conclusion either way. Despite this you have. As such it is fair to ask you for evidence.

I don't agree. What Rob Lister is asking is for consciousness without the necessary components required. It's almost as silly as trying to get me to prove that there is no soul.

"In the case of Terry Schiavo, the neurologists, as a group, would probably conclude that enough is enough, acording to a report in today's New York Times. Patients in persistent vegetative states, according to the Times's summary of the neurological criteria, do not "show self-awareness, comprehend language or expressions, or interact with others." "

http://www.daubertontheweb.com/2003/10/terry-schiavo-and-limits-of-expertise.html

[geni]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
No cerebral cortex = brain dead.

Brain death is defined as a complete and irreversible essation of brain activity. Well that is the theory. In practice brainstem death is generaly considered equiverlent.

[geni]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I don't agree. What Rob Lister is asking is for consciousness without the necessary components required. It's almost as silly as trying to get me to prove that there is no soul.

"In the case of Terry Schiavo, the neurologists, as a group, would probably conclude that enough is enough, acording to a report in today's New York Times. Patients in persistent vegetative states, according to the Times's summary of the neurological criteria, do not "show self-awareness, comprehend language or expressions, or interact with others." "

http://www.daubertontheweb.com/2003/10/terry-schiavo-and-limits-of-expertise.html


Persistent vegetative state is not brain death since the brain is functional on some level.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I don't agree. What Rob Lister is asking is for consciousness without the necessary components required. It's almost as silly as trying to get me to prove that there is no soul.


I was asking for no such thing. Read the thread again and you will see that I was asking for very reasonable references regarding the assertion that the subject person was indeed brain dead as defined either medically or legally. I was doing this in direct response to a certain poster asserting that the subject person was, indeed, brain dead. I have no opinion on whether or not same-said subject person should or should not be euthanized. That said, I understand the POV of the parents and the husband, as well as that of the courts and the doctors.

[geni]

Originally posted by nightwind
Yes, the girl is obviously pretty much a vegetable, with no quality of life at all.

Your statement is internaly contradictry. People in a persistant vegertive state can't have a quality of life


I admire the husband for trying to help her die peaceably.


There is some pretty good evicence that he just wants her to die.


And, while they try to spin it to make it sound like they are horribly starving her to death, medical caregivers in the know will tell you that this is a very humane way to die.


And yet it is not used on death row.


I got an email from the American Family Assoc. on this today, requesting mass emails to the judge, to sway him into letting her live. They provided the text, and encouraged you to provide the subject, I guess so as to customize it. Ha. So it looks as though the evangelicals are trying to weigh in as always, and as always are pretty clueless. But I am sure he will get thousands of emails from these fanatics.

Hopefully this farce won't continue to go on much longer, and the young lady will be allowed to depart from her misery.

You are contradicting yourself again if she really is in a pvs (persistant or permiant) then she can't be suffering from misery

edited to add n't.

[thaiboxerken]

If a person has is permenantly unaware, are they in misery? She's unconscious, permenantly.

[geni]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
If a person has is permenantly unaware, are they in misery? She's unconscious, permenantly.

And your point is?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by geni
And your point is?

In the last sentence of your previous post you made an error by leaving out the word 'not' after the word 'can'. That may be his point.

[geni]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
In the last sentence of your previous post you made an error by leaving out the word 'not' after the word 'can'. That may be his point.

darn

[Tmy]

I dont think shes tottally brain dead. Ive seen footage of her where she does have reactions to stimuli. Shes more like a zombie.

I can only imagine how much money has been spent keeping her going. its sad, so many people dont have basic insurance, but we spend 100,000s to keep terri alive in this zombie state.

I say let her die. Of course i wish we could put her down instead of starving her dto death. We treat our animals better.

[geni]

Originally posted by Tmy
I can only imagine how much money has been spent keeping her going. its sad, so many people dont have basic insurance, but we spend 100,000s to keep terri alive in this zombie state.

Are you telling people how to spend their money?

[thaiboxerken]

Is it wrong to ask people not to spend their money on BS?

[geni]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Is it wrong to ask people not to spend their money on BS?

Nope. It is wrong to force them not to.

[thaiboxerken]

Are public funds being used to keep Terry Schiavo's corpse upkept?

[geni]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Are public funds being used to keep Terry Schiavo's corpse upkept?

Sure. Every time there is is legal challange and I supose Jeb Bush gets paid I supose you could count the fact that the catholic church which gives her communion isn't taxed. I can't think of any way in which direct medical care could be being paid for.

[Stainless_Steel_Rat]

I just think the whole starving her to death is BS. Since there is debate on her "brain death" there's no way of telling how aware she is. Starving to death, no matter what the doctors hypothosis, doesn't seem to be a great way to go.

If Dr.s and her husband want her to die, then have some fricken balls, and kill her. Use lethal injection. The whole, "let the stave to death" thing is just BS mean to spare anyone the thought that they "actually" pushed the button.

What a frecked up society we live in.

SSR

[thaiboxerken]

She has no cerebral cortex, it doesn't matter how she dies, as Terry Schiavo is no longer conscious.

[Stainless_Steel_Rat]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
She has no cerebral cortex, it doesn't matter how she dies, as Terry Schiavo is no longer conscious.

You keep claiming this. I haven't seen evidence of this. The parents and "their" dr.'s debate this.

The fact remains, the husband wants her dead, so he (or his team of Dr.s) if they win, should be required to kill her. Pulling the feeding tube is the chicken$#!+ method of doing this.

That our society allows one and not the other is insane. That's like me locking you up in a closet and letting you starve. "But I didn't kill him, he starved."

And even if she has no cerebral cortex, so frecking what? One is slow, and with emanciate her body more, and terribly upset the parents, even more than they already are. The other is fast painless, and won't force the parents to watch a drawn out death.

SSR

[thaiboxerken]

Pulling the feeding tube is the chicken$#!+ method of doing this.

I don't agree, but then again, I don't think Schiavo is anything more than a houseplant.

That our society allows one and not the other is insane. That's like me locking you up in a closet and letting you starve. "But I didn't kill him, he starved."

If I was permenantly unconscious, you're analogy might be accurate.

And even if she has no cerebral cortex, so frecking what?

She doesn't have a cerebral cortex, she is not conscious, nor will ever be.

One is slow, and with emanciate her body more, and terribly upset the parents, even more than they already are. The other is fast painless, and won't force the parents to watch a drawn out death.

I could care less what the parents think, they lost all legal responsibility and authority over Terri when Terri became an adult and married.

[csense]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

If I was permenantly unconscious....



...If?

Judging from your comments in this thread, I'd say it's strong possibility.

[Stainless_Steel_Rat]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I don't agree, but then again, I don't think Schiavo is anything more than a houseplant.
Then why drag it out? Why not put a 10cent bullet in her head?

If I was permenantly unconscious, you're analogy might be accurate.

She doesn't have a cerebral cortex, she is not conscious, nor will ever be.
Again, these goes to your argument that she's already for all intents and purposes "dead." Apparently there is some debate on this, since there are Doctors on both sides of the issue.

I could care less what the parents think, they lost all legal responsibility and authority over Terri when Terri became an adult and married.

Boy, that's kind and compasionate. I guess either you don't/won't have kids? You don't just stop loving your children when they grow up. What a sad little word that would be. Just becuase their daughter grew up doesn't mean they can't be hurt by what happens to their daughter.

This case is a perfect example of why everyone should have a living will. Making your wishesh known in a legaly binding way, and having it on record, to remove doubt.

SSR

*edit* damn my typing sucks today

[KillerBob]

This fellow seems to have done a pretty good job of laying out the case and keeping his personal judgement out of it:

Abstract Appeal (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html)

Rob, the first decision of the Florida Court of Appeals makes mention of the atrophied cerebral cortex.

Court of Appeals Decision (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt)

That's what they write in the summary, anyway. I haven't read enough of this decision or the rest of the documents linked on the main page to see any actual documentation on the part of the physicians involved.

And Rob, I agree with you. It's not hard to empathize with everyone involved in this mess. I've seen quite a few of these situations play out over the years at hospitals I've worked at (although, never on this scale).

The one thing that's certain, no matter what happens, no one involved will come out of this clean.

[csense]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
"...she is not conscious..."

Anyone who watches a video of this woman, and then says that she is not conscious and aware....is an idiot, and there's no other way to put it. That, or there's something wrong with you mentally and or physically, and you need to seek medical attention.

[csense]

For those people who are interested in seeing the videos of Terri Schiavo, go here, (http://www.terrisfight.org/) and scroll half way down the page. There you'll see the category Videos of Terri, along with six videos in real media format.

Now, you may opinions either way on the quality of her life (whatever the hell that really means) but it is self evident that this woman is conscious and aware.

[Bruce]

How many trys do these idiots get to keep her carcass alive?

However, they have the financial backing of jesus freaks to keep this corpse breathing.

She does have some good talents left. She can emulate an ashtray, for instance

And, while they try to spin it to make it sound like they are horribly starving her to death, medical caregivers in the know will tell you that this is a very humane way to die.

I say let her die.

If Dr.s and her husband want her to die, then have some fricken balls, and kill her.


Behold the compassion of the left. :rolleyes:

I'm a right leaning centrist and an atheist, and even I can see that is whole case reeks of murder, cover-up, and profiting from insurance money.

Thank you, csense, for posting the other side of this story, but don't expect any of these jerks to read it or change their minds. They will see only what they want to see, just as they always have. :(

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by csense
For those people who are interested in seeing the videos of Terri Schiavo, go here, (http://www.terrisfight.org/) and scroll half way down the page. There you'll see the category Videos of Terri, along with six videos in real media format.

Now, you may opinions either way on the quality of her life (whatever the hell that really means) but it is self evident that this woman is conscious and aware.
I'm not a neurologist and don't hang around severely brain-damaged people that often, so I couldn't really make what I would consider a good judgment from the video. How do we know that Terry Schiavo isn't just the Clever Hans of vegetables? You also have to consider that on her parents' website, footage is going to be cherry picked to make it look like she consistently responds to outside stimuli whereas in reality, the film clips may very well be just a few isolated coincidences which look like genuine reaction.
Originally posted by Stainless_Steel_Rat
I just think the whole starving her to death is BS. Since there is debate on her "brain death" there's no way of telling how aware she is. Starving to death, no matter what the doctors hypothosis, doesn't seem to be a great way to go.

If Dr.s and her husband want her to die, then have some fricken balls, and kill her. Use lethal injection. The whole, "let the stave to death" thing is just BS mean to spare anyone the thought that they "actually" pushed the button.

What a frecked up society we live in.
The ironic thing about all of the inhumanity surrounding the starvation is that it's actually the result of the religious right protesting any sort of legalization of euthanasia.

[Stainless_Steel_Rat]

I know I come off harsh. I haven't watched the videos yet (damn realplayer) so I don't know how responsive she actually is. I'm just tired of the people who saythat pulling the feeding tube is "letting her die gracefully" and $h!t like that. Killing her is killing her. Why is the slow starving death better than a quick painless death? Becuase it saves her caretakers from feeling quite so guilty. Frell them.

Ok, just watched the videos. Yeah that's not braindead. There is definatly something still at home. How much and her state of happiness/awareness are different questions.

SSR

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Bruce
I'm a right leaning centrist and an atheist, and even I can see that is whole case reeks of murder, cover-up, and profiting from insurance money.

How much profit is left after 15 years of intensive care? It's very, very expensive.

If he was after the money, he'd have taken the bribe money offered to him, several times, by several people. He's been offered millions, in cash, to drop his efforts.

If he honestly didn't care, he'd take the money, divorce her, and forget the whole thing.

[Earthborn]

How do we know that Terry Schiavo isn't just the Clever Hans of vegetables?If she is like Clever Hans, then she is not a vegetable. Clever Hans was not braindead, but instead very aware of his suroundings, concious and actually pretty clever. Just not clever in the way his boss thought he was. Try teaching a cucumber to count, and you'll know the difference.the film clips may very well be just a few isolated coincidences which look like genuine reaction.True, but random behaviour does not prove an absence of conciousness. If we were to assume it did, we'll have to conclude that very many people are 'vegetables' when they are obviously not. All living things have behaviour that is to a large degree random, people are generally better at rationalising it: making up excuses why they did them after they did it. Just because Terri Schiavo now lacks this ability does not prove the behaviour she exhibits is of a fundamentally different order than what other people do.

Some of her behaviours may very well be misinterpreted by others either as purposeful action or as mere reflexes. Since these cannot be distinguished objectively, the only thing that is important is that she exhibits them. And that means she is not 'dead', 'braindead' or a 'vegetable'.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
How much profit is left after 15 years of intensive care? It's very, very expensive.

If he was after the money, he'd have taken the bribe money offered to him, several times, by several people. He's been offered millions, in cash, to drop his efforts.

If he honestly didn't care, he'd take the money, divorce her, and forget the whole thing.

Unless he is in fact responsible for her condition. Think about it. If you beat your wife into a coma, what would you have to do to cover it up? Check out the events in this timeline: http://www.terrisfight.org/

Let me summarize:

1990
Feb - Terri Collapses in her home
1993
Feb - Michael Schiavo denies recommended rehabilitation treatment.
Feb - Schiavo and Terri's parents have falling out regarding lack of therapy for Terri.
Feb - Schiavo withholds medical information from Terri's parents.

Why would you withold medical information from your in-laws or deny rehabilitation treatment?

Fast forward to 2001
Apr 24 - Terri Feeding was terminated.
Apr 25 - Schiavo bans Terri brother and sister from visiting Terri.
Apr 25 - Schiavo ex girlfriend (Cyndi) reveals Schiavo lied about Terri’s death wishes.

Why would you ban your in-laws from seeing your wife?

And here's the biggest kicker:

2002
Oct 2 - Schiavo petitioned the court to authorize Terri’s cremation.

Hmmm. Refusal to turn over Terri's care to her parents, witholding medical information, refusal to allow medical examination, refusal to allow rehabilitation, and why the hell would you need to petition a court to authorize her cremation? If he cares about his wife so much, why all the cover-up, why bar her from her family, why all the desperation to have her killed and creamated?

What do you think now?

[csense]

Thank you, csense, for posting the other side of this story...


You're welcome Bruce


...but don't expect any of these jerks to read it or change their minds. They will see only what they want to see, just as they always have. :(


No disrespect intended toward the decent members of this forum, but it's threads like this, and some attitudes presented on the first page, that make me realize why I come and go here. It represents the absolute worst that this forum has to offer.

[csense]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
How much profit is left after 15 years of intensive care? It's very, very expensive.

If he was after the money, he'd have taken the bribe money offered to him, several times, by several people. He's been offered millions, in cash, to drop his efforts.

If he honestly didn't care, he'd take the money, divorce her, and forget the whole thing.


Michael Schiavo has denied his wife therapy for over ten years, something that the settlement was specifically intended for. At present, there is 50, 000 dollars left.


From the website:


In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him.


Atty Gwyneth Stanley.............$10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell............$65,607.00
Atty Steve Nilson....................$7,404.95
Atty Pacarek...........................$15,000.00
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) ......$4,511.95
Atty George Felos...................$397,249.99


Other
1st Union/South Trust Ban......$55,459.85
Michael Schiavo.......................$10,929.95

Total_ $545,852.34



Ya, Michael Schiavo loves and respects his wife.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Tmy
but we spend 100,000s to keep terri alive


Hmmm. Shivo's predicament aside, how much is an innocent human life worth these days? $100,000? 1 miilion? 5 million?

How much would your parents spend to save your sorry ass from your spouse?

Gotta wonder.

[csense]

Originally posted by nightwind

And, while they try to spin it to make it sound like they are horribly starving her to death, medical caregivers in the know will tell you that this is a very humane way to die.



You know, I just can't believe what I am reading here. Death by starvation/dehydration is a horrible way to die.

I'll tell you this, it is not only bone chilling, but it is absolutely disgusting to know that there are people out there that think the way you do.

[TragicMonkey]

Shrug. I don't pretend to know the true motivations behind another person's actions. I don't know these people, and I don't have access to all the facts. I am open to the possibility that he's telling the truth, or that he's lying, or somewhere inbetween. People are complicated.

And recognizing such, I'm not going tell people what they ought to be doing. It's not my business.

What is my business, and the business of everyone in this country, is that certain government officials and agencies feel that the choices in these situations doesn't belong to the people concerned, but to the government. This seems somewhat alarming.

If he is after just money, then he's blown his chance for a lot more, and made everything drag out for more than a decade. So if he's up to sinister stuff, he's really, truly bad at it. He could have pulled the plug himself, or smothered her with a pillow, then gotten off at trial by making the jury sympathetic to his desire to spare his wife suffering, etc. At the most he might have gotten a couple years, and a book deal afterward.

So he's either an evil but very stupid person, or else he actually is concerned with his wife's wishes.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by csense
You know, I just can't believe what I am reading here. Death by starvation/dehydration is a horrible way to die.

I'll tell you this, it is not only bone chilling, but it is absolutely disgusting to know that there are people out there that think the way you do.

It's even more disturbing to consider that such people may one day serve on a jury during a murder trial.

I'm sure Michael Shivo's lawyer would be eager to find such jurers. :(

[Bruce]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Shrug. I don't pretend to know the true motivations behind another person's actions. I don't know these people, and I don't have access to all the facts. I am open to the possibility that he's telling the truth, or that he's lying, or somewhere inbetween. People are complicated.

And recognizing such, I'm not going tell people what they ought to be doing. It's not my business.

What is my business, and the business of everyone in this country, is that certain government officials and agencies feel that the choices in these situations doesn't belong to the people concerned, but to the government. This seems somewhat alarming.

If he is after just money, then he's blown his chance for a lot more, and made everything drag out for more than a decade. So if he's up to sinister stuff, he's really, truly bad at it. He could have pulled the plug himself, or smothered her with a pillow, then gotten off at trial by making the jury sympathetic to his desire to spare his wife suffering, etc. At the most he might have gotten a couple years, and a book deal afterward.

So he's either an evil but very stupid person, or else he actually is concerned with his wife's wishes.

I can absolutely respect these opinions. I'm not sure if you are aware, but because of her condition, she does not have a right to a federal hearing. That's why this case has made national headlines. Were it not for the outcry of the family, her husband could legally have her killed and creamated without an autopsy. His hands are then washed clean and there would be no physical evidence for a trial.

You may think it is no big deal and not your problem, but what if your child ends up in the same predicament a few years down the road? I'll bet you would think differently about this case, especially if legislation were passed as a result of it that gave legal rights (federal hearing, investigation, whatever) to people that have been brain damaged and do not have a living will.

What is my business, and the business of everyone in this country, is that certain government officials and agencies feel that the choices in these situations doesn't belong to the people concerned, but to the government. This seems somewhat alarming.

But you would rather have the choices turned over to a spouse with questionable motives? Why shouldn't her flesh and blood relatives have a say in the matter? If it is a question of a citizen's rights, it is absolutely your business and every US citizen's business, if you choose to accept it (Mission Impposible music).

I don't have the answers either, but that's what the family and the people of the US that are concerned about this matter are trying to decide. That's why we have state senators and state representatives with phone numbers. It really is up to the people to propose ideas for bills on such matters and push them to be moved through the system. That's democracy.

Yes, I gave my state senator, Jim Talent a call. It was the first time I ever did anything like that. :)

[Lucky]

From Stainless_Steel_Rat:
This case is a perfect example of why everyone should have a living will. Making your wishesh known in a legaly binding way, and having it on record, to remove doubt.Could not agree more. And how many of the intelligent, educated critical thinkers here have just vaguely thought ‘that’s a good idea’, and then done nothing about it? Do it. ASAP. This terrible case could be you; it could happen any time.

However, Living Wills (Advance Directives) are not enough of a safeguard against this kind of situation (which will become increasingly common), because they only deal with refusal of specific medical treatment. What about cases where a moribund and suffering person is being kept alive by nursing care only (e.g. terminal Alzheimer’s patients)? The legalisation of voluntary medically-assisted dying is absolutely essential in order to prevent unspeakable suffering. But it has to be the choice of the patient, and not spouses or other relatives, doctors, politicians, courts or anyone else. Brits, please consider joining the VES (http://www.ves.org.uk/index.htm). US equivalent is End-of-Life Choices (http://www.endoflifechoices.org/index.jsp).

I agree with Stainless_Steel_Rat, Batman Jr. and others that legalised killing by starvation is vile and barbaric, and absolutely unacceptable in a civilised society. I can’t even begin to comprehend the thinking of anyone who would try to justify it. How can it be right to permit forced starvation while denying a swift and merciful death?

I am surprised that no-one has pointed out how much more horrific the case is if Terri truly does have some awareness. Would anyone who has argued for her right to live care to consider this issue honestly for a couple of minutes (it is extremely gruesome and frightening), and then think again about whether it’s in her interests to be kept artificially alive?

Regardless of the motives of her relatives on either side of the argument (and I don’t know why anyone has to assume the worst about any of them), the right course, for Terri’s sake, is obvious. Unfortunately it’s not legal.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Earthborn
If she is like Clever Hans, then she is not a vegetable. Clever Hans was not braindead, but instead very aware of his suroundings, concious and actually pretty clever. Just not clever in the way his boss thought he was. Try teaching a cucumber to count, and you'll know the difference.
The point I was trying to make is that people will often see signs of intellect where there is revealed to be none under controlled circumstances. I wasn't trying to say that this was exactly the Clever Hans case all over again. Maybe a better analogy for this sort of situation could be the Mother Mary in the grilled cheese sandwich or any other such incidences where nonexistent patterns seem to appear to those wanting to see them.
Originally posted by Earthborn
Some of her behaviours may very well be misinterpreted by others either as purposeful action or as mere reflexes. Since these cannot be distinguished objectively, the only thing that is important is that she exhibits them. And that means she is not 'dead', 'braindead' or a 'vegetable'.
Sure you can measure behaviors objectively. First, monitor her without asking her to do anything or exposing her to anything atypical and take note of the frequency of all her unprovoked gesticulations. Then ask her to do various things and expose her to various other stimuli and see if there is a change in the control sessions' normal spasms that reflects these resquests and the introduction of the various other manners of stimuli.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I doubt my post will enlighten anyone here but I can't resist imagining it might.

First, what is Persistent Vegetative State and what does it mean to have cognitive brain death?

World Medical Association, Statement on Persistent Vegetative State (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/vegetativestate.html)Persons with overwhelming damage to the cerebral hemispheres commonly pass into a chronic state of unconsciousness called the vegetative state in which the body cyclically awakens and sleeps but expresses no behavioral or cerebral metabolic evidence of possessing cognitive function or of being able to respond in a learned manner to external events or stimuli. That doesn't just mean no response to stimuli that can be observed directly, it also means no response to stimuli on an EEG. There is no cognitive brain function. None. Period.

Teri is a living body with no cognitive brain function. There is no dreaming. She doesn't hear. Her eyes open but she doesn't see. We know this because when you or I dream or see or hear, there is brain activity that shows up on an EEG. Teri's EEG shows none of this activity.


So addressing Teri's parent's videos, which I have seen, as well as the other information on the parent's web site, it is purposely deceptive. Not maliciously deceptive because I have to believe the parents are in denial that Teri has no cognitive function, but deceptive none-the-less.

If there was any doubt Teri had any cognitive function, we wouldn't be having this discussion because withdrawing the feeding tube would have been easily blocked in the courts. Instead, the parents have lost court battle after court battle.

So what about the other aspects of this case?

Is there any chance for recovery at all, even recovery to a minimally cognitive function?Once qualified clinicians have determined that a person is awake but unaware, the permanence of the vegetative state depends on the nature of the brain injury, the duration of the period of unawareness, and the estimated prognosis. Some persons less than 35 years old with coma after head trauma, as well as an occasional patient with coma after intracranial hemorrhage, may recover very slowly; thus, what appears to be a PVS at one to three months after an event causing coma may in rare cases evolve into a lesser degree of impairment by six months. On the other hand, the chances of regaining independence after being vegetative for three months are vanishingly small. Rare exceptions are claimed, but some of these may have represented patients who entered an unrecognized locked-in state shortly after reawakening from a coma-causing injury. Ultimately, all have been severely disabled.When the PVS is the result of cardiac arrest as it was in this case, the number of patients who have ever recovered any greater cognitive function is zero. All of the rare recoveries one reads about have either been other initial brain injuries or the patients were not in a PVS in the first place.

Would Teri suffer if she had no food or water. Absolutely not. And even if you wanted to argue how can we be sure, think of the suffering one might have not being able to move if your arm hurt, not being able to wet your mouth, and any number of other day to day discomforts a person would have if they were in a PVS but still had some thoughts we were unaware of. If you can feel suffering of thirst, you can feel suffering of being unable to move.

Teri had broken bones which the parents tried to use as evidence her husband had been abusive. Turns out the bones had been broken during routine care at the nursing home. Did those cause suffering?

And, if you don't die from starvation and thirst, you are going to die of pneumonia or blood infection. Are you sure one is worse than the other? The bottom line is Teri does not feel pain and she isn't going to feel anything if not fed or given fluids.

So, last point and for me the most important. How dare any of you judge this husband? How do you know how he feels? He lost his wife to sudden arrest 15 years ago. He may have healed from that loss. But no one here has any right to say what he feels or what his emotions or motives are. He may now love another woman but none of you can say that means he does not still love Teri or her memory anyway. None of us has any way to know how he feels unless we know him personally and even then we could be misjudging.

Those of you judging that man based on news accounts and a distorted web page made by the parents could easily be very very wrong. (And I doubt there is much money involved after all the attorney's fees. After all this guy even had to fight the state in court and all for Jeb Bush's political gain.)

What do I know about misjudging? My brother just lost his wife to a sudden cardiac arrest. After only 10 minutes, despite CPR, she was in an irreversible coma. She lived for another 2 weeks on a ventilator. During that time some of their closest friends made the most horrible assumptions about what they thought he felt and should have done. And they said things to him and to others that were totally untrue.

I know how much my brother loved his wife. He talked to me every day when all this was going on. But he also accepted what the neurologists told him about the chances of her recovery being none. He knew what I had found out about her prognosis after searching the Internet for hours and hours looking for anything that suggested there might be hope. But there wasn't any.

So what did these people say about him? That he didn't hover over her bed in the hospital so he must not really have loved her. That he was in the hallway when she took her last breath. (Which he was, trying to call a close friend of his stepdaughter's because the stepdaughter watching her mother die had asked him to.)

None of this meant my brother wasn't in terrible pain. But people are so quick to judge. And they have no idea. One of the things my brother said to me during this time was he felt a lot of empathy for Teri's husband. All these people were making assumptions about Teri's husband and they had no idea what he was really feeling. Unless you have lost your spouse you can't know how that man feels. Instead many people made personal petty judgments.

Teri's parents are also going through their own tragedy, and they must be in terrible pain feeling they have no control over what happens. I am not trying to say the husband's loss outweighs theirs. But Teri does not have any cognitive function and she isn't going to recover any. She grew up. She left home. She married. Our society recognizes an adult's chosen family as being next of kin over the birth family. I can't say this is right or wrong. But the decision is the husband's. The parent's denial and their being unable to let their daughter go is not what Teri's husband needs to consider. He may very well love his wife and truly think this is the best decision for her.

[Ladyhawk]

Very well put, Skeptigirl! My compliments....

You've touched on a point that not many seem to want to address here and that is, "what is the alternative"?

Realistically, if Terri were permitted to go on and her feeding tube ordered to remain in place, my question is, to what end? There does not appear to be a prognosis at all, let alone a grim one.

Certainly there are questions about Michael Schiavo's intent...how can there not be? It's the old catch 22. Hearsay vs hearsay. Michael says Terri expressed her wishes not to be kept in this kind of state, her parents say she didn't. No living will in place.

Unfortunately, many people who do not approve of legalized euthanasia do approve of keeping a person alive by artificial means for indefinite periods of time and like to think of themselves as humanitarians. Yet, we'd put a family dog to sleep under lesser conditions and think of ourselves the same way.

I respectfully submit that life is a precious thing but not based on how you define 'brain dead' or PVS, but based on how you define life . What many here advocate is a quality of existence or survival not life . Sadly, Terri Schiavo does not have a life. She has an existence. Given the same circumstances, I could only hope that my husband would fight anyone who tried to prevent him from letting me die rather than expose me for year on end to such a media circus, lining the pockets of lawyers and forcing me to become some twisted poster child for the left or the right. Ed forbid!

It's an emotionally charged issue but logic has to step in somewhere, doesn't it? Can you imagine, for one moment, that Terri Schiavo, brought back to full consciousness for even 5 minutes, would be begging the doctors to leave her hooked up the way she is for the next x# of years? Would any one of you?

[username]

Originally posted by Bruce
[B]Behold the compassion of the left. :rolleyes:

I'm a right leaning centrist and an atheist, and even I can see that is whole case reeks of murder, cover-up, and profiting from insurance money.


It has been awhile since I got aquainted with both sides of the story, but this right leaning centrist atheist viewed the parent's smear of the husband as being about as credible as the creationist's critique of evolution.

The murder angle has no basis in reality as she was examined by several doctors after admission to the hospital. She wasn't beaten or physically abused.

There is no cover up, the woman has been around in her present state for decades and the husband has been under intense scrutiny the entire time. If there were proof of wrong doing he would be in prison now.

There is no profit motive. The guy isn't making money by spending it on legal fees. I believe the guy already said he wouldn't touch a dime of his wife's money other than for legal fees. From what I read the cash is gone, but since you say 50k is still around I won't argue the point. don't feel like doing any research at this time.

He gave his wife a couple years to recover or show improvement before deciding to pull the plug. I don't think that reflects a rush to have her dead and out of the way. Lying in a vegetative state for a couple years is all the reason I would need to pull the plug on a loved one. Well, that and the doctors telling me the odds of any meaningful recovery being next to nill. It is the compassionate and sensible thing to do at that point.

I think I understand where you are coming from though. When I read the family's side I found it convincing. Until I read the husband's side's rebuttal.

Kind of like how I find some creationist arguments compelling, until I learn what the science actually is.

[csense]

Originally posted by skeptigirl

So, last point and for me the most important. How dare any of you judge this husband? How do you know how he feels?


Go jump in a friggin lake

You seem to be doing just fine yourself judging what Terri feels, among others.

I'd address some of your points, but to tell you the truth, I'm just too pissed off right now.

[csense]

Better yet, I'm outa here. I'd much rather spend time with my Lowden and Bensusan. I've had enough of the logic, compassion, morals, and ethics, of the atheist pradigm for one lifetime.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by csense

No disrespect intended toward the decent members of this forum, but it's threads like this, and some attitudes presented on the first page, that make me realize why I come and go here. It represents the absolute worst that this forum has to offer.

Yeah, right. And then you told skepticgirl to "go jump in a friggin lake" . Why? Because you think she's guilty of claiming to know exactly what Terri feels. Oh, like you aren't doing the exact same thing? Aren't you the one claiming that Terri is conscious and aware, despite evidence others have presented here? Hypocrite on 2 counts.

And what's with this other post about quality of life? "whatever the hell that means". I'll bet if you were put in Schiavo's position you'd be able to define quality of life in less than 10 seconds, wouldn't you? And, if you really haven't a clue what quality of life means, then you must not appreciate your own very much.

The fact that someone doesn't agree with you, csense (or me, for that matter) does not render them "the absolute worst that this forum has to offer". People have a right to their opinion. I'll allow that some folks aren't sensitive in their choice of words. But, then, as you've just proved, neither are you.

[Lucky]

From csense:
Better yet, I'm outa here. I'd much rather spend time with my Lowden and Bensusan. I've had enough of the logic, compassion, morals, and ethics, of the atheist pradigm for one lifetime.csense: If you’re still here, please see my post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870815550).

I am not an atheist. Many members of the VES (http://www.ves.org.uk/index.htm) are religious. We support voluntary medically-assisted dying because we want to prevent unnecessary suffering.

[thaiboxerken]

Again, these goes to your argument that she's already for all intents and purposes "dead." Apparently there is some debate on this, since there are Doctors on both sides of the issue.

Yes, there are doctors on both sides of the evolution/creationism debate as well...

Boy, that's kind and compasionate

Reality is not kind and compassionate.

. I guess either you don't/won't have kids?

I plan on it someday.

You don't just stop loving your children when they grow up. What a sad little word that would be. Just becuase their daughter grew up doesn't mean they can't be hurt by what happens to their daughter.

This is irrelevant to the authority of the parents over Terri's well being. My parents still love me, but they lost all legal authority over me when I became an adult and moved out of the house.

This case is a perfect example of why everyone should have a living will. Making your wishesh known in a legaly binding way, and having it on record, to remove doubt.

Agreed. However, there is no doubt that Terri Schiavo is unconscious and never will be conscious again.

Anyone who watches a video of this woman, and then says that she is not conscious and aware....is an idiot, and there's no other way to put it.

It is not evident at all that Terri Schiavo is conscious. Your appeal to intimidation doesn't work on me, you may call me an idiot all you want, but your arguments are still fallacious.

ivo's predicament aside, how much is an innocent human life worth these days?

Terri's is worth less than a penny, because she's forever unconscious.

How much would your parents spend to save your sorry ass from your spouse?

You are assuming that Terri could be saved. 14 years, and she's still unconscious and still has no cerebral cortex.

Death by starvation/dehydration is a horrible way to die.

When a weed is pulled from the ground and left on the sidewalk, this is how it dies. I've never wept for a weed, which has as much consciousness in it as Terri. We have the technological evidence that shows this to be a scientific fact.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by skeptigirl
That doesn't just mean no response to stimuli that can be observed directly, it also means no response to stimuli on an EEG. There is no cognitive brain function. None. Period.

Teri is a living body with no cognitive brain function. There is no dreaming. She doesn't hear. Her eyes open but she doesn't see. We know this because when you or I dream or see or hear, there is brain activity that shows up on an EEG. Teri's EEG shows none of this activity.


Honestly, I'm happy that there has been more show of thought going into this topic, even by those I disagree with. I can respect that. Try not to be too hard on csense. He became angry and reacted with emotion, and we are all emotional creatures. Maybe he will be back with some counter-points after he's cooled off.

In such controversial issues, at some point you just have to agree to disagree. I can respect the arguements put forth by Ladyhawk, TragicMonkey, username, and skeptigirl, but I'm still not swayed.

I have only one final point to make. I'm a bit disturbed by the faith of many people in the use of EEG to define "life". The heart monitor shows she's still breathing, the respirator shows she's still breathing, the video clearly shows that she is responsive to stimuli, but because a little needle on one of the instruments lacks movement, she is legally "dead". EEG, if I remember correctly, has been debunked several times for use as a lie detector. Why should we put so much faith in it to define the existance of life?

[Bruce]

Originally posted by username
It has been awhile since I got aquainted with both sides of the story, but this right leaning centrist atheist viewed the parent's smear of the husband as being about as credible as the creationist's critique of evolution.


My reaction was a direct result to the tone of the discussion. If I find myself in the middle of a bar-room brawl, I'm not going to straighten my tie and begin debating as if I were on the floor of the Senate. I'm going to roll up my sleeve and start swinging along with everone else. ;)

The aforementioned folks have brought some civility to the discussion, so I'm more willing to respond in kind. :)

[KillerBob]

Originally posted by Bruce
I have only one final point to make. I'm a bit disturbed by the faith of many people in the use of EEG to define "life". The heart monitor shows she's still breathing, the respirator shows she's still breathing, the video clearly shows that she is responsive to stimuli, but because a little needle on one of the instruments lacks movement, she is legally "dead". EEG, if I remember correctly, has been debunked several times for use as a lie detector. Why should we put so much faith in it to define the existance of life?

I basically know nothing about lie detectors, but I don't believe it's an EEG that's performed. I know they use a number of electrodes similar to those of an EEG, but if I remember right, the most common EEG setup uses 31 electrodes, just on the scalp. Some EEG's use 125 electrodes or more to better pinpoint activity. I've certainly never seen a lie detector with that set up.

Regardless, even if a lie detector uses some electrodes looking for brain activity, your confusing something here, the difference between the presence of electrical activity and the interpretation of it.

The medical community is far from perfect when it comes to interpreting EEG activity. One thing we know for certain, however, is that a functioning brain tissue always shows some type of activity.

10 minutes flatline across all areas of the brain is one common definition of brain death. The persistant vegetative state is generally defined as no cerebral cortex activity, but some brainstem activity. This is important here, because a functioning brain stem is what's kept her alive so far as it controls most of the regulatory functions of the body.

I still haven't had time to dig up anything directly from the doctors involved in this, especially anything related to the EEG and maybe any other tests, like MRI, that could be used to establish the level of brain function. But if she truly is flatline in all or even most areas of the cerebral cortex which controls all of the higher functions, then there will be no recovery beyond what you see now.

[Bruce]

I'm not so familiar with EEG and other brainwave measuring instruments, but I'm very familiar with using chemistry related instruments to debate scientific conclusions. Many scientists are all too eager to point to their pet instrument to decry, "Ha, there's all the proof you need for my conclusions!" while turning a blind eye to all the instrumental data that runs counter to the argument. These scientists will then rally lawyers, investors, and government officials to their pet cause, quickly collecting enough money to trounce and belittle any competition. Yes, politics is alive and well in the realm of scientific debate. :( Instrumental data is evidence, not proof.

I'm going to tilt this train into a slight derail because we are getting into philisophic issue of "What is the definition of life?" You are aware that EEG and other instruments could be used to argue that life doesn't exist at all, don't you? You could argue that what we percieve as life is meerly a complex series of chemical reactions and electrical impulses that respond to environmental stimuli. If Terri were to recover to the point where she can say, "Please don't kill me", despite a zero reading on the EEG, would you still argue that this is a meerly latent brain stem activity?

Prior to the discovery and development of the Geiger counter, fundies used to say that Uranium was cursed by the devil, due to the unexplained untimely deaths of the researchers. I'm sure that some scientists argued that the statistics were bogus, some argued that the deaths could not be conclusively linked to Uranium, and other scientist simply argued that there was a unknown scientifically related factor that could not yet be measured or accounted for that was causing these mysterious deaths.

When such circumstantial evidence presents itself, you have no choice but to start making assumptions. The assumption that Terri may still be "alive" despite the lack of conclusive evidence is therefore a valid one.

I have no belief in a god, but I do believe that there is more to life than chemicals and electricity. I hope that within my lifetime, a scientific method for measuring life is discovered that points to something more than such, but until then, I have no solid evidence to offer, only my primal gut instinct. (Grrr, woof-woof) :P

I sincerely hope that the majority of humanity doesn't come to think of life as meerly electrical impulses and chemicals. Life is cheap enough as it stands. :(

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bruce
I have no belief in a god, but I do believe that there is more to life than chemicals and electricity. I hope that within my lifetime, a scientific method for measuring life is discovered that points to something more than such, but until then, I have no solid evidence to offer, only my primal gut instinct. :) Me to. I have no evidence but believe HPC is more than just a fanciful notion. We'll see.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Bruce
I sincerely hope that the majority of humanity doesn't come to think of life as meerly electrical impulses and chemicals. Life is cheap enough as it stands.
So life has to have some sort of "magical" attribute to make it more valuable? I don't understand why you think that.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
So life has to have some sort of "magical" attribute to make it more valuable? I don't understand why you think that.

You misquote me. I said nothing of "magic". Did you read my post? Do you think of radioactivity as "magical enegry"?

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Lucky
Could not agree more. And how many of the intelligent, educated critical thinkers here have just vaguely thought ‘that’s a good idea’, and then done nothing about it? Do it. ASAP. This terrible case could be you; it could happen any time.


You know, it's easy for me to say, "I will die someday.", but doing such things as digging your own grave and carving your own gravestone adds a whole new level of sobriety to the statement. I would assume such an acknowledgment becomes easier with age, but so far it hasn't.

You are right of course. Writing a "living will" will someday save my loved ones a lot of money and emotional stress. I'll set up an appointment with my lawyer tomorrow........or perhaps the next day...........:(

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bruce
You misquote me. I said nothing of "magic". Did you read my post? Do you think of radioactivity as "magical enegry"? Agreed. I don't think that what ever we are has to be metaphysical. We just don't understand it as yet.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally posted by csense
Go jump in a friggin lake

You seem to be doing just fine yourself judging what Terri feels, among others.

I'd address some of your points, but to tell you the truth, I'm just too pissed off right now. Since we know what an EEG looks like when a person has any conscious or unconscious brain function, my judgment is based on clear, overwhelming measurable clinical evidence. If you want to imagine that open eyes means any more than brain stem sleep and wake cycles, your judgment would be based on a lack of medical and neurological science expertise.

I can understand sympathy for these parents. But how fair is it to demonize this husband based on the media and Internet coverage. We don't know what Terri wanted. We do know the decision is the husband's. I say mind your own business and leave this family to theirs. It is a private matter and none of yours nor my business.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by RandFan
Agreed. I don't think that what ever we are has to be metaphysical. We just don't understand it as yet.

Yes, who knows? Perhaps one day, computer programmers will find a way to make a program that convincingly exhibits self-awareness, or a biologist will find a way to zap proteins in a test tube to produce single-celled organisms, or perhaps a chemist will discover a combination of materials that emmitts an electrical signal in the presence of living organisms (that's how a Geiger counter responds to radiation, how a photographic plate responds to light, and the basis for every detector in every sophisticated piece of scientific equipment, not magical voodoo).

Any one of these potential discoveries would take the notion of "life" out of the hands of the "church" and the metaphysicists, and bring it directly into the realm of science. It would force us to re-think the definition of life and change the world forever.

Until then, us researchers play around in our labs, hoping to stumble upon the next Nobel Prize winner, or at least something publishable. Now where did I put my Tesla coil? :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

In making a point about cognitive brain death I did over simplify the explanation in referring to the EEG. While what I said was correct, the EEG is hardly the only diagnostic tool used to determine if there is no cognitive function. The diagnosis is made with multiple tests and by more than one expert in the field of neurology.

I have made one assumption, that of Terri being on the far end of the continuum that is defined as persistent vegetative state. I think it is fairly safe to assume if Terri were on the border of PVS then the court decisions would have gone in favor of the parents. Perhaps the fact it has been 15 years might have had some influence on the court. Except for that, had there been any evidence Terri had any cognitive function, the parent's would have had a stronger case than they have.

For anyone interested, the following links have an extremely thorough discussion of PVS, the diagnosis, what PVS means and what it means to be on the 'border' of PVS, what are the ethical problems including those of withdrawing a feeding tube. The first is the main article and the next three are from the first's bibliography. The links are to full text articles and I included the abstracts or introductory paragraphs for those not wanting to read more. (If you hit the sign in roadblock for the NEJM articles just go to the first article and link from the bib. Sign up for NEJM is free but I know some don't like the hassle.)

Ethical issues in diagnosis and management of patients in the permanent vegetative state (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/322/7282/352)Gastrostomy feeding has been withdrawn from around 20 people diagnosed as being in the permanent vegetative state in the United Kingdom, inevitably resulting in their death from dehydration. The clinical diagnosis is confirmed by healthcare professionals and legality is conferred by the courts, but the ethical position is not formally considered. This article outlines some specific ethical issues.

The permanent vegetative state is diagnosed when a patient is unaware of himself or herself and his or her environment and there is no prospect of any change in this state by any means. The clinical characteristics and diagnosis of the condition have been established (box).


The permanent vegetative state: practical guidance on diagnosis and management (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/841?ijkey=67359c63fc1a39a21572f6a4dc5f5603170dd254&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)Patients who survive catastrophic brain damage may be left permanently unaware---in the permanent vegetative state. Many doctors are likely to manage these patients at some point in their career.1 The diagnosis has been the subject of reports prepared by official bodies.2-6 It has been defined as "a clinical condition of unawareness of self and environment in which the patient breathes spontaneously, has a stable circulation, and shows cycles of eye closure and opening which may simulate sleep and waking."4 A wide range of causes has been reported, but head injury is probably the most common. 5 6

The diagnosis of permanent vegetative state is of particular importance; once it has been made, active medical treatment may be stopped. In the leading English case of Bland in 1993, the House of Lords held that artificial nutrition and hydration (for example, feeding by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube) constituted medical treatment and that if a patient was permanently unaware of self and environment, it was lawful not to continue such medical treatment.7 Up to October 1998, court approval to stop active medical treatment had been given for 18 patients.

Criteria for diagnosing permanent vegetative state have been drawn up by various groups.2-6 Although these criteria are the result of collective thought and wisdom, they are not always helpful in clinical practice. In contrast to the diagnosis of brain death, where a few specific clinical criteria can determine the state,8 the diagnosis of permanent vegetative state depends on providing evidence of a negative: a lack of awareness. The criteria developed have included incidental but irrelevant clinical observations (for example, response to ice water caloric testing4). Furthermore, they have failed to focus on the fundamental question of awareness, which has lead to difficulties in some of the cases that have come before the High Court.9-11 It has also become recognised that (un)awareness is part of a continuum.2


Medical Aspects of the Persistent Vegetative State— First of Two Parts (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/330/21/1499?ijkey=5b91ac5870fc712eab6b760581aa2bfcd41165d 0)ABSTRACT

This consensus statement of the Multi-Society Task Force summarizes current knowledge of the medical aspects of the persistent vegetative state in adults and children.

The vegetative state is a clinical condition of complete unawareness of the self and the environment, accompanied by sleep-wake cycles, with either complete or partial preservation of hypothalamic and brain-stem autonomic functions. In addition, patients in a vegetative state show no evidence of sustained, reproducible, purposeful, or voluntary behavioral responses to visual, auditory, tactile, or noxious stimuli; show no evidence of language comprehension or expression; have bowel and bladder incontinence; and have variably preserved cranial-nerve and spinal reflexes. We define persistent vegetative state as a vegetative state present one month after acute traumatic or nontraumatic brain injury or lasting for at least one month in patients with degenerative or metabolic disorders or developmental malformations.

The clinical course and outcome of a persistent vegetative state depend on its cause. Three categories of disorder can cause such a state: acute traumatic and nontraumatic brain injuries, degenerative and metabolic brain disorders, and severe congenital malformations of the nervous system.

Recovery of consciousness from a posttraumatic persistent vegetative state is unlikely after 12 months in adults and children. Recovery from a nontraumatic persistent vegetative state after three months is exceedingly rare in both adults and children. Patients with degenerative or metabolic disorders or congenital malformations who remain in a persistent vegetative state for several months are unlikely to recover consciousness. The life span of adults and children in such a state is substantially reduced. For most such patients, life expectancy ranges from 2 to 5 years; survival beyond 10 years is unusual.

Medical Aspects of the Persistent Vegetative State— Second of Two Parts (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/330/22/1572?ijkey=d6f9c6e9b14bf0d4109e31a7d582fc7d9e730ab c&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)Prognosis for Recovery

There are two dimensions of recovery from a persistent vegetative state: recovery of consciousness and recovery of function. Recovery of consciousness can be verified by reliable evidence of awareness of self and the environment, consistent voluntary behavioral responses to visual and auditory stimuli, and interaction with others. Recovery of function is characterized by communication, the ability to learn and to perform adaptive tasks, mobility, self-care, and participation in recreational or vocational activities. Recovery of consciousness may occur without functional recovery, but functional recovery cannot occur without recovery of consciousness. In some instances, during the early stages of recovery of consciousness, external manifestations may not be immediately apparent. Repeated examinations over time are necessary to ensure the consistency and accuracy of signs of recovery.

The prognosis for cognitive and functional recovery depends on the cause of the underlying brain disease. The Glasgow Outcome Scale classifies outcome in five categories: good recovery, moderate disability, severe disability, persistent vegetative state, and death108. Patients with a good recovery have the capacity to resume normal occupational and social activities, although there may be minor physical or mental deficits or symptoms. Patients with moderate disability are independent and can resume almost all activities of daily living. They are disabled to the extent that they can no longer participate in a variety of social and work activities. Patients with severe disability are no longer capable of engaging in most previous personal, social, and work activities. Such patients have limited communication skills and abnormal behavioral and emotional responses. They are partially or totally dependent on assistance from others in performing the activities of daily living.

To make a quick judgment from some misleading edited films of Terri with a reflexive smile and then again, to think you or I have any right to judge this husband or his decision because we have empathy for the parents, presumes we have some right to give our input in the decision. It was his wife he lost, not yours nor mine. You can't know what he feels nor how painful the situation is for him.

Terri has no cognitive function. The husband is the person to speak for her. The parents will suffer, but they lost this child 15 years ago. There are many sad things in the world. Because the parents will suffer is not the basis for the decision. Because the parents can't accept the diagnosis is not the basis for the decision. (They have claimed all Terri needs is 'therapy' which is not the case.) Because other people don't believe a diagnosis of PVS can be made or that one should never remove a feeding tube is not the basis for the decision.

The basis for the decision is the husband's beliefs about what he thinks is the right thing for his wife. And neither you nor I have any right to judge him for that.

[davefoc]

I enjoyed several of the posts in this thread, particularly skeptigirl's. I was curious it they had changed any opinions and came back to this thread to see.

I guess not, but I did appreciate Bruce's polite explanation as to why not.

edited to add:
If we are doing a poll here amongst athiests with right centrist views (I noticed a few people identified themselves as such), this one thinks the time is long past when the feeding tube should have been pulled.

[thaiboxerken]

I sincerely hope that the majority of humanity doesn't come to think of life as meerly electrical impulses and chemicals. Life is cheap enough as it stands.

Even if it's true? Why does life have to be something more than electrical impulses and chemicals to be valuable? Does it have to be supernatural in essence to be valuable? The facts remain that Terri Schiavo has no consciousness, as the scientific evidence has shown.

I still don't understand the stance of the "keep her alive" side, because even if they are right (and there is no chance that they are) and there is a soul in there and she is conscious, do they really think she's enjoying life or has hope of recovery after 14 years?

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I still don't understand the stance of the "keep her alive" side, because even if they are right (and there is no chance that they are) and there is a soul in there and she is conscious, do they really think she's enjoying life or has hope of recovery after 14 years?

Precisely, Thai...and note that no one really wants to address this.

If you were in the same state, would you even want to 'come to' some 14+ years after you lapsed? Especially to learn that your spouse has met someone else? To learn you've lost 14 years that you ain't ever gonna get back? Can anyone on this forum say that they would prefer to be kept in a vegetative state for more than 14 years....with no end in sight? I, for one, would not.


Further, if the Schiavos truly believe that there is some life after death and some gracious eternity to be spent with the Almighty, doesn't it make sense that they would prefer to release the daughter they love into that existence, rather than keep her imprisoned in this one? What manner of 'love' is that?

[thaiboxerken]

Well, actually, I'd probably want to "come to" again. However, if I was conscious and a prisoner of my own body, I'd have wanted to die long before the 14 year point. The sheer and utter boredome would be upsetting.

The stance of the "keep her alive" side just doesn't make sense on any level of rationality.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

If you were in the same state, would you even want to 'come to' some 14+ years after you lapsed?

Actually, I would.

I would be interested to hear what this woman (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/021105_bb_talkingwoman.html) has to say on the subject, provided that she continues to recover.

Scantlin was 18 when she was struck while walking to her car in 1984. She had been aware of her surroundings but unable to make any sounds other than loud crying until a month ago, when she told staff members, "OK, OK."

"It just happened one day and nobody really knows why," said Sharon Kuepker, administrator for the Golden Plains Health Care Center.

She is now forming other words, counting and remembering people and places, staff members said.

You will find in other news reports that she was also in a "vegatative state" and pronounced brain dead. Recovery is not hopeless. I would rather wake to find that my spouse had re-married than not awake at all.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Bruce
You will find in other news reports that she was also in a "vegatative state" and pronounced brain dead.Where did you see that?

[davefoc]

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/25/Tampabay/In_Kansas_recovery__h.shtml

"It gave Terri's family great hope," said Randall Terry, the Operation Rescue founder who has been organizing protests on behalf of the Schindlers, Schiavo's parents. "Terri is in a better condition than Sarah was."

Leading neurologists disagree. They say that, as similar as the two women's cases may appear, Schiavo's brain injury is far more severe than Scantlin's. Recovery in cases like Scantlin's is rare, but possible. In cases like Schiavo's, they say, it can't happen.

"This recent case has no relationship to it at all," said Dr. William Kessler, chairman of the neurology department at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. "It's like comparing apples to oranges."

[csense]

Originally posted by skeptigirl

The husband is the person to speak for her...

...The basis for the decision is the husband's beliefs about what he thinks is the right thing for his wife. And neither you nor I have any right to judge him for that.

Michael Schiavo does not however, have the right to live in both worlds at the same time.

The ideal quality of his life now, is not compatible with the ideal anticipated quality of Terri Schinlder-Schiavo's life, since that ideal involves being the wife of Michael Schiavo.

There are some ethical questions here which can not be ignored.

I'm not saying that his intention is one of murder, but the least of these ethical considerations is one of indifference on his part. indifference which can be easily justified by many of the concepts that appear within this thread.


I do have many more observations and opinions concerning this matter, but I'm not interested in further debate.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by csense
I do have many more observations and opinions concerning this matter, but I'm not interested in further debate.

What a pity!

[thaiboxerken]

Let's see, he wants the doctors to pull the plug on his wife's body, which has ZERO chance of recovery and is unconscious forever. Are you trying to accuse Mike Schiavo of trying to do something unethical?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I still don't understand the stance of the "keep her alive" sidePerhaps that's because you don't want to listen and dismiss them too easily.there is a soul in thereNobody said anything about a soul, and a whatever a soul might be, it is something completely different from conciousness: when someone is knocked-out that person is unconcious, but no one claim that person has lost his/her 'eternal soul'.do they really think she's enjoying life or has hope of recovery after 14 years?Doctors are not in the business of killing everyone who does not enjoy life. So whether she enjoys life or not is irrelevant to whether she should be kept alive.However, if I was conscious and a prisoner of my own body, I'd have wanted to die long before the 14 year point.What you'd want is irrelevant.The facts remain that Terri Schiavo has no consciousness, as the scientific evidence has shown.Present it, if you can.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by RandFan
Agreed. I don't think that what ever we are has to be metaphysical. We just don't understand it as yet.
I've argued many times in the past for the point of view that it cannot be ruled out that there is some sort of additional component to which we are not aware of regarding consciousness. However, I've also demonstrated countless times before that these things are unknowable as others' consciousnesses aren't able to be viewed directly, but rather only through intermediaries such as behavior and brainwave activity. When you are inextricably stuck in a state of ignorance, all you can do is to go on what you know to be at least possible as in the mechanics of your own conscious mind and how they relate to the outside world.

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps that's because you don't want to listen and dismiss them too easily.

Yes, just like I tend to dismiss claims of ESP, telekinesis and ghosts. It's because their position is absurd and based on warm fuzzy feelings.

Nobody said anything about a soul, and a whatever a soul might be

There is no such thing as a soul, but I'll bet the majority of the right to lifers are fighting for hers.

Doctors are not in the business of killing everyone who does not enjoy life.

This has nothing to do with what Terri's desire may be (if she was conscious). It has nothing to do with what my desire would be, if I was in a similar situation.

So whether she enjoys life or not is irrelevant to whether she should be kept alive.

It's not relevant to this case because she has no desires, she is not conscious. However, if she was, I would disagree. If a person wants to die, they should be allowed to.

What you'd want is irrelevant.

To this situation, given that Terri is unconscious and I'm not Terri. However, placing myself in the situation that the lifers think she's in is empathetic, something I can't say for the lifers themselves.

Present it, if you can.

Read the thread, it's already been presented by another poster.

[csense]

(thaiboxerken)
The facts remain that Terri Schiavo has no consciousness, as the scientific evidence has shown.

(Earthborn)
Present it, if you can.

(thaiboxerken)
Read the thread, it's already been presented by another poster.



No, it hasn't.

In point of fact, no one on this thread has presented any scientific/empirical evidence whatsoever concerning Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by csense
No, it hasn't.

In point of fact, no one on this thread has presented any scientific/empirical evidence whatsoever concerning Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

KillerBob presented this link previously:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

It is quite clear that many here, yourself included, did not take the time to read it.

This abstract is unbiased, objective view of the entire situation. I strongly suggest that everyone, before debating any further, read this link. It is quite informative and may shed some light on some of the 'myths' surrounding this case. It provides a clear chronology of each event that took place, each court ruling, evidence presented by each side, etc.

Meanwhile, the latest update:
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1004582&tw=wn_wire_story

[csense]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

It is quite clear that many here, yourself included, did not take the time to read it.




Yet, you repost the links, without the scientific evidence that would certainly prove this...very clear assumption.

Here's some advice:

Don't commit yourself to certainty unless you have the evidence to back it up.


I have been to the sites.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by csense
I do have many more observations and opinions concerning this matter, but I'm not interested in further debate.

[csense]

Yea, I know, what can I say.

[davefoc]

Earthborn,
Is there something specific in this case that leads you to believe Schiavo has been diagnosed incorrectly?

Or is it that you believe that permanent vegetative state can not be diagnosed reliably in all cases and therefore that diagnosis can not serve as a justification for removal of care?

Did you read through the links?

The Second District's first opinion in this case explained:

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. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally posted by csense
.... but the least of these ethical considerations is one of indifference on his part. indifference which can be easily justified by many of the concepts that appear within this thread. And on what basis do you claim to know this man is indifferent? You have come to this insight without ever having spoken to this man, without knowing how much he did or did not love his wife, how much pain is in, was in, or will be in whether his wife lives or dies. What, you can tell what the guy thinks by the way he avoids the TV cameras?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally posted by davefoc
I enjoyed several of the posts in this thread, particularly skeptigirl's. I was curious it they had changed any opinions and came back to this thread to see.

I guess not, but I did appreciate Bruce's polite explanation as to why not.

edited to add:
If we are doing a poll here amongst athiests with right centrist views (I noticed a few people identified themselves as such), this one thinks the time is long past when the feeding tube should have been pulled. Well I appreciate your feedback regardless of opinions changed. I gained a lot of insight about this case when my brother expressed great empathy for the husband's being judged by people who couldn't possibly have the knowledge to judge him. When you are faced with a situation as painful as having a loved one who will never be there again yet they lie there as if merely sleeping, or a situation as painful as losing your loved one in an instant your view of life has a new dimension you couldn't possibly have imagined before.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by davefoc
Is there something specific in this case that leads you to believe Schiavo has been diagnosed incorrectly?

Or is it that you believe that permanent vegetative state can not be diagnosed reliably in all cases and therefore that diagnosis can not serve as a justification for removal of care?No, and no. I question whether there is any evidence that 'conciousness' is located in the cerebral cortex, and that without a cerebral cortex someone cannot be concious. I even don't think there is any real evidence that 'conciousness' is a localised phenomenon at all.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally posted by Bruce
Actually, I would.

I would be interested to hear what this woman (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/021105_bb_talkingwoman.html) has to say on the subject, provided that she continues to recover.



You will find in other news reports that she was also in a "vegatative state" and pronounced brain dead. Recovery is not hopeless. I would rather wake to find that my spouse had re-married than not awake at all. There are other posts that address this as well but let me say again, when my brother's wife had her cardiac arrest I spent hours looking for things in the medical literature about recovery from brain injury. The brain damage from more than 10 minutes of cardiac arrest with the exception of arrest in a hypothermic state (cold water drowning) was almost 100% non-recoverable if severe enough the person was still in a coma a week later. If the person was still in a coma 2 weeks later there were no cases in the literature of anyone recovering. All of the 'miracle' recoveries were when the brain damage was from something other than cardiac arrest.

I can't remember the exact quote or where I heard it but a person of some Eastern religion noted that "those of Western religions preferred life to whatever may follow." It seemed an interesting observation and I haven't forgotten it. I don't think anyone here would say let the person die if there was hope of recovery. But once recovery is not going to happen, is life always better than what may follow?

[davefoc]

Earthborn,
Thanks for your reply.

Could you expand on why you believe that?

This is something I don't know anything about. I just accepted it when people here and the quoted medical doctors implied or said directly that the parts of her brain where conciousness resides has been nearly or completely destroyed.

You are saying they are wrong because nobody knows what parts of the brain conciousness resides in? Is this a generally accepted medical view?

For what it's worth, and here it comes down to just pure opinion, even if you were right I would want the plug pulled on me. The thought of being concious but being unable to communicate and possibly unable to sense the world sounds ghoulish to me. Kind of like the victims of the monster in Aliens that end up being kept alive to feed the monster's offspring.

[Bjorn]

You will find in other news reports that she was also in a "vegatative state" and pronounced brain dead.Where?

This question hasn't been answered yet.

[davefoc]

November 22, 2002 - Following trial, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion for relief (new medical evidence motion), rules that no new treatment offers sufficient promise of improving Terri's cognitive functioning and that Terri is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state

From this page:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html


Bjorn, is this what you are looking for or do I not understand your question?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by davefoc
From this page:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html


Bjorn, is this what you are looking for or do I not understand your question? Sorry - I was referring to Sarah Scantlin.

Scantlin was 18 when she was struck while walking to her car in 1984. She had been aware of her surroundings but unable to make any sounds other than loud crying until a month ago, when she told staff members, "OK, OK." Bruce posted that

You will find in other news reports that she was also in a "vegatative state" and pronounced brain dead. I cannot find any such reports - it seems to me the situations cannot be compared.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by csense
Yet, you repost the links, without the scientific evidence that would certainly prove this...very clear assumption.

Here's some advice:

Don't commit yourself to certainty unless you have the evidence to back it up.


I have been to the sites.

What scientific evidence are you looking for specifically, Csense? I've read back through every post in this thread several times and can't put my finger on what your side wants. For example, KillerBob's link points clearly to what the opinions of the neurologists in Terri's case determined. News articles have been referenced stating that Schiavo and Scantlin's cases are not the same and do NOT have the same prognosis. So, perhaps if you can specify exactly what evidence you're looking for to support what conclusion, it might help. Meanwhile, I presume, you have an equal amount of evidence to support your stance, right? I mean, you wouldn't commit yourself to certainty unless you had the evidence to back it up, would you?

So, why don't you tell me specifically what kind of evidence you feel needs to be presented in order to justify the court's decision to allow Terri to die. And, I shall attempt to locate it. Meanwhile, you present the scientific data that you are relying on to justify your position and then we can compare notes.

Or..you could elect to disregard this, call me the "worst this forum has to offer" storm off and announce your grandiose exit and then come back and prod the issue further.

Whichever you decide is fine with me.

[username]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
[B]What scientific evidence are you looking for specifically, Csense? I've read back through every post in this thread several times and can't put my finger on what your side wants. For example, KillerBob's link points clearly to what the opinions of the neurologists in Terri's case determined. News articles have been referenced stating that Schiavo and Scantlin's cases are not the same and do NOT have the same prognosis. So, perhaps if you can specify exactly what evidence you're looking for to support what conclusion, it might help

I agree. The woman is and has been in a persistent vegetative state for over a decade. That means the body is functioning, but Terri is not at all aware of her surroundings. She cannot communicate, she can't respond to stimuli etc. The videos her parents have of her smiling and tracking their motion with her eyes have been explained by neurologists.

I don't know what more evidence there needs to be that this woman is consciously dead, physically alive.

[davefoc]

Earthborn, I hope you don't think I am taunting you. I was genuinely interested in why you came to the conclusion you did.

I was also wondering what your thoughts are about how this case would have been handled in Holland.

[Stainless_Steel_Rat]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Reality is not kind and compassionate.


This is irrelevant to the authority of the parents over Terri's well being. My parents still love me, but they lost all legal authority over me when I became an adult and moved out of the house.


No, reality is not compassionate, but we as humans can and should be. Just becuase he parent's don't have the legal right to decide her fate, doesn't mean we SHOULDN'T spare them as much pain as we can.

To say, "Who cares?" and just kill Terri in a way that SEEMS cruel and heartless (even if she is unable to appriciate it) is a cruel and heartless act, just taken out on someone else who CAN appriciate it.


When a weed is pulled from the ground and left on the sidewalk, this is how it dies. I've never wept for a weed, which has as much consciousness in it as Terri. We have the technological evidence that shows this to be a scientific fact.

Strawman: A weed doesn't have 2 parents that nurtured, cared for, and raised it for 18 years. Just becuase your child grew up doesn't mean you stop wearing your heart on your sleeve.

I'm not arguing that the parents have the right to keep her alive. I'm arguing that as a social creature, we need to be aware of how our actions can effect others. As you keep saying, (not a direct quote mind you) "She's unconcious, who cares if they just pull the feeding tube?"
Then why should that method be used over some form of lethal injection?
Mercy isn't only about those about to die.

SSR

[thaiboxerken]

Just becuase he parent's don't have the legal right to decide her fate, doesn't mean we SHOULDN'T spare them as much pain as we can.

Sure, we shouldn't be cruel to them. However, what do you suggest?

To say, "Who cares?" and just kill Terri in a way that SEEMS cruel and heartless (even if she is unable to appriciate it) is a cruel and heartless act, just taken out on someone else who CAN appriciate it.

But it's not cruel and heartless to let Terri's body die.

Then why should that method be used over some form of lethal injection?

Why not? Either way, her body dies.

Mercy isn't only about those about to die

I can't bring myself to have compassion for the nutball parents that want to keep a meat doll alive so they can feel better about themselves.

[csense]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
What scientific evidence are you looking for specifically, Csense?

That the cerebral cortex is the casual determinant of consciousness, and, that there is scientific certainty...because if you are going to put a human being to death based on this evidence, then you damn well better be basing it upon a scientific truth.

Anything less is unacceptable. Period.


Here's something else to think about, and let me repost the opinion from the second district that davefoc posted earlier:


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. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state...


Any neurologist that has come to this conclusion, can not objectify an opinion of theresa's behavior, since anything other than a reflexive behavior would constitute a dissonant obversation.

In other words, any observer of Terri, who has already agreed to the prognosis above, would not see anything other than unconsciousness, regardless of what the truth is, which may or may not be PVS.

Think about that...

[csense]

Originally posted by skeptigirl
And on what basis do you claim to know this man is indifferent? You have come to this insight without ever having spoken to this man, without knowing how much he did or did not love his wife, how much pain is in, was in, or will be in whether his wife lives or dies. What, you can tell what the guy thinks by the way he avoids the TV cameras?


There is enough information to constitute an argument that there exists a conflict, as I stated, and that is enough to make an argument that it would be unethical to place a decision of life and death into the hands of such a person, especially when the evidence of Terri's stated wishes is anecdotal, and not empirical.

I'm not rendering any conclusions as to his intent, but reasonable doubt constitutes a basis for dismissal as far as I'm concerned.

A noble, honorable, and just quest....deserves a noble, honorable, and just warrior. Regardless of how anyone personally feels about Michael Schiavo, he certainly doesn't meet the above requirements objectively.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by nightwind
Yes, the girl is obviously pretty much a vegetable, with no quality of life at all.

I admire the husband for trying to help her die peaceably.

And, while they try to spin it to make it sound like they are horribly starving her to death, medical caregivers in the know will tell you that this is a very humane way to die.


How admirable of you to support the notion of "quality of life". It's not a new concept. In fact here is a nice link about it: Quality of Life (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Federer20031017.shtml)


...human extermination and cruel butchery was being prepared in the 1930 German Weimar Republic through the medical establishment and philosophical elite's adoption of the "quality of life" concept in place of the "sanctity of life."...

...the origins of the holocaust lay, not in Nazi terrorism and anti-Semitism, but in pre-Nazi Weimar Germany's acceptance of euthanasia and mercy-killing as humane and estimable.... It took no more than three decades to transform a war crime into an act of compassion, thereby enabling the victors in the war against Nazi-ism to adopt the very practices for which the Nazis had been solemnly condemned at Nuremberg....

...The transformation followed thus: the concept that the elderly and terminally ill should have the right to die was promoted in books, newspapers, literature and even entertainment films, the most popular of which were entitled Ich klage an (I accuse) and Mentally Ill. One euthanasia movie, based on a novel by a National Socialist doctor, actually won a prize at the world-famous Venice Film Festival! Extreme hardship cases were cited which increasingly convinced the public to morally approve of euthanasia. The medical profession gradually grew accustomed to administering death to patients who, for whatever reasons, felt their low "quality of life" rendered their lives not worth living, or as it was put, liebensunwerten Lebens, (life unworthy of life)....

...This precipitated the 1939 order to cut federal expenses. The national socialist government decided do remove "useless" expenses from the budget, which included the support and medical costs required to maintain the lives of the retarded, insane, senile, epileptic, psychiatric patients, handicapped, deaf, blind, the non-rehabilitable ill, and those who had been diseased or chronically ill for five years or more. It was labeled an "act of mercy" to "liberate them through death," as they were viewed as having an extremely low "quality of life," as well as being a tax burden on the public...

But this is all just a bunch of straw men and slippery slope arguements, aren't they? How unethical of me. :(

It won't matter by friday. You liberals win. Hope you feel good about yourselves.

[csense]

Originally posted by skeptigirl
Well I appreciate your feedback regardless of opinions changed. I gained a lot of insight about this case when my brother expressed great empathy for the husband's being judged by people who couldn't possibly have the knowledge to judge him. When you are faced with a situation as painful as having a loved one who will never be there again yet they lie there as if merely sleeping, or a situation as painful as losing your loved one in an instant your view of life has a new dimension you couldn't possibly have imagined before.

Don't take this the wrong way, and I mean no disrespect, but I'm not quite sure if it is proper to appeal to emotion this way, that is, if we are to take this issue seriously and on it's own merits.

My grandmother died of MS and was in a nursing home for a very long time, and toward the end, she looked very similar to what Terri does now.

I could go on, but, as I said, I just don't think it's proper.

That's just me though, and I won't addresss this any further.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by csense
There is enough information to constitute an argument that there exists a conflict, as I stated, and that is enough to make an argument that it would be unethical to place a decision of life and death into the hands of such a person, especially when the evidence of Terri's stated wishes is anecdotal, and not empirical.

I'm not rendering any conclusions as to his intent, but reasonable doubt constitutes a basis for dismissal as far as I'm concerned.

A noble, honorable, and just quest....deserves a noble, honorable, and just warrior. Regardless of how anyone personally feels about Michael Schiavo, he certainly doesn't meet the above requirements objectively.

Is your standard for judgment your personal opinion of the man's inherent nobility?

[csense]

...philosophical elite's adoption of the "quality of life" concept in place of the "sanctity of life."...


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


The order of those three unalienable rights as presented in the Declaration of Independence is not by accident. It was deliberate.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Bruce
But this is all just a bunch of straw men and slippery slope arguements, aren't they? How unethical of me. :(

It won't matter by friday. You liberals win. Hope you feel good about yourselves.

Godwin's?

And nobody's feeling happy about it. It's a sad story, a woman suffered a serious illness and has spent 15 years in a coma.

The unsettling matters here are that all sorts of elected officials, government agencies, courts, judges, and practically everyone feels they have the perfect right to shove an oar into this. Everything from the sanctity of life to the nature of consciousness has been debated, ad nauseum. And gotten exactly nowhere.

Either she would have preferred death, or not. One party says yes, another says no. She's in no position to clarify her wishes now, so a decision had to be made, one way or the other. Abstaining from that decision is to decide, due to the nature of the problem.

The parents got their way and kept her alive for 15 years. Would they ever reconsider? If Shiavo stops his case, and the courts reverse the last order, would her parents be happy with another 15 years? Another 30 years? Another 50 years? All in the very real possibility that all this time has been won against the wishes of the patient?

At least everyone (except her parents) seem convinced that she's not been conscious or aware of her situation, so either way she's not been made to suffer from this.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by csense
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


The order of those three unalienable rights as presented in the Declaration of Independence is not by accident. It was deliberate.

But can you force someone to employ a right they want to give up?

[davefoc]

The one thing missing from this discussion all along is the answer to the question, "under what conditions would you discontinue care for Terri?"

If the question has been answered I have missed it and I apologize.

I also think TM's question is interesting (rephrased a bit here), "If she fails to regain conciousness will you still be ok with the decision to sustain her life for the next 30 plus years?"

[Bruce]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey

The parents got their way and kept her alive for 15 years. Would they ever reconsider? If Shiavo stops his case, and the courts reverse the last order, would her parents be happy with another 15 years? Another 30 years? Another 50 years? All in the very real possibility that all this time has been won against the wishes of the patient?


Michael could turn custody over to them and find out. If she truly isn't suffering and incapable of feeling pain, then why do you think it's so humane to have her put to death? If she feels no misery, then why do you think that death would be preferable to her quality of life?

[csense]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
But can you force someone to employ a right they want to give up?

Without certainty of desire, what is there in the term unalienable that would allow us to do otherwise?

[csense]

Originally posted by Bruce
Michael could turn custody over to them and find out. If she truly isn't suffering and incapable of feeling pain, then why do you think it's so humane to have her put to death? If she feels no misery, then why do you think that death would be preferable to her quality of life?

;)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Bruce
Michael could turn custody over to them and find out. If she truly isn't suffering and incapable of feeling pain, then why do you think it's so humane to have her put to death? If she feels no misery, then why do you think that death would be preferable to her quality of life?


If the husband is correct about his wife's wishes, then turning custody over to her parents would be directly contradicting those wishes. That's what makes me think he's telling the truth--if he just wanted to be rid of her, and didn't care, he could do that very easily. Could have done it for fifteen years. Could have accepted offers of up to $10 million to do it. He could walk away and get on with his life. But he doesn't.

Since I think he's right about Terri's wishes, then the question becomes why do I think it's right for Terri to want to end her life rather than live in these circumstances? Because it's her right, and her business.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
If the husband is correct about his wife's wishes, then turning custody over to her parents would be directly contradicting those wishes

, and if he is making the whole thing up, then it's murder, isn't it?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally posted by csense
There is enough information to constitute an argument that there exists a conflict, as I stated, and that is enough to make an argument that it would be unethical to place a decision of life and death into the hands of such a person, especially when the evidence of Terri's stated wishes is anecdotal, and not empirical.

I'm not rendering any conclusions as to his intent, but reasonable doubt constitutes a basis for dismissal as far as I'm concerned.

A noble, honorable, and just quest....deserves a noble, honorable, and just warrior. Regardless of how anyone personally feels about Michael Schiavo, he certainly doesn't meet the above requirements objectively. Again, at risk of going round and round, all you have is a tiny bit of informaton and fairly one sided at that. Apparently the courts that have a lot more information than you have not found cause to suspect the intentions of the husband.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Bruce
, and if he is making the whole thing up, then it's murder, isn't it?

I'm not sure it would fit the definition of murder. If he smothered her with a pillow, yeah. But if the doctors ask him what his wife's wishes were, and he lies about it, they pull the plug, and then it comes out that he lied...would he be charged with murder? I don't think so. Is there any precedent for such a case? It would be hellishly difficult to prove in court, all he'd have to say is that he honestly believed he was following his wife's wishes. You'd have to have a very zealous prosecutor and a very unsympathetic jury to get a murder conviction there.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally posted by Bruce
, and if he is making the whole thing up, then it's murder, isn't it? No, it isn't.

People die. They die when we stop giving medication. You can put that medication down that feeding tube. You think there's a difference because you define life support one way and another defines it differently. Why is withdrawing a ventilator different from withdrawing a feeding tube or medications? What if the tube had never been placed? There are lots of ways to look at this situation.

To think you or I know the truth, the one way is ignorantly egotistical. Any chance you read the in depth article I posted about the ethical examination of all the issues in a case such as this? There was hardly a clear magic answer to every situation. What makes you special?

[csense]

Originally posted by skeptigirl
Again, at risk of going round and round, all you have is a tiny bit of informaton and fairly one sided at that. Apparently the courts that have a lot more information than you have not found cause to suspect the intentions of the husband.


I wouldn't call it a tiny bit of information, but in principle, you're right. There is information I'm not privy to which may or may not be dispositive.

Speaking of information though, and in keeping with the trend to supply links, here is one that might be interesting to anyone reading. It is selective, and obviously bias, but that doesn't mean the points made are necessarily invalid. Take from it what you will, and if anything, maybe it will lead one to search deeper.

Here it is:

http://www.zimp.org/stuff/contradictions.htm

[Bruce]

Originally posted by csense

http://www.zimp.org/stuff/contradictions.htm

Come on, csense! Testimonials? There's no science in testimonials, even if they are documented. People can lie and make up stories. You can't go on word alone. Take this for example:


Q. What did you do with your wife's jewelry?

SCHIAVO: My wife's jewelry?

Q. Yeah.

SCHIAVO: Um, I think I took her engagement ring and her...what do they call it...diamond wedding band and made a ring for myself.


Michael could be lying. Is there any scientific evidence that the ring was in fact re-molded or re-shaped in any way? Where's the data, csense?

Very disappointing. :nope:

[csense]

Originally posted by Bruce

Very disappointing. :nope:

Now that is a cool combination of emoticons and text :D

[Bruce]

Originally posted by skeptigirl
Any chance you read the in depth article I posted about the ethical examination of all the issues in a case such as this?

Yes.

Therefore the first ethical question is: if someone is in the permanent vegetative state is it ethical to continue feeding them (which constitutes continuing assault because they have not given permission)

We shouldn't try to save people's lives. They might sue us!

This contrasts with the case for "brain death," where the neuroanatomy and neurophysiology are both well established. The vegetative state is simply one end of a spectrum of awareness, and there is no obvious cut-off between the vegetative state and the low awareness state. Three ethical questions arise: in the absence of any test, can we accept that any human being is unaware?

There you go. There's no scientific proof that any of us are actually aware. Maybe we should all starve ourselves to put us out of our misery.

The last ethical question relates to the mode of death. Stopping food and water inevitably leads to death within 14 days from dehydration. Conscious people suffer greatly if they die from dehydration. Moreover, this mode of death precludes the use of any organs for transplantation, which may run counter to the patient's known wishes. It would be possible to kill the patient more directly.

Conscious people suffer greatly if they die from dehydration. But wait, didn't we just say that there is no scientific proof that any of us are aware? Maybe what we percieve as suffering is meerly a response to external stimuli.

What was your point anyway? Ethical issue are difficult, therefore it's no big deal if we kill her?

Yes, I read the in-depth article. It was about as practical and sensible as the Quality of Life article I posted. Heil, Hitler. Exterminate the invalids. They are a burden on society. Only the healthy, happy, hard-working tax-payers are worthy of life.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Bruce
Yes, I read the in-depth article. It was about as practical and sensible as the Quality of Life article I posted. Heil, Hitler. Exterminate the invalids. They are a burden on society. Only the healthy, happy, hard-working tax-payers are worthy of life.

What if the invalid in question wants to die? The issue in this case isn't over the sanctity of life, or about taking it against the will of the person concerned. It's about whether, in this one case, this one woman would want to die or not. Her husband says she would. Her parents say she wouldn't. Do either party say it wouldn't matter what she would want? Or are they in agreement that her wishes matter, but disagreeing what those wishes are?

[csense]

In fairness, and for a number of other reasons such as authentication of text to my previous link, here is the public statement made by Michael Schiavo on October 20th, 2003:

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGA9DXB31MD.html (Statement By Michael Schiavo)



Excerpt:

I never wanted Terri to die. I still don't. After more than seven years of desperately searching for a cure for Terri, the death of my own mother helped me realize that I was fooling myself. More important, I was hiding behind my hope, and selfishly ignoring Terri's wishes. I wanted my wife to be with me so much that I denied her true condition.
(emphasis mine)

Terri collapsed in 1990, so seven plus, is 1997, or thereabouts. What is interesting is that as early as 1995/96 it was public knowledge that Michael Schiavo was engaged to and living with Jodi Centzone, the woman he presently has two children with. In 1997, Jodi Centzone was listed as Michaels fiance (with no mention of Terri) in Claire Schiavo's obituary, Michaels mother.

In and of themselves, there is nothing wrong with these things...in and of themselves.

When you add Theresa Schiavo, Michael Schiavo's wife, into the the picture, then not only does it cause a conflict for the observer, it casues a conflict within Michaels own words, after all, if he was living and engaged to Jodi Centzone, how is it that he could also want Terri to be his wife, and if he wanted Terri to be his wife, how could he also want Jodi to be his wife...

(scratches head)

[TragicMonkey]

Oh for the love of walruses.

Just because somebody's a jerk, or you don't like him, doesn't mean he's lying about something. Life isn't like television, where people are generally likable.

Does it even matter what he's like? He could be the biggest bastard in the universe. The only question that matters in this case is what would Terri want. If her husband has a girlfriend, does that automatically mean that Terri would have chosen life in any state? The act of doing something you disapprove of automatically makes everything the man says a lie?

If he's such a big murderous jerk who doesn't care, he could walk away now and leave the whole mess to other people. He's been offered pots of money to do so. He hasn't. Do you really think he's clinging to all this out of spite for her parents? That he's lying about her wishes, spending a fortune on lawyers, having his whole life dragged before the public, going down in freaking history as an ethics case that'll pop up in every intro philosophy course for the next hundred years, for that?

You can spend reams of paper highlighting the man's faults. The only one that would have any bearing at all on this is if he's lying when he says he thinks Terri would prefer to die. He either is, or he isn't. His girlfriend, his jewelry, his intern Monica, are all irrelevant. Except that some people decide to sit in judgment of the man's character, and make that the central question. Terri's husband is a jerk, so she should live on?

[Bruce]

I don't believe anyone has sufficiently answered my question. If Terri is incapable of feeling pain or cognitive awareness, then she is obviously not suffering, therefore the entire quality of life issue becomes a moot point. If the person in question is not suffering, then what code of ethics do you serve by killing her?

To answer TM, how can you be sure that the person hasn't changed his mind? Lots of people that claim they wouldn't want to live as a quadraplegic change their minds after becoming one (Christopher Reeve, I would wager, perhaps Steven Hawking?).

Skeptigirl's link has already shown us we have no way to prove a level of awareness.

A signed legal document is, however, a signed legal document. If there is documented proof that you want to be killed if you don't wake from a coma after a month, then I suppose you can't sue the doctors for malpractice afterwards. ;)

Personally, I think that anyone who signs a document to have their life terminated based on future circumstances is a damn fool.

[csense]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
What if the invalid in question wants to die? The issue in this case isn't over the sanctity of life, or about taking it against the will of the person concerned. It's about whether, in this one case, this one woman would want to die or not. Her husband says she would. Her parents say she wouldn't. Do either party say it wouldn't matter what she would want? Or are they in agreement that her wishes matter, but disagreeing what those wishes are?

If the issue isn't philosophical, or the sanctity of life as you put it, then clearly, without empirical evidence to the contrary, you can not suspend or alienate, an inalienable right.

Judges do it, but then, Judges do a lot of things that conflict with the Constitution.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Bruce
I don't believe anyone has sufficiently answered my question. If Terri is incapable of feeling pain or cognitive awareness, then she is obviously not suffering, therefore the entire quality of life issue becomes a moot point. If the person in question is not suffering, then what code of ethics do you serve by killing her?

If it's her wish to die, you're justifying defying her wishes simply because she wouldn't realize it. In that case, a doctor can do whatever he likes to a patient under anesthesia, because heck, she won't know about it.

To answer TM, how can you be sure that the person hasn't changed his mind? Lots of people that claim they wouldn't want to live as a quadraplegic change their minds after becoming one (Christopher Reeve, I would wager, perhaps Steven Hawking?).

Skeptigirl's link has already shown us we have no way to prove a level of awareness.

A signed legal document is, however, a signed legal document. If there is documented proof that you want to be killed if you don't wake from a coma after a month, then I suppose you can't sue the doctors for malpractice afterwards. ;)

Personally, I think that anyone who signs a document to have their life terminated based on future circumstances is a damn fool.

People have the right to change their minds. But we don't have the right to defy people's wishes because we think they might change their minds, or because we disagree with their choice. Saying "they might change their minds" is just taking their decision away from them. Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn't. But since they can't, their previous wishes should be respected.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by csense
If the issue isn't philosophical, or the sanctity of life as you put it, then clearly, without empirical evidence to the contrary, you can not suspend or alienate, an inalienable right.

Judges do it, but then, Judges do a lot of things that conflict with the Constitution.


If someone didn't have a living will, but both the husband and the parents, as well as every friend, relative, co-worker, neighbor, and acquaintance of the patient came and testified that they were absolutely sure the patient would want to die in these circumstances, would you refuse to allow it, for lack of "empirical evidence"?

The evidence is the testimony of the husband and parents, which is plenty acceptable in these cases. The problem is that they conflict, not that the nature of the evidence is inherently inadmissable.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
What if the invalid in question wants to die?

I'm not so sure I even buy into euthanasia even if the person in question clearly wants to die. If someone walked up to you on the street, handed you a gun, and said, "I just found out I have terminal cancer. Will you please shoot me?". Would you shoot him out of the kindness of your heart?

Suicide is one thing, but homocide is another. By requesting to be killed, you are effectively putting another in the position to commit homocide. You can't argue with suicide. It's self inflicted, no questions there as long as the evidence points to suicide. Euthanasia is a totally different ethical monster. You can never prove that the person was in his right mind when he requested to be killed, and you can never prove that the killer did the killing out of kindness or for the thrill of killing.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Bruce
I'm not so sure I even buy into euthanasia even if the person in question clearly wants to die. If someone walked up to you on the street, handed you a gun, and said, "I just found out I have terminal cancer. Will you please shoot me?". Would you shoot him out of the kindness of your heart?

Suicide is one thing, but homocide is another. By requesting to be killed, you are effectively putting another in the position to commit homocide. You can't argue with suicide. It's self inflicted, no questions there as long as the evidence points to suicide. Euthanasia is a totally different ethical monster. You can never prove that the person was in his right mind when he requested to be killed, and you can never prove that the killer did the killing out of kindness or for the thrill of killing.

Which is why you restrict it to people you know very well. If your roommate is depressed over losing a job, you don't grant him mercy. If your cancer-ridden ninety-nine-year-old grandmother, who's spent the last ten years in pain in a hospital bed, begs you to help her take some extra pills...well, that's your choice. And it's not an easy one.

Personally, I think suicide is everyone's right, but one that shouldn't be exercised except in the most absolutely dire circumstances. Euthanasia is what you're faced with when someone would commit suicide, but is physically unable, and needs help. I can imagine circumstances in which I would help someone commit suicide. Equally, I hope that if I ever really need to, I can count on someone to help me die. But I sincerely hope that neither of those situations ever arises. The choice to die is terrible enough when one makes it for oneself; it's infinitely worse to put that burden of choice on someone else. I'm sure there are many cases of people who wish to die, but don't want to have their loved ones live with the consequences of being asked to help. Which makes it even worse, if they finally break down from the pain of living and have to ask, knowing what it will do to the people they ask. It's heartbreaking.

[csense]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
If someone didn't have a living will, but both the husband and the parents, as well as every friend, relative, co-worker, neighbor, and acquaintance of the patient came and testified that they were absolutely sure the patient would want to die in these circumstances, would you refuse to allow it, for lack of "empirical evidence"?

The evidence is the testimony of the husband and parents, which is plenty acceptable in these cases. The problem is that they conflict, not that the nature of the evidence is inherently inadmissable.

I'm not debating whether Michael Schiavo, or anyone for that matter, should or shouldn't be allowed to offer testimony. In fact, I don't even know why you're making it an issue.

The point is one of conflict, which you yourself admit, and in which case, empirical evidence would contradict one or the other.

If you've taken the time to notice, in many of my posts on this forum, I try to emphasize the principle of contradiction.

Understand that, and how to apply it, and you're on your way...

[Bruce]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey

Personally, I think suicide is everyone's right, but one that shouldn't be exercised except in the most absolutely dire circumstances. Euthanasia is what you're faced with when someone would commit suicide, but is physically unable, and needs help. I can imagine circumstances in which I would help someone commit suicide. Equally, I hope that if I ever really need to, I can count on someone to help me die. But I sincerely hope that neither of those situations ever arises. The choice to die is terrible enough when one makes it for oneself; it's infinitely worse to put that burden of choice on someone else. I'm sure there are many cases of people who wish to die, but don't want to have their loved ones live with the consequences of being asked to help. Which makes it even worse, if they finally break down from the pain of living and have to ask, knowing what it will do to the people they ask. It's heartbreaking.

We are now moving into a different issue here. In Shivo's case, we are uncertain if she wants (or had wanted) to die or not. We are going solely on her husband's word, and her husband's word is questionable, or else we wouldn't have four pages of debate.

I'm getting the distinct feeling from many posters on this board that in cases where it is uncertain whether or not the patient wants to die, that killing them is better than keeping them alive. :(

On a personal note, if I were trapped inside my body, unable to communicate, but vaguely aware that my wife had spent all the money meant for my rehabilitation on lawyers, lied to my family about how the money was spent, slept with other men and had children with them, and had re-molded the wedding ring she gave me into a ring for herself, and went all the way to the supreme court just to have me killed, I would want to be kept alive if but for the slim chance that I could recover and tear her a new *********, or at least find a way to have her ass thrown in jail for attempted murder, and I know she would do the same if our positions were switched.

On another personal note, the previous paragraph was the longest sentence I've ever written. :)

[csense]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Oh for the love of walruses.

Just because somebody's a jerk, or you don't like him, doesn't mean he's lying about something. Life isn't like television, where people are generally likable.

Does it even matter what he's like? He could be the biggest bastard in the universe. The only question that matters in this case is what would Terri want. If her husband has a girlfriend, does that automatically mean that Terri would have chosen life in any state? The act of doing something you disapprove of automatically makes everything the man says a lie?

If he's such a big murderous jerk who doesn't care, he could walk away now and leave the whole mess to other people. He's been offered pots of money to do so. He hasn't. Do you really think he's clinging to all this out of spite for her parents? That he's lying about her wishes, spending a fortune on lawyers, having his whole life dragged before the public, going down in freaking history as an ethics case that'll pop up in every intro philosophy course for the next hundred years, for that?

You can spend reams of paper highlighting the man's faults. The only one that would have any bearing at all on this is if he's lying when he says he thinks Terri would prefer to die. He either is, or he isn't. His girlfriend, his jewelry, his intern Monica, are all irrelevant. Except that some people decide to sit in judgment of the man's character, and make that the central question. Terri's husband is a jerk, so she should live on?


If Michael Schiavo himself truly does feel that this is the correct course for his wife, and that the parents are deluding themselves since Medical Doctors claim it is a physical impossibility for her to be conscious. In what way would lying be relevant from his perspective, or for that matter immoral.
Nay, from that perspective, not following this course of action could be considered immoral. Not only would he be helping Theresa, but he would be helping the parents as well. After all, someone's gotta think clearly in this thing, and since they claim she is conscious, and we know that is impossible, they obviously aren't thinking clearly. It's best for everyone. Everyone will see that once it's over.
We make moral decisions all the time. Why should this be any different. In fact, this case has had more scrutiny than any other case in history....yada, yada, yada....



Get the picture?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Bruce
We are now moving into a different issue here. In Shivo's case, we are uncertain if she wants (or had wanted) to die or not. We are going solely on her husband's word, and her husband's word is questionable, or else we wouldn't have four pages of debate.



How is the husband's word any more in question than the parents? You claim he has an agenda (although no one has ever demonstrated that his agenda is anything other than to do what Terry would want). OTOH, the parents obviously have an agenda, too, and they have nothing but their word that this is what she would want.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
How is the husband's word any more in question than the parents? You claim he has an agenda (although no one has ever demonstrated that his agenda is anything other than to do what Terry would want). OTOH, the parents obviously have an agenda, too, and they have nothing but their word that this is what she would want.

It's pretty simple.

Michael's agenda = murder
Parents agenda = life

It doesn't get much clear than that.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Bruce
It's pretty simple.

Michael's agenda = murder
Parents agenda = life

It doesn't get much clear than that.

You wish.

How about:

Michael's agenda: selflessly do what she would have wanted him to do
Parent's agenda: selfishly defy what she would want

It seems pretty obvious to me that only one of the parties actually has Terri's interests in mind, as opposed their own.

[rdtjr]

Hmmm, if you remove all the fabricated moral mumbo-jumbo and just get down to the law, doesn't this all boil down to this:

Michael Schiavo has every right to ask for his wife to die a "natural" death. (I define it as natural since without all of these machines she would have been long dead anway. Keeping her alive this long has been "unnatural"... note I did not say "wrong", just unnatural.)

Once their daughter was married the legal rights of the parents cease to exist as far as legal decision making for their daughter or any of her offspring.

Under our legal system Michael has the rights to make the decisions regarding his wife's body in this case and his parents do not. That's it. While meeting their wishes is nice, there in no legal way to persuade him to do so. That's what it boils down to. Everything else is metaphysics and irrelevant before the law.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by rdtjr

Under our legal system Michael has the rights to make the decisions regarding his wife's body in this case and his parents do not.

If it's all so legal, why did Michael have to hire all those lawyers and obtain a court order to have her feeding tube removed. Moreover, why would any of this be an issue at all?

[rdtjr]

Originally posted by Bruce
If it's all so legal, why did Michael have to hire all those lawyers and obtain a court order to have her feeding tube removed. Moreover, why would any of this be an issue at all?

Because her parents keep fighting it through the legal system. They keep losing because they have no legal standing, but they kept finding some new sucker judge to give them a stay... then after a few more months they lose again... again because they have no legal standing at all. Their only luck has been in getting those temporary continuances.

Now that they have exhausted even those, the U.S. House of Representatives has stepped in... oy! What idiocy. What next, are they going to intervene and tell me what brand of antibiotics I can give my kids?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Bruce
It's pretty simple.

Michael's agenda = murder
Parents agenda = life

It doesn't get much clear than that.

Do Terri's wishes count? If so, then it's either

Terri's agenda = suicide

or else

Terri's agenda = life

At the moment, it's Terri's agenda = ?

Since I believe the husband is telling the truth (based on what I've said about three times so far, that if he really didn't care he could walk away a millionaire and forget the whole thing), I think Terri's agenda = suicide. Therefore, since it's her life, it doesn't matter what anyone else's opinions are about her husband, her parents, or the ethics of euthanasia.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by csense
I'm not debating whether Michael Schiavo, or anyone for that matter, should or shouldn't be allowed to offer testimony. In fact, I don't even know why you're making it an issue.

Because you are. You introduce links of selective quotes designed to show what a jerk the man is. I'm saying his personal character is irrelevant.

The point is one of conflict, which you yourself admit, and in which case, empirical evidence would contradict one or the other.

If you've taken the time to notice, in many of my posts on this forum, I try to emphasize the principle of contradiction.

Understand that, and how to apply it, and you're on your way...

So, whenever two parties give contradictory testimony, do nothing? In this case, doing "nothing" is the same as agreeing in favor of one of the parties. The court's job is to decide one way or another. That's what courts are for. The guy in charge is called a "judge" for a reason.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Because you are. You introduce links of selective quotes designed to show what a jerk the man is. I'm saying his personal character is irrelevant.

Tell Scott Peterson that. It's not just a matter of character, but motivations. I don't know the guy personally, but no one can deny that there are empirical benefits for him if Terry just "went away." Whether this actually is behind his actions, no one can tell. But it's foolish to ignore its existence.

So, whenever two parties give contradictory testimony, do nothing? In this case, doing "nothing" is the same as agreeing in favor of one of the parties. The court's job is to decide one way or another. That's what courts are for. The guy in charge is called a "judge" for a reason.

Yeah, and they're called "living wills" for a reason. If she was so intent on not being preserved in this state, why didn't she take the simple steps to complete such a document? Or, for that matter, mention her wishes to her own family?

This isn't just a matter of conflicting stories. One side has the advantage of the lack of a living will, whereas the husband's would be similarly boosted if she DID have one. As it is, the onus is on Terri herself to speak on her own behalf through such a document. She didn't, in spite of her alleged wishes. Doesn't that say something as well?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Jocko
Yeah, and they're called "living wills" for a reason. If she was so intent on not being preserved in this state, why didn't she take the simple steps to complete such a document? Or, for that matter, mention her wishes to her own family?


I am 37 years old. I don't have a living will, nor have I told my family about my wishes.

I have, OTOH, told my wife.

If I were to be in a vegetative state tomorrow, my wife would be the only one who have any business making the decision.

People tell their spouses far, far, far more personal and important stuff than they will tell their family.

[rdtjr]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I am 37 years old. I don't have a living will, nor have I told my family about my wishes.

I have, OTOH, told my wife.

If I were to be in a vegetative state tomorrow, my wife would be the only one who have any business making the decision.

People tell their spouses far, far, far more personal and important stuff than they will tell their family.

Agreed. My parents and siblings have no idea what my wishes are should I die or be in such a state. (My mother was very upset the one time I mentioned wanted no casket, no burial, and a nice cremation.... so such conversations just don't come up anymore.) My wife knows exactly what I want and I have no living will. She knows what to do. If something were to happen to her, I know what she wants and what to do for her. And believe me, her family would not be happy with her decisions about what she wants done... hence why she has not talked to them about it.

Neither of us feels the need for living wills, because we each trust the other to do what's right. If, however, my wife weren't with me, I would more seriously consider a living will... to make sure that others, meaning well, don't subvert my wishes for myself.

[Earthborn]

Could you expand on why you believe that?Sure, I'll explain.

There are basically two views about the relationship between the brain and consciousness among neurologists.

The first is the idea that conciousness resides in the brain, and specifically in the parts of the brain that are typical for human brains. Because animals are assumed to be less concious than humans, it is therefore concluded that the parts of the brain that are typical for humans must be the place where conciousness takes somehow is generated.

In this view the brain is seen as the master of all other organs, it controls the body and the brain is where someone's character and personality is seated. People who believe in this view might say like: "You are your brain" or "The brain is what matters, the rest of the body is just meant to keep it alive." Where 'conciousness' resides exactly is uncertain and it is speculated that it must be somewhere in the cerebral cortex in the left hemisphere, or the right hemisphere or the frontal lobes or a bit all over the cortex.

This view creates a sort of dualism, like the dualism between 'mind' and 'body', but here it is 'brain' and 'body'.

There is another view however, often propagated by cyberneticists and AI robotics researchers. Their view is that the brain is an organ much like other organs and cannot be understood by ignoring the body. In this view the brain is not in control of the body, it just performs a large number of vital functions.

These people investigate how neural circuits result in behaviour, and they consider 'conciousness' a fairly meaningless concept. Of course they understand the difference between someone who is concious and clearly unconcious, so they define conciousness as simply 'reacting to outside stimuli'. If a set of neural circuits react to outside stimuli it is 'concious', otherwise it is not.

In this view animals that have little or no cerebral cortex are still assumed concious as they do react to outside stimuli, except when you knock them unconcious. Since they can be unconcious, they are concious if they are not unconcious.

You can understand the idea of a brain that is not in control but instead an integral part of the body better by thinking of an analogy for the brain that used to be popular before people heard about computers: think of the brain as a automatic telephone exchange. All connections lead to it or from it and handled centrally. But does that mean the telephone exchange is in control over who calls with who? Of course not. Similarly the brain does not have to control what behaviour results from outside stimuli just because it is vital in causing that behaviour.

Conciousness seen in this way is not a function of the brain, it is a function of the entire body. If the body is not reacting to stimuli it is unconcious, if it is it is concious. The cerebral cortex may be a state of the art exchange of neural signals allowing people to exhibit very complex behaviours and it is indeed true that someone without it cannot exhibit these behaviours. But it is not more vital to conciousness than your little toe is. Conciousness does of course change if you lose it, but also does when you lose your little toe.

Terri Schiavo does seem to be somewhat responsive to outside stimuli and undoubtedly it is possible to give her a knock on the head that would knock a healthy person unconcious and she will temporarily stop reponding to outside stimuli. So when she's not unconcious, she is concious. Simple as that. Her conciousness is very different from a healthy person's, that should be obvious.Is this a generally accepted medical view?To me, it seems like it is gaining in popularity.For what it's worth, and here it comes down to just pure opinion, even if you were right I would want the plug pulled on me. The thought of being concious but being unable to communicate and possibly unable to sense the world sounds ghoulish to me.A lot of medical interventions lead to ghoulish results. There are people fitted with borglike implants to get their hearts or brains going, people pooing from their belly, people with cut corpus callosums or even living with just half a brain. But this does not mean the medical world thinks it justified to let people die instead.

In fact most people will get over their sense of ghoulishness if it means they can continue to survive.Earthborn, I hope you don't think I am taunting you.Not at all.I was also wondering what your thoughts are about how this case would have been handled in Holland.I honestly have no idea. On the one hand, I'm pretty sure that when family members disagree with eachother so profoundly as to what should happen to someone, there is obviously a huge problem. On the other hand there is more relaxed (and somewhat troubling) attitude towards issues of euthanasia so it may not come to this dilemma and she may have had her feeding tube removed a long time ago.

[username]

Originally posted by Earthborn
[B]Sure, I'll explain.



Thanks for that explanation, it was interesting reading.


Terri Schiavo does seem to be somewhat responsive to outside stimuli and undoubtedly it is possible to give her a knock on the head that would knock a healthy person unconcious and she will temporarily stop reponding to outside stimuli. So when she's not unconcious, she is concious. Simple as that. Her conciousness is very different from a healthy person's, that should be obvious.

The court appointed physicians have uniformly testified that she is in a persistent vegetative state. The phrase 'persistent vegetative state' has a specific, clinical meaning. It means the person does not respond to external stimuli in any meaningful way. There can be reflexive actions such as a grimmace or eyes opening in response to something, but the person cannot speak, cannot follow simple commands "like blink once for yes, twice for no". Typically this state can be evidenced by lack of neurological activity when stimuli presented to a person not in a PVS would result in neurological activity.

The prognosis for recovery depends on several factors, one of those being the reason for the patient entering the state to begin with. In Terri's case her brain is irreversably and irreparably damaged. That is to say she will never recover from the PVS. It is physically impossible.

The choices are allow her to die or keep her alive with life support measures in her present state. Eventually she will suffer an infection and/or organ damage and die. Either way she will never leave the PVS.

But this does not mean the medical world thinks it justified to let people die instead.

There is no hope of her condition improving - ever. That is the crux of the matter for me. She has been this way for over a decade. The court appointed doctors are saying she is and has been in PVS the entire time and her brain damage is irreversable. Not the husband's doctors, the court's doctors.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I am 37 years old. I don't have a living will, nor have I told my family about my wishes.

I have, OTOH, told my wife.

If I were to be in a vegetative state tomorrow, my wife would be the only one who have any business making the decision.

People tell their spouses far, far, far more personal and important stuff than they will tell their family.

Then you're a fool. Either that, or you just don't care if this exact same scenario happens to your family, in which case you're a bastard.

If you have any decency at all, you'd go get a nice living will drawn up for a hundred bucks and stick it in a safe deposit box where it won't trouble anyone until it's needed.

It's rank selfishness to withhold your wishes from those who will have a say in the disposition of your life, or will feel they are entitled to do so. Like it or not, you're not the only player in that game. Share the rules or expect the play to get ugly, simple as that.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by rdtjr


Neither of us feels the need for living wills, because we each trust the other to do what's right. If, however, my wife weren't with me, I would more seriously consider a living will... to make sure that others, meaning well, don't subvert my wishes for myself.

Are you just too cheap to draft one? What possible reason would you give to not allow other family members the satisfaction of knowing - in your own words, not someone's hearsay - that the decision is what you really wanted? Is their peace of mind not worth a few bucks?

Suppose you and your wife are both incapacitated in the same car accident? Then what?

[Jocko]

You know, all these posts with the "I would want to die, but I don't need to put it on paper" reminds me of a lot of failed marriages I've seen that started with "we don't need a pre-nup, we can count on him/her to do the right thing."

It's not like a living will is difficult to draft. Nor is it expensive. So how come none of you non-vegetables-at-any-price seems to have one?

[csense]

So, whenever two parties give contradictory testimony, do nothing? In this case, doing "nothing" is the same as agreeing in favor of one of the parties. The court's job is to decide one way or another. That's what courts are for. The guy in charge is called a "judge" for a reason.

Oi vay...I thought we were progressing in this discussion.

Do you understand what reasonable doubt means. We don't execute people if there is reasonable doubt, and we surely don't execute people if the jury is not unanimous. In addition, where there is a conflict, we should always err on the side of life, if it is a life and death situation.

To say that the judge would in effect be doing nothing if he didn't grant Michael Schiavo's request for his wife's termination is just simply absurd.

It seems that the conversation on this thread is once again waning toward silliness.

That's unfortunate

[Jocko]

Originally posted by csense

Oi vay...I thought we were progressing in this discussion.

Do you understand what reasonable doubt means. We don't execute people if there is reasonable doubt, and we surely don't execute people if the jury is not unanimous. In addition, where there is a conflict, we should always err on the side of life, if it is a life and death situation.


Not only that, but hearsay (which is all Mike Schiavo really has) will not only fail to get a conviction, it'll get a big, fat sustained objection.

Irony sure can be ironic sometimes.

[username]

Originally posted by Jocko
You know, all these posts with the "I would want to die, but I don't need to put it on paper" reminds me of a lot of failed marriages I've seen that started with "we don't need a pre-nup, we can count on him/her to do the right thing."

It's not like a living will is difficult to draft. Nor is it expensive. So how come none of you non-vegetables-at-any-price seems to have one?

Because if you trust your spouse to make an appropriate decision one isn't needed.

One's spouse is one's legal guardian, parents are not. This issue with Schiavo is an anomally, people are allowed to die everyday.

I would much rather have my spouse make a judgement call than try to define exactly what I want under what conditions and then have some lawyer interpret it.

One doesn't require a living will to be valid as far as I know. A simple piece of paper written by oneself is sufficient. The devil is in the details though. Try and spell out exactly when you would want to be let go and when you would want continued medical intervention. Once you have the wording exactly as you want it consider the medical advances that might occur in the next 10 or 20 years that might cause you to change your mind in some cases.

I would rather have my spouse make the call at the time. No paper is needed for this, it is automatic. Except for this case where the courts have given excessive standing to the parents. Hopefully this case makes at least one thing clear, parents have no legal say over their children after they are married off.

[csense]

The court appointed physicians have uniformly testified that she is in a persistent vegetative state.


But not all physicians that have testified.

There are three categories here:
1)The parents lawyers and doctors
2)Michael Schiavo's lawyers and doctors
3)Court appointed lawyers and doctors

I'm don't know the details to all the litigation in this case, but common sense alone would tell you that the parents would contest PVS on both fronts: lawyers and doctors, and in fact, the Schindlers have stated that they do have medical proffesionals that have spoken for them in court and through affidavits.



The phrase 'persistent vegetative state' has a specific, clinical meaning.


In this case, PVS is determined by the lack of a functioning cerebral cortex, not by behavior.

As I said in an earlier post, if a neurologist looks at the medical records first, and concludes that there can not be consciousness based upon a perceived medical truth, then does anyone actually think that this same neurologist, who now observes Terri, can render an objective opinion as to whether there is consciousness present based on behavior?

[csense]

Originally posted by Jocko
Not only that, but hearsay (which is all Mike Schiavo really has) will not only fail to get a conviction, it'll get a big, fat sustained objection.

Irony sure can be ironic sometimes.

Absolutely.

All we have is anecdotal evidence here, like it or not.

[Ladyhawk]

Started a new thread with this:
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=050317&cat=news&st=newsd88st8v00&src=ap....

just to make sure it didn't get buried here...

Looks like she is going to be left reconnected until...I dunno, the Florida Supreme Court throws it out again...or maybe she just gets left on the feeding tube forever until her parents are dead and gone and no one remembers her anymore...

I'm so far past the point of caring anymore....

[csense]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

I'm so far past the point of caring anymore....

Unfortunate

Very unfortunate

[rdtjr]

Originally posted by Jocko
Are you just too cheap to draft one? What possible reason would you give to not allow other family members the satisfaction of knowing - in your own words, not someone's hearsay - that the decision is what you really wanted? Is their peace of mind not worth a few bucks?

Suppose you and your wife are both incapacitated in the same car accident? Then what?

Doesn't even matter in the course of this debate. The point is that people do this all the time. Folks here seem to have a problem grasping that a spouse might actually know better what an individual wants, than the rest of the family. Is this really suprising? Here you have two examples. In fact, the law assumes this, which is why a spouse has power of attorney over an incapacitated person instead of that person's parents.

For the record I don't have an enormous will either. I just have a distribution of my Life Insurance policy and a statement that should both my wife and I die any assets that are considered mine and mine alone (or any insurance benefits that would normally go to my spouse) revert to my parents, all assets are to be converted to cash and divided among my remaining siblings. And my wife has the same. Perhaps, should we grow more wealthy or have kids we might develop more intensive wills, but you know what? That's our business. If we screw our families by not having something more definitive, well bad on us. But you know something... still not your business... still not the business of overly-pious, hypocrit, religious nuts (the same groups of folks who 60 and 70 years ago felt that the same technologies that are use to keep Terri's body breathing today were used for "playing God" by keeping folks "alive" "unnaturally" and against God's will... make up your friggin fundy minds)... and not the business of the U.S. House of Fundamentalist Christians... I mean "Representatives".

But the fact stands that in this particular scenario Michael Schiavo has all the rights. As the courts have upheld time and time again. Any further debate on the subject delves into metaphysics and is moot as far as "rights" and legalities are concerned. Frankly, all the U.S. House has done in changing laws is create additional expenses for the tax payer and draw this drama out. Federal Courts will find for Michael as well... they have no real choice under law.

And as a personal aside, all of these dispersion against Michael Schiavo and his motives are disgusting. Only Michael Schiavo and his dead wife know whether he is truly representing her wishes. Any suggestion to the contrary is nothing but character assassination. Under the law the decision is Michael's. Not just about whether to cut off the machines, but what Michael feels the definition of life and death within known science means, and what Michael feels is the moral choice to make. This is why I prefer to go with the law, the opinion of parents, fundies, and internet bulletin board members means jack-squat! Michael, and possibly Terri's, definitions of all of this most likely are different than yours, mine, or her parents, or this minister or that one. He gets to decide what they believed in as a couple. No one else! What this boils down to is a whole bunch of people telling one man what he has to (or should) believe and what his own wife believed in. Again, sorry, but within the law no one else gets to impose their "beliefs" upon Michael, and that's how it should be.

[username]

Originally posted by csense

But not all physicians that have testified.

There are three categories here:
1)The parents lawyers and doctors
2)Michael Schiavo's lawyers and doctors
3)Court appointed lawyers and doctors

I'm don't know the details to all the litigation in this case, but common sense alone would tell you that the parents would contest PVS on both fronts: lawyers and doctors, and in fact, the Schindlers have stated that they do have medical proffesionals that have spoken for them in court and through affidavits.


The reason the court appoints physicians to testify is to reduce the likelihood of biased witnesses. Both sides in the litigation have an obvious bias and are free to doctor shop until they find one or ten willing to say what they wish said.

That is why I consider it significant that the court appointed physicians have uniformly testified she is in a persistant vegetative state. To me that means the medical verdict is unanimous.


In this case, PVS is determined by the lack of a functioning cerebral cortex, not by behavior.

As I said in an earlier post, if a neurologist looks at the medical records first, and concludes that there can not be consciousness based upon a perceived medical truth, then does anyone actually think that this same neurologist, who now observes Terri, can render an objective opinion as to whether there is consciousness present based on behavior?

From a neurological perspective, absolutely.

[csense]

Originally posted by username



From a neurological perspective, absolutely.

So on the one hand, they agree that it is a medical truth, but on the other hand they agree that it is not a medical truth.

I don't understand, which is it, since both can not be true at the same time.

[csense]

Originally posted by username
The reason the court appoints physicians to testify is to reduce the likelihood of biased witnesses. Both sides in the litigation have an obvious bias and are free to doctor shop until they find one or ten willing to say what they wish said.

That is why I consider it significant that the court appointed physicians have uniformly testified she is in a persistant vegetative state. To me that means the medical verdict is unanimous.


Well, to everyone else that would be demonstrably wrong.

[username]

Originally posted by csense
So on the one hand, they agree that it is a medical truth, but on the other hand they agree that it is not a medical truth.

I don't understand, which is it, since both can not be true at the same time.

I don't understand the question. the woman is in a persistent vegetative state. There is unanimous agreement among the court appointed physicians on this matter.

This condition means the lights are on, but nobody is home.

She can't respond in a meaningful way to any external stimuli. She has instinctual/primitive responses only.

She isn't going to improve. She can't improve. Therapy would be as effective on her as on a rock. This is what the doctors say.

We can debate all day whether the current state of medical knowledge is all we would hope it is, but the fact remains she is in a vegetative state, can't speak or follow simple commands. She is forever cut off from the external world in all meaningful ways. She flat lines on an EEG.

She is gone and isn't coming back. Can't come back.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by rdtjr
Doesn't even matter in the course of this debate. The point is that people do this all the time. Folks here seem to have a problem grasping that a spouse might actually know better what an individual wants, than the rest of the family. Is this really suprising? Here you have two examples. In fact, the law assumes this, which is why a spouse has power of attorney over an incapacitated person instead of that person's parents.

For the record I don't have an enormous will either. I just have a distribution of my Life Insurance policy and a statement that should both my wife and I die any assets that are considered mine and mine alone (or any insurance benefits that would normally go to my spouse) revert to my parents, all assets are to be converted to cash and divided among my remaining siblings. And my wife has the same. Perhaps, should we grow more wealthy or have kids we might develop more intensive wills, but you know what? That's our business. If we screw our families by not having something more definitive, well bad on us.

Yeah, bad on you.

But you know something... still not your business... still not the business of overly-pious, hypocrit, religious nuts (the same groups of folks who 60 and 70 years ago felt that the same technologies that are use to keep Terri's body breathing today were used for "playing God" by keeping folks "alive" "unnaturally" and against God's will... make up your friggin fundy minds)... and not the business of the U.S. House of Fundamentalist Christians... I mean "Representatives".

My objections, as I clearly laid out, are legal and procedural. So if you want to discuss that, great, otherwise I'll bide my time until you find some fundie to debate.

But the fact stands that in this particular scenario Michael Schiavo has all the rights. As the courts have upheld time and time again. Any further debate on the subject delves into metaphysics and is moot as far as "rights" and legalities are concerned. Frankly, all the U.S. House has done in changing laws is create additional expenses for the tax payer and draw this drama out. Federal Courts will find for Michael as well... they have no real choice under law.

His "rights" are being exercised in a way analagous to a slave owner's, who may use, abuse or destroy his property at will. This isn't a first-trimester abortion, dude, this is the termination of a life that at least some people believe is worth improving if possible.

If Terri felt differently, she left no reliable record of it.

Again, think about that next time you smugly assert you don't need a living will.

And as a personal aside, all of these dispersion against Michael Schiavo and his motives are disgusting. Only Michael Schiavo and his dead wife know whether he is truly representing her wishes. Any suggestion to the contrary is nothing but character assassination. Under the law the decision is Michael's. Not just about whether to cut off the machines, but what Michael feels the definition of life and death within known science means, and what Michael feels is the moral choice to make. This is why I prefer to go with the law, the opinion of parents, fundies, and internet bulletin board members means jack-squat! Michael, and possibly Terri's, definitions of all of this most likely are different than yours, mine, or her parents, or this minister or that one. He gets to decide what they believed in as a couple. No one else! What this boils down to is a whole bunch of people telling one man what he has to (or should) believe and what his own wife believed in. Again, sorry, but within the law no one else gets to impose their "beliefs" upon Michael, and that's how it should be.

Word to the wise: if you want yo knock down an argument, it's considered good form to quote the person you are arguing with. It would be particularly useful here, since this rant has nothing to do with my posts.

I think you're confused. Better hope no one decides that your confusion is enough to put you out of your misery. Sorry to be such a bite in the ass, but you're way off base. If you respond to me, RESPOND to me and leave your personal boogeymen out of it, thank you.

[csense]

Originally posted by username
I don't understand the question.

If you don't understand what I'm talking about by now, then further elucidation won't help.

[username]

Originally posted by csense
If you don't understand what I'm talking about by now, then further elucidation won't help.

Very well, I won't discuss things with you in the future.

[rdtjr]

Originally posted by Jocko
[B]Yeah, bad on you.

Yeah... and still no one's business but our own... just like with the Schiavos.



My objections, as I clearly laid out, are legal and procedural. So if you want to discuss that, great, otherwise I'll bide my time until you find some fundie to debate.
The law is quite clear in who gets to make decision on behalf of Terri here. If you don't like look to petition your local Congressperson and change it.

His "rights" are being exercised in a way analagous to a slave owner's, who may use, abuse or destroy his property at will. This isn't a first-trimester abortion, dude, this is the termination of a life that at least some people believe is worth improving if possible.
False assumptions and analogies. Your entire argument here is based on personal beliefs about whether she is "alive" or "dead" and the judgements that should be taken. Michael Schiavo is under no obligation to consider anyone else's beliefs at all. One of the great things about this country... for now. All independent doctors, as others have pointed out, are saying she will not improve, will never "be back". Again, if others choose to believe differently no one can or should make Michael Schiavo take those beliefs into consideration.

If Terri felt differently, she left no reliable record of it.
Well, under the law, which you seem so interested in, Michael is the sole person who gets to make decisions about what Terri believed.

Again, think about that next time you smugly assert you don't need a living will.
And didn't say I didn't need or shouldn't have a living will. Way to put words in my mouth. And talk about smug, way to tell me I said something I didn't or presume to imply that I should have something because you think I should. What I should do is none of your smug business... ain't the U.S. great like that?

Word to the wise: if you want yo knock down an argument, it's considered good form to quote the person you are arguing with. It would be particularly useful here, since this rant has nothing to do with my posts.
And where did I say that it did have something to do with your post or any other. It was a general rant, and I'm fine with that term, about some of the assumption made in the media and among Terri's parents supporters about Michael and his motives. Which others here have linked and alluded to. Like, he was abusing her, he had tried to kill her, he's in this for money, or attention or something else. My point still stands. This is all about people trying to inflict their own beliefs upon Michael Schiavo... the attacks on him are nothing but character assassination.

I think you're confused. Better hope no one decides that your confusion is enough to put you out of your misery.
Yeah, and now the strawman. Is anyone here proposing euthanasia of, say, the mentally ill? So what's your point? Do I hope that if my personality and all that I am is destroyed by irreparable brain injuries that my family and friends won't leave the husk of my body to rot for decades in a hospital room? You betcha? Do I care if your family does let your hopelessly lifeless body sit for decades? Nope. I would find it sad... but that's your/their decision based on your/their beliefs... none of which are my business. Which is kind of my whole point.

Sorry to be such a bite in the ass, but you're way off base. If you respond to me, RESPOND to me and leave your personal boogeymen out of it, thank you.

You're not really much of a bite in the ass actually. You would have to actually make some kind of coherent point for that to be the case. All you have done is present your preferred beliefs about Terri's state and what that means, and your beliefs about what should be done. As I already stated, I'm glad I live in a country where other folks, mostly (for now), can't inflict their beliefs upon me. I'll just stick with what the scientists and medical guys can prove. It sucks that consciousness resides in biochemical neurological processes and damage to the brain can wipe it out... it really does. It would be great if somehow what and who you are was in some magical box that a big bearded guy in the sky could hand back when the rest of your body is all better. And if someone believes just that, great, I'm happy for them.... but no one has the right to foist that or any similar belief system upon Michael Schiavo, me, or anyone else.

[thaiboxerken]

this is the termination of a life that at least some people believe is worth improving if possible.

I think it would be worth improving Terri's health. However, it's not possible to do so.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I think it would be worth improving Terri's health. However, it's not possible to do so.

Well then, can we at least discuss improving that epilepsy-inducing avatar of yours?! ;)

[thaiboxerken]

Republicans in the Senate have issued a subpoena for Terri Schiavo to testify before congress. Thus introducing more nonsense into letting the meat-doll Terri Schiavo expire. I wonder what kinds of questions they'll ask her.

This case just further fuels my opinion that christianity is just stupid.

"Frist's statement noted that it is a federal crime to harm or obstruct a person called to testify before Congress"

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20050318/D88TFV3O0.html?PG=home&SEC=news

[davefoc]

This is a sad day.

I wonder if even those who have felt strongly that Schiavo should continue to receive care can have some problems with the federal government getting involved in something like this.

Does the congress propose to stop work and focus on every issue like this in the country. Does it propose to start calling anencephalic babies before congress to prevent the removal of their life support.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't know. Congress is just getting sillier by the day. I mean, they are stepping into the whole baseball/steroid issue. WTF is that?!

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by davefoc
This is a sad day.

I wonder if even those who have felt strongly that Schiavo should continue to receive care can have some problems with the federal government getting involved in something like this.

Does the congress propose to stop work and focus on every issue like this in the country. Does it propose to start calling anencephalic babies before congress to prevent the removal of their life support.

I don't feel strongly about Schiavo, but I'll bet some anti-Death Penalty Congressmen are even now preparing their own subpoenas as a means of staying executions Congressionally.

The fair-weather Federalists in the Republican Party have shown them the way, after all...