Fla. Loses Appeal in Terri Schiavo Case

[Scurrilous]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20050124/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_brain_damaged_woman

<snip>

"The Supreme Court refused Monday to reinstate a Florida law passed to keep a severely brain-damaged woman hooked to a feeding tube, clearing the way for it to be removed.


The Florida Supreme Court had struck down the law last fall, and the justices were the last hope for state leaders who defended the law in a bitter long running dispute over the fate of Terri Schiavo.


Her husband, Michael Schiavo, contends she never wanted to be kept alive artificially. But her parents told justices in a filing that their son-in-law is trying to rush her death so he can inherit her estate and be free to marry another woman.


The Supreme Court did not comment in rejecting an appeal from Gov. Jeb Bush, who argued that the state had the authority to step in and pass the 2003 law that ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted six days after her husband had it removed."

[Solar]

1. finally!

Let the poor woman die in peace!

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scairp]

99. You're joking, right?

"Die in peace"??!! Being starved to death is not "dying in peace". The ignorance shown on this forum about this case is appalling. This poor woman is not on a vent, or any kind of advanced life support, she is merely being fed through a tube and being kept hydrated. I say that is minimal support, and for the "husband" to continue to pursue this is monstrous, IMO. All he had to do was file for divorce and he would be free to marry the mother of his two children. He has the money hidden somewhere, I'm positive, and that is the reason he wants her dead. If he really wanted to do the right thing he would have stepped out the of the picture years ago and allowed her parents to care for her, as they have always wanted to do. They wanted to take her home; he has allowed Terri to languish in a nursing home, with very little therapy, for over a decade. He doesn't give two shits about Terri, and needs to step off.

[Dookus]

100. sorry

nobody should be compelled to divorce his/her spouse because the spouse's parents want to control the life of their child.

You're "sure" he has the money hidden somewhere? Why? What evidence is there of that? Millions has been spent on her care, and on legal fights - legal fights INITIATED by her parents.

What kind of therapy helps a person with a liquified cerebral cortex?

[Scairp]

104. He has another family

Why in the hell wouldn't he want to divorce Terri? The only reason a man would fight this hard to kill off his disabled wife is for money. I have no actual proof that he has hidden the money, as you have no proof he hasn't. No one is compelling him to do anything, but since this man has taken up with another woman and had children with her, he should no longer have any say in how his disabled wife is treated, and he sure as hell has no right to kill her off.

edited for spelling error.

[Dookus]

109. Yes, he has a new partner

and children. He began that relationship YEARS after Terri was was already "dead" for all practical purposes.

I know that pisses off a lot of moralists who expect he should've remained celibate and lonely for the rest of his life, but that's just too fucking bad for the moralists, isn't it?

Now answer me this, honestly: if he HAD remained single and celibate, would your view on this issue be any different? If he remained faithful to Terri, would you then say it's OK for him to make this decision on her behalf?

[Scairp]

127. That is NOT what I am saying

I'm saying that since he did make the choice to move on, he should have done the right thing and relinquish his control over Terri's life. He has, to say the least, a glaring conflict of interest, and should not be the one making life and death decisions about and for Terri.

[Dookus]

128. So I ask again

if he did NOT "move on", and had remained faithful to Terri, would you then respect his decision to remove the feeding tube? If not, then bringing up his newer relationship is just pure distraction from the issue at hand.

[Scairp]

131. Oh please

You are now simply being cantankerous and don't seem to be interested in having a discussion but an argument. The fact is he did move on, he does have a new family, and the non-issue of "what if he hadn't" is just that, a non-issue. He needs to do the right thing, but we know he won't since he has worked for so many years to make sure she dies. Why don't YOU be objective and ask why he has worked so hard, what could be his motivation, other than his so-called utter devotion to Terri? Wouldn't giving her parents guardianship over their own daughter have been the right thing, once a large amount of money was an issue, and her death possibly making him solvent? Why do you attack my perfectly reasonable take on this matter and ask hard questions of Schiavo? You haven't even tried. It isn't much of a leap to think that he has other motivations besides Terri's wishes and best interests at heart. People are scum, and money changes things.

[Dookus]

135. How am I attacking?

Please, calm down. There are no attacks in my posts. I'm trying to clarify something.

From what I've read, there *IS* no more money to be had here. It's all gone. Spent on care and lawyers.

I just think the state shouldn't have the right to overrule a spouse in a case like this. If you think the state DOES have that right, can you delineate exactly under what circumstances? Can the state overrule a parent of a minor child if, say, a grandparent feels differently? An aunt or uncle?

As to whether he's moved on, you STILL haven't answered my question. Would you support his decision if he hadn't entered a new relationship? I bring it up because I see this point raised all the time as some sort of slur on his character and a way to deny the legitimacy of his position. So I'm asking if you and others would respect his view if he were faithful to Terri. I suspect the answer for many people is No, you would NOT respect his view. So therefore, bringing it up is just a distraction - a way to impugn him and malign his motives in a way that has nothing to do with the direct issue at hand.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dookus]

155. well

you accused me of attacking you somehow. I have made very clear WHY I ask the question you still won't answer.

I admitted the money was spent on care and lawyers - lawyers he would never have needed if her parents hadn't tried to intervene where they had no rights. In fact, all the court decisions including today's indicate that Michael was in the right, legally. Her parents bear the responsibility for all the money being frittered away on lawyers, not her husband.

ON edit: Are you somehow more objective than I am? You're the one making unfounded claims and impugning his character for no reason other than to deny him his legal rights.

[saskatoon]

160. for what it's worth

I have a daughter and if she was in the condition of that girl I would want to let her GO.My daughter is 65, I asked her opinion on this, she was wholeheartedly in favor of it if she was the one concerned. She has 3 daughters and I asked her what her feelings would be if this would happen to either of the three, Dee,Teresa and Cathleen. This is a family who is so close knit and loving and she said I would hate to see one of my girls kept in the condition of that poor little thing and I would fight to let her go to eternal rest.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

139. You assume that "moving on,"

whatever that means to you, implies leaving behind all that you had before.

So, when you marry, you will not ever again have anything to do with anyone from your past, right?

When you move from one city to another, you will never again be in contact with anyone from the old city, correct?

When you graduate from school, and head out into the world, you cut all connections you ever had with friends and classmates, yes?

Would that life were as black and white and simplistic as you paint it above, but it's not. You seem to be overlooking a very basic, legally and religiously sanctioned state, and that is the one of Holy Matrimony. Her husband has been devoted to her, and has made sure she was very well taken care of.

Only her parents have chosen to make a public spectacle of her, by violating a court order in order to violate her privacy.

I should think, in your spirit of "moving on," that her parents would have gotten the hell out of the way and shut the hell up when she got married, because, after all, she had "moved on."

Right?

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

154. Now, now, no namecalling

I was posing some intelligent and challenging questions to you. You thought that was nasty because they confused you. Not to worry, sweetie. You'll be fine.

Clearly, you've made up your mind about this incredibly complex situation on the basis of some man you've never met giving you "the creeps."

Have a nice life, honey.

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dookus]

170. So you're claiming that

ANY spouse who removes life support from his or her partner does so for nefarious reasons?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

181. No, I'm not condescending to you here

I'm answering you with my thoughts on the matter. Since they don't agree with yours, you get nasty and call names.

Clearly, you lack the ability to understand that someone might do something for all the right reasons, and would endure years of complications and aggravations and unfair slurs from strangers such as you because he wants to honor his wife's wishes. You don't understand that, so you see something nefarious in his fighting for his wife's right to die.

If he were such a bastard, don't you think he'd have quit a long time ago? If you're one of those "murder mystery" delusionals who think Mrs. Schiavo has any kind of estate, I urge you to go find out about how Medicaid works - she's a pauper, my dear. She's got nothing, and, yes, he is doing this out of the desire to do the right thing.

There ARE people who all altruistic and who exert effort to walk the moral and correct path. For instance, I'm here, responding to you, believing that there is a shred of decency and compassion within you, because I think it's the right thing to do.

I do believe, in all honesty, though, that I'd have better luck teaching the dog how to yodel.



She'll be singing real soon, I bet ...................

[janx]

159. He didn't "bow out" because he is honoring her wishes!

There is no money. There was no murder plot. Is it so hard to believe that a guy might be good enough to care for his first wife who is brain dead?

She told him she didn't want to live that way. He has no intention of "bowing out." After all of the legal wrangling, gossip, and outlandish accusations against this man in the media (and I suspect elsewhere), he has stood firm to her wishes.

Under Florida law she has that right. She has the right to privacy and to have her wishes respected. And there is nothing that Jeb Bush, Randall Terry, the Christian Coalition, or anyone else can do about that.

[FizzFuzz]

253. If I were in a vegetative state, I would WANT my partner to fight

to let me die. I'd want to be helped to die, actually.

The parents seem to be unable to let go, and are extending her suffering, in my view.

Maybe he is fighting on humanitarian grounds, to allow her the dignity of death.

Plus, if Jebby wants to keep the tube in, you know its only for the sake of show, in keeping with fanatical "culture of life" suporters who only court the approval of their fundie zealot following, who have no concept of actual human dignity.

[Name removed]

238. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dookus]

240. Huh?

Lots of posts here agree with you. Janx, Oldleftylawyer and I have all been saying this.

[napi21]

247. You have a right to your opinion, It differs greatly from mine!

I have a living will that states "I don't not want ANY life support procedures done." I have told my sons, my relatives, my husband, and anyone else who would listen, that those are my decisions. I don't believe I should HAVE to have this living will. My word should be sufficient! But because of people like Jeb, the Fl. legilsators, and you, I had to go the extra step!

If you have ever known anyone who went through a very long comatose period like Terri is, you might understand my feelings. I had an uncle who had a stroke at age 71. He never regained conciousness, and was on a feeding tube for 19 years! I went to visit him regularly during that time, and EVERY time, as I was leaving his room, I would tell my husband AGAIN, "Don't EVER make me go through that!"

[Burma Jones]

3. Oh, poor Conservatives, can't have their cake and eat it too

Either you want Government out of our lives or not, assholes.

[genieroze]

4. They want to be in your life if it involves your personal freedom, they

want government out of their lives if it involves corporate corruption, pollution, or hurting large quantities of people for financial gain. Does that sound about right? In this case I do feel for the parents. It must be hard to let go of their daughter. This case bothers me on all levels but the courts have spoken, so be it. I feel the parents had the right to do this but I feel Jebbie should have stayed the heck out of it.

[MADem]

5. Well, stand by for the rallying cry

It will be sure to drown out any bad news that happens in Iraq, just in time for the elections over there. Never mind those dead, worry about this case instead. Those GOP magicians, with their sleight of hand! Such clever little devils, they!

[smiley_glad_hands]

6. I believe the husband is a scumbag.

The parents should have been able to take care of her and her rehab from the begining, her husband was not giving her condition due diligence. However, the law says he is the legal guardian, and gov't should not be getting involved in these situations. This was not a win for our side, nor would it have been for anyone else except her.

On edit, flame away.

[JitterbugPerfume]

7. several years ago

my beloved son was in a similar condition to Terrys

so I am speaking from painful experience

I signed a DNR on him because I could not bear his suffering

not MINE but HIS

but I never ever could have had his feeding tube removed

never

[RPM]

8. well,

that's just, like, your opinion, man.
- Jeff "The Big" Lebowski

[noonwitch]

10. I agree with you, and a feeding tube is not life support

Starving someone to death is not letting her die in peace. I have no problem with removing ventilators that keep people alive unnaturally, but a feeding tube is a whole different thing. On top of that, I saw the family's video of Terri and she does respond to her mother when she visits. You can see her expression change and her eyes light up.

The husband should divorce her and let her parents take care of her. He's already moved on with another woman and fathered children with her. Oh, yeah, he loses control of the insurance settlement if he does that.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. Q: How is it different from a ventilator?

A: It's not.

A feeding tube is life support. The idea of removing it just makes people uncomfortable because the mechanics of feeding are so wired into our heads with the concepts of nurturing and loving. Not so breathing, but the simple fact is that they're both life support mechanisms, and, without them, patients won't live.

Taking someone off a respirator usually ensures a quick death - unless, of course, it's the Karen Quinlan matter - while removing a feeding tube is a matter of days.

As if Terri Schiavo would notice. She's been dead for years, propped up by machines. It's been a total degradation of a human life, and shame on all the people who put her through this.

[knitter4democracy]

119. The real issue is the frontal lobe activity.

I still haven't seen if she has any frontal lobe activity, which is what often determines a medical death. If she has any, she's alive, and something is going on in her brain. If she doesn't, then let her go because she's gone.

From the video I've seen though, she sure seems aware of some of her surroundings and what's happening to her.

[janx]

162. The part of her brain that remains controls reflexive activity.

The missing part is here:

http://www.brainexplorer.org/glossary/cerebral_cortex.shtml






cerebral cortex back


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The outer layer of grey matter, approximately 2 mm thick, covering the entire surface of the cerebral hemispheres. The cerebral cortex is made up of neuron and supporting cells (glial cells) and functions to correlate information from many sources to maintain cognitive function (all aspects of perceiving, thinking and remembering).

[knitter4democracy]

245. My husband was trained to always look for frontal lobe activity.

He's an internist and has run many, many codes and dealt with many patients in the Unit in this situation. He was trained to look for frontal lobe activity as a way to know if someone is really dead or not. If she has frontal lobe activity, she's alive and processing what's happening to her. If she doesn't, it's time to let her go.

Thank you for the brain basics explanation and diagram, though.

[iamjoy]

18. Can He Divorce Her?

Since she is incapacitated, would he be able to get a divorce?
Personally, I thought this would be an ideal solution. He gets his divorce and moves on with his life. If her parents then want to keep her alive, that is their decision and they are not interfering with his life.

If he is ready to move on, let him, but if they want to cling to her, let them. But this is not a matter for our government to override the decision of her legal guardian, no matter how high emotions run.

[janx]

48. It would be an ideal solution for him and for her parents.

But it's not about them. It's about her--about what she wanted. That is why her husband has not divorced her.

[Scairp]

102. And how does anyone know what Terri wanted?

The person who wants her dead is the only person who ever claimed she would never have wanted to be kept alive artificially. I do not think that food and water is "artificial". The truth is, nobody knew what Terri wanted and you cannot take the word of the man who has worked so hard to kill her off, probably for money.

[Dookus]

110. We don't know

but the law is clear. The spouse's word is to be taken above all others.

[janx]

235. It's very hard for me to listen to this kind of ignorance.

Michael Schiavo tried to rehabilitate his wife for years. The malpractice money he got was gone in short order.

You're just repeating rumor and innuendo.

If anyone knew how this poor woman felt about living in a PVS state (and don't come at me with "she's not PVS, she laughs, she cries, watch the videos"), it would be the only husband she had.

[shrike]

22. She won't improve

I've known people with brain damage less severe than Terri's, and there is little to no improvement, even after decades.

If they'll take her as is, fine; other families have done so. But to believe she can somehow get better (as some interviews with them have indicated), is tragic.

[OldVlad]

25. Exactly, this decision is nothing to cheer

Oh, yeah, he loses control of the insurance settlement if he does that.

That's why the FL should have been enforced, this guy is so patently obviously evil.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

66. What's an "insurance settlement"?

You folks do talk out your asses, you know.

[KittyWampus]

31. Terri Does NOT RESPOND. Any "Reaction" She Gives Is Purely From

random electrical impulses originating in the most primitive part of her nervous system.

The part of her which can consiously or even subconsciously respond is no longer present.

[Cheswick2.0]

44. bullshit

sorry but you don't know that. That is not the opinion of those who care who care for her. It is the opinion of *experts* hired by her husband,
The best solution is for him to divorce and let her parents take care of her.

[janx]

47. It was the opinion of independent experts hired by the courts, too Ches.

And no fewer than 55 bioethicists, together with many doctors, signed a petition years ago supporting what her husband was trying to do.

Her cerebral cortex is gone. She has only reflexive brain stem activity left.

I've been reading a great deal about this--not just the wingnut propaganda funded by Operation Rescue types and other pro-life causes--for years.

Her husband, in fact, spent years trying to get her rehabilitated. He was very devoted to the cause. But when it was determined that her cerebral cortex was gone, he considered her wishes. And he has never forgotten them, even in the face of this political/religious onslaught.

[OldVlad]

80. So he's a hero now?

I see. Why doesn't he just divorce the vegtable then if he has nothing to gain in all this?

Certainly if he and all these "55 bioethicists" that you cite are correct, letting the parents take care of her is nothing but time they're wasting and no trouble to the good husband or Terri.

Its seems that only he and those who have some binary thinking regarding the wingnut religious types are the ones actually wanting to starve her out.

FYI, I took Neuroscience and breathing is a higher function then the brain stem. I don't care one way or another, but lets stick to the facts.

[Dookus]

82. Why should he divorce her?

As her husband, it is his LEGAL right and responsibility to make this decision, not her parents'. He's doing what he thinks is best for Terri and in accordance with her wishes.

I can't believe how many freeper talking points are used in this thread.

[OldVlad]

86. Questioning him is now RW, or paranoia?

As her husband, it is his LEGAL right and responsibility to make this decision, not her parents'. He's doing what he thinks is best for Terri and in accordance with her wishes.

I wish I could believe he's holier than thou in all of this, but I suspect he's more Scott Peterson then Father Know's Best.

I can't believe how many freeper talking points are used in this thread.

I can't believe how many people;
A. Read that right wing site.
B. Are binary thinkers that form their opinions by simply being contrarian to those goof balls.

[Dookus]

91. In your zeal

you forgot to answer my question.

[OldVlad]

96. Cuz he says he has to make the desicion because of it

Course since he is automatical holier than thou by the binary set here, he's a perfect character witness in affirming that she did tell him she wish to be starved to death, shortly before this unfortunate "accident" befell her. pffff

Makes perfect sense to me. Being reactionary is so much faster, but life is made up of more then just black and white situations.

[Dookus]

98. Well

rather than rant about peripheral issues, like people's motivations for posting here, why not just explain why he should divorce her?

It's his wife -he's doing what he thinks is best, and in accordance with her wishes. Why should her parents' wishes override HIS rights? Try to stay on topic.

[OldVlad]

105. Thanks, I hadn't been hypcritically critiqued today

I see, so you can accuse me of using FR talking points, but when I respond to that, I'm avoiding the topic. This is getting old. So when his character is doubtful, and he simply wants this woman carted off to the showers with no water, and the parents wish not to and take the entire burden off his heavy hands, its perfectly reasonable to ask why he doesn't just unload this on them by divorcing her and marrying his girlfriend.

Now the question is why NOT divorce her, you think its because he loves her right?

[Dookus]

112. aww

even after I specifically asked you to stay on topic.

You haven't yet explained why he should divorce her. Can you do so simply, straightforwardly, without sarcasm?

Why should YOU or anybody else get to decide who must divorce whom?

[OldVlad]

114. Reading is fundamental

OK, I don't think you are being honest now because I couldn't have been more plain on why he should and you are boring me.

I didn't say I wanted the state to "force" this poor devil to divorce the unwanted vegetable, I asked if his claim of only wanting what's best for her to be taken seriously, why not give into the reasonable request by the parents to divorce her and allow them to take over all financial and physical burdens?

Perhaps that was your confusion and you weren't faking an inablity to understand what I had typed out, I did not mean he should be forced, but if he was honest, he would do so considering the parents generous offer. That is, unless he has something to gain by staying married to a vegetable.

[Dookus]

117. A couple of points....

I don't believe it is a "reasonable" request for him to divorce her and let her parents care for her. I just don't see it.

Second, and here's where I love poking the hypocrites with sticks, is her parents have argued that because Terri was Catholic, she would agree with the Church on its policy of maintaining life at all costs. However, the Church does not recognize divorce.

So why is the Church's position only useful when it suits her parents' needs?

He has no obligation, morally or legally, to divorce her. He is doing what he believes is right by Terri, and what is in accordance with her wishes. As much as I feel for the plight of her parents, they simply do not have the right to overrule him. If Terri trusted her parents more than her husband, she could've arranged legally for them to make such decisions. She did not.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dookus]

136. Actually

I'm not accusing anyone here of being a freeper. But I DO note the constant use of freeper talking points.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OldVlad]

147. Upsidedown world

That's funny, the one that originally accused me of that is despensing of that paranoia, while you are furthering it.

FYI, those posts were deleted because I criticized lawyers, apparently that is taboo, though I know not why.

[Dookus]

158. If you'll read carefully

I never called you, or anyone else here, a freeper. I said I was surprised to see so many freeper talking points used here. There's a difference.

[OldVlad]

137. Not exactly true

Second, and here's where I love poking the hypocrites with sticks, is her parents have argued that because Terri was Catholic, she would agree with the Church on its policy of maintaining life at all costs. However, the Church does not recognize divorce.

As a divorced Catholic, I can assure you they do, assuming you prove a few things to them to have it annulled. I'm no expert on Catholic annulments, but wanting the spouse starved to death strikes me as grounds for such an act. ;-)

He has no obligation, morally or legally, to divorce her. He is doing what he believes is right by Terri, and what is in accordance with her wishes.

No he does not. However that gets back to an issue of trust of the guy. I have serious concerns about him, and him not compromising with the parents only strengthens that.

More to the point, I think concerns about character should come into play, I just drove in a car, the chances of being in an accident are high, before my messy divorce, a debilitating accident could have happened. The old lady would have been sole ben and also power of attorney. My blood turns cold at the thought if I was in a coma or a situation similar to Terri's that the bitch could have (and would have) taken me out. The folks would have fought for me, as they should have, but without power of attorney it appears I would have been SOL and stone cold dead. I understand you want mercy for this woman, but I think disregarding parents as a rule in such a life or death decision is bad precedent.

[Dookus]

140. ok

annulments and divorce are not the same thing. People here are saying he should divorce her. If you want to argue that he should have the marriage annulled, that's a different argument.

as to bad precedent - I think having OTHER family members besides a spouse be given such rights is a much worse precedent. Can you clarify exactly under which circumstances a parent's rights should supercede a spouse's? All the time? Sometimes? Rarely? Only when you agree with the parent?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

145. You got that so wrong

There is no such thing as "divorce" within the Catholic Church. If you were married in the Church, you are married forever, unless you get an annulment, which is an expensive and political process, and is rarely granted.

If, however, you are a practicing Catholic who married outside the Church, you are not considered "married." You're only a fornicator, and there's no need for you to get an annulment when you get a civil divorce because, well, you're a fornicator, not a spouse. That's how the Church sees it.

Annulment and divorce are two completely different things. You betray your lack of knowledge by your blanket - and erroneous - statements.

The rest of your reasoning fails for the same reasons - you don't have the information or facts to back up your suspicions, so that's all they remain - suspicions. Then, they graduate into full-blown concepts, and when you start thinking they're valid, you get yourself in trouble.

Like that nonsense you posted about divorce and the Catholic Church.

Jesus wept.

[OldVlad]

150. Spare me your mock concern

My you sure are interested in what I posted for someone who considers me a Freeper who you've moved past because its not a part of your strategy. You are no General. Kept that strategy for about 10 minutes.

First, I didn't know they were Catholic and that this round-about reasoning under way on the words they chose were supposed to discredit the evil parents for not being Catholic enough. They can choose to call it annulment, its the same as divorce believe me, its just as you stated it being from unfaithfulness or other issues (read death), there's a charge, and its rarely allowed. I would suspect in this case that the desire to starve her out, the willingness of the parents to pay a few hundred bucks that the Church allow annulment as an option.

Now that I've explained myself feel free to continue to;
A. Post about me to other posters about how I'm a freeper and beneath you.
B. Go off on another tangent about how stupid I am for not understanding the strawman you are beating.

Perhaps I can suggest next since not really a Democrat and not really a Catholic have been used I can be not really a Californian. Vegetarian, that's a whole other area you haven't attacked on, perhaps I'm a fraud on that, or I'm too stupid to know what really is meat. Oh brother.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

156. What concern?

I'm always glad to correct a misguided soul, especially one who spouts off with no information whatsoever and gets so many things wrong.

Annulment and divorce are two different things - one's a canon concept, one's a civil matter. I know this must be confusing to you, but remember: pain is gain.

Annulments cost a whole lot more than "a few hundred bucks." You don't really know how this process works, I can tell. That's all right. Most don't.

Are you really beneath me? Well, wherever you want to be is fine with me.

And, the word "stupid" is not allowed in our house. The kids get timeouts when they use it. You should be as polite as our children. Even if they're smarter than you.

The pleasure is all mine, sugar.

Mrs. Schiavo is going to her proper rest, and that's all that matters, really.

[OldVlad]

161. sorry to be beneath your children too

I'm too bored with this wordgames of annulments not being the same thing as divorce considering I have, and know people who have had them. Its just that they are recognized by the church, I said that in, what the first post? You can condecend on this non sequitar all you wish.

FYI, I'm not the only one that got posts deleted from this thread.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

182. Ah, good ..............

I admire a good, cheap, inaccurate and limp parting shot as another one falls by the wayside, having convinced no one that his meanspirited assertions about a tragic situation were correct.

[Dookus]

157. Sorry

annulment and divorce are not the same. Divorce is a civil dissolution of a marriage. Annulment is a clerical determination that the marriage never properly existed in the first place.

[OldVlad]

163. That's true

I didn't mean to blur the lines, however in this case I don't think the distinctions are relevant to the credability of the parents as I believe it would be granted where the husband to ask.

[Dookus]

165. No

I doubt it would be granted easily. Annulments are long, drawn-out processes that can take many years and tens of thousands of dollars.

But again, why SHOULD he pretend his marriage never existed? That is not for you, her parents, the church or the state of Florida to decide.

[LisaL]

243. How about because he has a girlfriend and two children?

That seems to be reason enough for a divorce in most cases.

[Dookus]

244. yes, in most cases it might be enough

but in this case, it's not.

his wife was dead by all reasonable standards for many years before he started a new relationship.

Only a real bitch would argue that a man should remain celibate, single and lonely for life if his wife becomes brain-dead.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

123. Aren't they something?

No answers, only specious allegations, most of them drawn out of their sorry Freeper butts.

And they do believe God's on their side, right?

I wonder why that is.

My God would probably shrivel with embarrassment at having created such nasty beings, and then She'd smite them.

heh heh heh

[LisaL]

189. Oh, sure, sure. He has a girlfriend and two kids, yet he stays married

to Terri because he has her best interest in heart. Well, if my husband got himself a girlfriend and two kids, I doubt he would want what's best for me.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

199. I hope what happened to Mrs. Schiavo

never happens to you - or to anyone. Anywhere. Ever.

But, until you've walked in someone else's shoes, you would do well to practice compassion and hold back with those quick denunciations and condemnations.

[LisaL]

204. One might also say that unless you are in Terri's shoes-one

does not know what she feels or doesn't feel, what she wants or doesn't want. No?

[Dookus]

she has no wants

the part of her brain that deals with wants and desires is literally gone.

So all we can go by is what the law says - her husband gets to make the call. Court after court has upheld this.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

219. I just figured out what goes on with people like this

We respond to them in a rational and polite way, putting forth facts, and they respond with namecalling and hissy fits.

We answer them, again, respectfully and intelligently.

And they come back with more frazzled, unverifiable, emotionally-loaded, specious crap.

We have fun answering them, though.

I'm calling it "Freeper Hockey."

heh heh heh

[OldLeftieLawyer]

217. You're not terribly original in thought or expression, are you?

You just keep piggybacking on my ideas. That makes for really tiresome stuff, so now you must go and stop eating and check your cerebral cortex, which - to tell you the truth - I don't think is working too well, anyway.

And, you can have dessert, after all. You're such a little pussycat.

[LisaL]

228. LOL. You seem to have no problem whatsoever insulting someone,

but somehow get upset if you think somebody insults you.
Well, sorry, your posts are pretty mean and nasty, and then you get upset if the responce is not particularly nice and sweet.

:eyes:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

232. You mistake intelligent and thoughtful responses

with "insulting."

Same as how those fundie rightwingnuts can't understand a husband's responsibility and devotion to his incapacitated wife.

Shades of gray elude you, it's clear. That's all right. Have a cupcake. You'll feel better.

[janx]

84. Yes, he is a hero. You can choose to believe the right-wing

propaganda in this case, or you can choose to look at the facts. Schiavo did everything he could for his wife in terms of treatment; for the past ten years he has been doing all he can to honor her wishes.

If he hadn't cared, he wouldn't have bothered.

[OldVlad]

88. See #82

[OldLeftieLawyer]

142. He IS a hero

He's been devoted and loyal to her and he's doing what she wanted. I would want my husband to fight for me in that way, if it came down to that.

Be human, and use your heart and soul along with whatever you learned in Neuroscience. She's gone, there's no human being in there, and there never will be. Do you realize how many years she's been like that?

Think of all that's happened in your life during those years.

[TroglodyteScholar]

144. FYI

FYI, I didn't take neuroscience, but I have access to Google. Let's see what "brain breathing" brings up:

The central controlling area for breathing, called the respiratory centre, is in the lower part of the brain stem, in the medulla oblongata. There are "inspiratory neurones" which are active during inspiration and inactive during expiration. Other neurones are active during expiration but not inspiration-the "expiratory neurones". These two groups of neurones automatically maintain a rhythmic cycling pattern of inspiration and expiration. This automatic rhythm can be modified by the afferent information.
(http://www.nda.ox.ac.uk/wfsa/html/u02/u02_011.htm)

That's from the University of Oxford (England) website. I hear they're a fairly reputable school.

So the way I see it, breathing is a very low function. Is it too late to get your tuition refunded?

Edit: Oh well, realized too late that he was a freeper. And this post falls so far from the original that it doesn't make much sense to people who just scroll through. Oh well.

[SemperEadem]

115. well of course it isn't

That is not the opinion of those who care who care for h

Of course not---what else do you expect them to say?

The best solution is for him to divorce and let her parents take care of her.

And when they die, who assumes that cost on their own dime? Who in their group is willing to sacrifice their lives taking care of this woman for the next 30-40 years? When they die, she's going to be warehoused in a nursing home... that's quality of life. They're all noble now talking in hypotheticals but put them into the skillet and see how long they sizzle before screaming that they want out.

The government has no right infringing upon decisions made by the spouse for their spouse. The next thing they'll be saying is that married women can't use birth control and they can't seek divorce because the parents of the husband want grandchildren and don't want divorce in the family.

[lynne]

169. It's been said that infants don't smile - they just have gas -

- yet all parents swear that they do smile. Can either Terri's response or a baby's smile be disproven beyond any and all doubt?

[Dookus]

172. pretty much, yes

her cerebral cortex is gone. The part of the brain that makes us ALL who we are is missing in her. She has a small part of her brain left that control some basic autonomous functions, but that's it. There's no emotions, no thoughts, no memories, no smiles.

[lynne]

185. Cortex "gone" as in disappeared? Or "gone" as in not functioning?

[Dookus]

186. gone as in disappeared...

it's been liquefied.

[LisaL]

242. Exactly. If she was on actual life support, and her doctors just

turned off the plug, it would be different. But starve her to death over a long period of time? I couldn't believe such a practice is allowed to go on at this day and age.
And some people think be-headings are barbaric-well, at least it's a fast death. Unlike starving someone to death over several weeks.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. "... not a win for our side..."?

I think you might want to consider the "side" of the man who loves her and who has taken wonderful care of her all these years - her next of kin, the man she married - and then realize that there are no "sides," that seeing this tragic situation as adversarial - as you plainly do - is counterproductive and an insult to everyone who values life and quality of life.

Mrs. Schiavo deserves respect and her privacy, something her reckless parents chose to ignore when they illegally made videotapes of her in her most helpless and damaged state, and then made them public, feeding the frenzy of those who had a political agenda but no care for Mrs. Schiavo whatsoever.

I say let the feeding tube be removed and let her continue on with her journey.

Mrs. Schiavo has no "side," just an interrupted and drawn-out death.

[smiley_glad_hands]

16. Her husband has been less than honest

about the care that he has given her. He could have done more. This is not a win for anyone as far as I'm concerned.

[Bouncy Ball]

29. He could have done more?

Have you read about what he has done? One thing that stood out to me as I was reading about this case at one time was that every single month, he cleaned her and changed her when she had her period.

He didn't have to do that. Nurses could have done that. But he insisted on taking care of her and that included everything, so he did.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

53. That's simply not true

The guy even put himself through nursing school - NURSING SCHOOL! - so that he'd be qualified to take care of her.

I daresay there are not many men who are that caliber of devoted.

It's so easy for you to sit there and decide who did enough, isn't it? Walk a mile in his shoes before you make such meanspirited and unsustainable comments, please.

[LisaL]

203. LOL.LOL.LOL.and LOL.

Yes, he went trough nursing school so he can take care of Terri for the end of her life. That's what he told the jurors during her malpractice trial. He was training to be a nurse just so he can take care of his wife. Never once did he say he will do anything he can so her life will be a short one. Never once did he mention that Terri did not wish to live this way. What a Prince of a man her husband is.
:eyes:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

234. You poor thing

There's no place in your world where you can understand love.

I can't answer you any more. You're angry and sad. I understand now why you're so worked up about Mr. Schiavo's taking care of his wife.

I hope you find love. I hope you learn about love and compassion and gentleness and that life will be less harsh for you.

Good luck, lizzy.

[OldVlad]

27. You're being sarcastic right?

I think you might want to consider the "side" of the man who loves her and who has taken wonderful care of her all these years - her next of kin, the man she married

The guy trying to get $ out of her death? You can't be serious.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

55. What $?

Know your facts before you condemn.

The money that was gotten in the legal case is long gone, her care having devoured it. So, what money are you talking about?

[OldVlad]

77. Its not the estate, its the ins policy

Yes, the estate is gone, but that's not the only $ involved.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

79. Tell me about this alleged insurance policy

What are the particulars, and do you know what happens to insurance policies when a patient goes on Medicaid - such as Mrs. Schiavo has done?

You know nothing.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

89. Tell me about this alleged insurance policy

Go on. Tell me what you know that no one else knows.

Like, its existence, for instance.

I believe it only exists in your own, dented head.

"pooping up"?

Your language is dented, too.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

97. You have no link

So, why should I accept - as fact - your belief that your read somewhere about an insurance policy?

Without that link - it's called "substantiation" - your assertion is as pointless as your repeated, and impotent, challenges to my posts.

There is such a thing as compassion. You see dollars, I see human life, precious and dignified and deserving of gentle and loving care.

[OldVlad]

107. I agree

There is such a thing as compassion. You see dollars, I see human life, precious and dignified and deserving of gentle and loving care.

I think the parents would agree with that exactly. I think that is their point ironically enough.

[msanthrope]

30. What kind of parents videotape their daughter and

put it on the Internet?

I mean, what kind of people videotape a disabled person and then put a feed of it on the Internet? Disgusting.

Poor Terry. By all accounts she was a pretty, vivacious woman who enjoyed life. Now, she is something that I do not think she would ever want to be.

[OldVlad]

39. The kind that don't want her dead

I can't imagine what they're going through so I won't presume to judge, but my understanding is they have no legal power in this case, that the loveless husband who's gonna get a huge payoff from her death is trying to eliminate her.

I heard that there is a theory that her illness was even arranged by that husband, though I can't remember the details as it was a long time ago. I have had to deal with a daughter that married an untrustable SOB, if I was her parents, I wouldn't rule that out putting a tape of her up to stop him.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

56. What "payoff"?

You say things like this, and they're meaningless.

There is no "payoff." They sued, they settled, the money's all been spent taking care of her.

So, please, show me where I got the facts wrong, and tell me who's going to make this "huge payoff," please.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pop goes the weasel]

41. I don't get you

What's so horrible about a disabled person being visible? Disability is nothing to be ashamed of. From her parents' perspective, the film of their daughter is evidence that their daughter is alive and a human being. Whether you agree with their conclusion or not, there is nothing shameful in what they have done. It is not disgusting. Terri Schiavo is not disgusting.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

57. She's protected by a court order

Her privacy was the issue, and there was a protective order that forbade anyone from videotaping her or photographing her. It was to protect her privacy, something to which everyone is entitled.

It was shameful what her parents did to her. I cannot imagine whoring my disabled daughter this way. They are bad people.

[msanthrope]

124. Nothing's horrible about a disabled person being visible-

As long as the disabled person can consent to it.

Terry can't. If her parents want to make a film and present it to a court and experts, that's one thing.

But on the Internet? Given the beautiful, vivacious woman she was, do you think she would want to be paraded on the freakin' Internet?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

64. If............

you're interested in a Health Care Power of Attorney that I can send to you, with instructions on how to execute it - all free of charge - feel free to PM me, and I'll make sure it gets to you.

Everyone needs one of these things. I helped draft it years ago for the leading senior citizen organization in the United States. It's unbreakable, and covers every contingency. I'm proud of this document.

So, if you want it, I got it.

[msanthrope]

125. Thanks, but I have one!!! n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

179. Her parents sound like monsters to me

I read a long story about her a year or so ago. A good friend of hers from childhood was interviewed. This is what she said - Terry had a heart attack most likely brought on by anorexia and then lapsed into this coma. She said her family teased her for years about her weight. Her parents in this same article also admitted teasing her for being fat as she was growing up. Her siblings admitted her weight was a family joke. So it sounds like she was teased about being fat, became anorexic and now her parents want to ease their guilt by keeping her alive.

Everything I have read and heard since then has convinced me that her husband is the only one who really loved her unconditionally.

[phylny]

151. And if Mrs. Schiavo and her parents are practicing Catholics,

why on earth don't the parents understand and believe that the everlasting life she'll have in heaven - where she'll be whole again, happy again - is something that she may well prefer?

Everytime this subject comes up, we see the same arguments, the same distortions. The fact is - and yes, it's fact - the poor woman does not have the brain matter necessary to feel, react, etc. If she did, I'd be the first saying that the parents may have a point.

As a parent, I cannot imagine what her parents are thinking. If they're given the facts, and they still choose to keep her alive artificially, then they're thinking only of themselves, and not at all of her.

[Bono71]

20. Agree with that...I think he wants her half of the estate so he

can "move on" with his nice new girlfriend and stop paying for the medical expenses.

[shrike]

24. Doubt there's much left of that estate

Caring for a person in Terri's condition is incredibly expensive. Then there are the legal fees ...

[janx]

50. Right. People have no idea how expensive the costs are.

The money's gone or almost gone. Medicaid (?) has been paying for her care at the hospice for some time now, I believe.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

58. Yes, that's right

The money is long gone, and these people who claim there's a "huge payoff" when she's finally allowed to pass on haven't the slightest idea of what they're saying.

That's why the state was able to intervene. She's essentially a ward of the state.

[Bono71]

63. What if she has life insurance??? n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

65. Yeah, what if she does?

That's hardly a "huge settlement," and it has nothing to do with any legal battle.

Plus, who's the beneficiary on this alleged life insurance?

Is it her parents?

Is it her husband?

How much is the value of the policy?

How come we've never heard about this alleged insurance policy before?

Does it bother you that you're thinking with your ass?

You see this as a matter of dollars and cents?

Where is your compassion, for God's sake?

[janx]

74. It is a mystery to me just how many people at DU have been

taken in by the propaganda in this case. It must be far more widespread that I had imagined. It's circulated non-stop around freeperland all the time (so much so that it's practically freeper epic material now), but where are other people getting it?

I know about the parents' web site, and I know that one attorney who worked in the Schiavo once tracked propaganda and money to large pro-life organizations, but it's still baffling to me.

What are the channels besides fundamentalist churches and the internet? Larry King Live or something?

[msanthrope]

23. Funny, the parents never filed against Michael when he

was taking her to California to have electrodes implanted in her brain to see if she could be stimulated. In fact, it seems that until there were monetary settlements, the parents didn't bother to start filing.

Here's my question for the parents: if you were so concerned about the care Michael was giving, then why didn't you file BEFORE he refused to share the settlement money? Why did it take years and years for you to file for guardianship of her?

[LisaL]

34. Well, that seems rather obvious, doesn't it?

While he was actually providing her with treatment, what reason did the parents have to file for guardianship?
Why would they file against him while he was actually treating her?
:eyes:

[ima_sinnic]

70. oh, you know him?

or just through the propaganda her delusional parents have issued?

[smiley_glad_hands]

167. I have seen the quality of care--

he provided documented. He is a scumbag period.

[smiley_glad_hands]

168. Do you know him or her personally?

Or her parents or just the propaganda that has been issued about them?

[wildwww2]

75. You`d probably call me a scumbag too. My wife has already told me

me that she would not want to be kept alive like that. And her family is full of pompous repukes. We don`t have a will drawn up yet so. Hell it could happen to me. And I would be a scum bag where her family is concerned. Hell I already am because I am a liberal. But I would follow my wife`s wishes. And those Bu$h lickers could just cry to Jeb about it. These right to lifers need to stop Bu$h`s murderous war crime. That is killing children as I type. And let the terminally Ill die the way they want to.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[smiley_glad_hands]

166. That man is a scumbag.

I have no knowlege of you or your family.

[Dookus]

173. well

then I'll just randomly assert that her parents are scumbags. How's that?

[wildwww2]

184. And where do you aquire your knowledge of that man? The whore press?

I will give the man the benifit of the doubt. And not call him a scumbag until I know more about it. From what I have read he gave quite an effort to bring her back to real life. Not the living death she endures now. As I said before. I will follow my wifes wishes if something similar happens to her. We live in Florida so we have been following the story somewhat. My wife`s grandfather experienced renal failure while here in Florida. He was coherent at the start to make a decision on his own if he wanted to put his 93 year old body on life supporting equiptment. He decided not to. And with Hospice`s assistance he passed away in less than two weeks. From the time he went into renal failure.I was there through a good part of that time and I did not see him suffer. If Mr. Shavio is following his wifes wishes. Her parents and Jeb Bu$h should have kept out of it. Especially after this has been more than 10 years. I did see an interview of him once. (very short clip) I still could not tell if he was more of a scumbag than me or not.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[soup]

9. I'd forgotten today was the day.

Putting emotions completely to the side, it was a good decision.

Adding emotion to the mix, I am wrapped in sadness for her and her entire family.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. It was

And that poor woman should be left alone by everyone, save her next of kin, who has struggled for so long to do the right thing for his wife.

[yellowcanine]

11. End of the line for Jebbie Poo's Christian crusade. Get over it, Jebbie!

Heh.

[janx]

12. I dunno. The Schindlers will probably head back to the

Florida courts again. They have been doing so for years and years. They have something in the works now, I believe.

[rocktivity]

17. Why would she tell her parents one thing and her husband another?

Her husband, Michael Schiavo, contends she never wanted to be kept alive artificially. But her parents told justices in a filing that their son-in-law is trying to rush her death so he can inherit her estate and be free to marry another woman.

Funny how no one accused the parents of being hurt that their son-in-law is getting on with his life.

:headbang:
rocknation

[LisaL]

32. They want him to get on with his life. They want him to divorce her

and leave her alone.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

178. In the immortal words of Mick Jagger,

"You can't always get what you want."

The parents should have stayed the hell out of what goes on between a husband and wife. That girl died a long time ago, and they're milking the artificial intervention that kept her from going to her righteous rest.

[LisaL]

191. Well, if your kids get sick, you can stay the hell out of their life.

Not everybody feels the same way, though.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

195. Sick?

You call what happened to Mrs. Schiavo "sick"?

You are blessed with a fatal gift of understatement, madame.

[LisaL]

200. OK-how about that-if your kids ever go into persistent vegetative

state, you can stay the hell out of their lives. Better now?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

202. What a terrible thing to say

You do this when you don't have any rational comeback?

You're acting badly and shaming yourself.

On the other hand, you better believe I'd back up their spouses in whatever they wanted to do should such a tragedy befall any of my kids. I trust my children's spouses - after all, my kids chose them.

Fortunately, none of my children or their spouses are without the proper documentation, because I'm a mother who takes care of such things for her children.

Now, darling, what will be your next nasty retort?

[LisaL]

213. Sorry, you asked for it. You mocked me for saying

"if your children ever got sick". What exactly did you want me to say?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

221. I "asked for it"?

You're a little meanie, aintcha?

I should think you'd be accustomed to being used to wipe up the floor in debate by now.

"... you asked for it."

That's the specifically nasty and feeble kind of retort I've come to expect from people who intrude on the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo, and who think what they want should override the desires of a married couple they've never met.

Shame on you.

[LisaL]

226. Well, I got no doubt that making sure Terri dies is what Mr. Schiavo

desires. It's Terri's wishes I am a little unclear about.

[Dookus]

231. There's the rub...

According to her husband, Terri's wishes were not to live like this. And the law says his word beats out her parents, or Jeb Bush's or the Catholic Church's.

Can you tell me exactly which entities or people should be able to overrule a spouse?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

233. Of course you're unclear about it

Do you know her? Did you ever have a conversation with her? Did you ever live with her, love her, promise to cherish her forever?

Your disrespect for the sanctity of marriage and the obligations contained therein is breathtaking.

Fortunately, her husband is very clear on what a husband is to be to his wife, and I applaud him for it.

[Dookus]

218. If they're married

then that's right and proper. The spouse makes these decisions, not the parents.

[Midlodemocrat]

118. More than likely

she never discussed this type of thing with her parents, because as a married woman, her husband would be the one to make the decisions if she were to become incapacitated.

It is not the sort of thing one generally discusses with parents. I remember hearing that the parents could not agree when she had told them this, so perhaps they are just in denial and desperate to keep their daughter alive. Who could possibly blame them for that?

OTOH, the anger directed at her husband is misplaced. Caring for a terminally spouse is unbelievably debilitating and there is a part in the caretaker who does feel some small nugget of 'relief' that the caregiving is over. Having been there, I can attest to that part.

In many states, if you are placed on Medicaid, you usually forfeit the right to receive any life insurance monies. And, realistically speaking, how much could it be? She was young and healthy and didn't have children. Exactly the type who thought she had plenty of time to purchase additional protection.

[iamjoy]

19. This Is A Victory For Civil Liberty

They have been using emotions in this case, not facts. By passing laws based on emotion, think what would happen if some one did have a written living will, but a loved one just couldn't bear to part so he/she went to court and the court supported the POA/Guardian ignoring the patient's wishes? Or the court overrode everybody's wishes in this case saying we don't have a "right to die"?

And if they could do that (override guardianship decisions), they could also say we don't have a right to be kept alive by such means, even if it was our wish and the wish of our guardian. Take the case of a felon (prisoner) or indigent person. What is to stop the government from overriding the written wishes of that person or a loved one of that person?

[biftonnorton]

28. iamjoy, You Are Freakin' Brilliant!

"And if they could do that (override guardianship decisions), they could also say we don't have a right to be kept alive by such means, even if it was our wish and the wish of our guardian. Take the case of a felon (prisoner) or indigent person. What is to stop the government from overriding the written wishes of that person or a loved one of that person?"

That is a very good angle on this issue! Wonderful reason to keep the legal system out of these things beyond its ensuring that advance medical directives/living will have the force of law.

Related note: I'm glad that in IL, courts won't allow guardian to overrule living will. Seems people were seeking guardianship to do so.

[Roaming]

38. However, there is NOTHING in writing in this case, just the

testimony of what she supposedly told other people. And why did the husband not bring up the fact she wanted to die when he sued the hospital and won a ton of money for medical malpractice? It was only after he got the money that all this started.

If we're going to err on one side or the other in a case where there is nothing in writing, we should err on the side of life.

[biftonnorton]

49. The malpractice case is unrelated to any wish to die

Maybe there was malpractice in the case-- why shouldn't docs be held accountable for that? It has nothing to do with the issue of how she's treated now, and that's what the debate's about.

Without anything in writing, our tendency is definitely to "err on the side of life" and that is why everyone who wants to refuse certain medical interventions in advance needs to have a living will on file with their doc.

[iamjoy]

83. Thank You

I have been trying to think of arguements that might appeal to people with different viewpoints than mine, and I think this is one. To argue about death with dignity, etc will never appeal to them. But if you make it an issue of government interference in health care decisions...they might be more receptive.

[pdxmom]

21. Another glaring Repub hypocrisy

They scream "judicial activism" when the courts decide things they think should be legislative, but see no problem with trying to circumvent what is decidedly a judicial issue, and has been for decades.

While I'm sorry about the situation itself, I'm glad to see the courts refuse to allow the legislature to get themselves ensconced in this issue. Now, if we can get the courts to keep the Feds out of Oregon's right to die law, based on states' rights, then I'll breath an iota better.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

26. There is an easy way to solve this...

Let someone hold a pillow over her face and see if she struggles for her life. Then you will know whether Terry wants to die or not, or whether her husband just wants his way.
I've been a nurse for thirty years, and a feeding tube is not a method of life support. If the patient is going to die, they will die, feeding tube or not. Anyone who would starve a living human being has never seen the agony and pain of starvation. We treat suffering animals better by putting them to sleep.

[biftonnorton]

33. WILL to live is different

from stated refusal, in advance, of tubes. It's likely that even someone wanting to die would fight you if you put a pillow over their face-- will to live is instinctual. A paralyzed person wouldn't fight, but I don't think we could conclude they have no "will to live." Advance medical directives are cognitive, not instinctual, and should be honored as rights. If it's true that Terri didn't want that form of intervention (tubes), why would you force it on her?

Edited content and spelling.

[LisaL]

35. I don't know what Terri wanted or didn't want. Nothing is in

writing. Her husband never mentioned she would want to die during the lawsuit against her Drs, did he? He promised to spend the rest of his life taking care of Terri, and not once said the rest of her life will be really short if it is up to him. Then, after he got the money, all of the sudden Terri didn't want to live this way. Well, Dah!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

37. If she did not put it in writing

and by law we must accept the husband's word for it, then still there should be a more humane way of ending her life than starvation. Even criminals on death row are allowed lethal injection.

[biftonnorton]

51. It's Not About Ending Her LIfe

It's about her right to issue advance directives to refuse medical interventions. It's a tragedy the advance directives weren't on paper, if they were voiced at all. I'm going to do a living will tonight!

[hickman1937]

40. She didn't write it down

or tape it. What Terry wanted in a matter of he said/they said. Withholding food(starvation) is an ugly way to kill someone. Why can't the husband be honest, and petition to have her removed by lethal injection? It would be kinder.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

59. You're a nurse?

And you advocate testing a patient's brain activity by putting a pillow over her face to see if she'll struggle?

Yeah, you're a nurse, and I'm the Queen of France.

Removal of the feeding tube simply allows the natural to continue. The medical intervention here did nothing but thwart God's plan for this poor woman.

(Take THAT, fundies!)

[tinfoilinfor2005]

130. Don't be such a drama queen...

You know darn well the point I was making, and I wasn't advocating for pillow suffocation. And I have been a nurse for thirty years and I have seen people starve to death for various reasons and it isn't the natural pretty order of things. When a person's heart is strong and healthy terrible things happen to their bodies before they are able to die.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

132. Not nice - not at all nice

"Drama queen," indeed,

What's your point?

I want to be there when any qualified medical professional does that "pillow over the face" test. I really do.

Death is an ugly matter, isn't it? So is living life as a vegetable with no consciousness or awareness and being the involuntary pawn in an ugly rightwingnut fundamentalist game of "Right To Life Because We Say So."

Now, you may apologize for having been rude, and, while you're at it, take that pillow out of your mouth - it's not a marshmallow.

[Dookus]

138. Yes

I'm sure terrible things happen to a body when it is starved to death. Will another thirty years of nursing home care, followed by slow organ failure be a better death?

[phylny]

153. As a nurse, you've seen the pain of starvation from an individual

who has no cerebral cortex left?

[spunky]

36. So does no one here believe it is possible that

she really did say she wouldn't want to live that way? I've told my partner that, and my parents know as well, mainly because they have made a point of making sure we as a family have conversations like that. But I've never written it down anywhere. I'm 27, I don't even have a will. But that doesn't mean that I'm not serious when I say I wouldn't want to live as a vegetable with food being pumped into me to keep me alive.

But it is not impossible that she could have told her husband this and NOT told her parents.

To me its a question of quality of life, not quantity of life.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

43. I saw a drunk obnoxious woman

in a bar once, and I told my husband, "If I ever act like that, please get a gun and shoot me," but I may have wanted to think those words over after we were divorced and I had six wines in me!

[LisaL]

60. Exactly. Who in their right mind would say "I want to be a vegetable

and be fed off a feeding tube". Of course, anybody would say "I would not want to live that way". However, that doesn't mean that very same person would want their feeding tube yanked out and slowly starve to death over a period of several weeks.

[Liberal Veteran]

71. As if it's better to linger for decades in a persistent veg state?

What you are doing is transposing your viewpoint of full self-awareness with the viewpoint of this poor woman who really hasn't been alive in any real sense of the word for over a decade.

I wonder how you would feel if she remained on a feeding tube for another 30 years and dies of multi-organ failure and atrophy without ever coming out of this state?

[janx]

67. That's some analogy there. n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

45. Wouldn't want to live what way? With food?

I had a friend who was on a feeding tube for a long time. He was alive and no one suggested he be starved to death.

[moobu2]

54. Excuse me but that is such a lame argument

People are on oxygen who function well and are conscious and live long lives but sometime oxygen could be used to keep someone's body alive long after their higher brain had died, where it becomes unwanted pointless medical treatment. People are also on feeding tubes who function well, live productive conscious lives for many years. But it also can be used to artificialy keep someones body alive long after the person who once occupied the body is gone..this has nothing to do with any of that.

Artificially supplied Oxygen is life support as is artificial feeding tubes surgically implanted through the stomach.

I suppose your friend was aware and had a living brain? This woman's brain, the important brain part that makes her aware and conscious is dead and gone.
She said she would not want to live this way.
The courts have ruled over years and years of litigation that she has the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.

Now, what does your friends situation have to do with this? other than some right to life scare tactic scaring people into thinking that if they are allowed to disconnect this woman's feeding tube that all people who are on feeding tubes could be next..That crap is right out of the Fundie propaganda play book.

[biftonnorton]

46. Quality Of Life-- I Set Issue Aside

I look at these issues this way-- the advance directives I've seen say nothing about bringing on death, they just specify what medical interventions are allowed or refused by the person after diagnosis and prognosis is formed. At issue is simply the right to refuse, in advance, medical interventions. That right must be preserved.

For the religious folks who say that we all should be tubed and forced to get whatever medical intervention is available, what's to say God can't make a miracle happen whether the person is lingering on tubes or is not on tubes at all? Does God intervene only for those who choose, or have chosen for them, tubes?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

61. You're immortal, right?

You don't have a will, you see all this happening, and you're making no effort to have your final wishes known?

You're 27, which is young, but accidents happen, and if you don't take care of this stuff while you're thinking of it, you're acting irresponsibly and foolishly.

[spunky]

129. My parents know and agree with my wishes. They want the same thing, but

you're right, I should have it written down legally. I should do a lot of things. My point wasn't that I'm right not to have it written down. It was that lots of young people have made up their minds on issues such as this, but may not have gotten around to making it legal. It is quite possible that this was her wish. Its isn't uncommon for younger people to put off such documents.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

133. That's right

It's also not uncommon for older people to postpone doing the necessary and responsible things that need to be done.

I've made a lot of money because people wouldn't execute wills, believing that if they did, they'd die.

Guess what?

Yep.

They died anyway, only they died intestate.

[SemperEadem]

122. I've told my partner and my daughter as well

I don't want to be kept alive if all hope of my total recovery is gone. While my daughter squirms under the notion, I believe that she will honor my wishes.

Now, I've also said I wanted to donate my body to The Body Farm---and I have to get the paperwork for that, but it will be interesting, barring the inheritence of property tied to my wishes, to see if I will be out rotting in the trunk of a car or rotting in a wooden box.

[fleabert]

171. Off topic...Me too! Perhaps we'll end up in the same experiment? nt

[marew]

42. I live in the same county as this poor woman.

This poor woman has been in this condition for many, many years. Her husband tried for YEARS to find a therapy to help her, even taking her to Europe for experimental therapy. As far as wanting money, I don't believe there is much left at all. It is very easy to judge him when you don't know the whole story. I think it is shameful the way the right-to-lifers have exploited this poor woman. And as far as telling someone your wishes...I only told my spouse, not my parents, what I would want. Sometimes you have to love someone enough to let them go. Are the parents doing what they've done for their daughter or themselves? They've even put videos of her on local television. Where is her right to privacy? Also pertinent is the fact that some of the recent research on comas and brain function have shown that many apparent "reactions" to stimuli by the comatose such as eye tracking, etc,. are merely reflexes and nothing more. They are not "seeing" and processing information as previously thought.

[janx]

52. She's not comatose. She's in a persistent vegetative state.

A comatose patient can come out of it and be rehabilitated. A person missing a cerebral cortex cannot. So it's much worse.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

62. Amen to both of you

You said it better than anyone. Thanks.

And godspeed, Mrs. Schiavo.

[ima_sinnic]

68. I want to live in a persistent vegetative state and be kept alive by

artificial means, even if my use of resources deprives those with functioning systems.
Can you imagine anyone ever saying that?
Does anyone know anyone, anywhere, who would wish such a thing?

It should be a moot point, understood by all. Only the one bizarre person in the world who would wish such a thing should have to put it in writing.

[moobu2]

76. I agree completely and one day

I hope that as people become more aware that these people are not alive in any real sense (they're permanently unconscious and there isn't any hope for improvement) that life support will be withdrawn by default, of coarse after certain procedures and verification of diagnoses and such...If anyone wants their bodies kept alive after their brain has withered and died, they should have that documented and can pay for it with their estate or other private funding.

There just isn't any reason to keep these people alive except for the selfish enjoyment of family that cant and don't want to accept that the person they loved is gone forever.

[Banazir]

251. Yes, and think twice before applying your ridicule

"artificial means, even if my use of resources deprives those with functioning systems.
Can you imagine anyone ever saying that?
Does anyone know anyone, anywhere, who would wish such a thing?"

Yes. I know lots of people who would wish such a thing. Members of the disability rights movement. People who understand the wooliness of the PVS diagnosis. People who have a broader definition of alive than you do. People who don't think that people should ever be defined in terms of number of resources they take up. People who don't believe there's such a thing as living death or expendable classes of human beings. It only shows your ignorance that you would call us bizarre.

There's a thread on the disability board asking why, while disabled progressives embrace other progressive issues, other people remain with such backwards ideas about ours:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=250x219

And as politically aware disabled people we are very aware that neither right-to-die nor right-to-life people, neither progressives nor conservatives, tend to grasp disability rights perspectives:

http://www.inclusiondaily.com/news/advocacy/schiavo04.htm

The person who wrote the above article was said to be in the same state as Schiavo. Whenever she tried to communicate, doctors said it was seizure activity and sedated her.

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/focus/gwinkerry0804.html
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/focus/liberals0104.html
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/extra/schiavodisrights.html
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/extra/schiavodr2essays.html
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/extra/cleighbetterdead1003.html

Unfortunately, what we get in response is prejudice and ridicule. Many of us do not want others' fear of becoming a certain way to determine our lives. Erring on the side of life makes a hell of a lot more sense than erring on the side of death, unless you want to say that various resources should automatically go to a certain class of people, the "real" people, above others, on the basis of ability.

I don't happen to base my conception of a person's humanity on how much of a brain they've got working, or on a politically charged diagnosis like PVS (see some of the links in the above articles for more on that). I know what it's like to be declared incapable of thought, for brain scans to be used for that purpose, and for that supposed incapability to be used against me in life-and-death decisions. I have watched severely cognitively disabled friends denied medical care. I have a broader definition of humanity than the majority of modern progressives. For that, I am ridiculed, considered bizarre and backwards, and accused of falling for right-wing propaganda.

And yes, they do make a form of advance directive that says to keep us alive, and I have one of those. But wouldn't it be better for that to be the default, since life is reversible and death is not (and if people are really as far gone as others say, they're not suffering)?

It gets tiresome to have to justify the existence of human beings. I thought we'd moved past this as a society.

[davidinalameda]

69. maybe she can die in peace now

and with a bit of dignity

[LisaL]

72. What dignity can you possibly be talking about?

She will be starved to death, she can last several weeks starving to death. What possible dignity can there be?

[Liberal Veteran]

73. Slightly more dignity than dying slowly due to atrophy over decades....

Your way seems more cruel by several degrees of morbidity.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

81. Perhaps in death,

she'll find the privacy and peace her parents and the assorted rightwingnut groups they've embraced have denied her.

[janx]

85. Check out this quote from George Felos:

"The governor sent men with guns to someone's deathbed, forcibly removed them from their deathbed, brought them to a hospital to have surgery against her consent," George Felos told Action News. "It's very important to acknowledge that the rule of law prevailed. That in our system of government, the courts said you can't do that, and the Florida Supreme Court said you can't do that, and so did the United States Supreme Court."

Did this actually happen? Was it when Jebbie stepped in with "Terri's Law" and had the tube reinserted? I hadn't heard anything about firearms...

http://www.tampabaylive.com/stories/2005/01/050124schiavo.shtml

[OldLeftieLawyer]

90. Interesting excerpt

Reads like fiction.

Where's it from?

[janx]

94. Sorry--I have now edited my post and added the link.

ABC News/Associated Press.

The quote itself is just sort of thrown into the story.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

95. My guess is that's what happened

Horrible, isn't it?

[janx]

116. That certainly wasn't made public when it happened.

I wish the quote had been put into context. Unbelievable.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

120. Good old Florida

The cameras sure were rolling when the guys busted in (rightly, I believe) to take little Elian Gonzalez away from those exploiters who wouldn't give him back to his father, weren't they?

We saw THAT over and over.

[janx]

126. That was my first thought also!

;-)

Edit: "THEY BROKE ELIAN'S BED!" :cry:

[LisaL]

193. We are all dying slowly over decades-every day brings us closer

to death. However, for some reason, we still keep on eating.

[Liberal Veteran]

246. Most of us aren't in a persistent vegetative state however.

With no hope of recovery however.

Funny how you just happened to leave that little part out.

[Midlodemocrat]

121. Well, actually once the feeding tube is removed

with no other nourishment, the person usually only lives 2-3 days. And, because her cerebral cortex is not functioning, she wouldn't feel any pain or any sensation of the starving.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

149. There Is No "She" There Is Only The "It"- The Physical Shell That

encased her soul.

Pretty funny how obsessed Fundies are with preserving the gross physical body even though the spirit is long gone.

Kind of repulsive.

[LisaL]

227. The body is encasing her soul, but her spirit is long gone?

Now, I am confused.

[Dookus]

230. probably because

you missed the use of the past tense - "encased".

[Sandpiper]

93. Major set back for the right to life as a vegetable crowd

n/t

[MISSDem]

101. The doctors say she has no chance to recover

and lead a meaningful life. So if she can't live on her own, then it must be God's will for her to die. Isn't that what Christians look forward to anyway, leaving this life and going on to their reward?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

106. Are you alright?

"I mean honestly who wants to live life as a retard? Can't we just start eating these retarded babies as soon as they pop out? Why do we have to wait until they lose their freshness?"

How can you think like that? :shrug:

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

111. There's a difference between being Mentally retarded and

brain dead. :eyes:

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LisaL]

192. Well, some mentally retarded will never live productive lives.

They will have to be taken care of all their lives. They will never contribute anything productive to society. Taking care of them can be very expensive. I see those reasons given as to why Terri should be killed. But what about mentally retarded-should we start killing them off?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

216. I'm so tempted

Lord, help me to restrain myself. I'm so tempted, and it would be wrong, it would just be so wrong. But, please, Lord, give me strength.

What?

What's that, Lord?

Oh, OK.

God told me to tell you, lizzy, that She's laughing so hard at you, I'm absolved for what I wanted to write here.

Amen.

[LisaL]

239. It's really not a good sign when someone thinks they are talking

to God. Deanna Laney and some other child murdering mothers come to mind.
I suggest you go get yourself checked by a shrink, before it's too late.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

241. You poor, poor girl

You even lack a sense of humor.

:cry:

[tinfoilinfor2005]

143. Someone help me to understand...

Euthenasia is a crime in this country...you cannot take an extra dose of pain medication if you have terminal cancer because you would run the risk of ending your own life with an overdose. But you can instruct someone else to end your life in case of semi-coma and even if when that situation arises you are awake and alert and smiling and following some basic commands, you must be put to death? There seems to be some inconsistency in that line of thinking.

[Dookus]

146. Not exactly

I don't believe you have the "plug pulled" simply for being in a semi-coma.

[janx]

174. You say your a nurse and have been for 30 years, and you

are asking us this question? A semi-coma?

If you're a nurse, then I'm the Duke of Weimar! ;-)

[Prisonerohio]

175. Thats not living!

I work at an nursing home, and take care of people like her and I can tell you thats not living. I can give anyone a tour and you will be filling out your living wills by the end of the day. Starving someone to death is horrible but unfortunately its the only option available. No matter what the husbands motives its still the best thing.

[davis_islander]

176. It is truly sad that starvation is the only option here for Terri

If I were her husband, I would smother her with a pillow and be done with it. Yes, I would go to jail for the rest of my life rather than watch my wife starve to death over a period of weeks. I can not see how any decent person could oppose the concept of euthanasia in cases like this. We as citizens and humans should have available to us the means to end suffering of this nature. For a government to meddle in something so personal, ones own DEATH, is beyond me. It would be considered ANIMAL CRUELTY to allow a sick pet to simply starve to death, or linger in excruciating pain. Yet, persons in nursing homes with cancer eating them alive must endure the last months of their lives in agony because a few bible thumpers believe euthanasia to be wrong. We should demand to be given the rights to our own bodies, our own lives. I know this is off topic and I apologize, but I've been following this case all along and I'm thoroughly disgusted. Also, my heart goes out to all the people that love Terri.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

177. Hello, and welcome

Your post is astonishing, and I applaud your thinking and expression. It's good to see another statement of understanding and expression.

Welcome to DU, davis_islander

:yourock:

[Erika]

190. I agree #176

We show more compassion to our terminally ill animals than the law allows us to show in the human dying process. Yes, it is a minority view that we make the terminally ill suffer.

However, in the case of Terri, she will not suffer from pain. I had my doubts about Terri's capabilities until they showed the pictures of her brain. Her brain has atrophied and shrunk to only a small dot.

I also honor the legal marriage contract. Terri and her husband agreed to legally be bound to each other, to be one under the eyes of the law. She chose him to speak for her by entering into this contract. Let us recognize the sanctity of the marriage law.

[proudbluestater]

180. Good, leave the poor woman alone for God's sake

What is it with the Bush family? They gleefully rub their hands together with excitement at the prospect of putting someone to death, yet will make the ones who have no life left linger on and on, just because.

This is one very disturbed family.

[Bariztr]

183. Terribly Sad

Years ago when I was a much younger man, my father developed cancer and I saw the man waste away and die. When that day arrived I am comforted in knowing that the man who died was in no way my father. If I could have done something to make that day arrive sooner, I would have done so without hesitation. I love him, he's my old man and he deserved better.

What is the tragedy here is that the intensely private and personal moments that come with dealing with someone horribly ill with no hope of recovery are being played out on a public stage. Her parents are disgusting shameful people and I would spit on them if i had the chance.

[NC_Nurse]

187. Well, after reading all the back and forth on this thread...

I'd have to say I'M MOTIVATED to get my healthcare POA and living will together.

It's just another case of Americans involving themselves in a private drama as if it were an effin' reality show! How can anyone who has only read about and seen TV spots on this case possibly think that they know the motives of any family members in this situation? The last thing I would EVER want is a bunch of jerks judging my husband because he wanted to let me go when I was past medical intervention to improve. I love him too much to want him saddled with the burden of my full time care and would bless his moving on.

As a nurse myself, I have seen tube feedings terminated and I never witnessed the kind of suffering that many here assume the patient endures. It's actually a relatively peaceful death, at least when I have seen it. If you really want to know more about about these issues, get out from in front of your computer and go volunteer at a nursing home...for a LONG TIME. While you're doing it, think of how it would be if the people who are in really bad shape were YOUR loved ones.

Just a thought.

[LisaL]

188. Peaceful-until you are walking in their shoes-i.e. being the one

from whom the feeding tube is removed, slowly starving to death-you have no clue if it's peaceful.

[Erika]

194. Terri will not suffer

Please see #190. The part of the brain dealing with pain no longer exists.

[LisaL]

198. Then WTF do you care if she continues to be fed?

She doesn't feel anything, according to you, yet she somehow suffers?

[Erika]

201. I did not say she suffers

I said many terminally ill people do. I know this is a difficult subject but her husband has the legal right to make the decision on her behalf. I believe she did tell him and others she would not choose to live in a vegatative state. Would you? Most of us would not wish to place that burden on others, I believe.

[LisaL]

207. Then it's about others? Terri is a burden to her husband, so she

must die for that? Well, she got her parents who want to take care of her, so he doesn't have to carry the burden.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

211. Her husband has the responsibility and the right

And the courts have spoken, long after this whole sorry episode should have ended.

Now, so much for those pesky activist judges making public policy.

Perhaps there is room now within your agitated heart for some compassion for those on death row who shouldn't be there?

[Dookus]

220. and when her parents pass on

what then? How many decades of a meaningless existence should she be required to endure to please you?

Will decades in a nursing home, eventually dying of slow organ failure be an easier death?

Why should the state get to decide this over her husband?

[LisaL]

225. Endure? So she feels? How can you starve a feeling person to

death?
I can't believe in this day and age, starving someone to death is an acceptable practice. Sorry, it seems absolutely barbaric to me.

[Dookus]

229. we agree on that

it should be legal to euthanize her. We treat our pets better than this.

And no, I didn't say she feels. YOU claim she does, and if starving her now will cause her to suffer, then why wouldn't a decades-long slow death in a nursing home?

[LisaL]

236. Well,

one might say that life is nothing but a slow death. Again, I have no idea if she suffers, but I am pretty sure death by starvation is anything but pleasant.

[Dookus]

237. Well

again, she has no cerebral cortex, so I doubt she will suffer personally. But those around her will, certainly. Which is why euthanasia should be legal in a case like this.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

209. WTF?

Such acronyms from someone who is allegedly on the side of the sick and disabled!

You're just striking out now, honey.

I think you're just a little cranky. It'll pass.

:wtf:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

206. Tell you what...........

Stop eating. Make sure the rest of your cerebral cortex turns to liquid.

Report back in a couple of days. Let us know how you're feeling.

[LisaL]

210. Well, why don't you do it? You presume to know how she feels,

why not find out from experience? You seem to have it all thought out-best of lack with your little experiment.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

212. Now, now.........

Just because you got hoist on your own petard is no reason to resort to the third-grade response of "Why don't you do it?"

No dessert for you tonight, missy.

[lonestarnot]

224. Starvation a terrible way to go..

:(

[OldLeftieLawyer]

205. What a great, to-the-point post!

That was just so right, I'm on the verge of standing and applauding. Thank you.

[VLC98]

197. Not black & white for me.

I have a hard time forming an opinion on this case, partly because I don't really know enough about it. For example, how long was the husband actually married to Terri before her tragedy? I don't think it was long, so I'm not sure I believe they'd have had a discussion about what they'd want if they were in a vegetative state. I've been married for 18 years and I don't recall such a conversation with my husband, perhaps a passing comment, but not a serious discussion. Granted, I probably would not want to be kept alive, although the thought of starving to death sounds horrible to me. However, if my husband stood to gain from my death, and especially if he had a girlfriend and kids in tow, I might want my parents to step in.

On the other hand, my husband hasn't spoken to his mother for 20 years and if he were the one in the vegetative state and she stepped in to keep him alive against my wishes, I would be outraged. So ideally, I think each case should be considered on its own and in this case I lean toward the parents.

[Erika]

214. Take it one step further

She is being used as a poster child for the far right-wingers. Their (the parents) visitation record was very sparse until they were solicited by the far right-wing. They are enjoying their few minutes of fame at Terri's expense.

The husband showed documentation of their sparse visits until they were contacted ny far right wingers to use Terri for their cause.

I back the husband 100%. Terri chose him as her legal partner.

[moobu2]

223. Exactly, the parents have sold the daughter to these vile people

I read somewhere a while back that they said they would never ever disconnect her even if her condition was much much worse and they knew for a fact she said she wouldn't want to be on a feeding tube.

That's sick as hell in my book.

All the rest of the junk people use to criticize the husband is crap the right to life creeps have spread around the net on right wing websites in there unending public relations/legal battle.

[maddezmom]

208. Everyone should have a living will

could have eliminated most of the pain and suffering on both sides of the issue.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

215. Agreed, and

if you want to PM me, I can send you a Word file of the definitive Health Care Power of Attorney, with instructions on how to tailor it to your specific needs and wishes, and how to execute it properly so as to render it precisely what it was designed to be: a legally unbreakable document.

And for free!!!

:)

[maddezmom]

222. thanks for the kind(and free) offer

My husband and I already have one, as do my parents and others in my family. Just wish my in-laws would deem it necessary.

[SillyGoose]

248. Before this case came to light, I didn't realize a feeding tube

was classified as an artificial measure. I always interpreted it as someone being brain dead and completely incapable of sustaining life without a ventilator.

Apparently, there are some doctors who support the husband's position that she is in a persistent vegetative state but there are others who support the parent's contention that she has some awareness of her surroundings. IMO, if there is any question as to her condition, we should err on the side of caution. We protest the death penalty for murderers, but here we are pushing for the death of this woman. I don't get it.

As a mother, I could not imagine watching my child starve to death so I can understand why Teri's parents are fighting so strongly against the removal of the tube. The parents have said they are willing to take on the responsibility of caring for Teri, so why not let them?

[davis_islander]

249. But are we pushing for her death?

Or are we asking the question: If someone ends up in such a state without a written directive, WHO DECIDES, the spouse, the parents if they are alive, or the government? I side with the husband whether he wants to keep her alive, or let her go. I believe that it is his decision to make. It is not that I'm pushing for her death, I'm pushing for the right of the SPOUSE to make the decision if there is no written directive. When I married, I put away childish things. We still love our parents, but marriage supersedes the parental relationship.

[SillyGoose]

250. I agree, Davis, with you that a spouse should have the right

to make that decision. I am not disputing his right to do so. Having said that, I do, however, sympathize with her parents and realize how difficult this situation must be for them.

My concern in this case is that there appears to be medical personnel who have gone on record disputing the assertion that she is in a persistent vegetative state. If there is any question in this area, I believe we should err on the side of caution and not remove her feeding tube.

[ally_sc]

252. great..no quality of life eom

eom

[Arkansas Granny]

254. Has anyone considered this?

If the husband does give guardianship to the parents, what would happen to this poor woman if she outlives her parents? Who would make the decisions then?

This is a very sad case for all involved. It's time to let this poor woman go. Whatever you think about the husband's motives, it is hard for me to believe that he would stick with this for so long unless he truly believes that he has her best interests in mind.