Terri Schiavo

[alexa]

Bruce, I don't wanna play the game of "I am right, you are wrong". I only want to understand what's going on with that poor woman. We like it or not, her case is of public notority. And the fact that her husband and her parents do not agree on it, make it worse.

Do you know the age when she became bulimic ? Usually teenagers have this illness. And you know bulimie shows an instability of feelings. How long has she been she married before the collapse ? Did she have problems with her parents ? Maybe she had other problems and she could't face the situation. As you can see, I don't know anything about the original lawsuit.

Btw I don't want to be kept alive in that condition either. If somebody convince me that her bulimic state was because of her parents, I might change my opinion. Nothing is only black or white. I'm talking about life situations, of course, and not about colors.

[brucegdc]

Bulemia is a mental illness. It's not usually "because" of something directly - although multiple things can trigger it - being someone with a weight issue myself, it'd be hard to pin down a "cause". There's a lot of background on the web on her - a lot from the "Save Terri" camp, which I'd say has to be taken with a grain of salt, at least. MSNBC has a couple of background pieces on her, which indicate she had weight issues for a number of years. There's an article from the Washington Post today at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7290818/

Here's the answers from that article: She married Michael at age 20 (just shy of 21). She collapsed in 1990, at age 26, so they'd been married 5-6 years.

[alexa]

That woman was a dreamer. I don't know why, but I don't like her husbund. It's just a feeling I have after reading the article from the Washington Post, so please don't jump on me. I read from the "Save Terri" camp, too. And I still cannot decide myself if her husband and the court took the right decision. I'm afraid we'll never know.

[Faithfulservant]

The bulemia has never been proved, her parents deny it her siblings deny it..her friends denied it. Even if it only developed after her marriage wouldnt that say something about her husband if she developed something like that after she got married?

I have another question... Why is everyone in the "save Terri" camp all wrong and why is the "kill Terri" camp all right? Dont you agree that usually there is a middle ground between the two? Im willing to bet that her husband was abusive and after being married for 5 years she collapses at a very young age and he waits 7 years with a new common law wife and children in the picture that he is the one thats ready to move on... I do not believe that her wishes are any part of this. I still do not believe the many million dollar offers. I have been in an abusive controlling relationship and I recognize so many of the things Ive heard about the husband and his treatment of her..

How can everyone else but the husband and his lawyers be lying?

[brucegdc]

alexa, I don't much like the husband either - but there's been significant investigation over the past decade, and where possible, I've drawn the conclusions from the legal findings. What I find astonishing is that, like FaithfulServant - people are assuming that the justice system must be totally corrupt and trying to kill her, where they have zero interest in the outcome, and it's gone through at least 6 courts - can ALL those judges be in cahoots? Not likely....

[Faithfulservant]

The tragic thing about the court system is that it is bound by law... I think everyone can agree that what the law is not always morally right. Not every situation is black and white.. this is most definitely a grey area...Im not saying the court system is corrupt I am saying that the law is not right for this...Im anticipating a change in the law for this which started with our President.

[Kaldayen]

Isn't that close to a "law is good unless it disagree with me" mentality?

In the US, 64% of people agree she should stay "unplugged".

Is it ok to let her starve, no.. euthanasia should be available for that type of situation.
___
Kal

[Quahom1]

She collapsed of a heart attack due to chemical imbalances brought on from severe weight loss and then attempting to gain some back. The loss of oxygen to the brain did some serious damage. A few years later was another heart stoppage, with oxygen deprivation, and more damage to the brain.

Both courts (state and federal) have been struggling very hard over this case, as well as the legislative and executive branches, respectively. The Executive and Legislative have the power (authority) to overide the judicial, but are very hesitant to do so. Though perfectly legal, would be unprecedented in the history of the nation.

The medical field is of a split mind as are the directly interested parties (family), over her condition and potential recovery.

The media has turned this into a circus. (CNN/USA today polls should be taken with a grain of salt).

And no one knows for certain what Terri Schiavo wants or wanted.

Those are the sad facts (observable, not subjective).

Q

[alexa]

A law is never perfect. After all, laws have been written by humans and not one of them is perfect.

And I believe the implication of Bush and his brother was a huge error. There is no private life in USA ?

Terri was a nice person. After 16 years she deserves to find peace for her soul. We do not no for certain how happy she was with her husband. My feeling tells me she wasn't happy about her new environment (I'm sure it was her husband who wanted to move) and bulimia was a consequence of it. But this is only my supposition from what I know about the case in this moment. I am not a perfect person either, so I won't make another law to sustain my standpoint.

If the author of the article from Washington post was right and Terri used to laugh a lot, than a vegetative state for the rest of her life could not be the choice of Terri.

I hope the doctors didn't make any error about her state. I agree with Kal : euthanasia should be available for this type of situation.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by alexa

A law is never perfect. After all, laws have been written by humans and not one of them is perfect.

And I believe the implication of Bush and his brother was a huge error. There is no private life in USA ?

Terri was a nice person. After 16 years she deserves to find peace for her soul. We do not no for certain how happy she was with her husband. My feeling tells me she wasn't happy about her new environment (I'm sure it was her husband who wanted to move) and bulimia was a consequence of it. But this is only my supposition from what I know about the case in this moment. I am not a perfect person either, so I won't make another law to sustain my standpoint.

If the author of the article from Washington post was right and Terri used to laugh a lot, than a vegetative state for the rest of her life could not be the choice of Terri.

I hope the doctors didn't make any error about her state. I agree with Kal : euthanasia should be available for this type of situation.

Agreed except the Bush brothers stated, that when an innocent life is at stake better to err on the side of caution. Who's privacy was violated by the Bush brothers? don't see any. Media on the other hand is a whole different ball game when it comes to privacy invasion...

The general fear of euthanasia, in the US is that eventually, it would become a requirement, rather than voluntary for those who were considered a burden on society, by others not willing to assume responsibility for them (which is not the case here). There are those who have expressed a willingness to take care of Mrs. Shaivo. And this part is extremely puzzling, why the courts refuse to consider this...

In any event, it is day 8 without food or water, and as such it won't matter in a little while for Mrs. Shaivo.

The whole irony here is that Mrs. Shaivo WILL DIE from insufficient nutritional intake, which got her in this sad position in the first place.

v/r

Q

[alexa]

K, the Bush brothers are public personalities. Their interest in the case of Terri cannot be seen like my own or yours. You and I and the others on the forum or other civil persons can talk as long as we want to. We do not have decisional power to change anything. But the return of the president to the White House to interfere in Terri's case, can be seen as privacy interference. This was not a war state report. Don't worry. I don't have a high estime for the press either.

Ideally, Terri's husband and her parents should find an agreement after all these years of lawsuits. Are you sure those who have offered for Terri's care are not interested in publicity ? In my opinion her parents should take the healthcare of their daugther. At least they'll have the tranquility they have done all their best for Terry. I do not think Terri can recover from her brain damaged. After 16 years, without any sign of improvement, I can understand the court decision. I don't say I approve it unconditionally, but I understand their standpoint.

It's really a very sad life end.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by alexa

K, the Bush brothers are public personalities. Their interest in the case of Terri cannot be seen like my own or yours. You and I and the others on the forum or other civil persons can talk as long as we want to. We do not have decisional power to change anything. But the return of the president to the White House to interfere in Terri's case, can be seen as privacy interference. This was not a war state report. Don't worry. I don't have a high estime for the press either.

Ideally, Terri's husband and her parents should find an agreement after all these years of lawsuits. Are you sure those who have offered for Terri's care are not interested in publicity ? In my opinion her parents should take the healthcare of their daugther. At least they'll have the tranquility they have done all their best for Terry. I do not think Terri can recover from her brain damaged. After 16 years, without any sign of improvement, I can understand the court decision. I don't say I approve it unconditionally, but I understand their standpoint.

It's really a very sad life end.

I suppose that is true. And no I am not certain of anything about the intentions of those who think they know best for Mrs. Shaivo. I do see however, an 11th hour attempt by the parents to spare her life...and I must admit I expected nothing less...

v/r

Q

[brucegdc]

Quahom - a couple of points:

1) Multiple reviews of the case by multiple doctors over 10 years is hardly being incautious. The case has also been up and down the chain of appellate courts multiple times - in fact, the district court judge reversed an earlier withdrawl of the tube in order to make sure that there was time to hear purported new evidence from the parents.

2) The privacy violated is that of each person to make their own decisions about accepting artificial aids to keep them alive when the body cannot - and to accept or reject medical treatment. That is both a privacy issue and a right - established in both legislation and jurisprudence. For example, an adult of sound mind may choose to refuse a blood transfusion - and that is their right, no matter what their reason. Bush & Bush have intruded the legislature and executive branch into that *personal* decision. (although that decision is being made through a proxy - see the next paragraph)

3) The courts HAVE considered her parents desire to continue to take care of her. That's actually the core of the legal issue - two interested parties with different interpretations of what the wishes of the person are, and two different views on what the medical condition is, both backed by two or more doctors who have examined her.
I think I posted earlier about the hierarchy of decision making - first the patient if possible, then holder of the power of attorney, then spouse, then adult children, then parents, then siblings. Only one person at a time has that legal responsibility to speak for the patient. The parents disagreed with the husband, and since the legal requirements for witholding life support require proof of the intent, the court stepped in with the requirement to determine the facts - in this case, two different things (a) is she in a persistent vegetative state, and (b) is there evidence of her intent in this situation - either way. To figure the first, they had doctors examine her - multiple times. Each time, the findings lead the court to determine that there was sufficient evidence to say she was in a persistent vegetative state. The second was also gone through repeatedly, and again, the judge found that there was enough evidence to show her intent not to have her life prolonged artificially in this situation. Once that is done, following the rules of the law, the courts have to make sure that her wish is upheld - they have to decide the facts (not something I'd care to do, myself - truth and fact are slippery things), and the process takes over from there. Appellate courts check two things - the process for determining the facts , and reviewing that the findings are appropriate given the evidence. It's gone all the way up the chain in Florida multiple times - making sure that all the processes and safeguards were followed.

The alternative to doing things by the rule of law is chaos - the slippery slope on the other side is not mandatory euthanasia, but mandatory treatment and artificial life support for everyone, regardless of their beliefs or wishes. (or to extend the "willing to take care of them" argument, keeping them on life support systems until nobody on the planet is willing to take them in...) On the euthanasia side, the rules say that in order to *not* get treated, there needs to be evidence of that intent - which is sufficient safeguard. This isn't a spot decision made last Thursday to pull the tube - it's the tail end of a long process which required the judge to weigh the evidence and determine the intent of someone who can't speak for themselves. Ugly in the extreme... but with no way to prove truth, it's the best we can do to preserve the rights of the patient.

May all parties involved find peace, for they surely need it.

It's not an easy decision - my wife's family faced the decision whether to follow her mother's expressed wish not to be fed artificially while she was dying last year. The final call was that of her spouse - the children supported that decision, although they could have fought it, the same way Terri's parents have. My mother & grandmother faced a similar situation with my great-grandmother, who was kept alive by tube in her last weeks, and spent much time pulling out the tubes... it's not easy to let someone go, but it is sometimes their wish, and it needs to be respected. To intrude the legislature into this most personal of decisions is heinous. (Note - I don't include suicide while of otherwise sound body in that - that shows a mental condition that is showing [probably] a lack of sound mind)

[Quahom1]

Yeah, I know. Still sits hard on one's soul...

I suppose when you spend your life trying to save it, you go one sided in your thinking. And that too can become out of balance...


v/r

Q

[kiwimac]

1. 1990--Terri's heart stopped because of a dangerous drop in potassium and sodium from and eating disorder. Her brain deprived of oxygen resulting in immediate and IRREPARABLE BRAIN DAMAGE. Her doctors failed to diagnose and treat her bulemia nervosa.

2. 1991--Terri's husband and parents sent her for aggressive therapies and treatments to various clinics, had multiple brain scans and tests done, and many specialists workiing with them to see if anything could be done to restore her brain loss.

3. 1993--Terri's husband sued her doctors for failing to diagnose and treat her condition. They settled out of court for $750,000 for Terri and $300,000 for Michael. The 750K was managed by the Terri Shiavo Foundation to pay for her medical expenses...most of it was eaten up by litigation and legal fees

4. Michael stuck by her side and did everything in his power to find any possible help. ALL the experts agreed that there was NOTHING that could be done to help her.

5. Her CEREBRAL CORTEX was completely gone and her brain filled up with spinal fluid. (The CC is the will/consciousness/decison-making/thought/ sensation/memory centre of the brain). Unless science has a way to regenerate new brain tissue, the doctors unanimously agree that she is in a persistent vegetative state.

6. 1998--Michael and her parents disagree on what should be done for Terri, Michael saying that Terri's wish was not to be kept on artificial life support if recovery were not possible. The parents disagree.

7. Michael went to court to bring all the evidence, hear all testimony and make the final decision about Terri's unwritten will. The parents were defendents and had their own medical experts testify, Michael had 2 experts to testify, and the court appointed one objective expert. THE COURT declared that Terri's will was "no artificial life support", and the court was then in the position to be Terri's proxy, her "guardian ad litem" under "Terri's Law".

8. This means that her husband no longer has a say about what happens to Terri--IT IS THE COURT, acting on her behalf.

9. Any $$ left in Terri's trust fund goes to her parents after her death, not her husband.

10. There is and has never been any evidence of spousal abuse as those trying to smear her husband have been saying--it was never an argument that ever came up by anyone in all the years he dedicated to trying to medical help for her, rather than abandoning her and getting a divorce. In fact, it was her parents who in 1998 encouraged him to move on with his life and see other women.

All the court ruling and legal opinions can be found here, as well as a lot of other facts that the public are not hearing about:

http://<a href="http://abstractappea...opage.html</a>
Also, the St Petersburg Times coverage details the history:
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/28/T...g_Terri_S.shtml <http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/28/Tampabay/Understanding_Terri_S.shtml>


Given the facts then, this poor woman has been kept alive by a tube for 15 years with part of her brain missing and no hope of recovery. Much is made about the agony of starving to death...yes, for the millions of children around the world who are healthy, food deprivation is indeed a painful and immoral scandal in a world rich enough to feed all the hungry.

But she is 1) unlikely able to feel pain or discomfort because her cerebral cortex is gone, and 2) most people at the end of their lives with terminal illness or just old age, refuse food and water, not having the strength or will to eat, and they die. Should all these people be force to stay alive by feeding tubes even though they will never recover?

She has become a pawn in an ugly political game. The president and his brother are trying to overturn legal ruling and interfere in state laws, not to mention the American public invading the private lives of a family in trauma. And poor, poor Terri who cannot think or utter the words herself..."please just let me die!" The court is trying to fight for her.

Who stands to gain anything from this??? Maybe the government on some kind of misguided moral crusade? Who really gets any money out of this? Will this be setting a terrible precedent for government interference in lives of private citizens?

From information on the web

Kiwimac