Terri Schiavo - what would you do?

Let's see now...would I kill a woman who is alive and breathing and smiles and has (limited) mental skills. I'd say no, I wouldn't starve her to death like the supposed Nazi butchers used to do. And as for Terri having said she would want to be killed rather than breathe, we have only the cheating husband's word to go by. You know, the guy who won't spend any settlement money on keeping his wife alive.

I would keep her alive. I personnally had something similar but not for as long happen to my sister. The doctors were even saying the same things as hers seems to be. My sister is alive now. She can't walk or talk that good but she can eat and she seems to be happy. My sister was age 27 when she had a heart attack (followed by a stroke) and ended up on life support . Now her brain doesn't function like ours. Her brain is like a 7 year old. After 22 years she just got strong enough last year to be able to walk a little. I personally wish they would see if Terri herself could let them know what she wants. This is a really sad day and I really feel for her mom and dad. Besides, I look at it this way if Terri is their at all and a stranger walked into her room she would most assuredly get a puzzled look on her face as to who is that.

As to if the same thing happened to me what would I wanna have done. If it was early I would wanna die and not live like that . If it was in a case like Terri's and for this long, I would hope that somebody would be there fighting to keep me alive. From what I've seen she seems happy with what she has. It's like if I had my legs cut off I wouldn't wanna live like that either but after I've gotten use to the changes and found out that I could live like that I probably wouldn't feel that way.

And as far as hubby well that is a he said she said. I don't know anybody at the age she was that talked about being like that and what they wanted done.

Just think about it ,your hungry and your being left to starve. That is a very cruel thing to do to any human being. I wouldn't even starve an enemy.

I hope her folks win

That's what I would do-- These are solely my opinions

Actually, a lot of the case hinges on whether you consider a feeding tube to be "extraordinary measures". If it is, then a doctor technically would have the right to "abort" a baby in the first few postnatal months of life, as the baby is equally incapable of feeding itself, or of expressing a wish to be kept alive.

I don't consider a feeding tube to be extraordinary measures, it is simply a means of providing nutrition. What Ms. Schiavo stands to suffer will be up to 14 days (the record amount of survival without food or water recorded was 18 days...thanks Guiness Book), during which Ms. Schiavo will be in intense agony...without the ability to express this fact. Since the courts feel this is "allowing" her to die (unless she recovers fully and DEMANDS food, sadly, they do), then any pain relieving measures for Ms. Schiavo would be equally disallowable.

You have to wonder what mortal sin Ms. Schiavo committed to be forced to endure this, or how her husband could claim to be a compassionate spouse knowing that this will be her end.

I dunno. I had thought that it would be best to let her go, but that involves letting her starve to death....which is an ugly, horrible way to die. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in that condition, and Teri's case is partially the reason I have a living will.

I'm just glad I'm not personally involved...I simply don't know what I would do.

My dad died three years ago, at 61, of brain cancer.
After he got the word that there was no hope, that he had only a few months at best, he made himself die.
He didn't kill himself with a gun or pills, rope or gas. He simply started refusing to eat or drink, and the only meds he took were his pain pills. After a few days in a sad, more or less vegetative state, his body shut down and he drifted off and died. He didn't want to burden us, emotionally or psychologically, with his lingering death. He was a brave and unselfish person.

As a "rightwinger", I don't as a rule support abortion or assisted suicide, but there are very often exceptions to every rule, as we know.

I see it this way: from my perspecitve, if I were in a persistent state such as Ms. Schiavo, then let me go; yes, I might--MIGHT--wake up someday, after years have passed and hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent. But then, I might not. Even if I did, I'd most likely need round the clock care and attention for the rest of my days. Also, I've been occupying this bed for so long, which could have been used for people who had a better chance of recovery. Just let me go.
As i81b4u-uc mentioned, the sister just recently, after so many years, got to where she could walk a little. She has, at 49, the mind of a 7 year old.
Would I, personally, want to live like that? No. Would I want to burden others that I love with that? No. Let me go, no matter how cruel it may seem.
To be trapped in a body that doesn't work with a brain that only functions on a relatively rudimentary level and to no longer be able to care for yourself or do the things you enjoy, even if you do recover enough to get out of the hospital, isn't a life.

Rightwinger,

In Ms. Schiavo's case, euthanasia is another thing entirely. IF she is to be euthanized (and that, frankly, is what it is...just a rather slow, cruel way to do it), let it be with medications that can allow her a relatively painless transition from this mortal coil, not the way that's being proposed.

Well, a judge has decided that her feeding tube should be withdrawn Link

and it could be removed as early as this afternoon. Of course, this is all subject to change once it's gone to appeal.
it makes me wonder what Teri would have to say about all of this if she could talk.....

Interesting, dharma.

What will be even more interesting, however, is that if the tube is removed and Ms.Schiavo passes away before she can appear before Congress,it COULD be chargable as "obstruction of justice" to the judge.

What saddens me the most about this...on BOTH sides, is to see this poor woman used as a pawn. That, in my opinion, should be the paramount concern in this case.

"He didn't want to burden us, emotionally or psychologically, with his lingering death"
I don't mean to be cold about this but I think if he stopped eating and slowly shut his own body down to die more quickly, that is a burden on your family. To me, to have to watch my father die before his body was ready to die, that would have a huge negative impact on me psychologically speaking. I don't need to get into the emotional aspect of it. In an ironic way maybe his final selfless act was one of selfishness. Don't misunderstand me. Of course he felt he was doing the right thing. I am curious as to whether or not your he told your family what he was doing.

terp wrote: What helps you decide what should happen and how do you arrive at your conclusion? Are you deciding because you think it's the right thing for yourself if you were in a similar situation, or only for the case at hand?

I have not followed this case very closely. I consider it a prime example lurid & salacious 'news' coverage of a very personal, very private & very tragic family matter.

What would I do? First, I'd thank the grandstanding politicians to butt out.

Second, I sympathize with the parents. The loss of a child is exactly the kind of thing can push a healthy happy person over the edge.

Third, the persistence of 15 years in a coma speaks for itself. The emotional toll, not to mention the medical bills, must be unbearable.

Ultimately, it's a question of who is the legal guardian. As I understand it, right or wrong, the husband is in that position. And I think that's typical in these situations. Indeed, it is the correct thing.

Bottom line: I don't know why the husband has not struck a deal with the parents to turn over guardianship to them & walk away -- on the chance that she *might* make a miraculous recovery someday. That -- in my opinion -- is the best choice. He can move forward with his life & they can assume the care, feeding & costs of their daughter.

My guess is that he feels an obligation to do what he believes is necessary & what he apparently has maintained are her wishes.

And BTW, I agree with Gideon that powerful meds are more humane than removing a feeding tube. That's the method under Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, which inherently tells grandstanding politicians to butt out, this is a private family matter.

Congress is overstepping its boundaries in this case. Very specifically, the courts have repeatedly ruled that the feeding tube must be removed per the husband’s wishes. I believe that she gave him a statement saying she wouldn't want to stay alive in such a condition (who would); though I think I would rather be put down than left to starve for death. In this case, I think assisted suicide would be the best case, though clearly she is not able to think for her to have an assisted suicide. She is brain dead.

Gideon, for a 40 year old woman, a feeding tube is an extraordinary measure.

While I would rather she not starve to death, and would rather she be allowed to be put down, congress is interfering in a court case by using devious means of calling her as a witness. The current law says she has to have the tube removed, and a court ordered that, under the current law, that must be done, and now congress is trying to prevent the civil system from working properly.

What will be even more interesting, however, is that if the tube is removed and Ms.Schiavo passes away before she can appear before Congress,it COULD be chargable as "obstruction of justice" to the judge.

Yes.....that'd be interesting to see what recourse was taken, huh?

What saddens me the most about this...on BOTH sides, is to see this poor woman used as a pawn.

That's the thing that's bothered me most. It seems almost as if she's been pimped out by almost everyone who's got involved, from her folks to her husband to the Governor of Florida...it's not a nice word to use, granted, but that's how it feels to me.

If you've seen any of the footage of her she's not one these cases where someone is being kept alive by machines. Letting her die is not as easy as "pulling the plug". It's basically killing someone by starvation whether you believe it's right or not. I just find that cruel and inhuman. Plus the husband is with another woman and has another family. Isn't that a conflict of interest of some kind? I just don't know why you'd want to torture your in-laws in this way. Especially in front of the whole nation. Why can't he just walk away and let her family make the decision? Here's my take on the legal issue of it. If Terri Schiavo really didn't want to be kept alive this way she should have had a "living will". It's not very hard to do. That goes for eveyone else in this forum. So if thats how you feel, please, spell it out clearly and save your family the heartache. In lieu of having a "living will" she has to kept alive as a humanitarian principal. I feel if you kill her just because she's incapacitated it is the next step in doing what the Nazis used to do. Thats killing retarded people, paralyzed people, and others who we arbitrarily decide do not have a high quality of life.

I love it how republicans try to pull out the morals card in this case. You can't let someone who wanted to die die, yet you want to kill people commiting sometimes petty crimes (including children).. what very very moral people you are.

I love it how republicans try to pull out the morals card in this case

Sandy - it's funny that your comment came in when it does.

You see, I left my own answers to the questions out of the thread directly above to give others a chance to speak up.

I normally (surprise to few) side with Republicans. I'm pro-business, and typically Republicans treat business better than Democrats do (my observation). I'm moderate on most social issues, tilting towards the right on a few things (the use of public property by scouts for example, the inclusion of prayer at places like VMI, or in Graduation events).

Yet I am for the death penatly (at least as an option where someone is clearly guilty of a heinous crime and there's incontrovertible proof that the right individual has been found guilty of the crime), and though I'm not personally comfortable with abortion, I don't wish to impose my own beliefs on others.

In this case, like Gideon and others, I personally feel that Congress, the Bush brothers and all others should butt the hell out of the decision making.

This is a decision that has to be made by the "next of kin." That may be the parents (if the individual isn't married), the spouse (if the individual is married), brothers or sisters, aunts or uncles, whoever is next in the line of blood relatives.

This case involves many unique "twists." The parents are claiming they should be the decision makers for their daughter. That's admirable, but upon "giving away" the bride, even if they didn't participate in that manner in a wedding ceremony, their daughter moved on with her life and formed a new contract and partnership with her husband.

Some may (and do above) argue that the husband could just forfeit his rights over to the parents. That might seem possible, but if the individual (Terri in this case) can't decide and speak for herself, who is to say that she would wish to be divorced from her husband? Without a divorce, who is able to relieve her husband from any obligations for her care? Would he still be responsible financially?

Reportedly the husband has turned down offers of (recently) $1 million to walk away, and previously it was reported by his lawyers that he turned down offers of as much as $10 million. If he's truly out to make money, and isn't just trying to see through his wife's wishes, why would he not just take that money and run?


As to myself, I would like to maintain my own right to die with dignity, without interference from others. If I leave behind a living will, then I want it honored, and I don't want politicians deciding for me. I don't want my parents (even as much as I love them, and they me) deciding for me, as they would be too close to things emotionally to be able to make the choices they may have to make. I'm not certain I'd want my wife to decide either, but given our long history together, I'd like to think she'd know and respect my wishes better than anyone else could. Even if we'd only have been together a short while, I think it would have been the same, at least assuming we had talked about such issues when we first were married and didn't wait until far too late in life to have such a discussion.

per the husband’s wishes

Don't call that bit of rancid tallow her "husband", he gave up that right when he turned to his live-in, love-in cupcake. He is an insult to every definition of "love""marriage" and "husband".

He should be harrassed and pestered by honest people everywhere. What Cain feared from his "mark", Michael Schiavo should be forced to endure.

There is nothing "humane" about his actions.

He is the ultimate wife abuser. The horror of it all is, he did it legally.

What would I do? I would follow current medical protocols. A patient who is breathing, has a spontaneous heart rate, and reacts to painful stimuli is not clinically dead, much less BRAIN DEAD.

I love it how republicans try to pull out the morals card in this case. You can't let someone who wanted to die die,

It hasn't been proven thats what she wanted. The ultimate, incontrovertible evidence of her wish to die would have been a "living will". She didn't have one. One could infer it obviously must not have been that important to her, the "right-to-die". So bascially it's the husband saying she wanted to die and the family saying she didn't. We should err on the side of caution. Let's not forget we're talking about a horrible death from dehydration and starvation. Certainly if she is starved to death there is absolutely no chance for her condition to improve.

yet you want to kill people commiting sometimes petty crimes (including children).. what very very moral people you are.

Excuse me? Prove it. Your partisanship and hatred of Republicans precludes any chance of you being able to look at this without a Party hat on.

Excuse me? Prove it. Your partisanship and hatred of Republicans precludes any chance of you being able to look at this without a Party hat on.

I don't hate the party, I hate the actions being taken by the party right now (interfering with a clearly legal case, that has already been decided by a judge). I am very happy to see that the judges ruling prevailed over congress meddling, and the food tube has been removed per the judges orders.

don't hate the party, I hate the actions being taken by the party right now (interfering with a clearly legal case, that has already been decided by a judge). I am very happy to see that the judges ruling prevailed over congress meddling, and the food tube has been removed per the judges orders.

Starve yourself and see how you like it!!

According to all medical definitions of life, she is alive, it is only a human lump of feces "husband", his whore, and a fascist slimeball judge who want her dead.

A feeding tube is no more extraordinary life support than an IV. If you want her dead, at least have the nerve to admit that!!

Hey guys here's a couple of urls pertaining to this. What I personaly would like to know is why (Terri's husband) who was trained in CPR did not administer any the night Terri went down?

Link

Link

Link

We should err on the side of caution.

I disagree. As a compassionate liberal who supports the euthanasia happening in the Netherlands, I see human life as being a commodity, and by allowing this woman to starve to death, there will be an extra hospital bed available for somebody else.

"As a compassionate liberal who supports the euthanasia happening in the Netherlands, I see human life as being a commodity, and by allowing this woman to starve to death, there will be an extra hospital bed available for somebody else."

You realize, of course, that the same standard could be applied to the seriously mentally handicapped across the board, right? Hell, by your standard, why are we wasting medical resources on anyone that cannot care for themselves, is "unreachable", and cannot improve?

In high school, I worked summers at a camp with the mentally handicapped, and saw 40 year old people who haven't spoken a word in years, have to be led around by the hand, express no emotions outside reaction to discomfort, and even have to be spoon fed.

Messy, do you think there is any difference between a spoon and a tube? If so, what? If not, shall we start starving all people who fit this criterea?

I am curious as to whether or not your he told your family what he was doing.

---R-H

He had mentioned to us before that he didn't want to be around "any longer than I have to".
His way of looking at it was, 'they can watch me waste away for three or four days or a week, or they can watch me waste away for six months.' He figured it would be easier on everyone, and yes, himself included, to just get it over with as quickly as possible.

I disagree. As a compassionate liberal who supports the euthanasia happening in the Netherlands, I see human life as being a commodity, and by allowing this woman to starve to death, there will be an extra hospital bed available for somebody else.

And why on earth would I ever respect a thing you say after this fascist swill.

For that matter, I don't think I've ever read anything from you that wasn't based on a total police state, complete with a lack of any personal freedoms whatsoever. Except your own of course.

My question is this: would there ever be a chance of her recovering and being at least a close approximation of the person she was before the incident occurred that left her in her present state? The answer is no....she will be like this until she dies.
Some of you may see this as cold, but I think such a person should be allowed to die with dignity.

If a baby is born with a mental defect, say Down's Syndrome or some form of retardation, that's life...they never "had it any better", I guess would be the way I'd put it (for want of a better term), so they'd never miss anything. They would live, grow and die as what they are.
For a person born physically and mentally normal, however, who grew into normal adulthood with normal abilities and likes and dislikes, hobbies and such, to be rendered unable to experience and enjoy those things is a terrible thing. I think to be trapped in a body and mind that can no longer function or comprehend the world around you would be hell, especially if you knew what you were like before. If I were in such a position, I would want to be let go.

That's just me.