Act NOW to Save Terri Schiavo!

[aikido7]

Every and anytime anybody talks about what they would like done if they are paralyzed, incontinent, demented or suffering due to old age or an accident, why do they always say KEEP ME ALIVE AT ALL COSTS????

There has been little information on Schiavo's husband on this point.

Why would he even CLAIM his wife had ever said such a thing to him????

 

[avatar382]

Time to play the Devil's Advocate:

People in a Persistant Vegetative State (PVS) have lost cognitive ability. They retain their sleep-wake cycle, and involuntary function, but the part of their brain that controls their higher function, personality, memory, basically, everything that makes them a person is destroyed. Even if medicine was advanced enough to grow a new cerebellum (with stem cells?), it would be like putting a newborn in an adult body.

Of course, the whole controversy in this case is whether or not Terri is in a PVS. Naturally, the parent's doctors say No, her husband's doctors say yes...

From what I have read about the condition on my own, and heard about the case from the news, her condition seems consistent with a PVS to me. Of course, I am no doctor, but seeing someone in a coma and seeing the videos on the website make it clear to me that she is not in a coma and suggest strongly that she is in a PVS.

Anyway, the thing everyone is missing is this: Terri's husband may very well be the class-A bastard everyone is making him out to be. But, that doesn't change the fact that he is still married to her. He is her legal guardian and has the legal right to make medical descisions on her behalf.

What does it say about the institution of marriage if a woman's parents can override the descisions of her husband when she is incapacitated? Is this the legal precident we want to set?

Now, if it can be proved in the a court of law that her husband is guilty of wrongdoing to Terri, then he should be punished, stripped of his guardianship, and that guardianship should be passed to the parents.

But, to my knowledge, no one has filed charges against the husband. He is, therefore, innocent until proven guilty, as they say. One cannot deny the possibility of Micheal's wrongdoing. But, one cannot also deny the possiblity that Terri's parents are desperate enough to slander Micheal.

So here are the issues:
Is Terri in a PVS?
Depends on who you ask, obviously. I think a court should appoint neutral doctors to make that determination. Does anyone know if this has already been done? If so, what was the outcome?

Who has the right to make medical decisions on Terri's behalf?
Her parents? Or her court appointed legal guardian, her husband? It seems to me that most of you, in any other case, would defend the rights of the husband. A decision to withdraw life support from a patient who has been in a vegetative state for 15 years and has astronomically small chances for recovery, as per your doctors, is not unreasonable.

Those who say that the husband is guilty of wrongdoing should stop beating around the bush, present the evidence, try and convict him. If this cannot be done, than his rights as husband/legal guardian should be respected.

I shudder when I think about what a mess it would be if my parents tried to override a decision medical or not of my wife, my designated life partner and next of kin, in the event I am incapacitated..

 

[Agape4Robin]

"Who has the right to make medical decisions on Terri's behalf?....It seems to me that most of you, in any other case, would defend the rights of the husband."

So, Avatar.....let me ask you a question. You consider him to be a truly loving and caring husband? One who would love her so much as to defend her "right to die?"

:think:

"A decision to withdraw "life support" from, a patient who has been in a vegetative state for 15 years and has astronomically small chances for recovery, as per your doctors, is not unreasonable."

First of all, she is NOT on "life support", unless you consider that to have food and water administered by feeding tube is "life support", then most disabled persons would be a candidate for death. As a matter of fact, it has been documented that even those who considered suicide and carried out their wishes by jumping off a bridge, and lived to tell about it, have altered their opinions about death being an answer. Of those that were interviewed reported that about half way down, realized that their life was worth living! Life, in the face of death, was now a precious gift!

Second, this woman has been alive even though in this "vegetative state" for 15 years! Who are we or her "husband" to say that Terri has not adjusted to the limitations of her body? Simply because she has no effective communication skills? She is still Terri inside that body. Her soul and spirit remain even though her earthly vessel is severely limited, she has been shown to communicate as much as her damaged mind and body will allow!

Finally, would you consider your wife to have YOUR BEST INTERESTS at heart, if she were living with and having children with another man? A man that she calls, "fiancee?" You would want her to make life and death decisions FOR YOU? If you can say "yes", then you have to seriously doubt that your marriage vows are on any solid ground. Remeber those? "For better or worse, SICKNESS OR HEALTH, richer or poorer, UNTIL death do you part?" NOT BEFORE death.....no, my friend......this man is NO HUSBAND to Terri.....he abandoned her and now he would see her DEAD!

Without a WRITTEN declaration of refusal of life support, the court SHOULD recognize that conflicting VERBAL testimonies is hearsay and should not be admitted as evidence! If the court MUST make an error in judgement, it should err on the side of life, unless the person is considered terminally ill, which Terri is NOT.:nono:

You are an advocate of death......
:Clete: :Clete:

 

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by avatar382

What does it say about the institution of marriage if a woman's parents can override the descisions of her husband when she is incapacitated? Is this the legal precident we want to set?

The precedence we want to set is that the value of innocent life stands above a marriage to a murderous husband.



:liberals: This is one of the issues too complex for liberals to figure out. :liberals:





:Commie:

 

[elected4ever]

As far as I know all the involuntary actions such as breathing are functioning. She just does not have the motor capacity to eat and walk etc. This means that she is alive and not brain dead. Starving her to death is assisted suicide even if she has agreed. Assisted suicide is illegal and a crime according to Fl. Law. If she has not consented to being removed then the court is guilty of murder. Execution by starvation. What crime has she committed to justify the death sentence. Taking life just because it presents a hardship is not a reason to kill someone. If we allow this precedent to stand, where does this slipper slope take us? What right to life will anyone have if they are incapacitated and present an inconvenience of long term care? This is serious and we better wake up or any-one can be next if the care giver doesn't wont the inconvenience.

 

[avatar382]

So, Avatar.....let me ask you a question. You consider him to be a truly loving and caring husband? One who would love her so much as to defend her "right to die?"

I don't know. I don't know the guy personally, and I personally don't consider either his testimony or the parent's testimony as both would be probably biased. Has any neutral party stepped forward to bring some insight into the husband's character?

It doesn't really matter much, though. Whether or not the guy is a evil bastard has no bearing on his rights as Terri's husband, and his right to make medical desicions on her behalf, unless he acted criminally, in which case his rights need to be revoked and given to the parents.

First of all, she is NOT on "life support", unless you consider that to have food and water administered by feeding tube is "life support", then most disabled persons would be a candidate for death.

I consider the feeding tube to be "life support" in this case, because it is an artificial means of sustaining the body. Is Terri capable of taking in food and water orally? If so, why not spoonfeed her? It seems to me that since she has no concious function, she is incapable of swallowing, and is thus fed and maintained artificially (life support). Even a newborn baby is capable of nutrition/hydration orally.

Second, this woman has been alive even though in this "vegetative state" for 15 years! Who are we or her "husband" to say that Terri has not adjusted to the limitations of her body? Simply because she has no effective communication skills? She is still Terri inside that body. Her soul and spirit remain even though her earthly vessel is severely limited, she has been shown to communicate as much as her damaged mind and body will allow!

If she is indeed in a Persistant Vegatative State (a precise medical term), then her higher brain function is gone. This means she is incapable of sentinence. This means she has no and is not capable of concious feeling or awareness. This means, she is literally just a body with no mind. She is alive only because her brain stem is intact, so involuntary body functions continue.

The longer someone is in a PVS, the bleaker the chances of recovery. If she is in a PVS, After 15 years, I suspect her chances are very near-zero.

The whole point is that if she is in a PVS, she cannot "adjust". She is not there inside the body. It's not just "limited communication skills". It means her personhood has died. What do you have left when given a normal person, and take away their memory, personality, concious thought, and self-awareness? Why do you think they call it a "Vegetative" state?

Finally, would you consider your wife to have YOUR BEST INTERESTS at heart, if she were living with and having children with another man? A man that she calls, "fiancee?" You would want her to make life and death decisions FOR YOU? If you can say "yes", then you have to seriously doubt that your marriage vows are on any solid ground. Remeber those? "For better or worse, SICKNESS OR HEALTH, richer or poorer, UNTIL death do you part?" NOT BEFORE death.....no, my friend......this man is NO HUSBAND to Terri.....he abandoned her and now he would see her DEAD!

No, in your example, I would not consider my wife to have my best interests at heart.

However, in this case, Terri collapsed in 1990. Her husband has been trying to get her tube disconnected since 1993. He started living with the other woman in 1995. It's possible that he has simply accepted the death of her personhood long ago, has moved on, and is simply trying to put her body to rest as well. His living with another woman is not necessarily a conflict of interest for that reason.

Without a WRITTEN declaration of refusal of life support, the court SHOULD recognize that conflicting VERBAL testimonies is hearsay and should not be admitted as evidence! If the court MUST make an error in judgement, it should err on the side of life, unless the person is considered terminally ill, which Terri is NOT.

I disagree. I feel that as her husband and legal guardian, he should have the right to make medical desisions on her behalf. If he is not fit as a guardian, then the courts should decide that. They already have ruled in that regard.

You are an advocate of death

No, I'm not. I would just like to see the next of kin rights between a husband and wife preserved, and I would like the government (Jeb, the Legislature, etc) to stop overstepping it's bounds in these deeply personal matters.

 

[avatar382]

The precedence we want to set is that the value of innocent life stands above a marriage to a murderous husband.

Does an individual have the right to die, if they do not wish to be kept alive artificially?

Does a husband/wife have the legal right to make medical decisions for their spouse, including the descision to disconnect life support, should the spouse be incapacitated?

What value does a person's life have if that person has irrevocably lost all awareness, self-awareness, feeling, personality, and memory?

These are the questions at the heart of the case, and questions I think are not being answered.

Oh, and for the record, I am neither a "liberal" nor a "communist." If you wish to refer to me by my political leanings, you may call me a "libertarian".

 

[avatar382]

As far as I know all the involuntary actions such as breathing are functioning. She just does not have the motor capacity to eat and walk etc. This means that she is alive and not brain dead. Starving her to death is assisted suicide even if she has agreed. Assisted suicide is illegal and a crime according to Fl. Law. If she has not consented to being removed then the court is guilty of murder. Execution by starvation. What crime has she committed to justify the death sentence. Taking life just because it presents a hardship is not a reason to kill someone. If we allow this precedent to stand, where does this slipper slope take us? What right to life will anyone have if they are incapacitated and present an inconvenience of long term care? This is serious and we better wake up or any-one can be next if the care giver doesn't wont the inconvenience.

Certainly, she is alive. And certainly, she is not completely brain dead. She has retained basic involuntary function. But, she has lost all cognitive function.

To me, it's not an issue of killing someone who has become an inconvience.

I believe the central issue here is twofold:
Does an individual have the right to die, if they do not wish to be kept alive artificially?
Does a husband/wife have the legal right to make medical decisions for their spouse, including the descision to disconnect life support, should the spouse be incapacitated?

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Zakath

Follow the money, I always say...

I find it interesting that the woman's parents started a foundation to raise money to pay their legal bills. Those are legal bills that would not have occured if they were not trying to challenge the legality of their daughter's marriage in the first place...

I find it interesting that you ignore the fact that an innocent women has been condemned to death by an evil judge and a callous and evil husband.

posted by Secular Humanist Zak:

The foundation was recently fined (February 8, 2005) by the state of Florida government for not filing the required legal papers to register it with the state. Quite a significant (and rather fundamental) mistake for a foundation that allegedly exists to handle her legal affairs, among other things...

... then of course there's the minor issue that the foundation is a for-profit entity, with any profits going to the Schindlers themselves... :greedy:

Then of course the foundation may not have qualified for any other status or that a for profit foundation may afford them the greateast control of the funds to expedite their use in Terri's defense.

Posted by Secular Humanist "Zak":

After checking the foundation web site, so far as I can ascertain, the Schindlers are quick to point out how Schiavo's husband is spending his money, yet they have refused to divulge how much money they've raised through the foundation capitalizing on her condition.

As usual, the lawyers get rich and the legislators get publicity... all paid for by the gullible public. :nono:

As usual a Secular Humanist will try to divert attention from the real story the callous and barbarous torture killing of a disabled young women by an evil Secular Humanist judge and his stooge the unfaithful and wicked husband.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by aikido7

Every and anytime anybody talks about what they would like done if they are paralyzed, incontinent, demented or suffering due to old age or an accident, why do they always say KEEP ME ALIVE AT ALL COSTS????

There has been little information on Schiavo's husband on this point.

Why would he even CLAIM his wife had ever said such a thing to him????

Because he might very well have been responsible for her condition, and having done so would want her dead and cremated ASAP to keep her silent forever.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by avatar382 I believe the central issue here is twofold:
Does an individual have the right to die, if they do not wish to be kept alive artificially?
Does a husband/wife have the legal right to make medical decisions for their spouse, including the descision to disconnect life support, should the spouse be incapacitated?

Where is her wishes set down in writing and notarized? A statement by this adulterous husband would not cut judicial musterd if I was a judge. :nono:

 

[avatar382]

Where is her wishes set down in writing and notarized? A statement by this adulterous husband would not cut judicial musterd if I was a judge.

Obviously, they were not.

But, adulterous or no, this man is her husband, next-of-kin, and legal guardian. On what basis should his word be completely discounted? Because he's moved on and found another woman during the 15 years since his wife collapsed and entered a vegetative state?

 

[Agape4Robin]

:bang: Obviously this guy just doesn't get it!:loser:

quote: "On what basis should his word be completely discounted?"

Then this :dunce: goes on to answer his own question! He has moved on with his life!!!!:duh:

If he has done so, then morally he must let her move on with her own life, step aside and let her family care for her!:thumb:

:wave: TTFN

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Art Deco

I find it interesting that you ignore the fact that an innocent women has been condemned to death by an evil judge and a callous and evil husband.

AD, do you know why Mrs. Schiavo is in her present condition in the first place?

:think:

...But keeping the weight off was a struggle for Terri Schiavo, and years later — after her heart stopped briefly, cutting off oxygen to the brain — a malpractice case brought against a doctor on her behalf would reveal she had been trying to survive on liquids and was making herself throw up after meals. The Schiavos' lawyer said her 1990 collapse was caused by a potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder.

- Schiavo case highlights eating disorders


Her own self-destructive behavior caused heart failure which appears to be the major contributor to her current position of being severely brain damaged. To put it plainly - she did this to herself.

And now, just like any bleeding heart social liberal, you want to remove as many of the consequences of her behavior as possible and potentially extend her life for several decades...

Are you suggesting that society, and not the individual, support someone for decades who engaged in such ungodly behavior?

:think:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by aikido7

Every and anytime anybody talks about what they would like done if they are paralyzed, incontinent, demented or suffering due to old age or an accident, why do they always say KEEP ME ALIVE AT ALL COSTS????

There has been little information on Schiavo's husband on this point.

Why would he even CLAIM his wife had ever said such a thing to him????

In this day and age, why wouldn't married partners discuss such things?

My wife and I have certainly discussed such things between us and both of us have living wills and limited DNR orders in the event we are incapacitated.

I would sincerely hope and expect my spouse or children to follow my desires in such a case, not those of some judge seeking his "15 minutes of fame" or some politician looking for votes in the next election.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Where is her wishes set down in writing and notarized? A statement by this adulterous husband would not cut judicial musterd if I was a judge. :nono:

Perhaps your callous disregard of the law is why you are not suitable for the judicial bench.

 

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by avatar382

Does an individual have the right to die, if they do not wish to be kept alive artificially?

No, that's suicide. That's illegal.

Does a husband/wife have the legal right to make medical decisions for their spouse, including the descision to disconnect life support, should the spouse be incapacitated?

No, unless they are actually brain-dead, and the rest of their body is being kept alive artifically. Being kept alive on a feeding tube does not qualify. And don't you think a loving husband or wife would want to try everything to rehibilitate their spouse? Terri has been denied any rehab because of her husband.

What value does a person's life have if that person has irrevocably lost all awareness, self-awareness, feeling, personality, and memory?

Since when did you or the government have the right to eliminate a person based on their perceived worth (their worth to whom)? Very Nazi-like.

These are the questions at the heart of the case, and questions I think are not being answered.

No they are not. Terri is not brain-dead. She breaths on her own, can move her arms, mouth, face, neck, she blinks, looks around, tries to speak and perhaps other stuff we haven't seen. She just can't feed herself, talk, and walk. According to your reasoning, a parent should have the right to kill their newborn infant.

From the videos we've seen Terri is just disabled. She may not be able to talk and walk like you, but she is aware of her surroundings. Her condition is similar to an infant's, elderly person's, or a person with severe Down's syndrome.

Oh, and for the record, I am neither a "liberal" nor a "communist." If you wish to refer to me by my political leanings, you may call me a "libertarian".

Ok, left-winger. Libertarians are morally liberal.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

AP: Congressional leaders have announced a compromise that would allow her case to be reviewed by federal courts that could restore her feeding tube.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Zakath

Perhaps your callous disregard of the law is why you are not suitable for the judicial bench.

Point of order. Perhaps my view of the law runs contrary to the Secular Humanist position which is: The law is what they say it is at any given moment. :think:

 

[Agape4Robin]

Art Deco....Sibbie:darwinsm:
I love you guys!!!!!:chuckle:

Libertarian:liberals: :mock: