Florida begins starvation of disabled woman
#11
03-21-2005, 11:27 AM
What scares me is a Dr. I may or may not know well who is:
Therefore, I couldn't agree more with the following:
I coudn't agree more with the following - especially the end of the quote:
It's an interesting debate.
Tink
Originally Posted by efusco
determining who's "alive" (in an awareness quality of life sense) and who isn't with some regularity.
Originally Posted by efusco
...for goodness sakes people, go fill out a living will so just this situation will never splinter your family and your desires are clear should you ever be in a similar condition.
Originally Posted by tbaleno
I find it interesting that he has gone on to have a relationship with another woman yet he "loves his wife so much that he is fighting tooth and nail to kill her". He obviously has something to gain by her death. I find it hard to believe that he loves her more than her parents.
My opinion and yes it is only opinion with no facts whatsoever to back it up is that her husband has something to hide and fears her gaining conciousness. If she is in fact brain dead how much is she suffering to stay alive?
My opinion and yes it is only opinion with no facts whatsoever to back it up is that her husband has something to hide and fears her gaining conciousness. If she is in fact brain dead how much is she suffering to stay alive?
Tink
#12
03-21-2005, 12:27 PM
Regardless of personal opinion, I think the fact that the federal government is getting involved is completley unacceptable. This is a state issue, has been resolved in state courts and frankly is out of bounds for congress, the president and other national leaders. The attempts to circumvent the constitution will (and should) prove futile. It's a bigger issue than one life and one family. Hands off, feds.
#13
03-21-2005, 04:31 PM
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
Many doctors who have seen and tested her indicates that she can be rehabilitated, in fact a nobel peace award spent 10 hours with her and says that she responds well to her surroundings and will do very well with treatment.
The husband has forbid any treatment or rehabilitation at all.
I can't see the argument that Washington shouldn't get involved, as this is a human rights issue.
If a ring of State judges formed around to forbid me water as I die of thirst, it wouldn't matter who broke thier circle to give me some water to drink.
The husband has forbid any treatment or rehabilitation at all.
I can't see the argument that Washington shouldn't get involved, as this is a human rights issue.
If a ring of State judges formed around to forbid me water as I die of thirst, it wouldn't matter who broke thier circle to give me some water to drink.
Last edited by Hot_Georgia_2004; 03-21-2005 at 04:36 PM.
#15
03-21-2005, 08:09 PM
I would never presume to assume what Michael Schiavo thinks/feels/wants.
But here’s what I do know:
My husband knows exactly how I feel about the idea of being kept alive artificially under the conditions that Terri has been kept alive. We are both in the process of having living wills made to avoid a similar situation. However, should something happen to me on the way to work tomorrow before the wills are in place, I KNOW that he would fight, endlessly, to see that my wishes were carried out. He would fight my parents, if that became necessary. He would fight public opinion. He would turn a dead ear to the many (well-meaning, I guess) people who claimed that he had something to gain from my death. He would ignore the people who claimed he couldn’t possibly love me, because he decided to get on with his life even as he fought for my right to die as I wished. He would even have to put up with the people who always feel some strange compulsion to imply that the husband had something to do with it.
What is gruesome here is the fact that, because we have so much “respect” for life, we have no respect for how people die. Dying of starvation or thirst is not the “best” way for Terri to go, but is all that is allowed by our laws. We treat animals better in this country when it comes to dying than we do human beings.
Having said all of that, since the Florida courts did have to weigh in, the bottom line with the current state of affairs is that this is absolutely a states rights issue, not a federal one. Congress and the President had no business with or jurisdiction on this.
Well, at least I’m now driving a safer vehicle than my 20-year-old Beemer. Hopefully my husband won’t have to confront any of this before our living wills are done.
Respectfully,
Kristi
But here’s what I do know:
My husband knows exactly how I feel about the idea of being kept alive artificially under the conditions that Terri has been kept alive. We are both in the process of having living wills made to avoid a similar situation. However, should something happen to me on the way to work tomorrow before the wills are in place, I KNOW that he would fight, endlessly, to see that my wishes were carried out. He would fight my parents, if that became necessary. He would fight public opinion. He would turn a dead ear to the many (well-meaning, I guess) people who claimed that he had something to gain from my death. He would ignore the people who claimed he couldn’t possibly love me, because he decided to get on with his life even as he fought for my right to die as I wished. He would even have to put up with the people who always feel some strange compulsion to imply that the husband had something to do with it.
What is gruesome here is the fact that, because we have so much “respect” for life, we have no respect for how people die. Dying of starvation or thirst is not the “best” way for Terri to go, but is all that is allowed by our laws. We treat animals better in this country when it comes to dying than we do human beings.
Having said all of that, since the Florida courts did have to weigh in, the bottom line with the current state of affairs is that this is absolutely a states rights issue, not a federal one. Congress and the President had no business with or jurisdiction on this.
Well, at least I’m now driving a safer vehicle than my 20-year-old Beemer. Hopefully my husband won’t have to confront any of this before our living wills are done.
Respectfully,
Kristi
#16
03-21-2005, 09:59 PM
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
milocat you make some very good points.
However,
I would hope that your husband would also want the best for you, one of the ways might be to give you the hope of rehabilitation that you would need, instead of refusing it.
I'd hope that he would allow other loved ones to visit you, and not post a 24 hour armed guard to keep them out.
I'd hope that he would allow the staff that cares for you to see the light of day, and not be locked in a room year after year.
And also, I'd hope that he wouldn't move in with his pregnant girlfriend 6 months after a tragedy happened, and spend all the money alloted for your care to fight your parants in court, who would be willing to care for you.
And last, I'd hope that he wouldn't allow anyone to die a long, painful slow death.
I can think of a couple of instances where the Federal Government have trumped State rights:
One is the Emancipation act, the other is Governor Wallace standing in the school doorway saying no blacks over his dead body.
In both instances I'm sure there were plenty of judges taking the side of the state. Both were civil rights issues, as is this one.
Here is a hypothetical situation:
Let's say I'm the legal guardian of an elderly person. One day in casual conversation they tell me they wouldn't want to live if they were disabled. Then a few years pass and they have a stroke and require alot of care. Should I petition the court to starve him to death?
What if the judicial system sides with me, and despite the person's plea for life is starved to death anyway?
Last Friday the family's attourney told Terry that they were going to stop feeding her and if she was ever going to say anything, now is the time.
Terry made such a fuss screaming& crying LIVE! LIVE! LIVE! that the security guard hired by the husband became alarmed to see what was going on.
If the State is hell-bent on putting this disabled woman to death, then who can stop them but the Feds?
However,
I would hope that your husband would also want the best for you, one of the ways might be to give you the hope of rehabilitation that you would need, instead of refusing it.
I'd hope that he would allow other loved ones to visit you, and not post a 24 hour armed guard to keep them out.
I'd hope that he would allow the staff that cares for you to see the light of day, and not be locked in a room year after year.
And also, I'd hope that he wouldn't move in with his pregnant girlfriend 6 months after a tragedy happened, and spend all the money alloted for your care to fight your parants in court, who would be willing to care for you.
And last, I'd hope that he wouldn't allow anyone to die a long, painful slow death.
I can think of a couple of instances where the Federal Government have trumped State rights:
One is the Emancipation act, the other is Governor Wallace standing in the school doorway saying no blacks over his dead body.
In both instances I'm sure there were plenty of judges taking the side of the state. Both were civil rights issues, as is this one.
Here is a hypothetical situation:
Let's say I'm the legal guardian of an elderly person. One day in casual conversation they tell me they wouldn't want to live if they were disabled. Then a few years pass and they have a stroke and require alot of care. Should I petition the court to starve him to death?
What if the judicial system sides with me, and despite the person's plea for life is starved to death anyway?
Last Friday the family's attourney told Terry that they were going to stop feeding her and if she was ever going to say anything, now is the time.
Terry made such a fuss screaming& crying LIVE! LIVE! LIVE! that the security guard hired by the husband became alarmed to see what was going on.
If the State is hell-bent on putting this disabled woman to death, then who can stop them but the Feds?
Last edited by Hot_Georgia_2004; 03-22-2005 at 12:09 AM.
#17
03-22-2005, 07:31 AM
Hot Georgia,
It is clear that you have listened to a lot of very biased information about Terri's rehabilitation potential. I've listened to the descriptions of her initial injury and subsequent brain CT scan results. I also know that the independent court appointed Neurologist bluntly stated that she has no awarness of self, no awareness of her environment and no potential for recovery.
What the hell a Nobel Peace prize winner's opinion is is meaningless...maybe I won the Nobel prize for physics and decided she should die...would you buy that??
Also, your claims that her husband doesn't let her family see her are false...they've seen her many times and have video tape....in fact, it is those very visits that they claim their knowledge that she has awareness. In fact, further, the brief video tape that they have claiming she interacts and has awareness has been viewed by many physicians and neurologists...and myself, and all state that even that 'evidence' is consistant with the prevalent diagnosis of PVS.
Now, I have no doubt that Terri's family wishes the best for her. I have no doubt that they'll go on in believing she has potential for recovery. And if they had the legal right to make such decisons I would immediately acknowledge that they are doing that what they are doing is likely the thing that is most consistant with Terri's wishes. But this is much more straight forward than that. In every state the right of making end of life decisions goes to the spouse...that's it, period. You start mucking with that and ultimately it will be you and I suffering.
This is about Terri's wishes...not what mom and dad's hopes and prayers are about. If she would not have wanted to go on living in a PVS then the more cruel act is that of keeping her alive in a condition in which she never wished to live. That means she would rather starve. She would rather dehydrate. She would rather die than go on living in this condition. To her the greater cruelty would be to live in such a state of unawareness with no potential for recovery. The best evidence we have suggest that those are, indeed, her wishes.
So:
1)Husband has the right to carry out the patient's wishes--fact.
2)Best evidence suggest that she would not wish to live in a PVS--fact.
3)All radiologic and non-biased medical evaluations confirm PVS with no chance of meaningful recover--fact.
Anything intruding on her right to die in her selected manner is a violation of her rights, her husband's rights to carry out those wishes. And, in my opinion, a cruel act of inhumanity to force her to stay alive against those wishes.
You can put forth a bunch of factless speculation about slanderous ulterior motives of which you have no factual evidence. You can make claims that somehow the husband who could easily have let this drop 10 years ago has something to gain, but you can't show what that is or any proof of anything.
It is clear that you are a strong right to lifer who thinks that preservation of any life, no matter of anything else is all that matters. I don't expect to disuade you of that notion. But please don't come here making baseless claims to support your beliefs.
It is clear that you have listened to a lot of very biased information about Terri's rehabilitation potential. I've listened to the descriptions of her initial injury and subsequent brain CT scan results. I also know that the independent court appointed Neurologist bluntly stated that she has no awarness of self, no awareness of her environment and no potential for recovery.
What the hell a Nobel Peace prize winner's opinion is is meaningless...maybe I won the Nobel prize for physics and decided she should die...would you buy that??
Also, your claims that her husband doesn't let her family see her are false...they've seen her many times and have video tape....in fact, it is those very visits that they claim their knowledge that she has awareness. In fact, further, the brief video tape that they have claiming she interacts and has awareness has been viewed by many physicians and neurologists...and myself, and all state that even that 'evidence' is consistant with the prevalent diagnosis of PVS.
Now, I have no doubt that Terri's family wishes the best for her. I have no doubt that they'll go on in believing she has potential for recovery. And if they had the legal right to make such decisons I would immediately acknowledge that they are doing that what they are doing is likely the thing that is most consistant with Terri's wishes. But this is much more straight forward than that. In every state the right of making end of life decisions goes to the spouse...that's it, period. You start mucking with that and ultimately it will be you and I suffering.
This is about Terri's wishes...not what mom and dad's hopes and prayers are about. If she would not have wanted to go on living in a PVS then the more cruel act is that of keeping her alive in a condition in which she never wished to live. That means she would rather starve. She would rather dehydrate. She would rather die than go on living in this condition. To her the greater cruelty would be to live in such a state of unawareness with no potential for recovery. The best evidence we have suggest that those are, indeed, her wishes.
So:
1)Husband has the right to carry out the patient's wishes--fact.
2)Best evidence suggest that she would not wish to live in a PVS--fact.
3)All radiologic and non-biased medical evaluations confirm PVS with no chance of meaningful recover--fact.
Anything intruding on her right to die in her selected manner is a violation of her rights, her husband's rights to carry out those wishes. And, in my opinion, a cruel act of inhumanity to force her to stay alive against those wishes.
You can put forth a bunch of factless speculation about slanderous ulterior motives of which you have no factual evidence. You can make claims that somehow the husband who could easily have let this drop 10 years ago has something to gain, but you can't show what that is or any proof of anything.
It is clear that you are a strong right to lifer who thinks that preservation of any life, no matter of anything else is all that matters. I don't expect to disuade you of that notion. But please don't come here making baseless claims to support your beliefs.
#18
03-22-2005, 07:38 AM
Hear hear, Evan.
I think the only thing I'll add to Evan's comprehensive reply, is that dehydration as a cause of death is a very humane way to go. It is allowed and seen in hospices across the country; it is actually the *main* terminal event in hospices, which practice the best comfort medicine available. I recommend it when involuntary prolongation of life only prolongs suffering. I have never had a family tell me they regretted the decision.
Eric Gold, MD
Internal Medicine
I think the only thing I'll add to Evan's comprehensive reply, is that dehydration as a cause of death is a very humane way to go. It is allowed and seen in hospices across the country; it is actually the *main* terminal event in hospices, which practice the best comfort medicine available. I recommend it when involuntary prolongation of life only prolongs suffering. I have never had a family tell me they regretted the decision.
Eric Gold, MD
Internal Medicine
Last edited by EricGo; 03-22-2005 at 07:46 AM.
Should I invite my father? He's a radiologist, lol. 
#20
03-22-2005, 09:01 PM
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
Thanks efusco.
The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.
It's interesting that she's said to be in this condition, a few reasons I question this is the signed affidavits from care givers of conversations they've had with Terri after her accident, how she reacts to loved ones, crying that she wants to live when told what is going to happen.
Additionally,
Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State
Dr. Victor Gambone, part of a team hand-picked by her husband, testified that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness.
Yes, he has allowed visits but only with his watchful lawyer present at all times.
Would you agree in my hypothetical situation if I were the guardian of an elderly person who suffered a stroke, but still desires to live?
Should I do the humane thing and petition to have him starved to death?
I'm not putting out slanderous speculation or baseless claims.
There are many things related to this that raise questions.
About your right to lifer comment- I have no problem disconnecting an empty corpse from life support if that is the case.
EricGo,
If dehydration is indeed a very humane way to go, and is the most comfortable medicine available then why don't we use it in cases of capital punishment, or why don't veterinarians use it instead of injection?
Euthanasia is illegal in Florida.
Florida Statute 765.309
Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.
The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.
It's interesting that she's said to be in this condition, a few reasons I question this is the signed affidavits from care givers of conversations they've had with Terri after her accident, how she reacts to loved ones, crying that she wants to live when told what is going to happen.
Additionally,
Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State
Dr. Victor Gambone, part of a team hand-picked by her husband, testified that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness.
Yes, he has allowed visits but only with his watchful lawyer present at all times.
Would you agree in my hypothetical situation if I were the guardian of an elderly person who suffered a stroke, but still desires to live?
Should I do the humane thing and petition to have him starved to death?
I'm not putting out slanderous speculation or baseless claims.
There are many things related to this that raise questions.
About your right to lifer comment- I have no problem disconnecting an empty corpse from life support if that is the case.
EricGo,
If dehydration is indeed a very humane way to go, and is the most comfortable medicine available then why don't we use it in cases of capital punishment, or why don't veterinarians use it instead of injection?
Euthanasia is illegal in Florida.
Florida Statute 765.309
Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.
Last edited by Hot_Georgia_2004; 03-22-2005 at 09:08 PM.
