I've seen none of those testimonies...but I have not studied the evidence. I assume you have not either and are, thus, repeating heresay. The only testimony I've heard, other by very emotional care givers who clearly seem to have bias points of view, are that she is, indeed, in a PVS. Every court decision seems to agree...every one, not just some, every one.

Yea, Ok...so? He is the legal guardian. If he has concerns it's his obligation to safeguard.

I ignored that hypothetical b/c a)it's a hypothetical and b)b/c it has no relevance to the issue under discussion. The stroke victim with awareness of self and environment has the capacity for pleasure. For intellectual stimulation. For giving and experiencing love. For feeling and appreciating (at a cerebral level) touch. Further, most stroke victims have excellent capacity for recovery and adaptation. Terri's case is completely different. She had an incapacitating stroke PLUS and anoxic brain injury leaving her cerebral cortex severely and irreversibly damaged.

You most certainly are. You've raised unfounded speculation that he is 'afraid she'll wake up' and be able testify that it was him that caused her initial injury. If you'd like I'll go back to your post in which you said that if you can't find it or forgot. That, sir, is slander and it is without foundation unless Terri's husband has made that very statement either to you or somewhere where it is recorded.

As far as the questions raise, it seems that only those unwilling to accept that death is a natural part of life and that artificially keeping someone alive who would no wish to be kept alive in such a PVS is wrong have raised any of those questions.

Good, then we need only to agree on the definition of 'an empty corpse'....I think that'll be the rub. Fortunately, the law of our land doesn't require that we do that. The allow for the discontinuation of artificial means of support when there is no capacity for recovery in the case of a PVS. And that decision falls to the spouse, if there is one.

In this case we have court accepted confirmation of independent medical evaluations that Terri is in a PVS (first condition met)...doesn't matter if you agree, the courts do and the independent physicians do. And she has a legal spouse who has the capacity to make that decison and he has.

The abomination here is not that life support is being removed (which is what the feeding tube is here), but that her family has forced her to linger in a condition in which she never wanted to linger and it has divided her family, and been a burden on her family and the medical system. Those are exactly the things those of us with living wills do not want to happen if we go into a PVS...we have no quality of life and the very last thing we wish to do is cause our lack of a 'life' to cause a decrease in the quality of life for others to be a burden on anyone.

There are many humane ways, but for someone without awareness of self or environment it is certainly as humane to starve/dehydrate as any...particularly when morphine and other substances are used.

Did you notice that "other than to permit the natural process of dying". A feeding tube is an unnatural means of supporting life in a person who would otherwise die without it. We've lots of means of maintaining "life" if life is defines as a beating heart and exchange of oxygen at a cellular level. Terri is little more than that. The brainstem functioning is the most basic there is...similar to what invertebrates do. No higher cerebral functioning exists.

I'm glad to see the circuit court's decision in this case and am quite certain that the US Supreme Court either will not hear this or will concur.

 

HG said: The short answer is the vet is applying euthanasia, the punishers are killing, while allowing dehydration by not forcing *involuntary* life-support is neither. If I lived in a state where Euthanasia is allowed, I would recommend morphine in escalating doses, not dehydration. However, in a state where death may not be legally hastened, dehydration is the most humane way out.

I am saddened by all these people who view this case as an opportunity to further political agendas, and ignore the person herself. It should be an inalienable right of every person to die with grace and dignity, with minimal suffering. Anything else is foul; a perversion of a basic human right. To think that a governor, a president, or a church official can define grace, suffering, or dignity is inane. It leads to burning people at the stake, torture, maiming, and homicide on scales that are hard to imagine. Allowing the husband to become a full-fledged surrogate is imperfect, but go back in history to see the alternative.

BTW, to those folks who are making living wills. You should be aware that states differ greatly in how much legal weight they carry. In my state of New Mexico, for instance, the durable power of attorney for medical decision has every right to ignore or change the living will. In practice, this means you should pick someone to act for you when you are unable who will follow your wishes as you have requested, in addition to having the living will. If I thought my wife was unable or unwilling to respect my wishes, I would pick someone else.

 

this one post stirred more emotion than I previously had on this topic. I assume it's because of your aggressive and somewhat harsh remarks. Albeit possibly naive, it's my opinion that a Dr. should exhibit bedside manor anytime a sensitive medical issue is at hand, regardless of the vehicle of communication.
Courts being one individual each. Congress, in majority, took the opposite view and asked it to be reviewed. By admission, this is weak; as were your court references. The courts AND congress have so lambasted original intent of the constitution that both have lost credibility.
On the contrary, it is mostly the religious right that have raised this question. They believe very much that death is a "natural part of life" and, on the whole, fear it less than the average member of the other persuasion. HOWEVER, we are not debating about someone who is in a state of PVS and what there situation is; they're are many that believe Terri's situation of PVS is debatable.

Someone's earlier statement of the fact that, if she is in a state of PVS, she doesn't *feel* anything, much less angst at her position made sense to me. Therefore, if there's a chance she's not, perhaps we should not kill her.
Certainly, it matters! Will it change the outcome? No. But there are some physicians that feel otherwise, as well. And we, as Americans, have the right to question ANYthing we're not comfortable with.
Her family are the ones standing beside her. Her "husband" has been living with another lady for some time - they have kids and a life apart from Terri. Her *family* are her parents and siblings... and they are united in their decission. That's the abomination.

And I don't think the medical system has been burdened. It's what they do and they aren't doing if for free.
Again, without any awareness, what's the social crime IF the bulk of her family (and all of it by any definition except legal) and some medical opinion thinks there is a chance she could improve. If there's any chance that tears-when-starvation-accounts are true, there should be more investigation. BUT, for some reason, her "husband" won't let the media in....

 

You have no grounds to judge my bedside manner and should withhold such judgement. This has nothing to do with bedside manner. If you read carefully it has everything to do with my respect for my patient's rights, comfort and being an advocate for the patient.

Those 'others' are irrelevant, as is my opinion or your opinion or congress's opinion about what should be done. This is a matter of law. The law is established. We can not take away the rights of the legal decision maker b/c others feel contrary.

Whether the husband has moved on or not is also irrelevant. You can try to pull in all the ancillary stuff you want, but the rules are simple and, IMO, should and must be maintained. It is not at all uncommon that there is dispute..someone 'can't let go' of a dying family member. But someone must make the decison. If the person who 'can't let go' is the spouse or designated power of attorney or otherwise the person designated by law to make decisons when the patient is incapacitated then they can decide to maintain on life support...think of the uproar if congress came in and said "No, they have a PVS and we're taking them off of the ventilator" against that person's will. This is identical, just a reversed scenario. But the patient's right to die with dignity is just the same.

 

Please keep this topic on track and do not digress to attacking individuals. I don't want to have to shut down the discussion. Thanks for your understanding.

 

As a parent, I am torn about this issue. Imagining myself as Terry's parents, here is what I come to ponder:

One the one hand, we all want our own kids to live forever, or certainly outlive us. Death is never pleasant, but losing a son or a daughter is usually a more severe emotional event than losing a parent who has lived a full and complete life.

The question I would have is: what kind of life does Terry have right now? Bedridden, unable to eat or chew or swallow or communicate - what kind of life quality is that?

I have read that her cerebellum has detiorated and can never recover, which means her chances of being one of those "miracles" who comes out of her condition is non-existent.

If you believe in God and in Heaven, how selfish is it as a parent to wish THIS life on your kid rather than the afterlife with God that you firmly believe in and have been convinced is the best way for a soul to exist?

So I am torn, and do not wish this situation on anyone, but for SURE, I do think it's a little selfish of the parents to want to keep their daughter in that condition, if the reported medical information is correct....

 

Afternoon, Lars-ss. The first paragraph certainly bares wait. However, they apparently believe that she is coherent at times and believe, because of the tears story, that she is not ready to give up. So I think it a bit unfair to claim selfishness in this situation; but the tendency is certainly there, regardless. Point granted. I guess their main contention is the reported medical information differs.

I really think the one in control (in this case, the legal husband) is best able to control access and information for the general public, and it would seem, congress or courts.

I guess that's my biggest problem in truly defining her state - that the "husband" will not let ANY form of media in her room.

Good post.

 

Again, the implication that this is somehow bad and wrong. I see it exactly the opposite. That is showing respect. This is not a matter for the public to vote on or to be decided by concensus or from annecdotes of tears and smiles with no scientific context, testing or reproducability.

I would never, ever, period allow any media, or politician, or lawyer to come in to see my PVS wife. And I most certainly would not allow her to become a public spectacle.

This is a private matter and should stay that way. When we start allowing the gov't to pry into and influence decisons in our private lives our country truely is over.

 

With that, I could agree... ACCEPT, that the "husband" has made it one. He has done several high profile interviews. Other than that, your arguement would work.

I, also, believe we have way too much government interference. However, this is a unique and (most important point) argued situation. I think you'll agree that government interferes in these types of cases (right to life) as a rule.

As a side note, please accept my appologies for the bed-side manner comment. As I've mentioned before, these types of issues are generally emotional.
Tink

 

It seems that the main confusion is that:

1.Is Terri in a PVS? It has not been proved as there is so much conflicting evidence.

The Departement of Children and Family's own physicians have just today chimed in that she is not in this status, but in a "diminished consiousness".
Many of us have seen the Terri videos, how she reacts to her family and surroundings, understands and rejects death rather loudly and she desires to live.

2. That Terri has a loving, good caring husband who only wants the best for her, and selflessly only desires to carry out her last wishes.

There is so much evidence against this. Even Terri's care-givers in the early 90's have wrote signed affidavits about some of the husband's routine comments:
"When is that Bi**ch going do die?"
"Is she dead yet" and
"When that Bi**ch dies I'm gonna be rich!"
This is not hear-say or exaggeration but legal, signed statements from nurses, other staff and care givers.
These statements have been useless, as there haven't been any court allowed to defend Terri. Only judge rulings.
Then we have the fact that she was reacting well with rehabilitation until the husband stopped everything, about the time he moved in with his pregnant girlfriend.

3. Euthanasia is illegal in Florida.

If you are saying that since she is fed through a tube that the statute does not apply here, then it is meaningless and millions of people who rely on machines could be cut off, by ways of their guardians, against their will.

4. I'm a parent of 3 kids and if someone was in this status pleaing for her life I wouldn't do this, even to starve her to death.