<p>So starving someone to death is letting her die in peace? Murder is murder, no matter how you state it or how it is done. Her husband's a liar and manipulator, and killing her, I'm sure, would take a large toll on her parents, who try to cling onto some hope for the future...And Jaug1, please realize that there is a separation of church and state in this country. And you NEVER know what advancements may be made in science that could help her ten years from now...Say they come up with a cure? Then what?</p>
<p>1) Her husband has already started a new family, and he would receive no money upon Terri's death. What exactly is his motive for manipulation? </p>
<p>2) Allowing someone who is brain-dead to die is not murder. Families make this decision every day when loved ones have been vegetative for much less time. Their life is 100% artificial, and while it might make you feel good to have them alive, it's just selfish because their quality of "life" is nil. Call me callous, but her parents are just being naive.</p>
<p>3) Say they don't come up with a cure? Then what? And this is the far more likely of the 2 scenarios.</p>
<p>if like said she has no Cerebral. Cortex, then I there is not a posability of her ever being able to come out of that state.
What would you do if you were in that position, would you want to be keep alive????</p>
<p>Even if she starves to death, she wouldn't feel it. It's extremely selfish of her parents to keep her alive. She indicated her wish to not live in such a manner to her husband and many friends, as they have testified under oath. It's unfortunate that her parents have let her become the poster child for the conservative right.</p>
<p>Actually it is thought that her husband will recieve anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 dollars upon her death.</p>
<p>Nice post macattak. In response to mcz's comments, there is no way for science to rebuild a cerebral cortex. Not even in the most far-fetched science fiction novels has there even been thought of the possibility of something like that. And btw, what cure exactly would we be speaking of? It isn't like she has cancer or a disease...she's brain dead. </p>
<p>Since she is brain dead, she can't feel anything. If she can't feel anything, then letting her starve would cause her no pain whatsoever. Therefore, it is perfectly within the right of the judges to let Terri die. I also do not see how in any case this is murder by legal definition. They are letting her starve because they believe it is the compassionate thing to do.</p>
<p>As macattak said, her parent's are making this case the poster for right-to-life conservatives. I find it quite hypocritical of the Republican Party, the party of states' rights, to interfere in a state judge decision. Doesn't that go against the basic tenets of the party platform? </p>
<p>I am doing a senior project this year on bioethics (I will be sitting in on actual committee meetings as they make decisions) and wrote my main paper in my bioethics class at Stanford on end-of-life issues and advance directives. If God put Terri in this position, he did not anticipate her using artifical means of life. For all the people who believe that Terri should be kept fed, doesn't it seem fairly hypocritical of you to say that she must live even though religion states that a person should only live by natural causes and if the person dies as a result of that, so be it?</p>
<p>He already recieved a settlement from her doctors for missing the bulimia that led to the cardiac arrest that caused her PVS to begin with. He spent all of that money keeping her alive and fighting the lawsuits sponsored by her parents backers. He has also indicated that any money he is awarded will be given to charity. It's not a money thing. It's her husband trying to follow her wishes.</p>
<p>You don't think that her husband has spent more money than he could ever hope to regain from her death on legal fees? If he gets money from her death, which I don't know. Her husband is a good guy.</p>
<p>From what I've heard, she explicitly expressed that she did not want to remain alive should she ever enter a state like the one that she is in right now.</p>
<p>Exactly, Ieatglue. Michael Schiavo will not get any monetary reward. He just wants to continue on with life and that is by fulfilling Terri's wish. She does not want to live via artificial means.</p>
<p>I've refrained from commenting on this because I've experienced having to help decide to discontinue life support to end someone's life.</p>
<p>I really feel for the parties involved in both sides of this arguement, and since my father's passing in February of 2004 watching the coverage of Terri's struggle has been quite difficult for me. </p>
<p>While my situation was a bit different, perhaps if I share it with all of you it will provide a bit of perspective.</p>
<p>My fater was a wonderful man and the most brilliant individual I've ever know. He had so much wisdom, and while he struggeled with poor health for most of his life, and his body was quite unreliable, he could always depend on his mind.
One night as he was being prepped for another surgery he went into a cardiac arrest. (It was a "minor" procedure compared to most of his others and it was during to school year so my mother and I were at home) Around 10pm my mother and I received the call that my father was in the ICU on life support. Immediately we traveled to the hospital. Bedside tests showed little to no brain activity, but the next day an EEG was performed to confirm this. My father's doctor refused to give up after the first test. This doctor had been a part of my family's life for several years and he had become like a member of the family.(he performed all of my father's transplants and oversaw most of his other care. he never gave up on my father) He asked us to allow the neurologist to perform another EEG in two days, just to be sure. My mother and I were sure that my father was gone, but this doctor, who cared for my family so much, needed this reassurance. After the second EEG we were told that there was almost no chance that my father would recover. My mother and I (along with his doctors) made the decision to remove life support. We had the doctors remove all of the machines and all but one of the IV tubes so we could see my father at peace and free from all of the medications that he had been on for so many years. We did allow them to keep the pain medication IV. We did not know if my father could feel anything, but in his fianl moments we did not want him to feel any pain. We wanted him to be at peace. After this life support was removed my father lived for only a few minutes, but everyone who saw him during his last few moments said he was truly at peace. When he passed I knew everything was as it should be. His long suffering was finally over.
To this day my mother and I know we made the right decision. My father was gone at the moment of his arrest. The man we knew and loved would never be back. I am truly happy that he was allowed to pass in peace. I know that he never would have wanted to live like that.</p>
<p>While my situation differs from that of Terri's family, I do know how it feels not wanting to let go of a loved one, but knowing that this person will never be the same. </p>
<p>Personally, I hope that Terri will be allowed to pass in peace, but if it is decided that she is to remain on the feeding tubes, I will not curse her family for wanting to keep her with them. While I know my mother and I made the right decision, there are many times I wish I still had my father with me (physically). I would just like to touch him or hold his hand one last time. Even if he couldn't acknowledge my prescence. Even if he did not know I was there.</p>
<p>-Amy</p>
<p>P.S. My father was a small bowel transplant patient at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. His doctors were amazing, not only for their medical skill, but for their compassion. During my father's last days in the hospital they spent most of their free moments with my mother and I, and when my father finally passed we cried together. They never gave up on my father. I owe Dr.Kareem and Dr.Bond so much.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sti.upmc.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.sti.upmc.com/</a></p>
<p>wow... what an inspiring post. thank you for sharing your story.</p>
<p>this is such a difficult issue. the only reason why i'd side with Terri's parents and sister in this case is becuase they are willing to care for her and pay for everything. And, even if Terri's husband claims to have heard Terri's wishes from her own mouth, I don't think he can be the only one making the decision without any solid evidence, (such as a personal will set in stone.) </p>
<p>So far, no doctors (that I know of) have said that she had absolutely 0 chance for progress. She only has a feeding tube, she's not on a ventilator. </p>
<p>The vast majority Republicans and Democrats in Congress voted to allow Schiavo's parents to take the case to a Federal Judge, which might prolong her life. </p>
<p>I think it's better to error on the side of life.</p>
<p>This is a picture of a normal brain scan. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.stjohn.org/healthinfolib/images/si55551310.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://www.stjohn.org/healthinfolib/images/si55551310.jpg</a> </p>
<p>This is a picture of Terri's (abnormal) brain scan. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png%5B/url%5D">http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png</a> </p>
<p>(The dark section in the middle is the cerebral spinal fluid. Much of that section has deteriorated including the cerebral brain stem.) </p>
<p>"You're left with a woman who suffered a heart attack 15 years ago, who essentially died but was resuscitated, though not entirely. Her brain had suffered enormous damage from the heart attack. As time passed, her brain further deteriorated -- to the point where much if not most of her cerebral cortex (the portion of the brain that controls conscious thought, among other things) was literally gone, replaced by spinal fluid. Doctors hired by Terri's husband say the deterioration of Terri's brain left her without thoughts or feelings, that the damage is irreversible, and that Terri's life-like appearance is merely the result of brain stem activity -- basically involuntary reflexes we all have. An independent doctor hired by the court reached the same conclusions. Doctors hired by Terri's parents did not dispute the physical damage done to Terri, but they claim there are new therapies that could improve her condition. In two separate trials, the trial court found such claims of potential improvement to be without merit. Terri's body continues to function without her cerebral cortex. She is sustained by a feeding tube surgically inserted into her stomach. She cannot eat through her mouth without a strong likelihood of choking to death." </p>
<p>I stayed up last night watching the House vote on Terri's Law and I was so happy that they passed it. Over 40 democrates supported it too.</p>
<p>Fate of Terri Schiavo?
(From the Detroit News Politics Blog)</p>
<p>I don't understand why all these religious fanatics find it so important to keep a brain dead living cadaver alive thru medical science. If they really believed in heaven and hell they would allow her to go on to the after-world. Our Muslim enemies certainly understand this, which is why the suicide bombers have no fear of death. They think heaven awaits them. The religious right apparently doesn't have the courage of their convictions.</p>
<p>I think that if the parents want to keep Terry on life support then let them pay the $800,000 a year it costs. Maybe President Bush can chip in some Halliburton money? Our science has brought us to the point where even dead people can be kept alive for years. Are we now going to pay for millions of people to be kept alive indefinitely? </p>
<hr>
<p>Just think people...it costs $800,000 a year to keep that woman alive. Who is footing the cost?????</p>
<p>"Michael Schiavo will not get any monetary reward"</p>
<p>It's called life insurance.</p>
<p>"I don't understand why all these religious fanatics find it so important to keep a brain dead living cadaver alive thru medical science."</p>
<p>Haven't you seen the videos of her? How can you call that brain-dead. Also, she doesn't necessarily need that feeding tube, as she can eat foods such as jell-o on her own. The only problem is that her family is no longer legally allowed to feed her, and that's is not fair to her, as she is obviously alive.</p>
<p>If she's brain dead then why are her eyes open? Also, if she is brain dead then why will it take her weeks to die after having the feeding tube removed? Is there a doctor on this board that can explain this stuff?</p>
<p>1) Her cerebral cortex is severly damage. This is the area of the brain the is responsible for higher function like sensation, voluntary muscle movement, thinking, reasoning, etc. While her instinctual funtions like swallowing are still intact & she makes involuntary movements, this does NOT imply consciousness in any true sense of the word.</p>
<p>2) It will take her about 2 weeks to die from lack of food and water. That's about how long a human can survive w/o nourishment.</p>
<p>She is in a persistent vegetative state, not brain dead.</p>
<p>"In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh."</p>
<p>There was a man on CNN who summed it up accurately for me. He said something along the lines of, "Our cerebral cortex makes us special, makes us who we are. The brainstem keeps us alive, but Terri has irreversibly lost who she is."</p>
<p>It's not about the money.</p>
<p>"Just one day after receiving the offer, an attorney for Terri Schiavo's estranged husband says he has turned down a gift of $1 million from a California businessman if he would transfer guardianship of her to her parents."</p>
<p>In reference to the assertion that removing the feeding tube is tantamount to murder, I reference the following quotation from Sir Theodore Fox: "I dissent utterly from the view that a negative decision not to prolong a life is the same as a positive decision to shorten it."</p>
<p>Another applicable excerpt from the same piece - "Purposes of Medicine" - reads as follows: "I cannot myself think that human societies should compel a dying citizen to suffer for the sake of others." And this is just what is happening. Terri's parents are forcing her to continue living in a state from which she unequivocally cannot recover, a state she told her husband she would not want to live in, for their own selfishness. It is unconscionable that they are forcing her to continue leading an existence of an essentially living dead person. </p>
<p>If you claim that the removal of a feeding tube is "cruel and unusual punshment" I advise that you read the above post concerning the issue. It is actually a relatively peaceful way to pass.</p>
<p>Washington, D.C. should have absolutely no involvement in this case. It has been transformed from a personal family struggle into a fulfillment of partisan and political agendas. As many have said, the bill that was so hastily passed ripped the door of every home in this nation off its hinges, only to open our homes to the prying fingers of remote legislators. For a person like DeLay to make claims about Terri's ability to recover is ludicrous and almost laughable if such arrogance and dogmatism did not have such serious consequences. Even for a person like Bill Frist, a doctor, to do the same without having examined Terri himself is horrendously disingenuous and disheartening. Independent, court-appointed doctors have said she will not recover. Who are our Congressmen to disagree? Also, am I the only one to find it interesting that Congress convenes for a special session to "save" a single woman yet did not do the same to act on the 9-11 Commission's recommendations? </p>
<p>I will close with a final quotation: "But if he goes on prolonging a life that can never again have purpose or meaning, his kindness becomes a cruelty."</p>
<p>Then she isn't brain dead? If you're brain dead, aren't you technically dead?</p>