<p>NOBODY I know wants to live like that. Not one.</p>
<p>Why would ANYBODY think Terri would want to?</p>
<p>The parents should step aside and stop their ghoulish demand to keep the body alive. </p>
<p>In my opinion, the parents need psychiatric counselling.</p>
<p>the governor of florida, jeb bush just held a press conference where he says he found a doctor who would submit an affidavit that terri is not in a persistent vegetative state. The only problem is, he didnt examine her!</p>
<p>The 11th circuit court of appeals has denied the appeal from the family. it looks like its headed towards the supreme court or jeb bush is going to order state marshals to take custody</p>
<p>33+ doctors say she is not in a persistent vegatative state. 1 doctor with a political agenda says she is. The husband refuses to let her have an MRI that would clear it up in an instant.</p>
<p>I say, until she has an MRI, keep her alive.</p>
<p>I say, it isn' up to you. </p>
<p>It was up to the family, who couldn't decide, so now its up to the courts.</p>
<p>The courts have decided time and time and time and time again...this woman would not have wanted to continue living in this state. The judges that have ruled on this case has spanned the political spectrum, from Wittenmore in Florida, who is a registered Republican, to the Federal Appeals Court people, most of whom were Clinton Appointees.</p>
<p>The sad fact is that this woman had a heart attack, and in a few days she will join God in heaven. Why won't the press and the far right (I won't use the term religious) leave her and her family alone. And why won't her parents drop this quixotic legal adventure and spend their time at their daughter's bedside.</p>
<p>The answer is easy, the allure of political gain.</p>
<p>You keep saying that. Stop saying it. Yes, Congress is a political body. Alert the media. It's not news. It does things for political gain. That's what it does and always has done. Move on.</p>
<p>The issue is not Congress, but a life. Always err on the side of life, right? And barring knowledge that would come from an MRI, we don't know if she's still functioning or not. Jeb Bush may take her as a ward of the state and put her feeding tube back in soon, and if he does, that'll be enough to launch his Presidential run soon enough.</p>
<p>the issue is congress exploiting a life to appease its reactionary base</p>
<p>is exploiting a life worse than taking it?</p>
<p>I agree that Congress is a political body, that is obvious. What is unbelievable about the whole thing is that Congress would bring the stink of politics to a gut-wrenching family matter. </p>
<p>Certainly, as a proponent of the "culture of life" you would rather have families deciding these things than Congress.</p>
<p>The problem is that now nothing revolves around TERRI'S best interests. Had the situation never made it public, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. But now, since 25,000 adults and 10,000 children (to correct my previous statistic) are surviving by means of a feeding tube, MURDERING (yes, I know) Terri would mean the official start of euthanasia in America.<br>
I refuse to become as apathetic toward life as Saudi Arabia. If they let her die and people become euthanized, I'm moving to New Zealand (after college, of course!).</p>
<p>What I meant when I said she needs a lawyer is that a practiced attorney could bring up the issue that her husband's a piece of .... and he is only out for his pocketbook, which has diminished since his lawsuit from 1992. She deserves council to combat the conflict of interests which her husband refers to as "a simple family matter." I think not.</p>
<p>Finally, (to get off my high horse) I am so depressed by the entire situation. Now that PJII and Dr. Dobson have appealed to the morals and ethics of the FL Senate (that is, providing they actually have the aforesaid characteristics), maybe something will get done.</p>
<p>Like Governor Bush said, err on the side of life, not the side of death.</p>
<p>I'm drafting my living will tonight.</p>
<p>-H2O-</p>
<p>in case anyone hasnt noticed bush is being hypocritical because as governor in 1999 he signed a law allowing euthanasia when 2 of the following 3 parties could agree to terminate life. the guardian, the doctor and the administrator. a few weeks ago this was used to kill a 6 month old baby because the mother could not afford care</p>
<p>in reality this is not about schiavo, it is just about throwing a bone to the religious right so that they will support business-friendly legislation which eventually hurts themselves</p>
<p>You said to "err on the side of life," but in Terri's case, what life is there? That's not a life. She died in 1990 when she collapsed, and only her body is being kept alive by artificial means. She is not living a life, she is simply subsisting. I can't imagine anyone would actually want to remain like that.</p>
<p>I don't know about congress, republicans-democrats, they do what they do for reasons that often seem, at best, mysterious to me; but as to the people arguing this local issue at a national level--that is to say, people on cc (unless you happen to be from FL)--my humble reading is that it breaks down in two ways.</p>
<p>1) People who see this in a greater cultural war for civil change (democrats-liberals).</p>
<p>2) people who argue from an emotional reaction they have to what they have know about people dying (conservative, perhaps and likely republican).</p>
<p>1) argues from what they perceive to be an intellectual-progressive position--it often sounds condescending and know-it-all to those who disagree.
2) Argues from what they believe to be a "higher-law" or "natural-law"--it often seems to lack a legal basis and is often over-reaching and hyperbolic.</p>
<p>These two will never become one. To the degree that it is a legal issue, it is a political issue. In the end, the judges will rule. They do not have to be right (they have often been on the wrong side of right)--but they do have to interpret the law. It seems they have.</p>
<p>Quote from the WAshington Times</p>
<p>"The cost of care in cases such as Schiavo's has vexed governments for years. In 1999, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed a law establishing procedures for hospitals and physicians to withhold life-sustaining care from patients with conditions deemed hopeless, even over relatives' protests. The legislation affords a family 10 days' notice to find another facility. Last week, Texas Children's Hospital in Houston invoked the law to remove a 6-month-old boy from his breathing tube against his mother's wishes. </p>
<p>IvyH20, i'm offended that you're calling those who decided to remove the feeding tubes of loved ones murderers. the mother of a very good friend of mine had to do this very thing only several months ago. you're entitled to your own opinion, but please think of others who actually had to go through this. it's not like they were jumping to remove the tube. for most people, it's a very hard decision. i believe for them it comes down to this--they love their loved, dying ones SO MUCH they are willing to let them go (NOT implying that those who decide to do the contrary love their dying ones less). </p>
<p>i know that i personally wouldn't want to "live" like terri. her cerebral cortex has pretty much turned into liquid (the cerebral cortex itself had deteriorated so much it was replaced by spinal fluid), for goodness sake. that has basically obliterated her ability to be aware, to be human. all that's left of her brain is the brainstem, which controls automatic and involuntary responses (stomach contraction, blinking, etc.). a lot of people in terri's parents' position (including me) would want her to stop living like the planaria in my 9th grade critter project (this is NOT to degrade terri the person, but the hard reality is that's pretty much what's left of her) and for her to instead move on and reside in heaven where she belongs. </p>
<p>also IvyH20, you're making an unfair comparison to euthanasia. there's no suffering involved (believe what you want; i look at the overwhelmingly uniform medical facts and expert opinions). it won't be the "official start" of euthanasia. people HAVE been making decisions like this (very hard ones) when they're left with people in a vegetative state. please don't go around calling these people murderers. that's a very ignorant and callous stance to take. it's worse than calling mothers who give up their kids for adoption cruel. i mean, there are times when that's definitely justifiable, right? the schiavo case is also a (if not more) complex issue, and there's no right and wrong answer.</p>
<p>which is why the matter should have been left to the family. and legally, the husband has the final say. let's not go around assuming the husband's ulterior motives. i mean, what can you REALLY infer from the fact that he's in a relationship while still married to terri? he tried, for years, to help terri. in his mind (and in many doctors, and judges, oh i can go on...), terri's condition is irreversible. the real terri is no longer there. i'm about to make a gross comparison: can't widows re-marry, or have new relationships? you might ask, "then why the hell is he still married to terri if he wants to move on?" well, here's one theory--he really did love terri, and since her (alleged) wish was to move on, he's keeping his legal tie to her so that he can carry out her wish. i'm not saying this is right (i don't personally believe it), but what i'm saying is, we can believe what we want, that doesn't mean it's the truth.</p>
<p>err on the side of life? its not as simple as that. if thats what you believe you would do if you were in terris husbands shoe, more power to you. i personally feel terris parents need to learn to let go. i think theyve been so grief-stricken by what happened to their child that the idea or a mere shadow of terri (her current state, the state shes been in for the past 15 years) is the only thing that consoles them. they need to get to that state where they can try to put themselves in terris shoes. if they were in terris position, would they want to go on living like that? it needs to stop being about the parents having their baby by their side and more about terri passing away in dignity (something i don't think she'll ever get at this point, unfortunately).</p>
<p>also, someone wanna show me where the number $20 million came from? all i've found is that terri's husband got $1 million for a malpractice settlement (he claimed that terri's doctor should've detected her problem of bulimia so the heart attack could have been prevented). and even that money is virtually gone for terri's medical care (after 15 yrs, that fact is not ridiculous).</p>
<p>taurustorus:</p>
<p>I agree with you that Terri NEEDS to go...if I were in her position, I would most definitely want to go. The problem is the media, politicians, etc. have blown the issue up to a do-or-die (almost in the literal sense) mess.</p>
<p>Her parents need to come to the realization that, even if she can sense them subliminally, she would not want to be in such a position. </p>
<p>The most troubling thing to me, however, is that around 35 neurosurgeons advocate the replacement of the tube because they feel that she is not in a persistent vegetative state. Few surgeons deem her as such, although her initial medical diagnosis confirmed this. </p>
<p>Senator Frist declared that, as a surgeon himself, his perception of Terri is one of semi-consciousness, certainly not one of persistent vegetation. With so many doctors questioning the removal of the tube, how can we do it?</p>
<p>As for my thoughts on euthanasia, I still stand by my claim that allowing Terri to die, because she is not on life support any more than the 35,000 other people in America, will facilitate and set a precedent for euthanasia. As for suffering, the woman has had neither food nor drink in several days. They won't even wet her lips/mouth with a sponge!</p>
<p>If they are dead set on letting her die, they should at least let her go in a humane way. Suppose she IS aware that she is being starved to death (for the second time!); that is torture. They should at least give her an IV of morphine/thorsine or give her a lethal chemical.</p>
<p>I am not trying to offend those who have loved ones in similar situations. Though I neither trust nor like Michael Schiavo, I have little basis for my judgement. I still feel very sorry for both him and her family.</p>
<p>Most of all, I would be one furious person if I found out from heaven that MY picture had been on every major television station nonstop for an entire week before I died, especially if I were in such a pitiful condition.</p>
<p>I am not hard-hearted, I just don't trust Michael Schiavo. Also, because of the media attention, it could very easily set a precedent for euthanasia. It's just a depressing situation for everyone.</p>
<p>So...
taurustrorus,
My intentions are not to hurt your feelings but instead to appeal to your intellect to search for a MINUTE sense that Terri might still have awareness. I just can't come to the conclusion that she should be brutally starved to death.</p>
<p>One more thing:
They are having to make an expedited decision because she is dying. If they would at least replace the tube until a well-thought out plan can be devised rather than an irrational, impulsive decision.</p>
<p>Whew...There's my take.</p>
<p>-H2O-</p>
<p>Taxidermy and Animatronics.</p>
<p>That way Terri can go home to God. But the parents can keep the bedside vigil and routine they are loathe to give up.</p>
<p>I hope you're joking, and I would have to be in an odd mood to laugh.</p>
<p>That's terrible.</p>
<p>"You said to "err on the side of life," but in Terri's case, what life is there? That's not a life. She died in 1990 when she collapsed, and only her body is being kept alive by artificial means. "</p>
<p>calidan-- You can call it whatever you want, but Terri Schiavo is currently alive. Taking out the feeding tube kills her. You may not consider it murder, but however you want to put it, it will kill her and take her life. </p>
<p>And as Ivy H2O said, 35 doctors have said she is not in a persistent vegatative state. And it would be easy to find out with an MRI. Why has her husband so adamantly refused a damn MRI?</p>
<p>I'll tell you why:</p>
<p>$20 Million between Terri's life insurance policy (doubled for accident) & her private possessions (evidently she was loaded & he wasn't).</p>
<p>For that matter, as soon as the poor woman began to show the smallest signs of improvement (although in this situation they are somewhat trivial), he pulled the plug on ALL rehabilitative therapy--including speech therapy, physical therapy, etc.
Now he wants to pull the plug on her.</p>
<p>I hate it for both him and her, but she didn't have it in writing. This just goes to show how letigious our society has become.</p>