One other thing. I used to do estate planning for a living. When discussing the living will form, every one of my former clients choose to withdraw the feeding tube. Not just most of them; every one of them. I found that interesting. I myself would rather have a bullet to the head than to “live” like this.
How many of you would want to be kept alive if you were in Ms. Schiavo’s condition?
What do Liberals have to do with this?
Actually, who are “The Liberals” sounds to me like one of those shadowy organsiations like the Illuminati or the Zionist Conspiracy…
Oh, that’s right, I forgot that in ZEB land ALL Liberals support abortion…and therefore want to kill this woman even though it isn’t a Liberal vs Conservative issue…
Better watch out ZEB, the Vatican’s coming to talke away your copy of The Da Vinci Code…
For God’s sake, the woman no longer has a cerebral cortex, without the cortex, she is not technically conscious.
A cerebral cortex does not regrow.
She is not a vegetable, but she is the waking dead. Forever. She is never, ever going to recover.
Once again some in here rainjack, zeb, and joe weider have been easily misled.
“she’s not though.
She’s got some awareness.
As much as a child.
She’ll feel it when she starves to death. She’ll feel her lips cracking from dehydration. She’ll feel the blood dripping from her nose as her mucus membranes dry out.”
Lord no! none of this is true, at all, she doesn’t feel anything.
Do you really think if this woman who got in this state from her bulimia would want to live if she could see herself?
And if this isn’t the perfect example of Bush talking out both sides of his mouth
A. Bush rush’s back to washington to save Terri.
B. Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 that created a legal mechanism to allow attending physicians and hospital ethics boards to pull the plug on patients – even if that specifically contradicts patient or family wishes.
As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week – with a baby’s death.
Leigh Hopper writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.
"Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children’s Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.
"Sun’s death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant’s life-sustaining care against a parent’s wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.
link to story in houston chronicle:
Section 166.046, Subsection (e):
If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient ?
Oh yeah culture of life…he doesn’t give a shit about the culture of life!
This is f’ing devisive politics as usual
witness the talking points shopped out by the republicans.
you are absolutely full of shit.
Why don’t you go do some research instead of blindly following those that would kill a defenseless person, while screaming about injustice when someone who would kill or has killed Americans is forced to wear panties on his head.
[quote]100meters wrote:
For God’s sake, the woman no longer has a cerebral cortex, without the cortex, she is not technically conscious.
A cerebral cortex does not regrow.
She is not a vegetable, but she is the waking dead. Forever. She is never, ever going to recover.
Once again some in here rainjack, zeb, and joe weider have been easily misled.
“she’s not though.
She’s got some awareness.
As much as a child.
She’ll feel it when she starves to death. She’ll feel her lips cracking from dehydration. She’ll feel the blood dripping from her nose as her mucus membranes dry out.”
Lord no! none of this is true, at all, she doesn’t feel anything.
Do you really think if this woman who got in this state from her bulimia would want to live if she could see herself?
And if this isn’t the perfect example of Bush talking out both sides of his mouth
A. Bush rush’s back to washington to save Terri.
B. Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 that created a legal mechanism to allow attending physicians and hospital ethics boards to pull the plug on patients – even if that specifically contradicts patient or family wishes.
As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week – with a baby’s death.
Leigh Hopper writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.
"Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children’s Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.
"Sun’s death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant’s life-sustaining care against a parent’s wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.
link to story in houston chronicle:
Section 166.046, Subsection (e):
If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient ?
Oh yeah culture of life…he doesn’t give a shit about the culture of life!
This is f’ing devisive politics as usual
witness the talking points shopped out by the republicans.[/quote]
Like I said before, I don’t know who would want to live their life in a vegatative state. I mean, you aren’t even living a life. You are basically waiting to die. Why delay the process? Its like cruel and unusual punishment. ALSO, while someone is in a vegatative state, you have all these people’s lives you are holding up. All these people tending to you. If I was in Terry’s shoes, I’d feel so guilty people tending to me.
If Terry’s family believed in God, they would let her go. I bet God is saying, “Let her come to me, dumbfvcks. Don’t let my child live like that. She’ll be better here with me” right about now.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
How many of you would want to be kept alive if you were in Ms. Schiavo’s condition?[/quote]
I don’t know how any sane person would want to live like that?
I just seen a t-shirt on a site that said:
To Hell with Teri Schiavo Stop Feeding Kirstie Alley.
I know it’s fucked up, but I damn near shit my britches when I saw it.
It amazes me how many people here, and in the country in general, miss basic logic.
Everyone wants to imply, if not out and out accuse, the husband of wanting to “kill” Terri. Unfortunately, the evidence we have does not support this. What would be his motive here? Many want to say money, or perhaps the opportunity to marry his new girlfriend. He has been offered 1 million dollars and turned it down, which, to my knowledge is equivalent to the money gained by the lawsuit. He meanwhile has been paying surely steep medical bills. I don’t see how he would be financially gaining from this even if he does net himself a little insurance money. As for his girlfriend, he could easily divource his wife, and marry his girlfriend, yet he hasn’t. We have to assume then that he is being honest about his wife’s wishes.
If Terri’s wish(and we have every reason to believe it is) is to not suffer through the rest of her life in a vegitative state, who are we to force this onto her?
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
It amazes me how many people here, and in the country in general, miss basic logic.
Everyone wants to imply, if not out and out accuse, the husband of wanting to “kill” Terri. Unfortunately, the evidence we have does not support this. What would be his motive here? Many want to say money, or perhaps the opportunity to marry his new girlfriend. He has been offered 1 million dollars and turned it down, which, to my knowledge is equivalent to the money gained by the lawsuit. He meanwhile has been paying surely steep medical bills. I don’t see how he would be financially gaining from this even if he does net himself a little insurance money. As for his girlfriend, he could easily divource his wife, and marry his girlfriend, yet he hasn’t. We have to assume then that he is being honest about his wife’s wishes.
If Terri’s wish(and we have every reason to believe it is) is to not suffer through the rest of her life in a vegitative state, who are we to force this onto her?[/quote]
We have every reason to believe it’s her wish? How do you figure? Because 6 years after her “attack” her husband remembered she didn’t want to live this way?
Why do we have to assume he’s being honest about his wife’s wishes, just because he hasn’t divorced her?
Who are we to force starvation onto her?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Moon Knight wrote:
It amazes me how many people here, and in the country in general, miss basic logic.
Everyone wants to imply, if not out and out accuse, the husband of wanting to “kill” Terri. Unfortunately, the evidence we have does not support this. What would be his motive here? Many want to say money, or perhaps the opportunity to marry his new girlfriend. He has been offered 1 million dollars and turned it down, which, to my knowledge is equivalent to the money gained by the lawsuit. He meanwhile has been paying surely steep medical bills. I don’t see how he would be financially gaining from this even if he does net himself a little insurance money. As for his girlfriend, he could easily divource his wife, and marry his girlfriend, yet he hasn’t. We have to assume then that he is being honest about his wife’s wishes.
If Terri’s wish(and we have every reason to believe it is) is to not suffer through the rest of her life in a vegitative state, who are we to force this onto her?
We have every reason to believe it’s her wish? How do you figure? Because 6 years after her “attack” her husband remembered she didn’t want to live this way?
Why do we have to assume he’s being honest about his wife’s wishes, just because he hasn’t divorced her?
Who are we to force starvation onto her?
[/quote]
Because all of the court rulings to this point have agreed that it is her wish to end her life. That is why it has been appealed so many times by the parents. Why do you believe he wants her dead for some nefarious reason? As stated here before, he has turned down large sums of money to just walk away from the case. Let her go! There is no more she can do here, let her take her rightful seat next to the Lord…
From a strictly legal perspective, how many people would want a rule on the books that said something to the effect that someone else could decide to cut off your food and water if you were not in a position to communicate your own preference, and you had never put your own preference in writing nor effected a Power of Attorney appointing someone to make that decision? That would be the legal rule one would draw from this situation.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
From a strictly legal perspective, how many people would want a rule on the books that said something to the effect that someone else could decide to cut off your food and water if you were not in a position to communicate your own preference, and you had never put your own preference in writing nor effected a Power of Attorney appointing someone to make that decision? That would be the legal rule one would draw from this situation.[/quote]
BB you’re being needlessly extreme in your theorizing, for the sake of shock, seemingly.
There never will be a law that general and vague, leaving such open space for abuse. Now, I could see a law that says, “If a person is in a persistant vegitative state, and has no chance of regaining cognitive function(the doctors seem to agree on this fact), and the person is being kept alive by artificial means, then those artificial means may be removed at the decision of the guardian(s)”. Even that is a rough outline for a law.
BB’s article has a good explanation of PVS - there is no consciousness whatsoever. The facts in this case differ depending on where you read them. I’ve read reports that her brain was deprived of oxygen anywhere from 5 up to 14 minutes. If it really were 14 minutes, that would be very significant. A short period of oxygen deprivation, I think less than 3 minutes, would result in retardation. In that case, of course the person should live and may even have some meaningful interactions. But this is not a case of a poor woman who is severely retarded - we’re talking no higher brain function whatsoever. Sure, she might make faces, noises, appear to smile, and possibly could even be trained to swallow. These are all very low level neurological functions, some of which are controlled simply by the spinal cord. The “person” that was Terri Schiavo is no longer there.
I suppose if I were the husband, I would step away and allow the parents to care for her, I don’t know. I actually feel sorry for the parents; they are severely deluding themselves into believing that their daughter is still “alive.”
One last comment about activist judges and how the legal system, in theory, was supposed to have worked in this case. Contrary to what some may believe, this is not a case where a judge was asked “should she live or die,” and the judge based his or her decision on their own sense of ethics or what they would want if they were in that situation. The court’s job was to determine what Terri would have wanted in this situation. Now, obviously the system is not perfect, and a judge can’t help but inject his or her views when making a decision. But presumably, several judges listened to what both the parents and the husband had to say, and determined that the husband was more credible when he stated that Terri would not have wanted to be maintained in her current condition. This is not activism; it’s the court’s job. Had the judge said, “I don’t care what her wishes were, I’ll just do what I think is right,” that’s a problem.
Get your living wills done AND get a power of attorney. Appoint someone who you know will carry out your wishes. If you think your parents or anyone else might interfere, talk to them. It might be hard for them to accept, but you need to do it.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
From a strictly legal perspective, how many people would want a rule on the books that said something to the effect that someone else could decide to cut off your food and water if you were not in a position to communicate your own preference, and you had never put your own preference in writing nor effected a Power of Attorney appointing someone to make that decision? That would be the legal rule one would draw from this situation.[/quote]
What was the rule before? This is a very special case that has somehow found its way to congress. I don’t want or need the federal courts or congress using their time to decide the fates of all these type cases. We went a long time without some case precedent why now? The rulings ahve all come down a particular way, you don’t agree you just keep appealing. It will be the same way if they put this law on the books. The other side will appeal its constitutionality, and their right to die a merciful death. If we could ask Terri how much she has enjoyed the last 15 years–I wonder her response?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
From a strictly legal perspective, how many people would want a rule on the books that said something to the effect that someone else could decide to cut off your food and water if you were not in a position to communicate your own preference, and you had never put your own preference in writing nor effected a Power of Attorney appointing someone to make that decision? That would be the legal rule one would draw from this situation.[/quote]
We essentially do have such a rule on the books - it’s called a guardianship. Presumably, the person chosen would be a family member who would look out for your best interests. But I’ve had cases where a person either had no family or the only family member was a distant cousin who did not want to do it. In those cases, we appointed a professional guardian, usually someone with training in either social work or former nurses who wanted to switch careers and took on the role of third-party guardian. The Schiavo case says that Congress can disrupt the guardianship process, which process is purely a question of state law, simply because certain members of Congress disagree with a guardian’s decision. That’s troubling.
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
From a strictly legal perspective, how many people would want a rule on the books that said something to the effect that someone else could decide to cut off your food and water if you were not in a position to communicate your own preference, and you had never put your own preference in writing nor effected a Power of Attorney appointing someone to make that decision? That would be the legal rule one would draw from this situation.
BB you’re being needlessly extreme in your theorizing, for the sake of shock, seemingly.
There never will be a law that general and vague, leaving such open space for abuse. Now, I could see a law that says, “If a person is in a persistant vegitative state, and has no chance of regaining cognitive function(the doctors seem to agree on this fact), and the person is being kept alive by artificial means, then those artificial means may be removed at the decision of the guardian(s)”. Even that is a rough outline for a law.[/quote]
No, I’m really not. That’s the case at bar. In fact, I understated some of the facts, because I didn’t emphasize she could survive on her own as long as someone fed her and gave her water. She can breathe on her own, and a nurse gave testimony she could be fed w/out tubes, but the husband insisted they use tubes.
I also didn’t emphasize that her family wants to keep her alive and take full responsibility for her.
I’m just emphasizing this isn’t a cut-and-dried situation. This isn’t a brain-dead person, and it isn’t someone who made her own intentions on the subject clear.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Get your living wills done AND get a power of attorney. Appoint someone who you know will carry out your wishes. If you think your parents or anyone else might interfere, talk to them. It might be hard for them to accept, but you need to do it.[/quote]
This is definitely the take-home lesson: make your preference well known, and take care of the documentation and the legal authority. I actually need to do this with my parents…
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
you are absolutely full of shit.
Why don’t you go do some research instead of blindly following those that would kill a defenseless person, while screaming about injustice when someone who would kill or has killed Americans is forced to wear panties on his head.
[/quote]
Research yourself, do you see the black hole in her head, That’s fluid, you nut!
or go here for some real kookiness:
http://www.terrisfight.org/press/030405medaff.html
notice how none of these kooks deal with the real issue of the missing cerebral cortex. Not to mention, did they see Terri? Hell no! Just a heavily edited video of Terri, or they saw her on TV!
In general a diagnosis without even an examination is considered kind of unethical!
My God Joe Weider! please educate yourself on SOMETHING factual before posting this idiocy.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
From a strictly legal perspective, how many people would want a rule on the books that said something to the effect that someone else could decide to cut off your food and water if you were not in a position to communicate your own preference, and you had never put your own preference in writing nor effected a Power of Attorney appointing someone to make that decision? That would be the legal rule one would draw from this situation.
We essentially do have such a rule on the books - it’s called a guardianship. Presumably, the person chosen would be a family member who would look out for your best interests. But I’ve had cases where a person either had no family or the only family member was a distant cousin who did not want to do it. In those cases, we appointed a professional guardian, usually someone with training in either social work or former nurses who wanted to switch careers and took on the role of third-party guardian. The Schiavo case says that Congress can disrupt the guardianship process, which process is purely a question of state law, simply because certain members of Congress disagree with a guardian’s decision. That’s troubling.
[/quote]
Yeah, I agree with you here. I think the Constitutional argument is extremely weak.
As I said in my first post, the mere existence of a problem does not imply that the federal government has the power to solve it.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
From a strictly legal perspective, how many people would want a rule on the books that said something to the effect that someone else could decide to cut off your food and water if you were not in a position to communicate your own preference, and you had never put your own preference in writing nor effected a Power of Attorney appointing someone to make that decision? That would be the legal rule one would draw from this situation.
What was the rule before? This is a very special case that has somehow found its way to congress. I don’t want or need the federal courts or congress using their time to decide the fates of all these type cases. We went a long time without some case precedent why now? The rulings ahve all come down a particular way, you don’t agree you just keep appealing. It will be the same way if they put this law on the books. The other side will appeal its constitutionality, and their right to die a merciful death. If we could ask Terri how much she has enjoyed the last 15 years–I wonder her response?
[/quote]
That’s because this really isn’t a federal law issue, and Congress didn’t have any (legally) good reason to get involved here.
As to asking her, unfortunately, at this point I don’t know if she’d have much of an opinion.
However, the underlying state-law legal issue is this: Should doctors be allowed to supervise the starvation/dehydration of someone who can otherwise survive?