It Has Begun

[sweetnpetite]

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley
Atty Deborah Bushnell
Atty Steve Nilson
Atty Pacarek
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL)
Atty George Felos
$10,668.05
$65,607.00
$7,404.95
$1,500.00
$4,511.95
$397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank
$55,459.85

Michael Schiavo
$10,929.95

Total $545,852.34



Myths versus Facts
http://www.terrisfight.org/

 

[sweetnpetite]

check out court papers here:

http://www.terrisfight.org/

According to this one:




Schiavo was appointed plenary guardian of his wife on June 18, 1990.
In 1992, Michael Schiavo filed a malpractice action against two physicians who
had been treating Mrs. Schiavo before her collapse. The case was resolved in 1993 by a
settlement and a jury verdict, with Michael Schiavo receiving $300,000 and Terri
Schiavo receiving a net award of $700,000. Until the malpractice award was issued,
Michael Schiavo was providing his wife with appropriate medical treatment,
rehabilitation, and therapy. In late 1993, however, after receiving the money, all
treatment, rehabilitation, and therapy stopped. Since 1993, Terri’s rehabilitation, therapy,
education, socialization, and medical treatment have been virtually non-existent.[
On May 11, 1998, Michael Schiavo, as guardian of his wife, and represented by
Attorney George Felos, petitioned the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Florida, Sixth
Judicial Circuit, Probate Division, for authority to discontinue Terri’s “artificial life
support,” which consisted only of assisted feeding through a PEG (percutaneous
endoscopic gastrostomy) tube. The petition was filed as an adversary action, with
Petitioners herein, Terri’s parents having been served with notice of the proceeding.
It is the opinion of one doctor who examined Terri and of many others who have
seen videos of her responses that feeding Terri through a tube is merely a convenience for
her health-care providers and that Terri, who regularly swallows her own saliva, could
also swallow food if she were provided with appropriate rehabilitation and swallowing
therapy. Instead, Mrs. Schiavo has not even been permitted by Michael Schiavo and
Judge Greer to have a swallowing test administered since 1992.


http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/031805habcorp.pdf

 

[Huckleman2000]

Also- he didn't even *say* that she didn't want to be kept alive like this for 7 or 8 years after the brain damage occured.

"On the morning of February 25, 1990, at approximately 5:30 AM, Terri Schiavo collapsed in her home, resulting in irreversible brain damage from a lack of oxygen."

Michael Schiavo first sought permission to remove Terri's feeding tube in November 1998."

A brother and coworker also testified that she told them she was considering a divorce. If this is the case, he is probably not the person that she wants making her medical descisions. There are enough questions to his motivation that they should be addressed before an irriversible decision is made. Including a large settlement that he stands to inherit.

Do I think 5 years is long enough, because she was 'dead to him.' No. Because she's not brain dead, she's brain damaged. And she's still his wife. IF he loved her, he would be there for her, even if he thought she wouldn't want to live like this, he would realize that she is still alive. He would come and hold her and tell her he loves her and he's doing everything he can to give her peace. Even if she couldn't understand him, he would want to tell her. I don't know if my grandmother could understand the things i said to her while she was dying, but I said them anyway. And I had an urge to be with her in the time that I could and to try to comfort her.

IF she is 'dead to him' then he should relinquish his rights as her husband. If he can move on while his wife lies helpless but still alive, he can't love her with any kind of true love worthy of a spouse. Not as far as I'm concerned.

I respect your views, but the point is, no one contested his legal guardianship until he chose to cut off the feeding tube. Which he is fully empowered to do. No one *said* that she wanted a divorce until he chose a course of action contrary to her parents desires.

You can impugn his motives all you like - the courts haven't found those arguments substantive enough to take away his legal guardianship.

If you were a vegetable, would you want your loved ones to cling to false hopes for decades, making you an unknowing symbol for causes you never expressed support for?

The woman was bulimic, so it's not as if she didn't already have self-destructive tendencies. I'm a chronic depressive - if I don't get (and continue) treatment and then botch my suicide, are my loved ones bound to keep my body around on the nothing chance that I'll somehow make a miraculous recovery? So she may have been thinking about a divorce - he might have been thinking the same thing! Have you ever lived with someone with a mental illness? True, my ex-wife was probably emotionally abusive, but I was a crummy husband with my depression, and it's awfully difficult to assign blame, even as a part of the union.

Would you feel the same if the person was a diabetic who refused to take insulin, and achieved her vegetative state as a result?

I don't know what the couple's relationship was like before the tragedy. I don't know what her relationship was like with her parents. I don't think anyone will ever know, at this point. This is a case with no obvious answer.

Terri's husband has legal guardianship, and that has withstood every conceivable attack. In building a life with a new woman and children, it seems to me that he has chosen "life". He has accepted the death of a loved one, and chosen to let nature take its course, and that is his decision to make under the law.

This isn't an easy decision, but someone must make it. The law says it's Terri's husband, and a decade of legal wrangling and character asassination hasn't changed that.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I respect your views, but the point is, no one contested his legal guardianship until he chose to cut off the feeding tube. Which he is fully empowered to do. No one *said* that she wanted a divorce until he chose a course of action contrary to her parents desires.

You can impugn his motives all you like - the courts haven't found those arguments substantive enough to take away his legal guardianship.

If you were a vegetable, would you want your loved ones to cling to false hopes for decades, making you an unknowing symbol for causes you never expressed support for?

The woman was bulimic, so it's not as if she didn't already have self-destructive tendencies. I'm a chronic depressive - if I don't get (and continue) treatment and then botch my suicide, are my loved ones bound to keep my body around on the nothing chance that I'll somehow make a miraculous recovery? So she may have been thinking about a divorce - he might have been thinking the same thing! Have you ever lived with someone with a mental illness? True, my ex-wife was probably emotionally abusive, but I was a crummy husband with my depression, and it's awfully difficult to assign blame, even as a part of the union.

Would you feel the same if the person was a diabetic who refused to take insulin, and achieved her vegetative state as a result?

I don't know what the couple's relationship was like before the tragedy. I don't know what her relationship was like with her parents. I don't think anyone will ever know, at this point. This is a case with no obvious answer.

Terri's husband has legal guardianship, and that has withstood every conceivable attack. In building a life with a new woman and children, it seems to me that he has chosen "life". He has accepted the death of a loved one, and chosen to let nature take its course, and that is his decision to make under the law.

This isn't an easy decision, but someone must make it. The law says it's Terri's husband, and a decade of legal wrangling and character asassination hasn't changed that.

She was awarded money *for her treatment* and then treatment stopped!!!

She was in treatemnent and responding to it. She was not vegetative at the time. she is vegetative now because she is refuesed treatment. Even treatment to help her try to eat on her own.

She's even refused water or ice in her dying days!!!!!!!!

They are not letting her die, they are starving her to death. Her body isn't failing and dying naturally without mechanical aid. She's being denied access to any nutrition or hydration. Since when does a husband have the right to starve his wife to death- to refuse to feed her because she is disabled? This is not Euthanasia. It's starvation. Big Difference.

And if it's legal- it's a *wrong* law. We've had many of those before. And we've had wrong court desisions before too. Sako and Vanzetti for one. (sp?) Dredd Scott for another. And plenty more. Just because 'the law' says so doesn't make it right. (and many believe that the law was not followed.)

 

[Huckleman2000]

How about her parents.

there seems to be little doubt on their part either.

Her parents aren't the legal decision-makers.

And all their attempts to become the legal decision-makers have failed.

It's an emotional case, obviously. But the legal arguments, including some rather outrageous attempts to change the law, have all come down saying that her husband is the legal guardian, and must make the decisions, and those decisions are binding.

I don't know everything about this case, or the law, but I know enough about it to respect the court's decisions, and respect that the courts have tried to be fair in the midst of chaos.

 

[Huckleman2000]

She was awarded money *for her treatment* and then treatment stopped!!!

She was in treatemnent and responding to it. She was not vegetative at the time. she is vegetative now because she is refuesed treatment. Even treatment to help her try to eat on her own.

She's even refused water or ice in her dying days!!!!!!!!

They are not letting her die, they are starving her to death. Her body isn't failing and dying naturally without mechanical aid. She's being denied access to any nutrition or hydration. Since when does a husband have the right to starve his wife to death- to refuse to feed her because she is disabled? This is not Euthanasia.

I'm not arguing any of those points.

They've all been argued in court, and they've lost. And lost on appeal.

Don't go arguing disability, since it's obviously not a legally valid argument. We're not talking about Stephan Hawking, here.

My point is just that there is an established legal recourse for cases like this. I don't know if it's perfect, but there are (and have been) lots of very smart people arguing on all sides of this, and none of that argument has changed the fundamental right of next-of-kin, in this case the husband, to make these agonizing decisions. Someone has to, and I imagine many do, in cases that haven't got a whole political/religious machine in motion to second-guess them.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't know everything about this case, or the law, but I know enough about it to respect the court's decisions, and respect that the courts have tried to be fair in the midst of chaos.

Oh yes, courts are always fair and just.

That's why we have so many men on death row being exhonerated by DNA evidence.

that's why OJ was found innocent.


that's why:

On April 15, 1920, two men robbed and murdered a paymaster and his guard as they transferred $15,776 from the Slater and Morrill Shoe factory. Three weeks later, Italian immigrants and known anarchists, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, were accused and arrested for the crime, despite the little evidence against them. Following, a seven-week trial, Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted, on circumstancial evidence, of murder and sentenced to death. Seven years later, after numerous appeals, and immense public outcry, both men were executed for their "crimes."

http://www.msu.edu/course/mc/112/1920s/Sacco-Vanzetti/sacvan.htm

that's why:

On June 7, 1892, a 30-year-old colored shoemaker named Homer Plessy was jailed for sitting in the "White" car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Plessy was only one-eighths black and seven-eighths white, but under Louisiana law, he was considered black and therefore required to sit in the "Colored" car. Plessy went to court and argued, in Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana, that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The judge at the trial was John Howard Ferguson, a lawyer from Massachusetts who had previously declared the Separate Car Act "unconstitutional on trains that traveled through several states" [3] . In Plessy's case, however, he decided that the state could choose to regulate railroad companies that operated only within Louisiana. He found Plessy guilty of refusing to leave the white car [4] . Plessy appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which upheld Ferguson's decision. In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States heard Plessy's case and found him guilty once again. Speaking for a seven-person majority, Justice Henry Brown wrote:

"That [the Separate Car Act] does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery...is too clear for argument...A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races -- a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color -- has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races...The object of the [Fourteenth A]mendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either."

http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/post-civilwar/plessy.html

That's why:

In 1846, Dred Scott and his wife Harriet filed suit for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court. This suit began an eleven-year legal fight that ended in the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a landmark decision declaring that Scott remain a slave. This decision contributed to rising tensions between the free and slave states just before the American Civil War.

The records displayed in this exhibit document the Scotts' early struggle to gain their freedom through litigation and are the only extant records of this significant case as it was heard in the St. Louis Circuit Court.

Court states that Scott should remain a slave, that as a slave he is not a citizen of the U.S. and thus not eligible to bring suit in a federal court, and that as a slave he is personal property and thus has never been free.

http://library.wustl.edu/vlib/dredscott/

 

[shereads]

SnP, I can google up just as many factoids from the other side of this issue. Choose your think tank.

But having already exhausted the "You don't know what it's like" argument, let me ask you this:

If the Save Terry from Her Husband coalition has its way, and a precedent is set that from now on, people with her degree of brain damage must be kept alive indefinitely via artificial feedings, unless they happen to have made wills (not likely at her age), then what will be the consequences?

The person who has your power of attorney (your husband or nearest relative) will have no legal rights where you are concerned, no matter if he is the most devoted man on earth and has heard you swear on a stack of Bibles that your biggest nightmare is being severely brain damaged and kept alive on a feeding tube. It won't matter. It will be out of his hands. That's the goal here.

Cases like Terry's occur quietly and privately every day in this country, as they did with my father. The reason this case is the exception is that it has such a great cast of characters that it makes a marvelous political drama, a fact that did not escape the notice of our state governor, Bush 3. Terry's husband is past imperfect and makes an excellent villain, if you choose to ignore the courage it's taken for him to endure years as Florida's version of the Antichrist. (He's been offered millions by political/relgioius organizations to "sell" Terry's custody to her parents.) The parents are heartbroken, naturally. The sister's husband has publicly contradicted the sister's version of what Terry said she wanted. It would be a perfect TV movie if only Terry would give birth.

In other words, it's the perfect opportunity for the right-to-life movement to earn a few more inches of territory. Terry's Law. Sound familiar? How about Laci's Law? The one passed by Congress in response to the murder of Laci Petersen. With hardly a murmer of opposition - because who could disagree with doing something nice for poor Laci Petersen - they wrote into law that a pregnant woman is TWO murder victims, not one. She's not less dead thanks to this law, so what exactly was accomplished? Well, duh. We can't just declare abortion illegal, because a majority of Americans won't go for it. But if we're shrewd, we can chip away bit by bit the accepted definition of a person with legal rights, until eventually even someone in worse shape than Terry will be "entitled" to live indefinitely. When Trent Lott referred to her as a "healthy younhg woman," didn't you wonder what kind of health he would wish for a wife or daughter of his own? A functioning body with a liquified cerebellum? Who the hell thinks that's a life?

Terry doesn't want to die. Terry doesn't want to live. The part of Terry that wanted things is, mercifully, not trapped in that body. No matter how many "scientists" say otherwise, they can't change the fact that a functioning cerebellum is a prerequisite of experiencing the desire to live or die. The body can function without that part of the brain, provided you push nutrients into it. Until the muscles atrophy, it can even respond to stimuli. But it can't want anything or love anyone or enjoy being loved. That's over.

Whether Terry would have wanted to live or die is about to be made irrelevent, thanks to the publicity generated by "Terry's Law" and today's bizarre move to issue a subpeona for her to testify before Congress. That would have been lovely, wouldn't it? Still might be, if they can move up the hearing before she dies. Dress Terry up in something pretty, style her hair, bundle her up in something warm for the flight, prop her up in front of Congress and see if we can get her to smile. That will prove that she wants to live. Then we can pass a law...Hmm. What kind of law, exactly?

Let's not forget that these are the same forces who at work in Oregon, seeking to overturn the first state law that allows fully cognizant people who are terminally ill and in pain, to end their own suffering through assisted suicide. Their rights be damned; we want them alive!

This isn't about Terry's rights, because there's no way to determine what choice she would have demanded the right to make. There are as many witnesses williing to say she didn't want to be kept alive this way as there are witnesses who swear she would never said such a thing. The one thing the courts know for sure is that her nearest legal relative, in this case Terry's husband, has the right to withdraw artificial feeding if predominant medical opinion says she is too brain-damaged to have any quality of life, and that she is unlikely to recover.

Consider the practical implications of "winning" the right to negate a person's custody of an incapacitated relative because of a right-to-life issue. Who pays for the lifetime care of every individual in Amerca who has a partially functioning brain and must be fed by a surgically implanted tube and kept moving to prevent muscle atrophy.

There will be no shortage of individuals and groups willing to foot the bill for Terry's care, no matter how long it takes for her body to give up.

But what about all the other Terry's? Every day, life-sustaining artificual feeding is withdrawn from people in this condition, on the recommendation of doctors. Some families choose not to let go. When their insurance coverage ends, they struggle to do this themselves. Feedings every two hours, forever. Turning to prevent bedsores. There are no political groups setting up private trust funds for every severely brain-damaged person who requires that kind of care; in fact, the same political party that's championing Terry is constantly fighting increases in healthcare spending.

Think of the fully awake and aware people with no health coverage whose lives might have been changed for the better with a fraction of the resources that people have poured into this battle.

What if they win, SnP? Are you going to volunteer to take over the care of someone in Terry's condition? Or are all of them going to be taken care of by mystery donors? Or is Congress suddenly going to have a complete change of heart about social spending and universal health coverage? At what point will be it be acceptable to stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on someone who can't enjoy the benefits, when we can't save the ones who would?

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley
Atty Deborah Bushnell
Atty Steve Nilson
Atty Pacarek
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL)
Atty George Felos
$10,668.05
$65,607.00
$7,404.95
$1,500.00
$4,511.95
$397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank
$55,459.85

Michael Schiavo
$10,929.95

Total $545,852.34



Myths versus Facts
http://www.terrisfight.org/

 

[sweetnpetite]

Don't go arguing disability, since it's obviously not a legally valid argument. We're not talking about Stephan Hawking, here.

Oh you're right. Physically disabled people have rights. Mentally disabled people don't.

We should starve to death the severely retarted citizens and labatomy patients. And the severely autistic as well. As long as that's the will of the next of kin.

 

[shereads]

Oh you're right. Physically disabled people have rights. Mentally disabled people don't.

We should starve to death the severely retarted citizens and labatomy patients. And the severely autistic as well. As long as that's the will of the next of kin.

Mentally disabled is not the same as NO CEREBELLUM. I'm wasting my breath here. this is a right-to-life issue and if you choose to define the death of the part of the brain that is essential for knowing it's alive as "mentally disabled," then a goldfish is a mentally disabled person.

I hope you get your way and Terry gets to live a long, long, long time, minus her cerebellum. Her body will gradually atrophy from lack of use, and the parts of the brain that feel discomfort will have decades to savor the Sanctity of Life.

And don't forget to volunteer at your local hospital to take care of the many people like Terry who will be doomed to the same fate if you get your way. Somebody has to do it, right?

By the way...what if her husband and brother-in-law are telling the truth, and Terry really did say she hoped she'd never be helpless and kept alive like this? I know my dad dreaded it because he talked about watching friends linger that way, and how degrading it would be to have strangers "changing your diaper" so you exist a while longer. What if Terry is aware on some level that she is in a living hell? What if you're fighting to make her stay there?

Maybe this isn't about Michael killing her.

Maybe it's about your side torturing her to score a point against abortion.

 

[sweetnpetite]

SnP, I can google up just as many factoids from the other side of this issue. Choose your think tank.

But having already exhausted the "You don't know what it's like" argument, let me ask you this:

If the Save Terry from Her Husband coalition has its way, and a precedent is set that from now on, people with her degree of brain damage must be kept alive indefinitely via artificial feedings, unless they happen to have made wills (not likely at her age), then what will be the consequences?

The person who has your power of attorney (your husband or nearest relative) will have no legal rights where you are concerned, no matter if he is the most devoted man on earth and has heard you swear on a stack of Bibles that your biggest nightmare is being severely brain damaged and kept alive on a feeding tube. It won't matter. It will be out of his hands. That's the goal here.

Cases like Terry's occur quietly and privately every day in this country, as they did with my father. The reason this case is the exception is that it has such a great cast of characters that it makes a marvelous political drama, a fact that did not escape the notice of our state governor, Bush 3. Terry's husband is past imperfect and makes an excellent villain, if you choose to ignore the courage it's taken for him to endure years as Florida's version of the Antichrist. (He's been offered millions by political/relgioius organizations to "sell" Terry's custody to her parents.) The parents are heartbroken, naturally. The sister's husband has publicly contradicted the sister's version of what Terry said she wanted. It would be a perfect TV movie if only Terry would give birth.

In other words, it's the perfect opportunity for the right-to-life movement to earn a few more inches of territory. Terry's Law. Sound familiar? How about Laci's Law? The one passed by Congress in response to the murder of Laci Petersen. With hardly a murmer of opposition - because who could disagree with doing something nice for poor Laci Petersen - they wrote into law that a pregnant woman is TWO murder victims, not one. She's not less dead thanks to this law, so what exactly was accomplished? Well, duh. We can't just declare abortion illegal, because a majority of Americans won't go for it. But if we're shrewd, we can chip away bit by bit the accepted definition of a person with legal rights, until eventually even someone in worse shape than Terry will be "entitled" to live indefinitely. When Trent Lott referred to her as a "healthy younhg woman," didn't you wonder what kind of health he would wish for a wife or daughter of his own? A functioning body with a liquified cerebellum? Who the hell thinks that's a life?

Terry doesn't want to die. Terry doesn't want to live. The part of Terry that wanted things is, mercifully, not trapped in that body. No matter how many "scientists" say otherwise, they can't change the fact that a functioning cerebellum is a prerequisite of experiencing the desire to live or die. The body can function without that part of the brain, provided you push nutrients into it. Until the muscles atrophy, it can even respond to stimuli. But it can't want anything or love anyone or enjoy being loved. That's over.

Whether Terry would have wanted to live or die is about to be made irrelevent, thanks to the publicity generated by "Terry's Law" and today's bizarre move to issue a subpeona for her to testify before Congress. That would have been lovely, wouldn't it? Still might be, if they can move up the hearing before she dies. Dress Terry up in something pretty, style her hair, bundle her up in something warm for the flight, prop her up in front of Congress and see if we can get her to smile. That will prove that she wants to live. Then we can pass a law...Hmm. What kind of law, exactly?

Let's not forget that these are the same forces who at work in Oregon, seeking to overturn the first state law that allows fully cognizant people who are terminally ill and in pain, to end their own suffering through assisted suicide. Their rights be damned; we want them alive!

This isn't about Terry's rights, because there's no way to determine what choice she would have demanded the right to make. There are as many witnesses williing to say she didn't want to be kept alive this way as there are witnesses who swear she would never said such a thing. The one thing the courts know for sure is that her nearest legal relative, in this case Terry's husband, has the right to withdraw artificial feeding if predominant medical opinion says she is too brain-damaged to have any quality of life, and that she is unlikely to recover.

Consider the practical implications of "winning" the right to negate a person's custody of an incapacitated relative because of a right-to-life issue. Who pays for the lifetime care of every individual in Amerca who has a partially functioning brain and must be fed by a surgically implanted tube and kept moving to prevent muscle atrophy.

There will be no shortage of individuals and groups willing to foot the bill for Terry's care, no matter how long it takes for her body to give up.

But what about all the other Terry's? Every day, life-sustaining artificual feeding is withdrawn from people in this condition, on the recommendation of doctors. Some families choose not to let go. When their insurance coverage ends, they struggle to do this themselves. Feedings every two hours, forever. Turning to prevent bedsores. There are no political groups setting up private trust funds for every severely brain-damaged person who requires that kind of care; in fact, the same political party that's championing Terry is constantly fighting increases in healthcare spending.

Think of the fully awake and aware people with no health coverage whose lives might have been changed for the better with a fraction of the resources that people have poured into this battle.

What if they win, SnP? Are you going to volunteer to take over the care of someone in Terry's condition? Or are all of them going to be taken care of by mystery donors? Or is Congress suddenly going to have a complete change of heart about social spending and universal health coverage? At what point will be it be acceptable to stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on someone who can't enjoy the benefits, when we can't save the ones who would?

In this case someone is willing to pay for her care (her parents) and feeding. If the husband would grant a divorce and let her family care for her, there would be no laws being bandied about to save her. These questions are not the issue to me, and I don't see them as the over-riding factors in this case.

This is a court case involving the people involved and should be tried according to the laws and the circumstances not the political implications for the future. Questions have been raised that have not been answered, nor has sufficient time and effort gone into finding their answers to determine if there is any conflict of interest on the part of the husband.

More investigation to possible conflicting motives would go into an arson report.

And I'm sorry, but I think you are exagerating the 'danger' of the win. If they win, other relatives who have the means and desire to take over care might get a foothold in the right to do so. If the only way to win is to pass far reaching laws, then it might be a different story.

On a personal level, yes, I think my parents should have as much to say about the topic as my spouse. The fact that one person claims that she said something that has not been documented is not enough. IF IF IF she had had a living will that stated her wishes, it would make sence that her parents have no grounds to contest the husbands wishes. Remind me not to sign a living will though, because I don't consider nutrition to be exraordinary measures of keeping me alive.

And Euthanasia is illegal in Florida. this could barely be called that because her body is not failing. Not to mention, Kavorkian's methods were kinder.

Feel free to google and post the other side. I'd love to see some compelling arguements for it. I've got to get offline now, but I can read them later.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Mentally disabled is not the same as NO CEREBELLUM. I'm wasting my breath here. this is a right-to-life issue and if you choose to define the death of the part of the brain that is essential for knowing it's alive as "mentally disabled," then a goldfish is a mentally disabled person.

I hope you get your way and Terry gets to live a long, long, long time, minus her cerebellum. Her body will gradually atrophy from lack of use, and the parts of the brain that feel discomfort will have decades to savor the Sanctity of Life.

And don't forget to volunteer at your local hospital to take care of the many people like Terry who will be doomed to the same fate if you get your way. Somebody has to do it, right?

Yes, someone does.

Last I checked, we don't just let people die because they require care.

We could start starving all of the orphans and foster children next. I'm sure it beats being bounced around in unloving homes and being forgotten and lost in the system.

Just be sure that prison inmates continue to get good meals. And cable.

 

[sweetnpetite]

And please show me the evidence that she has no cerabellum.

this is the first I've heard of it.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Oh yes, courts are always fair and just....

Again, I'm not claiming that courts are always fair and just.

It just seems to me that, in this case, the courts have been willing to entertain any argument against the obvious legal rights of the husband - and they are obvious - and all of the arguments have been found wanting.

This isn't a landmark case. Rights of next-of-kin to determine medical care in almost all cases seems to be SOP in hospitals all across the country. How could they ever treat anyone otherwise?

I don't know what compels Terri's parents to behave as they do. I don't know if they have guilt about her mental disorder, or if they have decided to make her some type of example for their religious beliefs, or maybe they just "love" her so much that they can't let go - a situation that could obviously be considered its own pathology. If they become legal guardians (and therefore heirs), wouldn't the settlement money become theirs?

This isn't a "class" action - the proposed laws have been so narrowly drawn as to pertain to this case alone, or they have not passed. No one has offered up a law that covers broader cases, that has passed. Those that have applied to this case alone have been overturned in the courts.

Terri does not represent some larger group of oppressed vegetables. If you want to concern yourself with governmentally-disadvantaged people, there are millions with a better shot at a productive life than Terri Schiavo.

Get a perspective.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Ok- I'll tell you right now, this is the kind of shit that pisses me off:

"There's no treatment, no cure. Nothing known to science will help this woman."
-- Dr. James Barnhill, in 2000, testifying in Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court.

I've had doctors in the courtroom saying this same crap about *me*-- yes, me. No treatment, no cure, they declared. Did they *try* a treatment and then declar it a failer- no they did not. ANd they are not trying any treatment on her now either. ANd haven't for several years.

Yeah, I was in court for custody of my child. They had doctors who came and said such and such was wrong with me and that it couldn't be treated or cured. I have first hand experience with that kind of bullshit. Don't think doctors are above it, they sure the fuck are not.

 

[sweetnpetite]

This isn't a "class" action - the proposed laws have been so narrowly drawn as to pertain to this case alone, or they have not passed. No one has offered up a law that covers broader cases, that has passed. Those that have applied to this case alone have been overturned in the courts.

Terri does not represent some larger group of oppressed vegetables. If you want to concern yourself with governmentally-disadvantaged people, there are millions with a better shot at a productive life than Terri Schiavo.

Get a perspective.

Hello- shereads is the one arguing wider implications. why don't you tell her to get a perspective. All I said about it was that it shouldn't be argued on that (as shereads seemed to be doing)

 

[sweetnpetite]

OH yeah, and for the record:

If I should get brain damage or alzimers or whatever, I would like to be fed until I die. I would not like to be denied food and water in order to haten my demise. I do not consider sustenence 'being kept alive' I consider it 'necceassary for life'

Thank you. I doubt this is legally binding, but ya know it never hurts to tell as many people as you can.

 

[sweetnpetite]

And please show me the evidence that she has no cerabellum.

this is the first I've heard of it.

what I found:

In a June 6 opinion that rouched on the medical evidence in the Schiavo case, the 2nd District Court of Appeal wrote" "Although the physicians were not in complete agreement concerning the extent of the daughter's brain damage, they all agreed that the brain scans showed extensive permanent damage to her brain. They only debate between the doctors was whether she had a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she had no living tissue in her cerebral cortex."
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/28/Tampabay/Understanding_Terri_S.shtml

 

[BlackShanglan]

Sweet, I'm a confused. You seem to be having an argument with yourself? Can you explain that last post just a little more?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Sweet, I'm a confused. You seem to be having an argument with yourself? Can you explain that last post just a little more?

Just trying to be fair.

I found that information at the bottom of one of the pages i was reading.

I'm sorry if it makes me seem ignorant, but I don't think that's the same as "she has no cerabellum" and again, I don't agree that brain damaged poeple should be allowed to starve to death.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Just trying to be fair.

I found that information at the bottom of one of the pages i was reading.

I'm sorry if it makes me seem ignorant, but I don't think that's the same as "she has no cerabellum" and again, I don't agree that brain damaged poeple should be allowed to starve to death.

Not a problem. I didn't think you seemed ignorant - I just needed your explanation there to help me see how you intended the post.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Hello- shereads is the one arguing wider implications. why don't you tell her to get a perspective. All I said about it was that it shouldn't be argued on that (as shereads seemed to be doing)

Okay, I direct that bit to her.

Even so, you seem to be arguing about wider application of this when you imply that this reasoning applies to orphans and foster children who could get bounced around in the system.

I totally acknowledge that this is an emotional case. However, I also believe that the case is being exploited in a sensational manner to make a point that really has very little to do with the facts of the case.

the facts of the case are:
Terri Schiavo's husband is her legal guardian, and determines her care under the law.
Terri Schiavo's parents disagree with her husband's decision, but have no legal standing to intervene.
Terri Schiavo's parents have used every means to disavow or overturn her husband's legal standing, without success.
Political groups and politicians have climbed onto Terri Schiavo's parent's bandwagon, with little legal standing, and have grandstanded their positions despite dubious legal standing.
Despite the obvious fact that the only political favortism has come from opponents to the legal standing of her husband (in the form of specialized legislation, etc.), these same opponents have accused bias in courts upholding the law, all the way to the US Supreme Court.

You can rehash these arguments all you want - they've already been decided!

 

[shereads]

In this case someone is willing to pay for her care (her parents) and feeding. If the husband would grant a divorce and let her family care for her, there would be no laws being bandied about to save her. These questions are not the issue to me, and I don't see them as the over-riding factors in this case.

This is a court case involving the people involved and should be tried according to the laws and the circumstances not the political implications for the future. Questions have been raised that have not been answered, nor has sufficient time and effort gone into finding their answers to determine if there is any conflict of interest on the part of the husband.

More investigation to possible conflicting motives would go into an arson report.

This has been going on for YEARS. Judges at every level in the country including the supreme court have known enough about this case that it's been repeatedly put back in the hands of Terry's husband, time and again. The current Supreme Court isn't exactly a bastion of anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment, yet twice they have placed the decision back where it began, with Terry's husband.

The problem is not that people fear a new legal precedent, as I do; it's that every time a court rules in Michael's favor, there's an attempt to circumvent the law. First it was Gov. Bush creating a law that applied only to Terry, which was quickly passed by the Florida legislature, requiring that a new feeding tube be installed after one had been removed by court order for the second time. Today's stunt with the congressional subpeona for Terry to "testify" was just one in a series of attempts to take advantage of this tragedy for political purposes. Terry's 3rd feeding tube is the one that was removed today. I don't doubt that there will be a 4th. This requires surgery each time; for the people who believe she's suffering each time it's removed, they don't mind letting her start the whole process over every time someone thinks of a means to circumvent the court's decision.

As for my overstating the danger of a precedent in this case, which is bound to happen whether Terry lives or dies, you must believe that all this money and energy and political power are being expended for no other reason than concern for this one woman - and that the thousands of cases like hers that occur every day without incident are not on the agenda of the right-to-life movement.

If you think that's a good thing, and that the law should assure that everyone is kept alive indefinitely, then you obviously haven't spent time at the bedside of someone you love who has been plunged into utter helplessness and degradation, with the possibility that his body could be sustained for years.

Fortunately, my dad was only an anonymous old man with no potential as a political symbol. No one intervened with our decision to respect his wishes as we believed them to be. It would have been an even worse time, and I can't imagine surviving a worse time. During the last hour of his life, I watched my mother grip his hand as if she could keep him with her by the sheer force of her need. Surgery had been done to relieve pressure on his brain, and there were tubes draining blood and fluid, and one of the tubes became disconnected, jerked around and sprayed my mother with his blood. She tried to scream, but didn't have the strength. Stephen King couldn't have written a more awful moment.

The look on his face when he finally died almost made up for it. He smiled.

My mother gave my dad the most selfless gift anyone can give someone they've shared a life with. She let him go. It was an act of immeasurable courage. If you had seen how she held his hand and how she stood there drenched in blood and wouldn't leave his side until it was over, you'd be appalled that there are people who would like to have denied her the right to give him peace, and find peace in return.

Say what you will about the sanctity of life. When someone you love is faced with a life that you know in your heart is not worth living, there's a lot to be said for the sanctity of death.

***

For your family's sake, you should know Living Will entails. You don't just sign one. You specify the conditions, if any, under which you would choose to be allowed to die if you are incapacitated and can't express your wishes at the time. It's not a matter of checking "yes, kill me, " or "no, keep me alive."

There is no option of allowing you to die if your doctors believe there is a reasonable chance to restore your life and quality of life. Quality of life, like "reasonable doubt" is where subjectivity kicks in, and where your family might be left in an untenable position if you haven't made your wishes known, in writing.

If you suffer serious brain damage and you don't want a spouse making the decision the law says is theirs to make, without input from your parents, you'd better get busy with an attorney making it clear just who gets to decide. Otherwise, the law says it's your spouse's decision.

A Living Will is a lot simpler than the issue of who has your power of attorney. You can download your state's accepted form, fill it out, have it notarized if you want to be extra-careful, and distribute copies to your doctor and your family, without seeing a lawyer. it's not iron-clad, but assuming nobody takes up your "cause" for religious or political reasons, or that no laws are passed taking away your right to refuse rescusitation, there's no reason in most states why your Living Will won't be respected.

It's easy. It's free, except for the $2 notary fee. And it isn't just for people who don't want to be kept alive by various means; it's for the protection of those who do.

My living will says "Hydration Only" because I fear the symptoms of dehydration. Terry's doctors say she won't feel the symptoms, but I specified hydration-only in case the doctors are wrong. You can write "no artificial life support including hydration and nutrition," or you can write, "I want to be kept alive by whatever means are available, indefinitely." But write something. It's the one thing you can do to make sure an unbearable crisis isn't made worse because your family disagrees on what you'd want - or because some of them know, but can't face letting you go. It's bad enough to see someone you love changed forever by an accident or illness. To have it all end up in court and dragged out for years would be hell.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

And please show me the evidence that she has no cerabellum.

this is the first I've heard of it.

The diagnosis of a persistant vegetative state, presupposes that there is no significant activity in the cortex.

A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.

Via the definition in the DSM, the responses the parents report are within the bounds of non-cognitive function, I.e. reflex and/or random function. With the exception of speaking, a response they and they alone have apparently witnesed.

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.


Information provided by the
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke,
National Institutes of Health

 

[Colleen Thomas]

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley
Atty Deborah Bushnell
Atty Steve Nilson
Atty Pacarek
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL)
Atty George Felos
$10,668.05
$65,607.00
$7,404.95
$1,500.00
$4,511.95
$397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank
$55,459.85

Michael Schiavo
$10,929.95

Total $545,852.34



Myths versus Facts
http://www.terrisfight.org/

Snp, maybe you should broaden your search a little. Another fact is that the husband has been offered MILLIONS to give up gardianship, to basically sell his wife's guardianship to her parents. He has turned down all overtures, overtures that have exceeded the amount of any settlement by significant numbers.

The very fact that the site dosen't mention this, implying the husband is interested only in money, tends to show a single minded view point with an agenda. In light of this fact, intellectual honesty requres you to investigate the claims there throughly, rather than just accepting them carte blanche.

As IMP noted, when quoting the site, there is no citation of their facts and the site is obviously partisan. This does not neccessarily invalidate their claims, but it does cast a serious credibility gap, when facts enimicable to their position, facts that are readily avialable, are not cited to provide balance.