It Has Begun

[yui]

Edited per request.

Imp, I am humbled by your grace and by that of your son. Would that all the babies born into this world have so fierce and articulate an advocate.

I posted the definition of PVS sweet. It has nothing to do with opening your eyes, it has everything to do with a lack of higher cognitive function. Opening your eyes, reacting occasionally, but not consistently to stimuli, even laughing or smiling, can be reflex actions.

The definition I posted is from the National Institute of Health. What definition are you using that has opening your eyes and moving being inconsistant with the diagnosis?

I can't answer for Sweets, but this information regarding the legal definition of PVS in the state of Florida and information about Terri's condition is offered here.

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

 

[Op_Cit]

... Until recently [and some docs still feel this way] newborns were considered incabable of experienceing real pain, and weren't even given anethstesia during circomsision. My doc recomended not to give them to my son (born in 93) for his, telling me that it would only hurt for a little while and wasn't much more painful than the anethstesia shot itself. And he was a male doctor!

Doctor? Circumcision? Pain? Then, why are you circumcising your baby? Are you Jewish?

If not, why are you making this decision for your son? You don't like your doctor's opinion of babies and pain, but you're accepting somebody else's view on circumcision.

Sorry for the digression, back to the tennis match that is not going to change anybody's mind. I think the ball is now in the "for humanity's sake" side's court--wait, which side was that again?


Wait, I'll pick it up for you here:

There's a reason why they call it "giving away the bride" at a wedding. She was (is) an adult. She married this guy. Like it or not he has the right to decide whether it is two minutes or twenty years difference. Even if the guy eats babies for breakfast, he decides, and that's Terry's fault: She married him. She had just as much opportunity to divorce the guy before her accident.

Now, maybe take a moment to consider all the children orphaned, abused, not being given enough attention to learn to read,... think of all the man hours spent arguing, demonstrating, legislating over this one person (Terry) who has been adequately represented on both sides all along. Think of what good all that time and effort spent by activists on both sides could accomplish if it were spent more constructively on the thousands of children (in the US alone) who are NOT adequately represented.

Nobody is going to be swayed on either side of the issue.

 

[oggbashan]

...
Nobody is going to be swayed on either side of the issue.

That is a shorter version of what I said on page 1 of this thread. Opinions from politicians lacking full knowledge of the 'facts' and the interventions from outside the immediate family just make their agony worse. All the parties involved, the lady herself, her husband, her parents, the doctors - need compassion not abuse.

Og

 

[Black Tulip]

I'm afraid that is very true. In the end every family has to deal with a situation like this on their own terms.

But that is what makes me so damned mad here. Apart from politicians, who have absolutely no place here, I get furious at the meddling of people who call themselves christians.

It's none of their business and ultimately they are praying for their own good. Their souls will look better for having done a "good deed". It makes me sick. If they devoted their time and energy to supporting the family one way or the other, I could understand that, but simply sitting in a public place and pray for your own way of thinking? Excuse me, that's exhibitionism.



Imp,

I have the utmost respect for you and what you are doing for your son. I'm not sure I would or could have done the same, but this situation is different because it's about a grown woman who has expressed her wishes and is now no longer able to do so.

 

[impressive]

Imp,

I have the utmost respect for you and what you are doing for your son. I'm not sure I would or could have done the same, but this situation is different because it's about a grown woman who has expressed her wishes and is now no longer able to do so.

I understand. Really, I do.

However, this woman only ALLEGEDLY expressed her wishes. It's hearsay, and I don't trust the "sayer" because he: (a) didn't reveal those wishes until two years after her collapse -- AFTER being awarded a medical malpractice settlement; (b) discontinued all therapies after getting that settlement -- which was targeted FOR such therapies; and (c) has been accused of spousal abuse. To me, that represents a significant conflict of interest for a legal guardian. The nastiness between him and Terri's parents began when he refused to use the settlement money for her active treatment.

She may want to die. If so, it should be no one's decision but her own. Whether she does or doesn't, it behooves us to use every intervention known to mankind to attempt to FIND OUT before killing her. Those interventions were withdrawn. Perhaps the devoted husband wanted to make sure she never regained the ability to contradict him. We may never know.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Imp, I am humbled by your grace and by that of your son. Would that all the babies born into this world have so fierce and articulate an advocate.



I can't answer for Sweets, but this information regarding the legal definition of PVS in the state of Florida and information about Terri's condition is offered here.

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

You are incorrect. Or more pointedly, you are listening to people who wish to sway you to their point of view. Following commands would invalidat the diagnosis, IF there is a consistent pattern of doing so, there is not. Verbal communication of any kind would invalidate the diagnosis completely, IF it has been obsrved by someone impartial, the parents being the only ones to observe this thus far. Reaction to stimuli can be reflexive, it does not neccessarily show any cognitive ability. Laughing, crying, etc can also be reflexive behavior. Likewise, following movemnet with your eyes and other response to stimuli can be reflexive.

What they tell you at this site is that these aren't simple reflexes, and in that, they are correct except for avoiding pain, which is. What they want you to assume is that these behaviors, because they aren't simple reflexes, invalidate the diagnosis. If you read the medical material, you will know that these behaviors are reflex or random behavior, in the context of a person with no upper level brain function, but who still has an intact brain stem. This form of reflexive behavior is not the same as simple reflexes, and that's why this site bothers me, they intentionally make an incorrect usage of the words simple reflex to misguide you.

That site is not quite up to the level of a Leni Riefenstal, but it approaching a Joseph Geobbles level of propaganda proficency. The fact that the site is so full of this kind of misinformation does not in any way prove the woman is in a PVS. But nothing on that site provides any proof she is not. I would like to see someone defending her not being in a PVS quoting some credible sources instead of continuing to toss partisan propaganda out there like it's gospel.

I've studied the propagandist's art. I paid for that knowledge by combing through some of the most disturbing crap you can imagine, particularly in Der Sturmer. I'm an accomplished sophist as well. A site like this insults my intelligence, but it isn't aimed at me, it's aimed at those uninitated.

The fact that you and others, grab their assertions and uncritically quote them is rather distrubing to me. But that's another issue really.

 

[impressive]

A site like this insults my intelligence, but it isn't aimed at me, it's aimed at those uninitated.

The fact that you and others, grab their assertions and uncritically quote them is rather distrubing to me.

Desperate people do desperate things. I'm not condoning the practice, just pointing out that it's a tactic used by virtually everyone. I understand your reaction to the site, Colly -- but that doesn't make every bit of its content invalid. (I'm not judging it's accuracy, BTW, just pointing out that "bias" doesn't always mean "lie.")

I have followed this case since before the last time her tube was pulled (for 6 days that time). I readily agree that the "evidence" is highly anecdotal, and that those fighting for Terri to keep her g-tube would be better served by citing all that testimony listed. However, even that highly biased site gives enough information to cast "reasonable doubt" on the motives of hubby dearest.

I also think that their "case" would receive far more support if they emphasized the delivery of therapies in order to ascertain Terri's true wishes rather than "just" to keep her alive.

It appears now, however, that she'll have another day in court -- federal court this time. I support the legislation giving her (and others similarly situated) standing in federal court. I find the way it came about creepy, though -- political grandstanding, strange bedfellows, etc.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Desperate people do desperate things. I'm not condoning the practice, just pointing out that it's a tactic used by virtually everyone. I understand your reaction to the site, Colly -- but that doesn't make every bit of its content invalid. (I'm not judging it's accuracy, BTW, just pointing out that "bias" doesn't always mean "lie.")

I have followed this case since before the last time her tube was pulled (for 6 days that time). I readily agree that the "evidence" is highly anecdotal, and that those fighting for Terri to keep her g-tube would be better served by citing all that testimony listed. However, even that highly biased site gives enough information to cast "reasonable doubt" on the motives of hubby dearest.

I also think that their "case" would receive far more support if they emphasized the delivery of therapies in order to ascertain Terri's true wishes rather than "just" to keep her alive.

It appears now, however, that she'll have another day in court -- federal court this time. I support the legislation giving her (and others similarly situated) standing in federal court. I find the way it came about creepy, though -- political grandstanding, strange bedfellows, etc.

You support it? Damn, that's hard.

Medical decisions, have long been the province of the states, with the single exception of federally controlled substances. Our good freind Mr. Ashcroft lobbied long and hard to get federal control so he could contravene medicinal marijuanna and Oregon's right to die laws. Where Asscroft failed, the new GOP has succeeded. Unless the law is struck down, the precedent has been set that the federal government has precedence in medical matters.

So you can say good bye to right to die legislation. You can say good bye to medicinal marijuana. You can say good bye to a spouse having the final say in any situation like this. In fact, you can be sure people will be kept alive though excrusicating pain, becuse the GOP says so. No one is ever going to have the plug pulled, ever again, cause life is sacred. Just look in your bible. that's the king james 1611 that all citizens will be required to keep on the coffee table.

The chrisitan right will now decide medical matters for you. And you can bet they won't like you getting an abortion, or getting a hysterectomy, or getting your tubes tied, or getting the pill. And what's to stop them from saying you can't? The courts have just been emasculated. Their decision contracvened by a quick fix law to render their decision moot.

I'm sure you and sweet are happy with this, but it dosen't smell like victory to me.

 

[just pet]

Warning... long rant ahead

This situation is so sad.
I am a hospice nurse and see these situations daily, work with families to make these impossible decisions.
I was also a neonatal intensive care nurse for many years so have worked with those taking their first breaths and those taking their last.

So many issues are raised here and it is so complicated, most with opinions focus on one or two points.

There are no easy and definitive answers, none.

But I see those people who are low functioning, the care required and how it exhausts the caaregivers and families. I have seen families pulled apart when a child with special needs is brought home. Divorce statistics are even more devastating than normal. The child takes all one's psychic, emotional and physical energy to raise. I have patients whose care I oversee and manage in 3 excellent SNF (skilled nursing facilities=nursing homes). I treat the depression these patients experience being away from home, the indignities of having the diaper changed, impactions removed, bedsores treated (very difficult to avoid, even with the most meticulous of care), the isolation.

I see feeding tubes daily. It is forced feeding. The patient has no way to say it is too much until their lungs fill up with fluid from overhydration or aspiration (and pneumonia if untreated). It is prolonging death, not life.

The "responses" the woman in question is showing are reflexive. Families in their hope and denial often see these as cognitive.

Unless you have been in these situations, you have no concept of what goes on in the day to day care. Terri spoke with her husband and friends and expressed her wishes. I have done the same. How many of you have spoken with your parents about your hopes, dreams, preferences, fears? It is usually your friends and SO you have those discussions with. They are probably more cognizant of your wishes than the people who still see you as their baby.

And her husband stood by her side hoping for recovery for 5 years. Imagine yourself, with 5 years of your life on hold, waiting for a miracle you realize isn't coming. How heartless to command he give up the rest of his life for of your moral issues. I see a staunch defense for quantity of life, but no regard for the quality of life. Sad, very sad.

If Terri can indeed swallow, she can be given ice cream (water will invariably cause her aspiration and a certain watery and congested miserable death). Since the feeling remains that she has some sense of choice, then she can eat or refuse. Small amounts of ice cream can be placed in the cheek, and allowed to dissolve slowly. This is well tolerated by most.

A few drops of Atropine ophthalmic solution on the tongue every couple of hours will dry up the gurgling in the lungs from any aspiration. Morphine will assuage any discomfort and, contrary to popular myth, will not cause respiratory depression or death, though it may encourage sleep.

I see this is becoming dreadfully long and boring. But I deal with these issues daily.

Advanced directives are a must, especially when in a facility. Write it all down, now. Choose your Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA).
Have a professional explain to you what each directive entails. If you pick and choose certain interventions and not others, understand that in reality you will probably get them all. Experience shows this to be true.


\rant off

 

[impressive]

You support it? Damn, that's hard.

<clipped>

I'm sure you and sweet are happy with this, but it dosen't smell like victory to me.

I don't see it as "victory," Colly. I see it as another avenue for justice.

 

[rgraham666]

I know I said I wouldn't post again, but I lied. There is an observation that I simply have to make.

I've followed this thread and the links. I'm now of the opinion this resembles a nasty divorce case than a euthanasia case. Both sides seem intent on 'winning' with the 'goal' (Children in a divorce case, the woman in Terri's case) being forgotten and having little say in it.

It was the 'suggestions' of spousal abuse that did it for me. That's such a common tactic in divorce cases. It doesn't really need to be proven. The mere mention of it is enough to poison the waters.

Sigh. Why do people have to 'win' all the time?

 

[just pet]

I know I said I wouldn't post again, but I lied. There is an observation that I simply have to make.

I've followed this thread and the links. I'm now of the opinion this resembles a nasty divorce case than a euthanasia case. Both sides seem intent on 'winning' with the 'goal' (Children in a divorce case, the woman in Terri's case) being forgotten and having little say in it.

It was the 'suggestions' of spousal abuse that did it for me. That's such a common tactic in divorce cases. It doesn't really need to be proven. The mere mention of it is enough to poison the waters.

Sigh. Why do people have to 'win' all the time?

You're right.
And there is no winning here.
Hopefully, there will be recognition of the need for advanced directives.
Never leave your fate to committee decision.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't see it as "victory," Colly. I see it as another avenue for justice.

I don't blame you for your take. It is intensely personal to you and frankly, I think you have shown a pretty good degree of restraint. I know I tend to loose perspective fast when I have an emotional stake in something.

But, I see it as the end of personal choice in all medical matters relating to someone you have guardianship over as well as yourself. An increasingly reactionary, fundamentalist right will be able to enforce their doctrinal views on us all. Final say in medical matters will now rest in the federal courts, courts the current administration is packing with ultra conservatives. It's usurping the reserve powers of the states. It's making an end run around judicial review. And because they have a visible tragedy to work off, most folks will not even see their rights are being smashed until it's already accomplished.

So when you ant to get the pill, it will only take a religious group sueing to say that is equivilent to murder. As wildly fanciful as that is, you will almost surely win in a state court and that where it would end now, but, they will now be avble to appeal to a federal court. And if that judge happens to think birth control is bad, you will find yourself unable to get the pill. If he happens to think all life is sacred, you won't be able to end the life of a terminally ill and suffering loved one. You may not be able to take someone off life support, even if their brain is completely destroyed, so long as respirators can keep the heart going. It's life after all.

Simply put, rather than wining sypathetic judges on a state by stae level, the religious right now only has to have the district courts packed with rabidly fundy judges. And Bush co. is currently working on that.

 

[logophile]

You support it? Damn, that's hard.

So you can say good bye to right to die legislation. You can say good bye to medicinal marijuana. You can say good bye to a spouse having the final say in any situation like this. In fact, you can be sure people will be kept alive though excrusicating pain, becuse the GOP says so. No one is ever going to have the plug pulled, ever again, cause life is sacred. Just look in your bible. that's the king james 1611 that all citizens will be required to keep on the coffee table.

The chrisitan right will now decide medical matters for you. And you can bet they won't like you getting an abortion, or getting a hysterectomy, or getting your tubes tied, or getting the pill. And what's to stop them from saying you can't? The courts have just been emasculated. Their decision contracvened by a quick fix law to render their decision moot.

I've stayed out of this discussion, though I've followed it closely. The entire thing has seemed much like an abortion debate and I don't get involved in those either. There are certain issues that are so deeply felt that there is no way anyone's mind will ever be changed. This is clearly one of them.

I want to say that I agree with Colly on the issue above, however. We, as Americans, are having our medical rights taken away. In some cases it's being done subtly (do you have any idea how hard it is to get your own medical records since HIPPA came into being?) and in some cases not so subtly (parents being chased cross country because they've taken their son to find an alternative cancer treatment).

As a homebirth midwife I have a vested interest in keeping medical rights within a family. While homebirth is not technically illegal anywhere in the US, in many states it's illegal to hire a midwife to attend you. Women are being charged with neglect and child endangerment for planning homebirths, even before the baby is born.

Family's rights are being eroded because the government believes they know better. Homebirth is of course my favorite soapbox, but it's only one tiny thing.

This is part of the downfall of giving up our medical responsibilities. You think you're giving up one thing and that it's for the greater good, but the truth is that's how whole areas of personal rights get devoured by the government.

The Patriot act did the same thing for our civil rights.

While there are lots of people who don't want Terri to die because she's become a person to us, the widespread ramifications of the federal government getting involved in this case are bigger than most people realize. Writing and passing a bill is not the only way to make a law in this country. Laws are also born of precedent and previous interpretation. This is a dangerous game to play.

 

[yui]

You are incorrect. Or more pointedly, you are listening to people who wish to sway you to their point of view. Following commands would invalidat the diagnosis, IF there is a consistent pattern of doing so, there is not. Verbal communication of any kind would invalidate the diagnosis completely, IF it has been obsrved by someone impartial, the parents being the only ones to observe this thus far. Reaction to stimuli can be reflexive, it does not neccessarily show any cognitive ability. Laughing, crying, etc can also be reflexive behavior. Likewise, following movemnet with your eyes and other response to stimuli can be reflexive.

What they tell you at this site is that these aren't simple reflexes, and in that, they are correct except for avoiding pain, which is. What they want you to assume is that these behaviors, because they aren't simple reflexes, invalidate the diagnosis. If you read the medical material, you will know that these behaviors are reflex or random behavior, in the context of a person with no upper level brain function, but who still has an intact brain stem. This form of reflexive behavior is not the same as simple reflexes, and that's why this site bothers me, they intentionally make an incorrect usage of the words simple reflex to misguide you.

That site is not quite up to the level of a Leni Riefenstal, but it approaching a Joseph Geobbles level of propaganda proficency. The fact that the site is so full of this kind of misinformation does not in any way prove the woman is in a PVS. But nothing on that site provides any proof she is not. I would like to see someone defending her not being in a PVS quoting some credible sources instead of continuing to toss partisan propaganda out there like it's gospel.

I've studied the propagandist's art. I paid for that knowledge by combing through some of the most disturbing crap you can imagine, particularly in Der Sturmer. I'm an accomplished sophist as well. A site like this insults my intelligence, but it isn't aimed at me, it's aimed at those uninitated.

The fact that you and others, grab their assertions and uncritically quote them is rather distrubing to me. But that's another issue really.

Colly, with all due respect, I haven't made a single statement concerning my personal opinion regarding this issue. I'm not incorrect. I'm not grabbing their "assertions and uncritically quot[ing] them". You simply asked what definition of PVS Sweet was using and I suggested she might be using the one from Terri's site.

I think that I, like most of the reasonably intelligent people that post here, recognize that information, all information, contains a slant. Anyone who has sat in a courtroom and listened to "expert medical witnesses" knows they can be found to support almost any claim. I understand quite clearly that the "truth" lies somewhere in the middle of a sad fight like this.

Personally, I don't know enough about the case, enough about medicine, or enough about the human brain to make any definitive statement about the right thing to do, I was simply trying to answer your question about Sweet's source.

Luck,

Yui

 

[Trinique_Fire]

Prior to my coma, should I decide I want to be kept alive by tubes and machines and someone heard me make this decision, I'd want them to shoot me.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

Sigh. Why do people have to 'win' all the time?

Because it makes them feel powerful and gives them the "right" to act like righteous fools.

 

[BlackShanglan]

. No one is ever going to have the plug pulled, ever again, cause life is sacred. Just look in your bible. that's the king james 1611 that all citizens will be required to keep on the coffee table.

Personally, I don't have a problem with life being sacred. I understand arguments about what is and is not life, and I think that they have a place in a society faced with the sort of revolutionary medical technology we've developed. We certainly may need a more advanced definition of "life" than previous societies have used. I would not, however, think that we need to move to a "life is no longer sacrosanct" point of view. Once you've crossed that line, it's really only a question of whose contributions you decide you can life without.

An individual's control over his or her own life is interesting ground. In theory I don't feel that the state should make suicide or abetting suicide a crime. In practice, however, I have grave misgivings about what is likely to happen to the most vulnerable people in our populations once relatives and caregivers are offered a quick and financially expedient way to be rid of a burden. For that reason, I hesitate on the topic of legalizing suicide and euthanasia. That which is financially expedient has a way of consuming all arguments about ethics, morals, or even, in the end, choice.

Ms. Schiavo's case is a very difficult one, and certainly an excellent argument for all of us to spell out living wills and to communicate those clearly to our loved ones. I would have to argue that none of us who have not seen her medical records in detail and interacted with her personally really have any clear idea of the facts of this case, and that it's probably best to accept that. However poassionately we may feel about events in our own pasts and lives, we don't know enough about this case to know if it is equivalent or not. I tend to think, as well, that probably more of the legislators in the rush to act on this don't understand many of the facts either, and one is always uncomfortable at the spectacle of one's elected officials mobbing together to mug at the news cameras.

However, I do not think that any of this suggests that a respect for human life is wrong. It suggests that politicians are publicity hounds - surely nothing we didn't know before - and that parents and spouses faced with a painful and confusing medical situation will experience a great deal of stress, suffering, resentment, denial, false hope and false conclusions on every side. Yes, it is a difficult situation, and one that has doubtless crushed those caught up in it. However, it does not to me suggest that the core problem is that people hold life sacred. It suggest to me that the core problem is that there are some states, like Ms. Schiavo's, that can present a baffling and upsetting appearance to those trying to determine her mental state, particularly given how little we really understand about people in this condition. It also suggest to me that most of the actions in this case, like most other human actions, are capable of a wide variety of constructions. It's not that the various theories about the parents' and husband's motivation lack any support; it's that each has support if it digs into the right comments and measures, and that it's probably not possible for people at our remove to know how accurate any of those theories are. Humans are complex; it's quite possible that a blend of "good" and "bad" motives is occuring in each of those people. It's a terrible position to be in, and no doubt it would be simpler if the parents were willing to ignore that fact that they believe their daughter to be alive in some meaningful way. However, this does not strike me as the right way to solve this problem. If we ignore life when it is expedient to us, we will shortly discover just how often and how broadly it becomes expedient to do so.

Shanglan

 

[Dar~]

Prior to my coma, should I decide I want to be kept alive by tubes and machines and someone heard me make this decision, I'd want them to shoot me.

ITA I choose violent death if no one would let them pull the plug. The sad thing is that even if she had had a will, her family could still have contested it legally and drew it out. I hate the legal system sometimes.

I also agree completely with Shang. I don't know enough abou tthe case to say what is right or wrong, but all information comes from someone's perspective and everyone has an opinion.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Personally, I don't have a problem with life being sacred. I understand arguments about what is and is not life, and I think that they have a place in a society faced with the sort of revolutionary medical technology we've developed. We certainly may need a more advanced definition of "life" than previous societies have used. I would not, however, think that we need to move to a "life is no longer sacrosanct" point of view. Once you've crossed that line, it's really only a question of whose contributions you decide you can life without.

An individual's control over his or her own life is interesting ground. In theory I don't feel that the state should make suicide or abetting suicide a crime. In practice, however, I have grave misgivings about what is likely to happen to the most vulnerable people in our populations once relatives and caregivers are offered a quick and financially expedient way to be rid of a burden. For that reason, I hesitate on the topic of legalizing suicide and euthanasia. That which is financially expedient has a way of consuming all arguments about ethics, morals, or even, in the end, choice.

Ms. Schiavo's case is a very difficult one, and certainly an excellent argument for all of us to spell out living wills and to communicate those clearly to our loved ones. I would have to argue that none of us who have not seen her medical records in detail and interacted with her personally really have any clear idea of the facts of this case, and that it's probably best to accept that. However poassionately we may feel about events in our own pasts and lives, we don't know enough about this case to know if it is equivalent or not. I tend to think, as well, that probably more of the legislators in the rush to act on this don't understand many of the facts either, and one is always uncomfortable at the spectacle of one's elected officials mobbing together to mug at the news cameras.

However, I do not think that any of this suggests that a respect for human life is wrong. It suggests that politicians are publicity hounds - surely nothing we didn't know before - and that parents and spouses faced with a painful and confusing medical situation will experience a great deal of stress, suffering, resentment, denial, false hope and false conclusions on every side. Yes, it is a difficult situation, and one that has doubtless crushed those caught up in it. However, it does not to me suggest that the core problem is that people hold life sacred. It suggest to me that the core problem is that there are some states, like Ms. Schiavo's, that can present a baffling and upsetting appearance to those trying to determine her mental state, particularly given how little we really understand about people in this condition. It also suggest to me that most of the actions in this case, like most other human actions, are capable of a wide variety of constructions. It's not that the various theories about the parents' and husband's motivation lack any support; it's that each has support if it digs into the right comments and measures, and that it's probably not possible for people at our remove to know how accurate any of those theories are. Humans are complex; it's quite possible that a blend of "good" and "bad" motives is occuring in each of those people. It's a terrible position to be in, and no doubt it would be simpler if the parents were willing to ignore that fact that they believe their daughter to be alive in some meaningful way. However, this does not strike me as the right way to solve this problem. If we ignore life when it is expedient to us, we will shortly discover just how often and how broadly it becomes expedient to do so.

Shanglan

My point shang, is not that life is or isn't sacred. My point is, when it comes to my mother and father, I want the decision on what's best for them to be made by myself and my brothers, not by religious fanatics. If my loved one has zero brain function and is being kept alive by a respiratior, I want to decision on whether or not to end that to be made by myself, and my brothers, those who knew her and knew what she wanted.

I don't want a bunch of zealots able to file suit again and again, pushing it along until it reaches the federal level where a Bush appointee will decide. And that's what this law will be opening the way for.

My objection has nothing to do with Teri Schiavo. It has everything to do with the GOP using this tragedy to extend the scope of their power and to use that increased scope to push a religious/moral doctrine up on us all. At present, the state's have final say over medical decisions, the fed has never been the final arbiter. This law, if adopted, will set the precedent that the Fed does exercise final say in medical matters.

If the government were not in bed with people who wish to dictate to me how I live my life, it might not provoke such a strong reaction. But they are, and it does. People will be so happy teri's feeding tube is back, not realizing they just lost their ability to determine the outcome in thier own cases and those of their loved ones. Death with dignity laws will be gone. Because the final arbiter is now the federal government and not the states. The only thing that kept Ashcroft from circumventing Oregon's law was a federal court decision that the fed could not press the states on medical matters. This law sets the precedent that the fed can in fact, dictate medical law to the states.

Should it pass, your reasoned position on the sanctity oflife, where it ends, and when it has become more of a burden than a blessing won't matter. You will get your decision on the sanctity of life from the king james version. Thou shalt not kill. The hideous, unremitting pain of terminal cancer? Thou shalt not kill. Brain dead, but kept alive by a respirator? Thou shalt not kill. Abotrion? Thou shalt not kill. Morning after pill? Thou shalt not kill. Condoms, the pill? Thou shalt not kill, even if it isn't concieved yet, thou shalt not kill the possibility of life.

Absitnace baby, for everybody. And if you can't keep your pecker in your pants? And she gets pregnant? Well, it's what the trollop deserves.

I don't want my morality decided by someone else. I don't want my religion to come to me by government fiat. I don't want the legislative branch to feel free to pass laws to "correct" judicial decisions they don't like.

I want some sanity and respect for the rights of individuals to make decisions that effect their own lives. While I'm at it, I want a pony. What's killing me is I have a better chance at geting the later than the former.

 

[impressive]

A little more propoganda

Hearsay -- just like Michael Schiavo's:

Last Visit Narrative
by Attorney Barbara Weller​

When Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed at 1:45 p.m. on March 18, 2005, I was one of the most surprised people on the planet. I had been visiting Terri throughout the morning with her family and her priest. As part of the legal team working throughout the previous days and nights to save Terri from a horrific fate, I was very hopeful. Although the state judicial system had obviously failed Terri by not protecting her life, I knew other forces were still at work. I fully expected the federal courts would step in to reverse this injustice, just as they might for a prisoner unjustly set for execution—although by much more humane means than Terri would be executed. Barring that, I was certain that sometime around noon, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services would come to the Woodside Hospice facility in Pinellas Park and take Terri into protective custody. Or that federal marshals would arrive from Washington D.C, where the Congress was working furiously to try to save Terri, and would stand guard at her door to prevent any medical personnel from entering her room to remove the tube that was providing her nutrition and hydration.

Finally, I was sure if nothing else was working, that at 12:59,just before the hour scheduled for Terri’s gruesome execution to begin, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush would at least issue a 60-day reprieve for the legislative bodies to complete the work they were attempting to do to save Terri’s life and to make sure that no other vulnerable adults could be sentenced to starve to death in America. I had done the legal research weeks before and was fully convinced that Gov. Bush had the power, under our co-equal branches of government, to issue a reprieve in the face of a judicial death sentence intended to lead to the starvation and dehydration of an innocent woman when scores of doctors and neurologists were saying she could be helped.

All morning long, as I was in the room with Terri and her family, we were telling her that help was on the way. Terri was in good spirits that morning. The mood in her room was jovial, particularly around noontime, as we knew Congressional attorneys were on the scene and many were working hard to save Terri’s life. For most of that time, I was visiting and talking with Terri along with Terri’s sister Suzanne Vitadamo, Suzanne’s husband, and Terri’s aunt, who was visiting from New York to help provide support for the family. A female Pinellas Park police office was stationed at the door outside Terri’s room.

Terri was sitting up in her lounge chair, dressed and looking alert and well. Her feeding tube had been plugged in around 11 a.m. and we all felt good that she was still being fed. Suzanne and I were talking, joking, and laughing with Terri, telling her she was going to go to Washington D.C. to testify before Congress, which meant that finally Terri’s husband Michael would be required to fix her wheelchair. After that Suzanne could take Terri to the mall shopping and could wheel her outdoors every day to feel the wind and sunshine on her face, something she has not been able to do for more than five years.

At one point, I noticed Terri’s window blinds were pulled down. I went to the window to raise them so Terri could look at the beautiful garden outside her window and see the sun after several days of rain. As sunlight came into the room, Terri’s eyes widened and she was obviously very pleased. At another point, Suzanne and I told Terri she needed to suck in all the food she could because she might not be getting anything for a few days. During that time, Mary Schindler, Terri’s mother, joined us for a bit, and we noticed there were bubbles in Terri’s feeding tube. We joked that we didn’t want her to begin burping, and called the nurses to fix the feeding tube, which they did. Terri’s mother did not come back into the room. This was a very difficult day for Bob and Mary Schindler. I suspect they were less hopeful all along than I was, having lived through Terri’s last two feeding tube removals.

Suzanne and I continued to talk and joke with Terri for probably an hour or more. At one point Suzanne called Terri the bionic woman and I heard Terri laugh out loud heartily for the first time since I have been visiting with her. She laughed so hard that for the first time I noticed the dimples in her cheeks.

The most dramatic event of this visit happened at one point when I was sitting on Terri’s bed next to Suzanne. Terri was sitting in her lounge chair and her aunt was standing at the foot of the chair. I stood up and learned over Terri. I took her arms in both of my hands. I said to her, “Terri if you could only say ‘I want to live’ this whole thing could be over today.” I begged her to try very hard to say, “I want to live.” To my enormous shock and surprise, Terri’s eyes opened wide, she looked me square in the face, and with a look of great concentration, she said, “Ahhhhhhh.” Then, seeming to summon up all the strength she had, she virtually screamed, “Waaaaaaaa.” She yelled so loudly that Michael Vitadamo, Suzanne’s husband, and the female police officer who were then standing together outside Terri’s door, clearly heard her. At that point, Terri had a look of anguish on her face that I had never seen before and she seemed to be struggling hard, but was unable to complete the sentence. She became very frustrated and began to cry. I was horrified that I was obviously causing Terri so much anguish. Suzanne and I began to stroke Terri’s face and hair to comfort her. I told Terri I was very sorry. It had not been my intention to upset her so much. Suzanne and I assured Terri that her efforts were much appreciated and that she did not need to try to say anything more. I promised Terri I would tell the world that she had tried to say, ”I want to live.”

Suzanne and I continued to visit and talk with Terri, along with other family members who came and went in the room, until about 2:00 p.m. when we were all told to leave after Judge Greer denied yet another motion for stay and ordered the removal of the feeding tube to proceed. As we left the room, the female police officer outside the door was valiantly attempting to keep from crying.

Just as Terri’s husband Michael has told the world he must keep an alleged promise to kill Terri, a promise remembered a million dollars and nearly a decade after the fact; I must keep my promise to Terri immediately. Time is running out for her. I went out to the banks of cameras outside the hospice facility and told the story immediately. Now I must also tell the story in writing for the world to hear. It may be the last effective thing I can do to try to keep Terri alive so she can get the testing, therapy, and rehabilitative help she so desperately needs before it is too late.

About four in the afternoon, several hours after the feeding tube was removed, I returned to Terri’s room. By that time she was alone except for a male police officer now standing inside the door. When I entered the room and began to speak to her, Terri started to cry and tried to speak to me immediately. It was one of the most helpless feelings I have ever had. Terri was looking very melancholy at that point and I had the sense she was very upset that we had told her things were going to get better, but instead, they were obviously getting worse. I had previously had the same feeling when my own daughter was a baby who was hospitalized and was crying and looking to me to rescue her from her hospital crib, something I could not do. While I was in the room with Terri for the next half hour or so, several other friends came to visit and I did a few press interviews sitting right next to Terri. I again raised her window shade, which had again been pulled down, so Terri could at least see the garden and the sunshine from her lounge chair. I also turned the radio on in her room before I left so that when she was alone, she would at least have some music for comfort.

Just before I left the room, I leaned over Terri and spoke right into her ear. I told her I was very sorry I had not been able to stop the feeding tube from being taken out and I was very sorry I had to leave her alone. But I reminded her that Jesus would stay right by her side even when no one else was there with her. When I mentioned Jesus’ Name, Terri again laughed out loud. She became very agitated and began loudly trying to speak to me again. As Terri continued to laugh and try to speak, I quietly prayed in her ear, kissed her, placed her in Jesus’ care, and left the room.

Terri is alone now. As I write this last visit narrative, it is five in the morning of March 19. Terri has been without food and water for nearly 17 hours. I’m sure she is beginning at least become thirsty, if not hungry. And I am left to wonder how many other people care.

 

[impressive]

My objection has nothing to do with Teri Schiavo. It has everything to do with the GOP using this tragedy to extend the scope of their power and to use that increased scope to push a religious/moral doctrine up on us all. At present, the state's have final say over medical decisions, the fed has never been the final arbiter. This law, if adopted, will set the precedent that the Fed does exercise final say in medical matters.

I understand this, Colly -- and I do agree. I'll admit that in my desire to see this issue reviewed in another court, I was rather short-sighted about the potential ramifications. Thank you for pointing it out.

I also understand Shang's post about holding life sacred (although the use of words with such strong religious overtones gives me the creeps).

It now appears that the legislation has been narrowed to apply to just this case (which just sends up a different set of red flags to me) and it's far from a "done deal" given that several legislators have indicated that they will block it by requiring a majority in Congress for the conduct of business. What a fuckin' circus!

Well ... I'll restate the sentence I used to open this thread: This sickens me.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I understand this, Colly -- and I do agree. I'll admit that in my desire to see this issue reviewed in another court, I was rather short-sighted about the potential ramifications. Thank you for pointing it out.

I also understand Shang's post about holding life sacred (although the use of words with such strong religious overtones gives me the creeps).

It now appears that the legislation has been narrowed to apply to just this case (which just sends up a different set of red flags to me) and it's far from a "done deal" given that several legislators have indicated that they will block it by requiring a majority in Congress for the conduct of business. What a fuckin' circus!

Well ... I'll restate the sentence I used to open this thread: This sickens me.

You can't narrow legislation to apply to just one case. It sets precedent and that becomes part of case law.

There is no blame attached to not seeing the ramifications. The men who are pushing this are counting on your better nature, to want to see every precaution taken to make sure a life isn't ended in error. I suppose, it makes me a less good person, that I am looking past the life at stake, rather than at it. But I have always had a strange detachment when it comes to death.

It is even more sickening, that they know most people are intrinsically good and they are preying on that.

 

[impressive]

I suppose, it makes me a less good person, that I am looking past the life at stake, rather than at it. But I have always had a strange detachment when it comes to death.

Y'know, it's not the death itself that bothers me (IF it's what she wants) but that it's being done in such a heinous fashion and on the word of one individual whose motives are in question. Without even ATTEMPTING to ascertain if she can (or could regain the ability to) eat by mouth, she'll be starved to death. It is beyond appalling. If she could eat by mouth, we wouldn't be having this discussion -- because then it'd be a crime to withhold food and water. A small piece of silicone -- not a big, beeping piece of sophisticated electronics -- is all that's making this issue even an issue.

We're not talking about huge sums of money for medical care. We're not talking about being tethered to a bed. We're not even talking about round-the-clock skilled nursing. I know the level of care involved -- because I provide it. I know the cost involved -- because I pay it. I know the benefits accrued -- because I've seen them. I know that as long as there's a desire for life, there's hope. (And who knows what medical advances will be made tomorrow?)

I want her to be given every opportunity to tell us her wishes herself. That, I am convinced, is precisely what her husband does NOT want.

 

[Pure]

If Ms Schiavo, as some say, is alert, oriented, and responding to stimuli, including responding to talk, and it's simply a question of her needing a tube, there is no question of her right to live if she chooses.

We need to know if there is any motor control. Theorietically, however, one could have no motor control and still be conscious and aware (a kind of total paralysis as in the horror movies).

If she can even blink once for yes and twice for no, to a series of intelligent questions, giving intelligent responses, there's something there.

She also has a right not to live if she chooses.

Unfortunately we don't seem to have good evidence in this thread. There are many accounts of relatives 'communicating' with the autistic and comatose, and sometimes it's wishful thinking.

One needs the opinions of impartial and knowledgeable persons.

On balance, I go with the Republican grandstanding theory. There have apparently been 19 judges involved, and few have 'bought' the description being posted here. That she's a paralyzed, fully conscious person who being starved to death. The Supreme Ct. is refusing to act, and it includes Scalia and other 'right to life' persons.

----
Assuming there is a persistent vegetative state, I'm not sure 'starving' is the best or most humane approach to allowing nature to take its course.