Terri Schiavo's Tube Removed

I'm not even going to try to get into all the 'he said, she said' in this case. My advice is to write a living will.

 

The thing I do not understand is why the husband doesn't walk away. The parents say they'll care for her, he can go do wahtever and what's the big deal?

 

Not to mention the million dollars.

 

I'll admit I haven't paid much attention to all of this, but I've been trolling the literature and there is some disturbing stuff out there.

THIS ONE FOR EXAMPLE:

That leads to the 6 ft. 6 inch, 250 pound problem: Michael Schiavo. The evidence compiled against him suggests a history and pattern of domestic abuse against Terri and other women that is strong and significant. An immediate criminal investigation is warranted.

The main evidence comes from a bone scan taken on March 5, 1991. As Terri’s guardian, Michael Schiavo denied her family access to Terri’s records, the results of which were not made available until November, 2002. This scan indicated numerous broken bones in various stages of healing, including compressions fractures, a broken back, pelvis, ankle, bone bruises and ossifications. ...

And it adds among other things this disturbing quote:

On October 24, 2003, renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden was interviewed by Greta van Susteren on Fox News. He disclosed that with low potassium and no elevated enzymes, it would be extremely rare for a young woman to collapse as Terri did from a heart attack. When asked what the bone injuries suggest to him, Dr. Baden replied, “Some kind of trauma. The trauma can be from a fall, or the trauma can be from some kind of beating that she obtained from somebody somewhere.


And I wasn't at all aware of THIS QUOTE or the background to it:


Michael Schiavo is quoted as asking “When is that bitch gonna die?”; by Terri's nurse, Carla Iyer in a deposition in September of 2003.

 

Not much time for posting today. SOmebody could freakin help me out here.


As for this whole mess, I'm not about to express an opinion. Unless we can go stand in the room, and unless we can look into her "husbands" heart, theres not much to say.

HOWEVER: from a political standpoint, would someone tell me just how it is that the Democrats have once again cleverly managed to position themselves on the wrong side?

Someone apparently told them that this is a "life" issue or a "values" issue or something and so their knee-jerk reqaction is to oppose whatever the right seems to want.

(Not all of them of course: SOME Democrats aren't interested in ushering the party all the way into the grave)

This one is a no-brainer: there are no votes on the "let's pull the tube" side. None. There are no demonstrators out there chanting "Kill her, kill her"

Sure there are some "right to die" issues here, but they're less than clear cut and you can count the votes on the fingers of one hand.

But there is a substantial number of people on the "somebody ought to do something" side. THAT'S where the votes are. Who cares about the goddam facts: this is politics.

Someday, when we're all dead, we'll get together and go ask God what the deal was on this. Until then, nobody really knows, but for a politician, there's onlyl one side to be on.

 

Bull spit button on that one. That fat b!tch Randi Rhodes and her compratiots at Error America want people to believe this. This is NOT a red/blue (rural,urban) issue.

I haven't seen the party breakdown of the House 203-58 vote, but the Senate did pass the legislation unanimously. I know the Republicans have taken over all forms of government with their insipid views, but I would like to think that some members of the Senate and of the 203 were Dems.



Other than that, I wish I could comment on the case. On a more broad swath, however, repurcusions of this case could extend drastically. I am scared of knee jerk reacitons from the moral right/left which would eliminate the removal of food/power from a life support system. Basically, if I'm a veggie for a certain amount of time --- I want my family to yoink the plug or starve me without prior legislation stemming from this case stopping the process.

 

My understanding is that the Dem vote was about 50/50 on this. There's some dems playing smart politics, and others who just, well, aren't.

My thing on this is, the courts should have this handled. It troubles me as an American to have it come to an act of congress. It should never have come to this.

 

My mistake. I didn't look at the thread date and assumed it got posted today because it was at the top of the list.

That's the problem. There are too many pundits that are saying this is strictly a Rep/Dem issue. The fatbodies, Rush and Randi, are crying that this is a strict party issue while others like Glen and Franken are taking a stance that this is not a party issue (however, I'll give you one guess as to which side Glen and which side Franken support!).

Complete agreement. No one here can say that we are not injecting our personal wishes into the situation. For that matter, how can Bush and Congress say the same thing? I find it hard to believe that we have 300 some "experts" in DC that are not doing exactly what we are doing now.






On a slightly different note --- Is Bush, et al seting a precedent for the reduction of an idividual state's rights? This is something that is very anti-Republican.

 

That's what's so disturbing about this. The state courts had already settled this matter. If you look at opinion polls, over 60% of Americans believe that the husband should be able to make the decision. 70% believe that Congress is out of bounds on this. It never should have gotten to a vote.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=602150

What's even more amusing is that the pundits jumped on Drudge's posting of the audio from the weekend as some sort of proof. Only to be found out later that the audio was from a year ago.

The positive is, at least i have a living will, which should help to prevent some of these issues if I'm ever in this situation.

 

1) IMO this is a case of the polls leading in the wrong direction. Which is OK because anybody who decides which way to vote here based on politics deserves what he gets anyway.

I believe the numbers don't tell the whole story: the minority who want her kept alive are mostly people who are following this closely, are intensely interested and care deeply. I believe the majority of the other side aren't following it closely and don't care that much.

PLUS: As I keep trying to teach people, look at the end game. Like I keep saying about Iraq, it's all well and good to protest and howl, but it's going to be over some day and if we fail people are going to go looking for someone to blame and it's going to be you.

Same here: if this continues the way it is, in about eight days this woman will finish dying a slow, painful death, which will be described in excruciating detail by the media: cracking lips, dried skin, weak, puking and convulsing and while there won't be pictures, we'll all hear all about it. Guaranteed.

Then there'll be a tearful funeral, and funerals make everyone feel bad and regretful, and this too, along with the sermons about life and the flowers and the outpouring of sympathy. What do Shiavo and his lawyer and Nancy Pelosi do then: hold a presser and congratulate each other on this woman's suffering and death?

No, they'll have to lay low while we're bombarded with funeral images. They'll get the short end of the emotional backlash, I guarantee it, and those who were on the other side can freely march to microphones, put on somber faces and gravely intone about "this tragedy".

2) A living will is nice, but you need to include a DNR. Your chances of dying of natural causes after you reach 21 are miniscule for around 30 years. If you don't believe me, ask your insurance guy. They are the absolute experts.

The likely scenario for you is that you're in a horrible accident and your brains are bashed all over the interstate someplace. If you're brought in the ER Physician will know that you have no chance at meaningful recovery, but that determination cannot be made in those circumstances. Absent other instructions you must be resuscitated, put on a breathing machine and then shipped upstairs where your family will then have to deal with the consequences.

A DNR order saves them from that.

3) RE: This unfortunate Sciavo woman: the Schindler's (her parents) and the Congress and the State of Florida, the ones trying to keep her alive, have always had a terrible legal case. They still do.

What they do have is a terrific moral case, particularly since there's a decent chance that the real cause of her heart attack is her husband beating her, him having a common-law wife and two kids with her, the fact that he was awarded a million bucks for her rehabilitation and he spent not one dime of it on her, etc., etc., etc.

So it's the MORAL issues which have kept this thing alive, not the legal ones, which are the only things the courts can hear.

4) On a side note, I have heard over and over about how "19 Judges" and/or "23 Courts" have ruled that Terri is non-recoverable. This is incorrect.

ONE court ruled that she is beyond hope. The other courts have all been asked to rule on various legal challenges to various issues regarding custodianship. No other court has been willing to rehear the evidence.

 

Lowry has some thoughts for you:



http://nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200503220758.asp

 

A couple of points to respond to:

In cases such as this, it will be painless. The only ill effects would be dried lips and mouth, which can be easily alleviated.

According to the original judge's report (which I could find, if you'd like), $700,000 was set aside for her health care and $300,000 was given to him. The parents thought that they were owed part of that $300,000. He was also her most frequent visitor for the first several years of her stay.

 

You're also not in a persistent vegetative state. Presumably, your brain hasn't filled up with spinal fluid. The experts have made it clear that Schiavo would slip into a coma and pass away peacefully and painlessly. And if she happened to express a feeling of pain, which she won't, no doubt someone would administer morphine.

 

I'd also like the point out that, as Gov. of Texas, Bush signed a law allowing health care professionals to do exactly this, even if the family wanted to keep the person alive but could not find a facility to transfer the patient within a 10-day period.

See for yourself:

 

Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. To my knowledge, she does not have cerebral palsy. Honestly, if her eyes weren't open, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because she would have been allowed to die fifteen years ago.

I would quibble with the term "natural life" as you use it.

What matters most, though, is what she would have wanted. Her husband and other people who knew them insist that this is not what she would have wanted and that she had told them that herself. Her parents are basing their belief that she would have wanted to live on comments she made after watching a movie when she was 11 or 12 years old. Again, if you'd like to see the original judge's ruling, in which he makes it clear that the husband had a much better case with regard to her beliefs, then I'll find it for you. (Actually, it's on the Politics board, somewhere around page 15 of that thread.)

She is not going to recover. Not ever. If you were in her situation, would you want to live?

 

Peculiar then that her "husband" waited over SEVEN YEARS after her incapacity to suddenly recall that hese were her heartfelt wishes.

Said recollection coincided with his talking a common-law wife and receiving a million dollars for Terri's rehab, including speech and physical therapy. To date he has spent not one single dime of this money for it's purpose.

There is also a sworn statement from the private nurse who was his primary caregiver that as recently as 2002 Terri was entirely able to eat soft foods with a spoon and drink from a baby bottle. The sworn deposition states that Michael ordered her to stop administering any nutrition or hydration by any means other than through a tube.

Further, she testified in State Superior Court, before she was placed under a gag order requested by Michael's Attorney, that up until the time Michael fired her Terri was able to say "Mom", "Hi" and several other words, respond appropriately to painful stimulus and recognize various caregivers.

We further have the testimony of the Physician who has submitted sworn statements in which he describes the numerous broken bones which Terri presented immediately after her "heart attack"

All anyone is suggesting here is that this woman, who has been denied the right to legal representation by her husbands' attorney and the judge who, against all the rules, appointed HIMSELF as her guardian ad litem rather than appoint one as is customary, be moved into the custody of her parents.

Thats all. No more.

No one is asking anyone to make a judgement on her medical condition. All they're asking is that Micahael Shiavo's custodianship over Terri Shiavo be transferred to someone else.

 

Whatever you may or may not know or believe about all of this, that is simply not the question.

The question is whether the man who most likely tried to kill her with his bare hands ought to be the one making these decisions.

 

Fred Barnes has a good take:

* Terri Schiavo is brain damaged but not brain dead. She is not on life support. She breathes on her own. She occasionally laughs. She reacts to stimuli. She responds at times to her parents. She is not dying, though she needs a feeding tube. A doctor diagnosed her as being in a "permanent vegetative state" but other doctors have disputed that view. Indeed there are legitimate questions about her initial diagnosis.

* Schiavo's parents have offered to take full responsibility for her care, relieving her husband of any obligations whatsoever. They are willing to pay the expenses of her hospitalization and any rehabilitation program.

* Senate majority leader Bill Frist, himself a doctor, has talked to a neurologist who examined Schiavo. The neurologist told him that with proper care of a type she hasn't received there is a good chance that Schiavo's condition will improve markedly.

​

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/385ttsvl.asp