The case of Terri Schiavo

[Ryan Albright]

Well if you live anywhere in Florida or just been listening to the news for the past two years i am sure you have heard the situation of Terri schiavo. If not here is a news article News Article .

Here is a Brief summary.
About 15 years ago Terri suffered a heart attack and has been in a vegetative state since then. Her Husband wants the hospice to pull the feeding tubes and let her die, Claiming this is her wish. Meanwhile her parents are fighting to keep the tubes in, hoping that one day she will pull out of it. There has been many appeals to state and supreme court. The tubes have been pulled out twice already and the second time Governor Bush stepped in and said put it back in. They have passed laws that have left the feeding tubes in, but later was declared unconstitutional. They have pulled the tubes again as of Friday March 18 at 1:45 pm. The doctors say it will take about two weeks for her to die.

Now my question is to you, who has the right to make the decision, the parents or the husband? Is starving someone to death by pulling there tubes humane or even lawful?

Hear are some facts to play into this case to.
The husband has since found another girlfriend of a couple years, but cannot marry her because he is by law still married to Terri and he doesn't want to go through a divorce

In 2001 the parents were banned from seeing their daughter because they illegally snuck a camera into her room to tape her and show she responds to voice and touch.

There is nothing written by Terri to anyone to say if this happened to her what to do, its all what the husband is saying from word of mouth.


Well here is my opinion.
This is a very difficult situation for both sides. I understand were both sides are coming from. The husband who cared for Terri and if she really did say this does have a point, but yet on the other hand the parents feel so much love for her and if she is really responding to touch and voice that she might have a chance. Now in the legal sense i think it would go to the husband since he is legally married to her, but yet being married to her you got to know her parents really well i would presume and if i was the husband and the parents wanted to keep my wife alive i would let them. I would never draw out a case this long its tiring and very frustrating for both sides. I think there is a little more going on to with his girlfriend. He has moved on in life and i think he is trying to take the easy way out. Say hypothetically if she pulled out of this and he was with another lady, what would happen? I think its very in humane to starve someone to death, even if she is in a vegetative state.

I would really like to know everyone's opinion about this. There was a big debate in my Criminal law class about this case and i been following it since 2003 and it looks like its coming to a end very soon.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Ryan Albright

Well if you live anywhere in Florida or just been listening to the news for the past two years i am sure you have heard the situation of Terri schiavo. If not here is a news article News Article .

Here is a Brief summary.
About 15 years ago Terri suffered a heart attack and has been in a vegetative state since then. Her Husband wants the hospice to pull the feeding tubes and let her die, Claiming this is her wish. Meanwhile her parents are fighting to keep the tubes in, hoping that one day she will pull out of it. There has been many appeals to state and supreme court. The tubes have been pulled out twice already and the second time Governor Bush stepped in and said put it back in. They have passed laws that have left the feeding tubes in, but later was declared unconstitutional. They have pulled the tubes again as of Friday March 18 at 1:45 pm. The doctors say it will take about two weeks for her to die.

Now my question is to you, who has the right to make the decision, the parents or the husband? Is starving someone to death by pulling there tubes humane or even lawful?

Hear are some facts to play into this case to.
The husband has since found another girlfriend of a couple years, but cannot marry her because he is by law still married to Terri and he doesn't want to go through a divorce

In 2001 the parents were banned from seeing their daughter because they illegally snuck a camera into her room to tape her and show she responds to voice and touch.

There is nothing written by Terri to anyone to say if this happened to her what to do, its all what the husband is saying from word of mouth.


Well here is my opinion.
This is a very difficult situation for both sides. I understand were both sides are coming from. The husband who cared for Terri and if she really did say this does have a point, but yet on the other hand the parents feel so much love for her and if she is really responding to touch and voice that she might have a chance. Now in the legal sense i think it would go to the husband since he is legally married to her, but yet being married to her you got to know her parents really well i would presume and if i was the husband and the parents wanted to keep my wife alive i would let them. I would never draw out a case this long its tiring and very frustrating for both sides. I think there is a little more going on to with his girlfriend. He has moved on in life and i think he is trying to take the easy way out. Say hypothetically if she pulled out of this and he was with another lady, what would happen? I think its very in humane to starve someone to death, even if she is in a vegetative state.

I would really like to know everyone's opinion about this. There was a big debate in my Criminal law class about this case and i been following it since 2003 and it looks like its coming to a end very soon.

It is a tough situation with no easy answer but I certainly know one easy answer: the GOP needs to butt out. It is none of their business and they have no right to intrude upon this private matter with their obnoxious legislation. That's what lawyers and courts are for.

[KTorak]

In my opinion, the court should have sided with her parents, after all, they have known her much longer then her husband. IF they want to kill her, they should do it more humanely then removing her feeding tube and stopping all food and water to here so she slowly dies in 2-4 weeks.

[Fourevilmonkies]

I haven't followed this story as much as most people, mainly because for an entire month my local talk radio station decided to talk about nothing but the case and things get boring, however I see that there are three clear chioses: Rehibilitate her, Leaver her, Or Kill her. The most moraly correct answer to this would be to try and rehibilitate her. However nobody is acting upon this chioce. This leaves us with a vegitative state or her death. Death would have been the lesser of the two evils. But now we can move on to the intentions of the family and the husband. I am sure there is alot going on in the background that we don't pay attention enough to see. Just in the past month the Husband decided to bring up a point that Terri was abused as a child and the parents claimed that the Husband abused her (in the terms of mental abuse I believe that Terri was suffering from anerexia nervosa before her accident). Now that we have mud flying every where who is there to believe.

[Jay H 237]

The fact that Terri didn't have a living will makes this case difficult.


Removing a feeding tube from someone in her condition and allowing them to starve to death is one of the more humane ways of allowing her to die. Here's a link about it.

Now states have different laws so what applies here in Connecticut may or may not apply in Florida. Whatever the outcome of this will be (remember they can still reinsert the tube) may not be the same if it happened in another state.

One thing I don't see in any of the stories is who's paying for her care. That may also influence this case, especially if it's her husband and/or the parents.

I agree with Koko Ed, this is a private matter between the husband and parents. There's no reason the legislatures should be involved with this and it will only complicate matters and possibly futher draw this case out.

[nehalita]

I agree with Koko Ed and Jay about the intervention aspect. It is essentially between the husband and parents and no one else knows her personally enough to make her decisions.

I have only made a weak opinion on this because it is none of my business and my opinion will not influence any decision made. Also, I don't even think a big deal should be made out of this. People die EVERY day and doctors make these decisions EVERY day. People may argue that this is a matter of principle, and perhaps it is, but should we really be spending so much time and coverage on ONE person who has been in the same state for 15 years? There are so many other stories that deserve time and space on the air but are being neglected because of this story. What about the million car crashes everyday that could have been prevented? What about our education problems (ESPECIALLY in florida)? What about people dying every day of cancer? What about the debt crisis? What about our international relations? *sigh*

Finally my opinion: I want to know the likelihood of her pulling out of her vegetative state. I don't think it's fair to anyone to sustain her life. Of what purpose does it serve? There is a time for everything and she has been like this for 15 years. She was, I am sure, a good person, but things have changed. No one can bring back the same person she was years ago. I, however, feel that there is a more humane way to end her life, not by having her starve to death (although many doctors have reassured that this is painless). Finally, as cruel as this may sound, it is not fair to the husband. Is he not entitled to enjoying his own life? He has been dedicated for these 15 years; how much longer will this go for? No one knows.

This is my opinion, I hope I haven't offended anyone, if I have, I apologize, this was not my intent. I am open to counter-arguments (I love clean straightforward debates).

[SteveO]

lol, this is probably going to be one of those debate threads that gets out of hand. Just thought I would put my 2 cents in real quick though,,,,

Originally Posted by nehalita

I agree with Koko Ed and Jay about the intervention aspect. It is essentially between the husband and parents and no one else knows her personally enough to make her decisions.

Finally my opinion: I want to know the likelihood of her pulling out of her vegetative state. I don't think it's fair to anyone to sustain her life. Of what purpose does it serve. There is a time for everything and she has been like this for 15 years. She was, I am sure, a good person, but things have changed. No one can bring back the same person she was years ago. I, however, feel that there is a more humane way to end her life, not by having her starve to death (although many doctors have assured that this is painful). Finally, as cruel as this may sound, it is not fair to the husband. Is he not entitled to enjoying his own life. He has been dedicated for these 15 years and how much longer will this go for? No one knows.

This is my opinion, I hope I haven't offended anyone, if I have, I apologize, this was not my intent. I am open to counter-arguments (I love clean straightforward debates).

First off, when the husband married her I'm sure he made some sort of "til death do us part" vow in there somewhere... But apparently he already has another family and has been living his life. I agree with the whole intervention thing, I think the government should stay out, but here is something that scares the hell out of me:

From what I saw, Schiavo was not in a "vegetative" state, more of a mentally incompetent state. I'm not sure if her condition has changed since the footage I saw, but to let someone die in that state kinda scares me. Only because there are a lot of members of my family in the medical field that say they have seen people come back from this state, granted they weren't in it for that long, but if I were in Schiavo's state, and there were even the smallest chance of me coming out of it, I would want the people I loved to at least try. OK, so they have tried for 15 years, it just seems like they are giving up too easily. What scares me more is that someone else can make the decision whether I live or die. I know it happens all the time in brain dead states and otherwise, but I have never heard of them "pulling the plug" on someone still conscious. Again, I may be wrong about her condition. It might cost a lot of money and be inconvenient for some people, but I think we should give still try.

I'm sure everyone will have an opinion about this, though it won't matter, just as mine doesn't matter. My guess is Schiavo will probably die while the government battles over this issue, and the only people who's opinions matter will come too late. This is going to be an issue that divides people by party, just like most things. From what I see though I am not following most of the people in my party's opinion. Oh well, I'm done. More later maybe when someone is angry with me

[nehalita]

Originally Posted by SteveO

First off, when the husband married her I'm sure he made some sort of "til death do us part" vow in there somewhere...

very true - good point. but then again, no one could forsee having a wife that only minimally responds to affection (if any). Personally, that would kill me so much. I could not bear to live 15 years without being able to talk to my husband.

Originally Posted by SteveO

From what I saw, Schiavo was not in a "vegetative" state, more of a mentally incompetent state. I'm not sure if her condition has changed since the footage I saw, but to let someone die in that state kinda scares me.

the only footage I saw was a 30 second clip of her responding. this was played OVER and OVER and there are no other videos. Then again, I think this is because the family wasn't allowed to videotape her. So I'm not sure. Also, how old is that video? She may be more responsive now or less responsive. That would greatly affect my opinion. There are rumors that they might even bring Schiavo to court. Logical? I don't know. Effective? Yes.

Originally Posted by SteveO

OK, so they have tried for 15 years, it just seems like they are giving up too easily. What scares me more is that someone else can make the decision whether I live or die. I know it happens all the time in brain dead states and otherwise, but I have never heard of them "pulling the plug" on someone still conscious.

15 years x 365.25 = 5480ish days. 15 years is almost as long as I have been alive (i am 17). For me, 15 years seems like a long time.
I'm not sure about your last sentence. You may be correct, I have never studied this in depth.

side note: yes I'm biased, sorry, I'm only human

[SteveO]

Originally Posted by nehalita

very true - good point. but then again, no one could forsee having a wife that only minimally responds to affection (if any). Personally, that would kill me so much. I could not bear to live 15 years without being able to talk to my husband.

the only footage I saw was a 30 second clip of her responding. this was played OVER and OVER and there are no other videos. Then again, I think this is because the family wasn't allowed to videotape her. So I'm not sure. Also, how old is that video? She may be more responsive now or less responsive. That would greatly affect my opinion. There are rumors that they might even bring Schiavo to court. Logical? I don't know. Effective? Yes.


15 years x 365.25 = 5480ish days. 15 years is almost as long as I have been alive (i am 17). For me, 15 years seems like a long time.
I'm not sure about your last sentence. You may be correct, I have never studied this in depth.

side note: yes I'm biased, sorry, I'm only human

I agree with you on almost every one of your points, except these:
I know it would be hard to keep a husband in a state like Schiavo's, but you can't plan for things like those. Maybe I'm wrong and his wedding vows were different, but usually they go something like "in sickness and in health, for better or worse blah blah.." If this is the case he has already broken his promises. It's hard to stay with someone, but I guess thats my definition of love, keeping those promises. Not to say that there can't be some kind of beforehand agreement, as bad as it sounds, and the couple can't still love each other. It's just if he said those things he should mean them. If you don't mean them, leave them out of your vows or something, I think that's perfectly acceptable.

15 years used to seem like a long time for me too, but I have seen a lot of people close to me die recently. I just think every second of "life" is precious. Now I guess we have to leave it up to the courts to decide what living is, it just sucks when the body that governs you might think you are dead and you have a different opinion :|

EDIT: I forgot to add, as many people keep pointing out, I don't know all the facts and probably no one else does, its all just speculation and opinion

Now off to school

[KenWittlief]

This thread is showing why this is such a hotly debated issue. People see it from their perspective, based on their own experiences. But like I said, we dont know the reality of her situation, and we can only speculate, then argue about our speculations.

If your family doctor tells you 'your spouse is gone, not here anymore, we are keeping her body alive artifically, but her conscouseness has left'

then has death already visited?

if your spouse is an organ donor, and you give away organs at the time of 'death' - those body parts are still alive, arnt they? couldnt you agrue you are now married to all those people who received those body parts?

it sounds aburd, and that is my point. If brain scans show she is brain dead, and her body is being kept artifically pumping, are you still morally married?

I see this from the husbands persepectice. She told him she doesnt want to be kept alive in a situation like this and LAWYERS are going against her will. Her husband has been fighting for years to give her what she asked for, her dignity.

If he wanted a divorce he could have gotten one a long time ago - and someone doenst have to be dead to get a medical malpractice settlement. The fact that this guy has tried to move on with his life (found someone else) in no way reflects poorly on him, if HE is convinced his wife died 15 years ago.

[Ryan Albright]

Hey guys i just want to say thanks for keeping this debate under control and not getting at each other. Thanks for all the opinions.

[KenWittlief]

the closest thing I have seen to information direct from the sources:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/ne...03-176489.html

[Ashley Weed]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

This thread is showing why this is such a hotly debated issue. People see it from their perspective, based on their own experiences. But like I said, we dont know the reality of her situation, and we can only speculate, then argue about our speculations.

If your family doctor tells you 'your spouse is gone, not here anymore, we are keeping her body alive artifically, but her conscouseness has left'

then has death already visited?

if your spouse is an organ donor, and you give away organs at the time of 'death' - those body parts are still alive, arnt they? couldnt you agrue you are now married to all those people who received those body parts?

it sounds aburd, and that is my point. If brain scans show she is brain dead, and her body is being kept artifically pumping, are you still morally married?

I see this from the husbands persepectice. She told him she doesnt want to be kept alive in a situation like this and LAWYERS are going against her will. Her husband has been fighting for years to give her what she asked for, her dignity.

If he wanted a divorce he could have gotten one a long time ago - and someone doenst have to be dead to get a medical malpractice settlement. The fact that this guy has tried to move on with his life (found someone else) in no way reflects poorly on him, if HE is convinced his wife died 15 years ago.

I can fully understand, and in many cases agree. However, what if she never actually said those words? Without a living will nobody knows the truth if she ever told her husband her last wishes.
This is where the courts need to be involved. To best decide if her family should decide her fate.
I still have to agree, that the family would know her better than anyone else. Her overall will to live. Her earn to be alive, how much she would want to fight the inevitable to be on this planet to her last moment.
I know that I sure don't want my husband deciding this for me, and would not put such power in his hands. My family will always know how strong my will to live is.

[nehalita]

Originally Posted by Ashley Weed

I know that I sure don't want my husband deciding this for me, and would not put such power in his hands. My family will always know how strong my will to live is.

This goes both ways. Perhaps she did not believe in sustaining life for so long. (And i apologize, before i said it was 15 years but according to the link 2 posts ago, it is 13). I made it clear to my parents that I would not want to be sustained for so long. The biggest problem is we don't know what she wants. Even if she had specified it, things can get "lost in translation."

Ashley, your previous story is amazing. I did not know it was possible to pull out so spontaneously. I'm not sure what exactly to make of it. I guess it's up to the court now, *sigh*

[Emily Pease]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

This thread is showing why this is such a hotly debated issue. People see it from their perspective, based on their own experiences. But like I said, we dont know the reality of her situation, and we can only speculate, then argue about our speculations.

If your family doctor tells you 'your spouse is gone, not here anymore, we are keeping her body alive artifically, but her conscouseness has left'

then has death already visited?

if your spouse is an organ donor, and you give away organs at the time of 'death' - those body parts are still alive, arnt they? couldnt you agrue you are now married to all those people who received those body parts?

it sounds aburd, and that is my point. If brain scans show she is brain dead, and her body is being kept artifically pumping, are you still morally married?

I see this from the husbands persepectice. She told him she doesnt want to be kept alive in a situation like this and LAWYERS are going against her will. Her husband has been fighting for years to give her what she asked for, her dignity.

If he wanted a divorce he could have gotten one a long time ago - and someone doenst have to be dead to get a medical malpractice settlement. The fact that this guy has tried to move on with his life (found someone else) in no way reflects poorly on him, if HE is convinced his wife died 15 years ago.

Ken, I completely agree with you, especially with the part I bolded. I truly believe that her undocumented wish was to have quality of life, not quantity, and I personally would not like to be laying in a bed for fifteen years, watching my beloved husband by my side in this terrible legal battle.

It's clear that both parties love Terri very much, but I think her parents are just not ready for their daughter to go and have been trying to delay the inevitable, while her husband has accepted that she's gone, mourned the loss, and did exactly what she wanted from everyone: he moved on with his life.

I mean, I find it hard to believe that anyone's wish would be, "If I am in a hopeless vegetable state for fifteen years, I would like my family to spend all of their money keeping my heart pumping, and to spend the rest of their lives mourning me."