Terri Schiavo - live or die, why do we even have to ask?

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:18 pm

[quote="JudgeMental";p="470332"]...that Mr. Schiavo was abusive, likely contributed to her currect vegetative condition...[/quote]Ok, pause, you've got a bit of a mixup here.

Terri, before she was a vegetable, had a severe eating disorder. As in, 'she had to be hospitalized several times' kind of eating disorder. Her physicians misdiagnosed or prescribed the wrong medicines or something and that caused her to enter the state she is in now.

Terri's husband sued the doctors and such for damages and 'care costs' for Terri and won. That was all like 7 years ago. Where do you get that her husband's abuse caused any of this? Apparently she had the eating disorder well before she met him.
[quote="JudgeMental";p="470332"]It sickens me that people can buy into death so easily. Death is everywhere. It's easy to come by. It can take anybody in an instant. Life is precious, rare. It is a tentative thing, nurtured carefully. Death is permanent, life is not.[/quote]This is purely my opinion, take it as such.

I believe that the reason why death has become such a socially acceptable thing is because, collectively, human beings have come to realize that we're kinda overcrowded. A few more deaths mean a bit more breathing room. It is sad, and hopefully only the bad or 'worthless' people die, but as long as it isn't them, they don't care.

Once again, just my two cents. Don't ask me for proof because I ain' got none.

JudgeMental · Post by **JudgeMental** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:51 pm

[quote="Fixer";p="470403"][quote="JudgeMental";p="470332"]...that Mr. Schiavo was abusive, likely contributed to her currect vegetative condition...[/quote]Ok, pause, you've got a bit of a mixup here.

Terri, before she was a vegetable, had a severe eating disorder. As in, 'she had to be hospitalized several times' kind of eating disorder. Her physicians misdiagnosed or prescribed the wrong medicines or something and that caused her to enter the state she is in now.

Terri's husband sued the doctors and such for damages and 'care costs' for Terri and won. That was all like 7 years ago. Where do you get that her husband's abuse caused any of this? Apparently she had the eating disorder well before she met him.[/quote]

I heard about what caused her heart attack to begin with, but that's not what I was referring to. One of those nurses I kept referring to described how he would visit her alone, and she would always be tense and unresponsive, often with clenched fists afterwards. Also, there's apparently evidence of fractures and perhaps broken bones that occurred just before her heart attack. Whether he's responsable or not, it's the second part that's important.

His lawsuit was for $1,000,000. $300,000 went to him for loss of her company, $700,000 went into a trust for her care. You know what he did? Suspended all medical care except for food and water. He had a "no resuscitation" notice placed on her charts, apparently against doctor's recommendation. When she developed an infection, he tried to block the doctors from treating her. They ignored him.

You know what he spent the money on? Lawyers. He spent it on trying to get the legal right to remove her feeding tube. It was at this point he "remembered" her wishes to not be kept in this state. Seven years AFTER the accident, after a legal battle during which he promised to rehabilitate her, he suddenly remembers she wants to die. Fishy.

[quote="JudgeMental";p="470332"]It sickens me that people can buy into death so easily. Death is everywhere. It's easy to come by. It can take anybody in an instant. Life is precious, rare. It is a tentative thing, nurtured carefully. Death is permanent, life is not.

This is purely my opinion, take it as such.

I believe that the reason why death has become such a socially acceptable thing is because, collectively, human beings have come to realize that we're kinda overcrowded. A few more deaths mean a bit more breathing room. It is sad, and hopefully only the bad or 'worthless' people die, but as long as it isn't them, they don't care.

Once again, just my two cents. Don't ask me for proof because I ain' got none.[/quote]

No offense, but because you stated overcrowding as a factor in your opinion, you do need proof.

We're FAR from overcrowded here in the U.S. Yet it has become acceptable anyway. If you're talking about China, where I would agree without evidence that they're overcrowded, sure, I could see that as a reason. But I don't see your conditions existing here.

Odd how selfish that concept is, though.

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:13 pm

Still, id like to see how they can explain this is any different from euthanasia? (sp?)

I mean, i SUPPORT euthanasia, but the courts should have no right to move away from the law, and as far as i know the law states very clearly that euthanasia is illegal. Right?

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:40 pm

[quote="JudgeMental";p="470415"]I heard about what caused her heart attack to begin with, but that's not what I was referring to...(much snippage)... It was at this point he "remembered" her wishes to not be kept in this state. Seven years AFTER the accident, after a legal battle during which he promised to rehabilitate her, he suddenly remembers she wants to die. Fishy.[/quote]Oh, I'm not saying he's right or even blameless, I'm just saying that her condition is definitely not CAUSED by his behavior. It might be aggravated by it, but not caused by him.

That being said, I think he's as slimy as a snake, but I believe in rule of law over morality. If the two come into conflict (as they do here), law must win for the continuance of society. If laws are thrown out whenever morals differ, chaos will grow on the horizon.

JudgeMental wrote:
This is purely my opinion, take it as such.

I believe that the reason why death has become such a socially acceptable thing is because, collectively, human beings have come to realize that we're kinda overcrowded. A few more deaths mean a bit more breathing room. It is sad, and hopefully only the bad or 'worthless' people die, but as long as it isn't them, they don't care.

Once again, just my two cents. Don't ask me for proof because I ain' got none.
No offense, but because you stated overcrowding as a factor in your opinion, you do need proof.

We're FAR from overcrowded here in the U.S. Yet it has become acceptable anyway. If you're talking about China, where I would agree without evidence that they're overcrowded, sure, I could see that as a reason. But I don't see your conditions existing here.

Odd how selfish that concept is, though.

It is an opinion, clearly stated as such, and proof is not required for an opinion. Only arguments require facts, not opinions. I will try to explain the reasoning behind my opinion, however. Please feel free to differ from my opinion and, if you feel strongly enough, present facts in an effort to change it.

As a nation, no, the US is not real overpopulated. However, in the CITIES (where most people live), they 'feel' very crowded, thereby giving an illusion of overcrowding. This causes a harder mindset which causes one to be more callous to their non-immediate neighbors.

And yes, I agree that those sentiments are extremely selfish and I don't like them either.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:22 pm

[quote="Fixer";p="470432"]I think he's as slimy as a snake, but I believe in rule of law over morality. If the two come into conflict (as they do here), law must win for the continuance of society. If laws are thrown out whenever morals differ, chaos will grow on the horizon.[/quote]
Whoa whoa whoa...the rule of law? Can you explain this position as it pertains to this case, as the law has actually been ignored by more than one judge in this case...

[quote="Fixer";p="470403"]Apparently she had the eating disorder well before she met him.[/quote]
While obviously irrelevant to whether we allow her to be murdered or not, that's still an interesting point, as it's the first time I've heard anyone suggest that, maybe because it's completely beside the greater point at issue, here.

Posted Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:41 pm:

Heh...

Norman P. Function wrote:Now, I don't want to piss off all the folks who have a strong opinion on that woman in Florida who got the feeding tube yanked, because after all your opinion's about as worthless as this piece of shit Compaq computer I'm typing on, what with neither of us having any say as to whether she should be fed or not and most likely all of us getting on with our lives full steam not too long after she goes on to the next dimension. But hey, if she dies on Good Friday, wouldn't it be worth a looksee or two on Priceline or some other "get a cheap ticket dot com" to maybe zip down the sunny state of Florida to see what happens when they roll back the stone on Sunday, and maybe find out she's not there and instead pulled a JC II and she's out and about mingling with the locals? Cuz wouldn't it be madly appropriate if Jesus came back to earth as a chick with an eating disorder? And then we'd all be standing around with that same look Woody Allen had in "Crimes And Misdemeanors," when Mia Farrow shows up at the wedding with Alan Alda. We'll all be thinking "holy shit ...that was Jesus and we fucking killed him! Again!" Which is the point God feels the need to get across every couple thousand years, guilting us all into behaving, or at least putting all the fucking guns and bombs away for a week or two and being civil.

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:52 pm

[quote="Deacon";p="470481"][quote="Fixer";p="470432"]I think he's as slimy as a snake, but I believe in rule of law over morality. If the two come into conflict (as they do here), law must win for the continuance of society. If laws are thrown out whenever morals differ, chaos will grow on the horizon.[/quote]
Whoa whoa whoa...the rule of law? Can you explain this position as it pertains to this case, as the law has actually been ignored by more than one judge in this case...[/quote]It is my understanding that the only real law involved here is guardianship. Whether or not Terri's husband or her parents should be the guardians. Terri's parents are accusing Terri's husband of not demonstrating sufficient guardianship over Terri, whereas he maintains that he is acting in 'her best interests', self-described as acting with her wishes (which, in the absence of significant contrary information, like a will to the contrary, his position as husband AND guardian trumps her parents).

And before anyone goes and spouts off that her parents know better for her what she wants, think about whether or not your own parents REALLY know what it is you'd want done, or your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband.

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 12:25 am

I thought euthanasia was illegal?

coyote blue · Post by **coyote blue** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:24 am

I feel that by not feeding her and giving her water is murdering her. They know very well what will happen, they are doctors. Let the 'husband' rot. My worry is on the woman and what will happen to her. If she is treatable in any way, something that will improve her life then I am all for helping her. But if there is no chance, and it is proven that there is no chance for her to awaken, then there has to be a more humane way.. but what? Food and water were the only things keeping her alive. So we know her heart and lungs and all that are functioning properly.
I don't know... I just wish it wasn't so publicized. The media tends to twist things around. Trust me, I work for a major paper...

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:32 am

then there has to be a more humane way.. but what?

.45 auto to the heart. On a cataonic woman, very easy to aim for an almost instant death. Do it on rubber sheets with a bulletproof vest under her, and there's hardly any mess, either.

Far expensive, but 'neater', which is apparently a condition for being 'human', also, is simply slipping a massive overdose of something into her IV.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:33 am

Morphine.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:37 am

[quote="JudgeMental";p="470415"]I heard about what caused her heart attack to begin with, but that's not what I was referring to. One of those nurses I kept referring to described how he would visit her alone, and she would always be tense and unresponsive, often with clenched fists afterwards. Also, there's apparently evidence of fractures and perhaps broken bones that occurred just before her heart attack. Whether he's responsable or not, it's the second part that's important.[/quote]
All of these claims have only come up in the last couple of years as the parents have scrounges for more reasons for the courts to continue the feeding tube. Two guardians ad litem appointed by the courts determined that there was no evidence of abuse on the part of Michael, and one of them stated in his report to the court that Michael acted "appropriately and attentively" towards Terri.

His lawsuit was for $1,000,000. $300,000 went to him for loss of her company, $700,000 went into a trust for her care. You know what he did? Suspended all medical care except for food and water. He had a "no resuscitation" notice placed on her charts, apparently against doctor's recommendation. When she developed an infection, he tried to block the doctors from treating her. They ignored him.

No. Wrong. Wrong. WRONG.

I keep hearing this bandied about, like he's been rushing to have her die since the heart attack. She was put through FOUR YEARS of intensive therapy, including two months in California for an experimental procedure in which electrodes were implanted in her brain to try to coax the neurons into rebuilding themselves. Throughout all of this, there was zero change. And now there's zero money, and I suspect there's been zero money for many years now. Even laying there without therapy, the cost is at least several hundred dollars per day, so even with the full million dollars, it would have covered only a few years even without therapy. With therapy, hospital bills can reach thousands of dollars per day, and even with insurance, there's usually a $1M lifetime cap. A million dollars at $2500 per day goes by in just over a year, and therapy continued for four years.

You know what he spent the money on? Lawyers. He spent it on trying to get the legal right to remove her feeding tube. It was at this point he "remembered" her wishes to not be kept in this state. Seven years AFTER the accident, after a legal battle during which he promised to rehabilitate her, he suddenly remembers she wants to die. Fishy.

Michael's statements were backed up by several of Terri's close friends. One of the guardians at litem appointed by the court was assigned to look into this issue specifically, and came to the conclusion that Terri would not want to live in this kind of state. And the petition to remove the feeding tube didn't come until 1998 -- four years after therapy was stopped. There was no rush on the part of Michael Schiavo to see Terri die.

There was a point were five doctors were selected to examine Terri independently -- two selected by Michael Schiavo, two by the Schindler family, and one by the court. Every single one of them came up with the same conclusion. NO neurologist who has personally examined Terri -- including conducting tests on her in person and not just watching an edited video that shows four minutes out of several hours of reflexive behavior that merely appears conscious -- has come away saying anything other than that she is in an irrecoverable persistent vegetative state.

This guy that Sean Hannity and Joe Scarborough trotted out, Dr. William Hammesfahr, is someone I wouldn't want anywhere near someone in any state. They presented him as a "Nobel prize nominee" in trying to boost him, but he was NEVER nominated according to the rules of the Nobel Committee. He claims Florida Congressman Michael Bilirakis wrote a letter recommending him, showing that Hammesfahr (nor Bilirakis, for that matter) knows nothing of the nominating process; those who are invited to submit proposals are members of the Nobel Committe or the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, prior Nobel winners, prominent professors at selected universities, and members of the medical field. Note that nowhere on that list is "elected politician" (Bilirakis was an engineer, lawyer, and judge prior to being elected to Congress -- none of his degrees are in any medical field). Nominees also may not disclose their nominations for fifty years, so he would have violated that. There's no evidence of the letter ever being sent, anyway, and his "examination" of her consisted of seeing some of her medical records and watching the same edited video that CNN and everyone else have been showing for the last two or three weeks.

I can't believe how badly some of you have been drawn into one side of things, with virtually no research done on both sides of things. You're smarter than that. I don't care what side you're on, but use some real facts if you're going to argue things.

Twigz221 · Post by **Twigz221** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:42 pm

This whole thing is just sad. Why the hell does the whole country suddenly care about some dumb vegetable woman? Seriously, what good comes from keeping this woman alive? She could have had a bullet put in her head the day after she went into her state of vegetation, and nobody would have given a fuck.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:58 pm

[quote="Martin Blank";p="470700"]She was put through FOUR YEARS of intensive therapy[/quote]
Assuming you're correct (which is often safe to do, though this is the first I've heard of it even from anti-Terri advocates), why was this done when her wishes were allegedly to be left to die?

And the petition to remove the feeding tube didn't come until 1998 -- four years after therapy was stopped. There was no rush on the part of Michael Schiavo to see Terri die.

Wow...that certainly doesn't match up with what Michael claims now regarding conversations with Terri saying that she'd never want to live in that situation, even if she weren't in pain and wasn't cognizant enough to know she was in that situation. I'm surprised he would've ignored her wishes for so many years, torturing her even when he knew she wouldn't want it.

This guy that Sean Hannity and Joe Scarborough trotted out, Dr. William Hammesfahr, is someone I wouldn't want anywhere near someone in any state.

Oh I agree. I heard him on the Glenn Beck show recently, and I wouldn't trust that guy as far as I could throw him. Glenn even aplogized for having had him on the air after he left.

I can't believe how badly some of you have been drawn into one side of things, with virtually no research done on both sides of things. You're smarter than that. I don't care what side you're on, but use some real facts if you're going to argue things.

You do realize that you've solidified the fact that Michael's actions are inconsistent and insincere to the extreme over the course of the last 15 years, right, even in the last 7?

Posted Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:59 am:

[quote="Twigz221";p="470734"]Why the hell does the whole country suddenly care about some dumb vegetable woman? Seriously, what good comes from keeping this woman alive? She could have had a bullet put in her head the day after she went into her state of vegetation, and nobody would have given a fuck.[/quote]
Seriously? THAT is sad.

A more appropriate question, when dealing with a life and death decision of an innocent person would be, "What good comes from killing her?"

WND has a full history of events and such relating to the case, though I believe it was written with a pro-Terri slant and is likely to infuriate people who are hellbent on seeing her dead, as it brings up a number of discrepancies that cloud the issue.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:24 pm

[quote="Deacon";p="470738"]You do realize that you've solidified the fact that Michael's actions are inconsistent and insincere to the extreme over the course of the last 15 years, right, even in the last 7?[/quote]
Inconsistent, perhaps. Insincere, not necessarily. Emotions may have been involved in his own decisions, where he really wanted to do what could be done to have his wife back to at least a shell of what she was, unable to come to terms with her original wishes. It's also possible that for the first four years at least (during the therapies), doctors held out hope of some recovery, and her wishes may have been along the lines of, "If some function can be recovered, I want to live, but otherwise, please let me die." This is largely how I tend to think, though I've honestly not yet solidified my opinion on it for myself. This is why I want a trusted friend to carry out my wishes, and not my family.

It's entirely possible that he is doing this out of love and respect for her wishes, a concept that too many people seem to be missing. I really can see the arguments the Schindlers put forth, and they have a point, to some degree. But everyone keeps something from their parents -- I've never once discussed the possibility of my death with my father for emotional reasons -- and Michael is her legal guardian as her husband. Absent proof of abuse or neglect -- the courts have found no evidence of either, and have actually found Michael to be attentive to Terri -- there is no legal reason to change that.

I did hear yesterday that once she dies, the family will pursue a criminal case, which will require the body be turned over to the county coroner for autopsy. I suspect that someone like Michael Baden will be called in for an independent examination.

JudgeMental · Post by **JudgeMental** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:40 pm

Very well, I suppose I did get a little too pissed to do more research.

Real Life Forums

Terri Schiavo - live or die, why do we even have to ask?

Who is online