0
tbrown

Teri Schiavo Execution in Florida

Recommended Posts

Teri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed again today, for the third time in four years. For a quick synopsis, she's been alledgedly "brain dead" since 1990 and her husband says she'd never want to be kept alive artificially - but she never made a Living Will provision to that effect. Her parents want to keep her alive. The lawyers, judges, and politicians are having a field day playing politics with the woman's life. They keep pulling her feeding tube, then putting it back in, then taking it out again, putting it back in, passing a few laws, going back to court, and on and on...

A few years back, an old friend died of cancer when he requested having his feeding tube removed. That was HIS choice, he was pretty clear about it, the cancer was out of control and the end was near. He died within hours of the tube being removed. I have no problems with what he chose to do.

But it seems to me that if this woman's parents want so badly to keep her alive and if she left no clear directives to the contrary, that there should be an assumption presuming that her life should go on. The law places a marital relationship ahead of parent/child relationship, but I know if I one of my daughters was married and something like this happened, I'd be holding out to keep her alive. If the loving husband couldn't see his way clear to a divorce, I might make a few discreet inquiries about ending HIS life instead of my daughter's.

It's so ironic, because today that convicted sex offender guy confessed to kidnapping and killing that little girl in Florida. And he's going to get more due process than this woman who's never (so far as I know) even been accused of a crime in her life.

This IS an execution, and the doctors agree it will take a week or two for her to die. And it's all so nice and legal. It's disgusting.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This IS an execution, and the doctors agree it will take a week or two for her to die.



I dissagree, but probably I don't much like the thought of living as a vegatable myself.


The parents have no legal ground unless they want to assume legal guardian ship. When she turned an adult their responsibilities ended in a legal sence. She then married a man who she entered into a legaly binding relationship.

There is no easy answer, but what purpose is served by forcing the "machine" to function when the "essence" has left?
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no easy answer, but what purpose is served by forcing the "machine" to function when the "essence" has left?



What purpose is served is a good enough question. Personally I wouldn't like to live that kind of an existence myself (note to self: get a Living Will - and a regular Last Will & Testament on the ball SOON). But an equally valid question is, who's going to decide ? And just how "dead" is she ?

She's not on a respirator, her heart isn't going to stop beating because somebody turns off a switch.

I'm trying to remember the girl's name in one of the original "right to die" cases, she'd OD'ed on pills and booze. When her family finally won a court order to take her off a respirator, she surprised everyone by going on living for a few more years, until she finally died in 1985. But nobody was allowed to starve her, or press a pillow over her face, or anything else to actively kill her.

Nobody really knows what's going on inside her mind. Maybe death would be a release. But do we go around deciding who should be "released" from life's suffering ? She sounds like you and me - she'll go on living as long as she gets some food in her.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nobody really knows what's going on inside her mind.



I disagree. We have the technology today to determine that NOTHING is going on in her mind.

I can understand her parent's want to keep her 'alive', but brain dead and living off of machines isn't alive, at least it's not to me.

-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

For a quick synopsis, she's been alledgedly "brain dead" since 1990



For a better synopsis: here "alledged" brain deadness was determined by several court appointed doctors. Just cause her parents want to hold on to her doesn't make it right.
I don't know of any person who has said,"if i'm ever in a vegatative state, you better keep me alive". Just because she didn't make it clear doesn't mean that is what she wanted. Anyway, as has already been said her family has no legal rights in this case and it should have ended years ago.
___________________________________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you said it; our legal system puts marriage relationships above other relationships, for very good reasons, i add. i agree with you in that this situation sucks all the way around but, the law is part of what holds this society together. it must be respected.
"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The law places a marital relationship ahead of parent/child relationship, but I know if I one of my daughters was married and something like this happened, I'd be holding out to keep her alive. If the loving husband couldn't see his way clear to a divorce, I might make a few discreet inquiries about ending HIS life instead of my daughter's.



But in this case, it's not the husband making the decision. He petitioned the court to make a decision, and the court decided. The court based its decision only in part on the husband's testimony.

nathaniel
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


causing her to die of starvation is a cruel and unusual punishment.



A brief amount of research into this morbid subject brings to light evidence to the contrary.

"We were surprised that patients who chose this means to hasten death were, according to their nurses, more peaceful and suffered less in the last two weeks before death than patients who choose assisted suicide"
http://www.nbc4.tv/health/2355264/detail.html

"The general impression among hospice clinicians that starvation and dehydration do not contribute to suffering among the dying and might actually contribute to a comfortable passage from life."
http://www.amsa.org/dd/prnh.cfm

and lots more in medical literature.

Not to mention it's beside the point when the parts of the brain that process pain don't exist anymore.

nathaniel
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bah...

It's -really- easy for all of us to -think- we know how we'd feel in this case and think we know what is and isn't "moral" (whatever that means in this case), but the fact is that until we've been presented with the situation personally, we really have no idea. NONE.

I -understand- as best I can both sides of this and thank the stars I have not had to make the choices myself.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Teri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed again today, for the third time in four years. For a quick synopsis, she's been alledgedly "brain dead" since 1990 and her husband says she'd never want to be kept alive artificially - but she never made a Living Will provision to that effect. Her parents want to keep her alive. The lawyers, judges, and politicians are having a field day playing politics with the woman's life. They keep pulling her feeding tube, then putting it back in, then taking it out again, putting it back in, passing a few laws, going back to court, and on and on...

A few years back, an old friend died of cancer when he requested having his feeding tube removed. That was HIS choice, he was pretty clear about it, the cancer was out of control and the end was near. He died within hours of the tube being removed. I have no problems with what he chose to do.

But it seems to me that if this woman's parents want so badly to keep her alive and if she left no clear directives to the contrary, that there should be an assumption presuming that her life should go on. The law places a marital relationship ahead of parent/child relationship, but I know if I one of my daughters was married and something like this happened, I'd be holding out to keep her alive. If the loving husband couldn't see his way clear to a divorce, I might make a few discreet inquiries about ending HIS life instead of my daughter's.

It's so ironic, because today that convicted sex offender guy confessed to kidnapping and killing that little girl in Florida. And he's going to get more due process than this woman who's never (so far as I know) even been accused of a crime in her life.

This IS an execution, and the doctors agree it will take a week or two for her to die. And it's all so nice and legal. It's disgusting.



This is a very emotional issue, so I understand the convolution of many diffeent elements.

Firstly, in a perfect world people would have these documents in order. I have a BS in Justice and am a process server, but don't have 1 document directing these kinds of issues with life or property. Fortunately I'm immortal, so I won't have to be bothered with these trivialities :P.

Since this world isn't perfect, an order of succession needs to be in place and the courts have decided the spouse is the next of kin. Why do they do this? Probably because this person has a direct interest in what happens from a legal perspective. I think it's fitting that it's this way since a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other in court in criminal matters, a spouse can be held liable for the other if he'she gets into financial trouble, and the parents cannot be in these positions with an adult child. I understand your personal perspective and if I had kids I would feel the same, but it's not logical or even possible for people to have control of their spouses and their kids; do you see the impossible conflict?

Furthermore, the right-wing has placed such a premium on arriages that I don't see how anyone, especially a right-wing supporter could denounce this line of succession. I don't mean exclusively you either, but any right-winger should be glad that there is this kind of jurisdictional control over a spouse in this matter; it supports the gravity of marriages.

Finally to further support the weight a marriage has and the structure the right-wing would impose, we could talk about the sanctity of marriage versus gay marriage and the attempts to actually establish a Constitutional Amendment. With the House GOP fighting to reinsert the tube in spite of the husband's wishes, maybe they should think about this if homophobe amendment ever crosses their desk.

...but she never made a Living Will provision to that effect.

Have you written every decision that you want made after death or in this kind of matter? If so, you are a minority.

The lawyers, judges, and politicians are having a field day playing politics with the woman's life.

They're compelled to do so - it's their job.

But it seems to me that if this woman's parents want so badly to keep her alive and if she left no clear directives to the contrary, that there should be an assumption presuming that her life should go on.

Wait a minute, are you an opponent to socialized medicine? DO you complain that people who cannot pay for their medical bills are choking us all and should be denied? Don't think for a second that hubby has paid even 1% of this bill. Constantly bed ridden for 15 years - the tab is probably over 10 million dollars. Personally I have no issue with the cost and am a proponent of socialized medicine, but I don't see how you can make these assedrtions since I believe you are an opponent to Soc Med.

I might make a few discreet inquiries about ending HIS life instead of my daughter's.

I might feel this emotional too, but maybe this is why it is better that someone with more of a direct emotional/financial impact should make these decisions. Did thy go bankrupt? I'm not saying that he did, but he might have. He certainly sustained financial hardship and presumably emotional hardship too.

It's so ironic, because today that convicted sex offender guy confessed to kidnapping and killing that little girl in Florida. And he's going to get more due process than this woman who's never (so far as I know) even been accused of a crime in her life.

That's not even apples/oranges. Criminal due process when they're trying to take your liberty or your life is far different from civil or administrative due process that governs other matters.

Like I said before, the right-wing needs to decide how important marriage is. If it's so important that allowing gays to marry would be a blow to the sanctity, then that pretty important no other relationships should be allowed to interfere. So since the right-wing has taken that stance, they kinda run outa gas when they try to make us believe that the husband has fewer rights than the parents.


This IS an execution, and the doctors agree it will take a week or two for her to die. And it's all so nice and legal. It's disgusting.


This is not an execution, even if used in the most remote metaphorical form.

The right wing needs to decide about 2 issues they keep contradicting upon:

1) Sanctity of marriage.

2) Socialized medicine.

They keep knee-jerking and looking at small issues rather than looking at the issues macrostructurally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There is no easy answer, but what purpose is served by forcing the "machine" to function when the "essence" has left?



What purpose is served is a good enough question. Personally I wouldn't like to live that kind of an existence myself (note to self: get a Living Will - and a regular Last Will & Testament on the ball SOON). But an equally valid question is, who's going to decide ? And just how "dead" is she ?

She's not on a respirator, her heart isn't going to stop beating because somebody turns off a switch.

I'm trying to remember the girl's name in one of the original "right to die" cases, she'd OD'ed on pills and booze. When her family finally won a court order to take her off a respirator, she surprised everyone by going on living for a few more years, until she finally died in 1985. But nobody was allowed to starve her, or press a pillow over her face, or anything else to actively kill her.

Nobody really knows what's going on inside her mind. Maybe death would be a release. But do we go around deciding who should be "released" from life's suffering ? She sounds like you and me - she'll go on living as long as she gets some food in her.



But nobody was allowed to starve her, or press a pillow over her face, or anything else to actively kill her.


Wait a minute, no one is shoving a pillow in her face here. Where does that come from? There is nothing active done here to kill, just that artificial means to keep her alive have been halted. What if they put a meal in front of her; would that satisfy you that everything had been done to "normally" keep her alive? Removing the feeding tube is the exact same thing as removing the respirsator or pace maker. I don't see the point you're trying to make her that it is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quote

Nobody really knows what's going on inside her mind.



I disagree. We have the technology today to determine that NOTHING is going on in her mind.

I can understand her parent's want to keep her 'alive', but brain dead and living off of machines isn't alive, at least it's not to me.

-
Jim



Yep, lights on - no one home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If her husband wants her dead and strongly feels this is what she would want, the law is on his side. I think he should have to go into her room and kill her himself. I think removing a feeding tube and causing her to die of starvation is a cruel and unusual punishment.



He doesn't want her dead, he just doesn't want to artificially sustain her - there is a difference.

I think he should have to go into her room and kill her himself.

:o:o:o

I think removing a feeding tube and causing her to die of starvation is a cruel and unusual punishment.


The 8th Amendment has zero bearing here. Firstly, this is not a punishment ordered upon her. But it does seem cruel - problem is that there is no euthanization law in place to deal with this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


The law places a marital relationship ahead of parent/child relationship, but I know if I one of my daughters was married and something like this happened, I'd be holding out to keep her alive. If the loving husband couldn't see his way clear to a divorce, I might make a few discreet inquiries about ending HIS life instead of my daughter's.



That's a very good point I never thought of.

But in this case, it's not the husband making the decision. He petitioned the court to make a decision, and the court decided. The court based its decision only in part on the husband's testimony.

nathaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


causing her to die of starvation is a cruel and unusual punishment.



A brief amount of research into this morbid subject brings to light evidence to the contrary.

"We were surprised that patients who chose this means to hasten death were, according to their nurses, more peaceful and suffered less in the last two weeks before death than patients who choose assisted suicide"
http://www.nbc4.tv/health/2355264/detail.html

"The general impression among hospice clinicians that starvation and dehydration do not contribute to suffering among the dying and might actually contribute to a comfortable passage from life."
http://www.amsa.org/dd/prnh.cfm

and lots more in medical literature.

Not to mention it's beside the point when the parts of the brain that process pain don't exist anymore.

nathaniel



A brief reading into the article brings even more evidence to light. First of all these studies were done on people who were terminal and had chosen to die. Second a deeper reading into the article brings some additional info to light:
Quote

In the October 26 issue of JAMA, McCann, et. al. report a prospective study of patients in a ten-bed "comfort care unit" located within a long-term care facility. [McCann] The physical care described closely resembles benchmark hospice care. "Food was offered and if necessary fed to patients but was never forced. All patients received meticulous mouth care that included combinations of cleaning, various swabs, ice chips, hard candy, and lubricants.Narcotics were used for most of the patients to treat symptoms of pain and shortness of breath when present. The dose of narcotics was titrated to provide pain relief while avoiding sedation. When the window of providing pain relief and causing sedation was small, the patients' wishes were weighed regarding the discomfort of pain vs. the discomfort of sedation in determining subsequent doses and intervals of narcotic administration."



Quote

This request was respectfully declined by her physician, who did offer to relieve any pain or discomfort." Eventually, morphine was administered at the request of the patient "to relieve boredom and help with sleep." The patient lived a surprisingly long time; a total of 42 days of complete fasting and 29 days with minimal fluids. At no time did she report pain.




So yes, give them morphine and I'm sure they are made more comfortable.

I guess I don't have to be shocked by pictures of starving children on TV any more. Thanks. :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The lawyers, judges, and politicians are having a field day playing politics with the woman's life. They keep pulling her feeding tube, then putting it back in, then taking it out again, putting it back in, passing a few laws, going back to court, and on and on..."

and you go on to say that a sex offender in fl will get more due process...that is typical of twisting the facts of a highly publicized case to make a statement trying to force your morality on the rest of the nation.....it makes me sick.

"But it seems to me that if this woman's parents want so badly to keep her alive and if she left no clear directives to the contrary, that there should be an assumption presuming that her life should go on."

it's my assumption that if she can't exist without the help of a machine, then that makes it her time to go....i fell so bad that it's taken this long. her soul needs put to rest, let it go.

"This IS an execution, and the doctors agree it will take a week or two for her to die. And it's all so nice and legal. It's disgusting."

people like you who get off playing god should be reminded that you are not a god, just a person. what is disgusting is the fact that our congress can end the lives of millions of people in the name of "national defense" and yet they want to save one poor woman who can't function on her own.
_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But it seems to me that if this woman's parents want so badly to keep her alive and if she left no clear directives to the contrary, that there should be an assumption presuming that her life should go on. The law places a marital relationship ahead of parent/child relationship,



In the eyes of the law, you have defeated your own position.

Quote

I know if I one of my daughters was married and something like this happened, I'd be holding out to keep her alive.



Why don't you make sure that's what your daughters want. I know that my family is clear that I do not want to be held in that state for any period of time. I also know what their wishes are. All of these considerations are in writing too.

Having said that, I cannot be objective on this case. However, it is beyond me why anyone would have a conscious desire to exist in such a condition. If she has any coherent thoughts going through her mind, surely she would be insane from the inability to communicate them, further removing her from "us". It is sad. I won't call it an execution, I will call it euthanasia.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"people like you who get off playing god should be reminded that you are not a god, just a person. what is disgusting is the fact that our congress can end the lives of millions of people in the name of "national defense" and yet they want to save one poor woman who can't function on her own.



Wow, give me a moment to take off my bedsheets and pie plate halo, but I've had a busy morning playing God (it's fun, you should try it sometime...).

First of all, the main point of my posting anything about this at all was that nobody had and that surprised me. I was sure there would be a variety of opinions out there for and against and I wanted to hear them, especially as this case troubles me.

I do take the personal opinion that removing a feeding tube is the intentional starvation of a person who can't care for themselves.

I think the thing that's the most troubling is the "legality" aspect, as I also happen to believe almost any atrocity can be justified on a legal basis.

And I'm no right winger either, anyone who knows me would have to clean out their pants after laughing so hard at that idea.

Well gotta put the halo back on, the chicks next door want to play angels with me, this should be fun...

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know Tom, I think I am the only one agreeing with you here. Beer!

A feeding tube is not a machine nor is it extraordinary means at keeping someone alive. It is simply providing nutrition and hydration to an already alive person.

As for the sanctity of marriage and the next of kin issue, I believe enough doubt has been raised to question whether or not the husband has been actually abusive to his wife in regard to her medical treatment. Until these questions can be answered I believe the courts should should rule on the side of life.

I agree with Gawain that removing a feeding tube without the consent of the patient is euthanasia which is illegal in this country.

Chris



_________________________________________
Chris






Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A feeding tube is not a machine nor is it extraordinary means at keeping someone alive. It is simply providing nutrition and hydration to an already alive person.



Then the question arises of what the definition of 'alive' is.

Having worked in convalescent hospitals for a number of years in the past, I have to say that what Teri Schiavo is enduring is not life. It is merely existence. And for who? Surely not for her.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a living will, and my boys know what to do with me.

I refuse to lay in a bed and not "live".

I refuse to lay in a bed and suck money out of fund I've left my children.
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0