Teri Schiavo Execution in Florida

[debonair 0]

As I understand it, her husband has power of
attorney.

As I understand it, the only reason he had to go to court for the right to cease artificial support is because her parents took it to court to prevent him from exercising the power of attorney.

No parent wants to lose a child so I understand their despair at this decision.

It's made critically clear from this example that we all should make our wishes known AND document them appropriately.

There are no winners in this battle but perhaps eventually all those involved will find their own peace within.

I think it is sad, sad, sad.

AZChallenger JFTC99/02 GOFAST300 STILLUV4WAY
"It's nothing 1000 jumps won't cure..."
- Jeff Gorlick, Seattle Sky Divers

[tbrown 26]

Quote

One thing I've always wondered about this case:

She's been cared for in a hospital for 15 years or so. That's got to mean millions in terms of medical bills.

Who's paying?

Wayne

I have no idea. It's another very real aspect of the problem. Just like the "pro-lifers" who want to stop abortions but won't help single moms raise or feed their babies. Or fund birth control. Or support or even tolerate sex ed in schools. I'm not identifying with those people or their agendas and they leave plenty of questions unanswered. But at the end of the day, does the ruinous cost of somebody's medical bills allow any of us to call an end to their lives ? I'm not so much stating a position as posing some questions that won't leave me alone about this.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[sfzombie13 324]

well, it looks like they're going to put the tube back in. congress is gping to pass a law, FOR THIS ONE CASE, and bush is going to sign it to put the tube back in until federal courts can review the case. this has been going on for 15 fucking years. what are they going to do to this poor woman next? this is an extreme example of a bunch of assholes trying to play god. i guess if i go to court for murder and get convicted, i can just keep going to different courts until i get a verdict i like? the govt needs TO STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES!!!! if nobody can see that this is just the opening of a floodgate, then i guess it's up to me to pass it along to everybody.

and, trock: how were the angels next door last night?

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

One thing I've always wondered about this case:

She's been cared for in a hospital for 15 years or so. That's got to mean millions in terms of medical bills.

Who's paying?

Wayne

I have no idea. It's another very real aspect of the problem. Just like the "pro-lifers" who want to stop abortions but won't help single moms raise or feed their babies. Or fund birth control. Or support or even tolerate sex ed in schools. I'm not identifying with those people or their agendas and they leave plenty of questions unanswered. But at the end of the day, does the ruinous cost of somebody's medical bills allow any of us to call an end to their lives ? I'm not so much stating a position as posing some questions that won't leave me alone about this.

It's just interesting to me all the high and mighty members of Congress intervening to assert their religious beliefs (that's what this is about with them, don't kid yourself) whereas no one is offering to pick up the tab. "We must save this woman, but you pay for it." Hypocrites.

Wayne

[Skyrad 0]

I disagree. it's natural for her parents to want to extend her life as much as possible. However, I'm sure this is not a decision that her husband has taken lightly. Unfortunatly people have a life at all costs attitude without taking in to consideration quality of life. I have worked as a carer with peolpe in Teri's situation and firmly belive that she should not only have her feeding tube removed if that is what the Medical staff looking after her and her husband decide but I woould go further and say that a lethal injecting should be used to hasten the end of her life. I find it strange that in a country that up to twenty days ago executed child offenders and continues to execute the mentally ill that so much attention has been payed to this case.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

One thing I've always wondered about this case:

She's been cared for in a hospital for 15 years or so. That's got to mean millions in terms of medical bills.

Who's paying?

Wayne

I have no idea. It's another very real aspect of the problem. Just like the "pro-lifers" who want to stop abortions but won't help single moms raise or feed their babies. Or fund birth control. Or support or even tolerate sex ed in schools. I'm not identifying with those people or their agendas and they leave plenty of questions unanswered. But at the end of the day, does the ruinous cost of somebody's medical bills allow any of us to call an end to their lives ? I'm not so much stating a position as posing some questions that won't leave me alone about this.

So you're for socialized medicine? I posted a lot of questions in response to your original thread, will you answer them?

It is financially unrealistic that anyone can sustain even 2 weeks in the hospital with privatized medicine, so with that it becomes a death sentence and/or a life sentence in debtor's prison when we are dealt blows like this even if we are the so-called responsible people with our lovely corporate-sponsored HMO insurance. Please tell me about your feelings here.

I have no idea. It's another very real aspect of the problem.

Exactly, but to call this an execution and to avoid the, "very real aspect" of this problem invalidates your claim. What is the answer? Can you draw an argument for socialized medicine from this situation? Can you muster an argument against SM with this situation? Please post either/both.

See, with privatized medicine, what we say about our fellow countryman is that if their child has a sever medical condition that will require huge medical assets o cure - piss on them and their sick kid. Socialized medicine says that it is fine that your 10-year old child has the required surgery to save his/her life, even if at the cost of teh taxpayers. Can you see any basis for arguments against SM?

Like it or not, this issue has huge components of SM within it even though the primary issue is that of who has primary power of attorney. Which brings us to the other issue of spousal priority, which you have avoided as well.

It seems futile for a person to be anti-gay marriage and anti-spousal power of attny; it's a blatant contradiction.

It seems futile for a person to be anti-socialized medicine and pro-save em at all costs for decades(to the family). It imposes a required duty on the family, but offers zero financial help. Again, a blatant contradiction.

The above 2 paragraphs are a couple of the arguments I have against the Libertaian Party. I don't know volumes about the Party, but I understand they wave their majic wand (of avoidance) when faced with tough issues like social security and helthcare.

Anyway, answers......

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

well, it looks like they're going to put the tube back in. congress is gping to pass a law, FOR THIS ONE CASE, and bush is going to sign it to put the tube back in until federal courts can review the case. this has been going on for 15 fucking years. what are they going to do to this poor woman next? this is an extreme example of a bunch of assholes trying to play god. i guess if i go to court for murder and get convicted, i can just keep going to different courts until i get a verdict i like? the govt needs TO STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES!!!! if nobody can see that this is just the opening of a floodgate, then i guess it's up to me to pass it along to everybody.

and, trock: how were the angels next door last night?

Right, it is playing God. It is the same group advocating death sentences be carried out for others. If there is a God, these people best hope for mercy from that entity for playing him and using his name.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

One thing I've always wondered about this case:

She's been cared for in a hospital for 15 years or so. That's got to mean millions in terms of medical bills.

Who's paying?

Wayne

I have no idea. It's another very real aspect of the problem. Just like the "pro-lifers" who want to stop abortions but won't help single moms raise or feed their babies. Or fund birth control. Or support or even tolerate sex ed in schools. I'm not identifying with those people or their agendas and they leave plenty of questions unanswered. But at the end of the day, does the ruinous cost of somebody's medical bills allow any of us to call an end to their lives ? I'm not so much stating a position as posing some questions that won't leave me alone about this.

It's just interesting to me all the high and mighty members of Congress intervening to assert their religious beliefs (that's what this is about with them, don't kid yourself) whereas no one is offering to pick up the tab. "We must save this woman, but you pay for it." Hypocrites.

Wayne

Perfect point. Although they have rejected the chimps privatized social security, they also rejected socialized medicine.

Critical thinking requires:
1. the separation of the elements of an argument, 2. weighing and debating each element,
3. then the culmination of them at the end to establish a totality of facts/logic/reasoning/etc...

What people use with the kind of logic that says to save her at all costs, but ignore the financial cost aspect of it do is #1 and some of #2, but none of #3. It's an incomplete set of reasoning, done to skew an argument to their side.

[gmanpilot 0]

***This is an extreme example of a bunch of assholes trying to play god get money and votes.***

Fixed it.

It saddens amd sickens me.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[aerohaga 0]

http://www.terrisfight.org

This is the "pro-terri" website. Some interesting stuff there if you want to look.

For my part, I know nothing with any certainty,
But the sight of the stars makes me dream.
-Vincent Van Gogh

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

But at the end of the day, does the ruinous cost of somebody's medical bills allow any of us to call an end to their lives ? I'm not so much stating a position as posing some questions that won't leave me alone about this.

Welcome to the first stages of liberalism.

[Duckwater 0]

They are trying to pass a law for this one case, which is against the law. Congress is forbidden to pass a law for a specific person. From CNN:

Quote

WOODRUFF: What would the precedent be set here, if Congress, if either the family were to do what they're doing, but especially for Congress to get involved in an even more aggressive way than they have. What are the implications down the road for other cases similar to this?

TOOBIN: Well, I think it's really unusual and, you know, there's actually even a provision in the Constitution called a bill of attainder. And what that means is under the Constitution, the Congress is not allowed to pass a law directed at a specific person. That was dealt with in the American Revolution because the British Parliament had, you know, passed laws saying John Adams, for example, is a criminal. Under our Constitution, we can't make laws about specific people. So, that would be an issue in the challenge to this law, if it became effect.

Every poll I have seen says that almost 90% of the people, if in Terrys shoes, would want to die. I certainly would.

I can't believe this is such a big deal. She is not alive.

--

[sfzombie13 324]

Quote

Every poll I have seen says that almost 90% of the people, if in Terrys shoes, would want to die. I certainly would.

I can't believe this is such a big deal. She is not alive.

--

let's leave the "alive or not" out of the equation. take all of the morality and ethics out also. that leaves just one thing: 15 years of legal turmoil finally came to the conclusion that her husband is the power of attorney, and like my wife told me this morning, he would know better than anyone what her wishes are. it prompted us to sign living wills today, and if anything happens before they get notarized, at least they are still signed.
if anything good is to come from this, it is to keep the fed govt out of our private lives, and that everyone needs to have their wishes written down.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

if anything good is to come from this, it is to keep the fed govt out of our private lives, and that everyone needs to have their wishes written down.

I would also hope it will encourage people, especially skydivers, to execute a Medical Directive. Please folks, don't put your family through this kind of agony.

Do it now!!!

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I would also hope it will encourage people, especially skydivers, to execute a Medical Directive. Please folks, don't put your family through this kind of agony.

Do it now!!!

I agree with you and think an advance directive is a great idea. However, I think that family members can still legally refuse and negate what is written in an advance directive at the last minute even if you explicitly state in it what you want to occur. That's why it's equally important to have all family members "on-board" with the idea in addition to having your wishes written down. Lawyers? Am I wrong? It sucks but I think its true.

[tkhayes 348]

In case you have not read the stories and the news, he actually IS fulfilling her wishes as he knows them. He says she never wanted to live like that. Too bad most seem to want to see it in writing.

Point is that the laws are ALREADY in place that deal with this situation. The spouse has the right to make medical decisions for the other, and that is what he is doing..

Everyone thinks he is cruel - anyone ever think that maybe he really cares about her and does not want her to live that way - especially if she made those views clear to him when they were married and she was still alive?

She is brain dead - there is no hope, the doctors all agree. She will never recover. He has the right to make that decision for her. No one has the right to say those were not her wishes.

Emotional tug strings here - but it is a tough decision. And he has every right to make it. This should never be in the government Congress or anywhere else for that matter. Decisions like this are made every single day in the USA, only they are not on the news......

TK

[misskriss 0]

Quote

In case you have not read the stories and the news, he actually IS fulfilling her wishes as he knows them. He says she never wanted to live like that. Too bad most seem to want to see it in writing.

From what I have read her husband has moved on with his life. He has been involved with another woman for ten years and has two kids with her. I don't blame him for moving on but why didn't he just divorce Teri instead of wanting to end her life? I also read where he didn't even claim these to be her wishes until seven years after the accident. He also refused therapy treatments for her that had helped her in the beginning. I don't know who is right or wrong in this case or if there is even a right or wrong but in my mind he is not the one who should be deciding for her anymore. He has a new family... let Teri's family make the decision.

[billvon 2,998]

>A feeding tube is not a machine . . . .

Have you ever seen one used? It is part of a medical apparatus that is as much a machine as an IV meter is. It often involves a pump, a computer and a lot of hardware.

>nor is it extraordinary means at keeping someone alive.

It is a tube inserted surgically through someone's abdomen to bypass their normal GI tract path and deliver "pre-digested" (i.e. carefully processed) food directly to their stomach.

If it takes a surgeon, a knife, and a sterile environment to install, and an expert to operate, you'd be hard pressed to call it an ordinary way to feed someone.

>removing a feeding tube without the consent of the patient is
>euthanasia which is illegal in this country.

In many cases feeding tubes are placed because a patient has no brain function and is unable to give consent to anything. In such cases the closest family member makes the determination, since there _is_ no patient to give consent. If you required consent of people who were using feeding tubes before you did a potentially dangerous procedure on them, most of them would never get the procedure since they cannot give consent. Thus it is common to use the guidance of a living will or a relative who makes decisions for the patient.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

why didn't he just divorce Teri instead of wanting to end her life?

Can he actually do it without her consent? I mean, just in case she wanted to she is unable to sign it.

Also, is it known who is currently paying her medical bills?

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

>A feeding tube is not a machine . . . .

Have you ever seen one used? It is part of a medical apparatus that is as much a machine as an IV meter is. It often involves a pump, a computer and a lot of hardware.

>nor is it extraordinary means at keeping someone alive.

It is a tube inserted surgically through someone's abdomen to bypass their normal GI tract path and deliver "pre-digested" (i.e. carefully processed) food directly to their stomach.

If it takes a surgeon, a knife, and a sterile environment to install, and an expert to operate, you'd be hard pressed to call it an ordinary way to feed someone.

Yes, I have first hand knowledge of a feeding tube. My uncle, after being diagnosed with throat cancer, was put on a feeding tube. Yes, he did consent to it. You are wrong when you say that it takes a professional to operate it. I personally fed my uncle through his feeding tube as well as cleaning it. There was no machine involved. It is a plastic tube inserted through the naval.

When it came time to stopping extraordinary means to keep my uncle alive, it had nothing to do with removing his feeding tube rather disconnecting his life support system as his heart could no longer sustain itself.

Feeding someone is not extraordinary means. Removing a feeding tube is euthanasia.

A lot of people mentioned here 'quality of life'. Who promised anyone a perfect life? What's next, go into all the nursing homes and dispose of the elderly because they are a drain on the system or are making their family's lives inconvenient? What about the woman who recently woke from a coma after approximately 20 years?

Why isn't anyone listening to her parents and brother who claim that she is somewhat responsive to stimulae? They claim that the husband has never allowed physical therapy. You know that loving husband who has already tossed his wife aside and started a new family. Why didn't he just divorce Terri and allow her family to take care of her? IMO his motives are questionable at best. I think until these questions can be answered, the courts should side for life.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

>A feeding tube is not a machine . . . .

Have you ever seen one used? It is part of a medical apparatus that is as much a machine as an IV meter is. It often involves a pump, a computer and a lot of hardware.

>nor is it extraordinary means at keeping someone alive.

It is a tube inserted surgically through someone's abdomen to bypass their normal GI tract path and deliver "pre-digested" (i.e. carefully processed) food directly to their stomach.

If it takes a surgeon, a knife, and a sterile environment to install, and an expert to operate, you'd be hard pressed to call it an ordinary way to feed someone.

Yes, I have first hand knowledge of a feeding tube. My uncle, after being diagnosed with throat cancer, was put on a feeding tube. Yes, he did consent to it. You are wrong when you say that it takes a professional to operate it. I personally fed my uncle through his feeding tube as well as cleaning it. There was no machine involved. It is a plastic tube inserted through the naval.

When it came time to stopping extraordinary means to keep my uncle alive, it had nothing to do with removing his feeding tube rather disconnecting his life support system as his heart could no longer sustain itself.

Feeding someone is not extraordinary means. Removing a feeding tube is euthanasia.

A lot of people mentioned here 'quality of life'. Who promised anyone a perfect life? What's next, go into all the nursing homes and dispose of the elderly because they are a drain on the system or are making their family's lives inconvenient? What about the woman who recently woke from a coma after approximately 20 years?

Why isn't anyone listening to her parents and brother who claim that she is somewhat responsive to stimulae? They claim that the husband has never allowed physical therapy. You know that loving husband who has already tossed his wife aside and started a new family. Why didn't he just divorce Terri and allow her family to take care of her? IMO his motives are questionable at best. I think until these questions can be answered, the courts should side for life.

Chris

Well, close, kinda....

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=16106

euthanasia

either painlessly putting to death or failing to prevent death from natural causes in cases of terminal illness or irreversible coma. The term comes from the Greek expression for "good death." Technological advances in medicine have made it possible to prolong life in patients with no hope of recovery, and the term negative euthanasia has arisen to classify the practice of withholding or withdrawing extraordinary means (e.g., intravenous feeding, respirators, and artificial kidney machines) to preserve life. Accordingly, the term positive euthanasia has come to refer to actions that actively cause death. The term passive euthanasia is used when certain common methods of treatment, such as antibiotics, drugs, or surgery, are withheld or a large quantity of needed but ultimately lethal pain medication is supplied. By the end of the 20th cent. passive euthanasia was said to be a common practice among U.S. hospitals and physicians. With regard to euthanasia in animals, there are strict rules and guidelines that ensure ethical euthanasia and disposal.

So we have:

1. Positive euthanasia

2. Negative euthanasia

3. passive euthanasia

Obviously this is a case of Negative Euthanasia according to this article's definition. The term connotates almost an opposition to euthanasia to me, in that it refers to withholding or removing devices that are artificially used. Also, the term, "negative" inferes a not or opposite meaning to me.



Yes, I have first hand knowledge of a feeding tube. My uncle, after being diagnosed with throat cancer, was put on a feeding tube. Yes, he did consent to it.

Consent to what, the removal or installation? If the removal, then did he have mental capacity? How do they know?

When it came time to stopping extraordinary means to keep my uncle alive, it had nothing to do with removing his feeding tube rather disconnecting his life support system as his heart could no longer sustain itself.

Either would have done the same. How is a feeding tube more or less life sustaining? One is more immediate than the other, but both arive atthe same destination.

Feeding someone is not extraordinary means. Removing a feeding tube is euthanasia.


ARTICLE:

the term negative euthanasia has arisen to classify the practice of withholding or withdrawing extraordinary means (e.g., intravenous feeding, respirators, and artificial kidney machines) to preserve life.

Although they do state the removal of intravenous feeding and we have the case here of a feeding tube, the essence is the same in the context of this article's definition. The distinction of the 3 different means of euthanasia relegates a feeding tube to the same definition: Negative Euthanasia.

A lot of people mentioned here 'quality of life'. Who promised anyone a perfect life?

Perfect life and quality of life can be worlds apart.

What's next, go into all the nursing homes and dispose of the elderly because they are a drain on the system or are making their family's lives inconvenient?

Hey, ever hear of soilent green? How about Logan's Run? We're all on borrowed time .

COme on, let's not get carried away with extreme, abstract ideas.

What about the woman who recently woke from a coma after approximately 20 years?

Hear about the shutdown of socialized medicine as proposed by the Clintons and the proposal of the homophobe amendment? Tell me, how do you feel about:

1. Capital punishment
2. Socialized med
3. Gay marriage

This is not an Ad Hominem against you, just a reality check for consistent logic.

They claim that the husband has never allowed physical therapy.

They claim, they said, I heard...... We will only know what we're spoon-fed by the media.

IMO his motives are questionable at best. I think until these questions can be answered, the courts should side for life.


All of their motives are questionable. We all have agendas. The law deals with the, Reasonable man standard to decide these kinds of matters; is it reasonable to shut down life support of vegetative people after 15 years?

...the courts should side for life

In a related note, the high court just did decide to stop killing kids about a month ago. Now maybe we can learn to stop killing adults.... nah, never happen.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

They claim that the husband has never allowed physical therapy.

I'm sure that in the early stages of Teri's injury her physical therapy was appropriate and intense. However, there is a limit to what skilled P.T. can do in this instance. Nurses are trained in ROM (range of motion) and stimulation that Teri would need in the extended 15 years she has endured in her current state. It might sound callous, yet coming from the background that us physical therapists do, there has to be more than just maintaining a status to warrant our services. Having read the web page someone up this thread provided, a skilled therapist would not change Teri's status.

Quote

Why didn't he just divorce Terri and allow her family to take care of her?

IMO, (and this is only my opinion here) I believe that what Teri's husband did, remaining married to Teri, was to protect her wishes against a throng of those who would not. I may be wrong, yet I believe he did a selfless act maintaining contact and marriage to Teri, if only for this reason. He knew her better than anyone else and knew her wishes.

I don't negate Teri's parent's love and well doings, yet I believe their decisions are marked by emotion. They cannot and will not let go. Who can blame them. This is their little girl.

Sometimes, however, we have to look beyond this. Teri -should- have filed an Advanced Directive. She didn't, though. And her husband has the right to know what she wanted. It's less selfish to let her go, IMHO.

ltdiver

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

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Looks like the "Palm Sunday Compromise" is yet another way Bush is removing the rights from the state's.

I wonder if he can remove the rest of the power of the state in the next three years?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

does the ruinous cost of somebody's medical bills allow any of us to call an end to their lives ? I'm not so much stating a position as posing some questions that won't leave me alone about this.

"We" didn't make that call. Her husband did.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[tkhayes 348]

absolute RUBBISH. He has moved on, of course he has - you would too. That does not mean that he cares any less for her or that he is leaving the repsonsibility for her. this WAS his wife at one time, someone he loved.

Did you read his interview in the St. Pete Times the other day? Very informative. He waited a long time to make decisions because he too had hope of some recovery. After a few years, of course that hope faded and he faced the reality.

Go read his side of it, and then put some context around the 'refused therapy' decisions you accuse him of.

I doubt her wishes were NOT known for seven years. I expect they were well known within the family and doctor's cirlces, until it got to be a big public issue. Now you turn around and accuse him of waiting? Well of course he waited some time, he was hoping for some sort of recovery.

Perhaps he IS moving on, that is another way of looking at it. Would you divorce your own mother if you were in the same position and she was in a brain dead state?

No you would not. You would move on and you would continue your life and you would try everything you can to still grant your mother the wishes that she conveyed to you, whether she wrote them down or not.

Right to life my ass. Now the President is involved - what a hypocrit - right to life?

What about the right to life of the hundreds on death row

what about the right to life of all the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis

what about the 'sanctity of marriage'. They all seem to preach that when we talk about gay marriage, then ignore it when it comes to husband/wife making medical decisions for each other.

COMPLETELY hypocritical and we need to stay out of it.

Quote

I don't know who is right or wrong in this case or if there is even a right or wrong but in my mind he is not the one who should be deciding for her anymore. He has a new family... let Teri's family make the decision.

sorry but wrong, he is absolutley the one to make the decisions, he is the husband, it is recognized by law AND religion to be the correct person to make the decision. over and over again. Politicians and people crying and holding candles are simply fogging the issue.

TK