Schiavo

[Aitoren]

What are your takes on what should happen to people who are brain dead living off feeding tubes like Schiavo's case? Leave it or stop feeding them?

[Aravis Kenobi]

I would leave the case. Her husband was such a jerk to take her life support away from her. Her parents were more able to make that decision than him. She was still a human being. I'm sorry, but just because she was brain damaged didn't mean she was anything less than a human being. I'll stop right there, because if I go any further, I'll explode. :mad:

[LifeMaiden]

I would leave the case. Her husband was such a jerk to take her life support away from her. Her parents were more able to make that decision than him. She was still a human being. I'm sorry, but just because she was brain damaged didn't mean she was anything less than a human being. I'll stop right there, because if I go any further, I'll explode. :mad:


I wouldn't want to live in that condition, and I believe her husband stated that she said long before she ended up in that state that she would never want to live like that. Why are her parents more 'able' to make a decision than her husband?



Her parents didn't want to give her life up, I understand that. But I could never stand to see my own mother or father living that way, and they've stipulated in their will that if they end up on life support and are brain dead, that I am to pull the plug. And seeing my grandfather end up brain dead as a result of cancer, well...I was glad he received a peaceful and dignified death.

[EveningStar]

Ironically it is my conservative Christian beliefs that say "turn the machines off" where others say it is their conservative Christian beliefs that say "do anything you can."

Life is a game and the body is our uniform to play the game. We were meant to live in this world and then, after the doorway of death, to experience eternal life. The idea of being trapped inside a non-functional body is more horrifying than solitary confinement in a jail cell. You might even be having a permanent nightmare from which there is never an awakening. Who knows what thoughts, if any, went through her mind.

God did not design the human mind to endure the rigors of never communicating, never moving, never ANYTHING for year after year. I see keeping people in that condition as a form of cruelty and a direct negation of God's will. It was not a condition that existed until man brought it about.

Just exactly why leaving the tube in became so strongly associated with conservative Christianity must be answered by the right to life movement. They seized upon this poor woman's plight as a means to further their agenda that every life must be preserved.

Look at human cloning. Conservative Christians are angry because medical science is playing God. Why aren't they angry about these witch-doctor tactics that suspend people in some sort of living death because they are too cowardly to admit they can't treat the condition? Medical ethics today, as in the time of Hippocrates, begin with the phrase "First do ye no harm to the patient." Not considering death a part of life and treating it with dignity and respect is an abrogation of that code and flies in the face of what medicine officially stands for. I'm sorry, it makes me upset even thinking about it.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The Terry Schindler Schiavo case is a tough one to discuss in the United States because there was so much false information spread about it through the media. People take stands and make statements based on what they honestly believe were the circumstances about the case, when most of what they think they know is simply wrong.

I was aware of the Schiavo case for a good 18 months before it became a cause celebre for the right-to-kill movement. Far from being last-minute grandstanders, the family had been patiently and quietly trying many legal recourses for years before Michael Shiavo's push for his wife's execution forced them to become more vocal. Here are many facts that got lost in the rhetoric:




Terry was not in a persistent vegetative state. She was responsive not only to her family but to therapists and staffers. This testimony was repeatedly made under oath by nurses, PTs, OTs, and the like. Her state was repeatedly compared to that of a moderatly developmentally disabled person. This meant that her ability to communicate was restricted, but no more restricted than that of the handicapped campers my wife used to serve at a summer camp she worked at years ago. They and their caregivers would hotly contend with anyone who would say that their lives were not worth living.


Though she was dependent on a feeding tube until it was removed, that did not have to be the case. Early in her treatment, therapists were teaching her basic life skills, including feeding herself with a spoon. She was making good progress on this therapy and her therapists were optimistic that her feeding tube would be able to be removed - until her husband commanded all therapy be stopped and she simply be kept in a bed without therapy of any kind.


The human body and brain continue to amaze medical "science", with its pretense of knowing much more than it does. Though the results of Terry's autopsy were trumpeted as "proof" that she would never have "recovered", there have been several cases over the past few years of people waking from cold comas - i.e. far less responsive than Terry was - to being talking and even resume life. There have been recorded cases of people losing vast parts of their brains to stroke or injury, yet recovering amazing capability due to the brain "retraining" itself to make up for the lost capacity - something medical "science" is only now learning is even possible
Thus many things that people think they know about the Schiavo case are simply not true - the facts are wrong. But the truly suspicious thing are the facts that exist but were totally ignored. One is the extremely suspicious behaviour of Michael Schiavo. There was a lawsuit following Terry's "injury", which the Schiavo's won, and the award was intended to be used for Terry's rehabilitation. This was the rehabilitation that the therapists contended was making such progress - until Michael Schiavo stopped it and forbid the staff from providing Terry any further rehabilitation. When Terry's family brought this up, the media's presentation of it was that it was character assassination on their part. Yet the facts are there. Why would Terry's husband stop rehabilitation that was making documented progress - that is, if he was truly interested in his wife's rehabilitation?

The most interesting take on the whole scenario was made by Detective Mark Fuhrman (of OJ Simpson fame) - no pro-life activist - who approached the entire case from a domestic violence perspective. The question he poses in his book Silent Witness is that nowhere near enough questions were asked about how Terry got to be in that state in the first place. The Schiavos had a troubled marriage and there was record of domestic violence against her - yet when she shows up injured on the bathroom floor with him as the only witness, the only thing the media talks about is her history of bulemia. Fuhrman took the case apart from the perspective of the police records, and came to the conclusion that this was a DV case that should have been prosecuted. Instead the husband got to keep the lawsuit money, in explicit disobedience to the court-ordered use of that money, and make the decision to execute his wife so he could live as he chose. The amazing thing was the deafening silence from women's advocates on this matter. At least I used it as a lesson to my own daughters - be very careful who you marry.

[tottyfruitty]

I would leave the case. Her husband was such a jerk to take her life support away from her. Her parents were more able to make that decision than him. She was still a human being. I'm sorry, but just because she was brain damaged didn't mean she was anything less than a human being. I'll stop right there, because if I go any further, I'll explode. :mad:

i agree
who are we to determine who lives or dies?
we are not God
she is still a human being and yeah she might be living on life support but when she is ready to die she will die
you cant say that just cos someone is disabled it gives you a right to end their life cos that is what they would have wanted
that is like murder
which ever way you want to put it
well that is my opinion any way
wow i never talk in threads like these but we recently did this in youth so i know quite a lot about it and understand it a little bit more than i used to

[EveningStar]

Thoughtful reply as always, POTW. I don't think, however, that the blurring of the boundaries between death and life by modern medical technology has been properly addressed. This is a dilemma that humankind created and it was not part of God's original plan. People lived until they could no longer live and then they died.

As suspicious as some of the events around either camp in the Schaivo megamedia blitzkrieg may be, there are thousands of people no one has heard of except for a few hurting people who are neither dead nor alive. We need a proper debate and inquiry into what happens to the spiritual element of people who are suspended in this state. If there is any possibility that a soul is TRAPPED IN PRISON, neither in this world nor the bliss of the next, the Church needs a timely, relevant way of dealing with it other than "Keep them breathing till they fall to dust."

I realize that either camp in this is subject to abuse. But let not our horror of the "Kill everybody that isn't smiling" camp keep us in gridlock where people who can no longer live are not allowed to die.

Prayerfully,

John Burkitt

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I certainly agree that modern medical technology has brought about dilemmas that didn't exist before, particularly in areas like closed head injuries. The issue of heroic measures to prolong life beyond when it would have naturally ended are tougher than ever. But even without delving into some of the more difficult issues, there is a very simple test to distinguish between what constitutes ordinary care and what crosses over into extraordinary treatment. The first question to ask when evaluating any treatment would be, "Would a normal, healthy human need this to live?" If the answer is "yes", then that is not an extraordinary treatment, but a basic life need. If the answer is "no", then you're talking about an extraordinary measure. The basic rule is that basic life needs are always provided to everyone, while extraordinary measures are where the questions come in.

Most of the time, we're able to provide our own basic life needs, such as food, water, clothing, and shelter. If someone such as a newborn child, frail senior citizen, or handicapped person is unable to provide their own, it is incumbent on others to provide it for them. Withholding basic life needs when they could be provided is considered criminal neglect. By this measure, Terry Schindler Schiavo was not killed by the normal consequence of her condition, but by the withdrawal of a basic life need.

Even if extraordinary measures are called for, that does not automatically settle the issue. Kidney dialysis is an example of an extraordinary measure - normal, healthy people don't need it to survive. Yet if it is available, a person can live a long time with the bi-weekly dialysis. Insulin is another. Simply because a measure is extraordinary ("heroic" is the usual term) doesn't automatically settle the question, but it does provide a useful metric.

One place we need to tread extremely carefully is where we begin to make assumptions about a person's state of consciousness and awareness. When we start basing our decisions on "quality of life" questions (e.g. "he wouldn't want to live like that"), we are often assuming we know things that we don't. I remember reading an interview with a woman who had suffered some kind of medical breakdown and was in a coma at just about the same time as Terry Schiavo. They were saying the same things about her as they were saying about Terry - that she was permanently unresponsive, that her brain was gone, that she wouldn't have any kind of life, that food and water should be withdrawn to let her die - only they were saying these things in her presence and she could hear every word they were saying. She remembers them discussing her situation with her husband by her bedside. She was totally aware yet unable to respond. All she could do was pray that he would make the call to keep her food and water coming. He did this, and she came out of the state shortly thereafter. I can give dozens of examples of similar cases, and those are just the documented ones.

So to answer your point, Magister - you're certainly correct that medical science brings up lots of dilemmas, but the Schiavo case was not one of them. According to the criteria of basic human needs, she was not dying until her husband stopped feeding her. Any one of us would die if we had our food withdrawn. The "basic needs test" is a good one to help sort out the extraordinary from the ordinary. It does not automatically answer all the difficult calls, but it serves well to cull out the easy calls.

[EveningStar]

What troubles me, Roger, is that the Church is wrapped up in the salvation of the eternal soul, but continues to stubbornly define life as heartbeat and breathing in accordance with the most secular of physicians and scientists. I don't think I'm being gnostic to insist that the body's definition of life falls short of an individual's true "life" as we see and revere it as Christians. It is this spiritual element that we as Christians must not disregard to our peril in our rush to process the "dying".

The whole question you raised about assuming too much is a two-edged sword. Perhaps I am assuming the person would want to go ahead and die. Perhaps you are assuming they would not. What it comes down to is that we are both only making assumptions...we don't really know. And it is perhaps better for the Church to leave areas of uncertainty in the realm of an individual's conscience. At least if we make a mistake, we've made our own mistake, not somebody else's.

I want this clearly understood and I have made sure that my extended family and caregivers all know this. When I can no longer live for God I will die for God. Only God may open the door, but I shall not linger on the threshhold longer than I ought.

My fondest hope of all is that the uncertainty may be brushed aside and that God's true wishes on the subject shall become clearly known. I will, of course, follow God wherever He clearly leads me on this and not be bent upon an arrogant course. "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven."

I clearly understand your concerns about Schaivo and my arguements are intended to be general rather than focusing on the merits of that one particular case. Terry Schaivo's guilt or innocence is separate from the thrust of my inquiry.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Actually, the Church (at least, the Catholic Church) has addressed this issue. Life is not simply a heartbeat and breathing. There is no moral obligation to continue heroic measures if withdrawing them would bring about a natural death.

Here's an example: I know of a good Catholic man who had renal failure. The treatment for it was dialysis, but he had several other medical problems and lived far from the center, making the trips back and forth a serious hardship on him and his family. After several months of it, he decided that it was not worth it. Talking it over with his wife and priest, he decided to stop the treatment. He set his affairs in order, had his confession heard, received Extreme Unction, and stayed home. He was dead in two weeks, the wife of his youth by his side, at peace with God and man. There is no moral ambiguity here - God made the call on the time of his death. He could have continued those extraordinary measures, but decided not to. Nobody is obligated to.

Of course, this is but one case. If he had been a 16-year old, the call might have been different - he could have gone on a transplant list, and lived as full a life as possible while receiving treatment. But the Catholic Church at least has ruled that no person is obligated to receive heroic treatment to keep a heartbeat and breathing going as long as possible - and no family is obligated to continue it. As long as basic human needs are met, there is nothing immoral about allowing natural death to happen.

[EveningStar]

That is a comfort to know. Thanks, Roger.

[LifeMaiden]

So you would say, POTW, that in Terry's case, pulling the plug was NOT an act of heroism because she wasn't in intense pain and suffering, nor was she brain dead. We had this discussion in the abortion thread regarding acts of heroism.

In this case, once again, it's like the abortion debate. Who speaks for those who cannot speak themselves? If Terri was able to speak, and she said, " yes, I want to die because I cannot stand living this way..." then by all means, do you believe it would have been ethical or heroic for her parents and or her husband to end her misery? Did anyone even ask Terri or write down " Do you want to live?" We're under the assumption, as I was when I was pro-choice, that since a person cannot speak for themselves, we assume 'well, they don't have I voice, so I will speak for them, and kill them with an abortion or pulling the plug..." Since my views on abortion have changed, I'm willing to look at things over the Shiavo matter in a different way.

The battle for Terri became a tug of war between a husband and her parents. But I wonder, if Terri could speak, what she could and would have said.

This kind of thing, you know, can be stipulated in wills as my parents already have set out...so that when such a tragedy occurs and one is in a coma or on life-support for an extended period of time, and may be suffering internally, it makes things less complicated legally.

I was under the impression that Terri Shiavo's condition was bought about by some reaction to a diet pill or dieter's tea she was taking to lose weight. Here's a word of caution to people who take those...they are not regulated by the FDA, and 'natural remedies' can occasionally cause severe allergic reactions or in one of my friend's case from high school, taking a strong herbal diet pill caused a brain hemorrage that killed her.


As far as her husband is concerned, I can understand his position that he couldn't bear to see his wife in the state she was as compared to before that state. It must have been hard to see a vibrant young woman now barely able to feed herself. However, I also think he just didn't want to take care of her, and the lazy way out was to say, " Okay we'll just pull the plug."

[onlymystory]

I'm going to be more general and just sort of push Terry Shiavo's specific case to the side. Oh and no one get too mad at me for this but to me it seems like if people took a little more responsibility things would go easier. I mean i realize that an 8 year old won't do much but an adult can. I'm only 22 but my family and several of my close friends know that not only have I chosen to be an organ donor (its on my license as well) but that if the doctors have worked hard and tried all they can thats the point where I want to be let go. And maybe this is a completely cynical view for me to have but it just seems like if people had their affairs in order and communicated with their family the whole process would be easier. And by doing that you can actually take the decision away from your family. I know when my grandmother died there was a chance they could have tried to help her last a few more days but she was listed as dnr. And it actually made things easier for my dad and his siblings because they didn't have to make the decision. my grandmother already had made it so they just had to cmoe to terms with her wishes. I guess to me it just seems like the problem could be solved before it happens in most cases. No one get too mad at me for being so cynical.

[EveningStar]

OMS, the problem is not laziness as much as the whole concept of facing death. Young people deny death. They consider preparing for demise something you do when you get into a high risk category like older than 40 ;)

People ordinarily don't claim to be superstitious but they feel that dealing with mortality ahead of time is akin to "asking for it."

John B.

[onlymystory]

People over 40 aren't old! They're ancient. hehe

Although I guess I can see how people would think its asking for death by preparing for it. Of course if thats the case than on some level I am asking for it. That's the joy of being a Christian. Death isn't anything to be frightened of. Its the moment where life truly begins. So choosing to leave this world for a better one isn't a scary or difficult decision at all.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Good thoughts, IM. Something to consider here is the definition of the emotionally charged but vaguely defined phrase "pull the plug". Usually this is used in conjunction with some extreme example - e.g. a motorcycle accident victim being kept alive by a heart-lung machine. These would be considered "heroic measures" by the examples already offered. But in Terry Schindler Schaivo's case, there was no "plug" to pull - only a feeding tube (and even that may not have been necessary if her husband had permitted the therapy which the court ordered him to fund.) A more accurate colloquialism for what was done to Terry would be "pull the plate" - i.e. discontinue feeding. In the absence of feeding, Terry died - as we all would.

The fact that Terry was receiving food via an unusual channel (a tube) does not constitute heroic measures. The mental health agencies I serve have dozens of clients who must be fed through things like tubes. If anyone were to pull one of their tubes - or, for that matter, even miss a meal - the responsible party would be up on charges of criminal neglect.

The question of trying to second-guess what somebody would have wanted, or would ask for if they could, gets us into very touchy grounds: those of the ethical legitimacy of assisting in a suicide. That would take us very far afield indeed.

I want to touch briefly on a very important and germane matters that the Magister brought up, which is the moral dilemmas posed by advances in medical technology. I've put much thought and discussion into this, especially with Christian medical professionals, and I'd like to submit something for consideration: though often it seems like groups such as the Christian Church and Not Dead Yet (an advocacy group for the disabled) are the ones dragging in the difficult moral considerations, it is often the modern medical profession itself that takes unconsidered action and forces these dilemmas.

Let me give you an immediate example: my stepmother. She's in her late '70s and has had a variety of health problems over the years. A few years back she needed urgent heart surgery, and there was a certain chance she wouldn't survive. She did, but shortly after the surgery she contracted a dangerous infection that nearly killed her. She required radical surgery that removed her entire sternum, left a gaping hole in her chest that she lived with for over a year that ultimately had to be surgically closed, restricted her movement, forced her to take a battery of drugs that scrambled her system badly, and put her and my father through immense pain and cost. Even today she's virtually a prisoner in her small home, forced to carry an oxygen apparatus with her wherever she goes. All of this is consequent to the extreme treatment she received for this post-operative infection.

Here's the thing: my father and her son were given no say in her receiving that treatment. In fact, when my father was visiting her following her surgery and she started manifesting symptoms of the infection, he was literally rushed from the room while the medical professionals attacked the problem. Neither he nor her son were consulted as to whether they approved the procedure - it was just done, and they were told about it afterwards. They were not even presented the option of declining treatment and letting her die a natural death. One may ask what Christian ethics would say about her life afterwards, and whether helping an old woman live a few years longer was worth the cost, but one must realize that Christian ethics would have stepped in much earlier to ask some pointed questions about the procedures being done without question. In her case, it could very well have been morally acceptable to provide for her care and let the infection take her.

By contrast was my father-in-law, who died in 2001. He had a problem with a blood vessel associated with his liver, the net result of which was that nothing he ate was getting into his bloodstream - he was starving to death. Had he been younger, he might have been a candidate for a liver transplant, but he was over 80 and it would have been irresponsible to even think of it. The doctors explained the situation to my wife and brother-in-law: they could keep him alive a little longer with IV nutrition, but ultimately nobody survives without a liver. Out of respect for his wishes, they did not institute heroic measures such as IV nutrition and he died in peace. This was a perfectly morally acceptable situation, and one where the medical professionals respected the decisions of the responsible parties. It did help that the responsible parties (my wife and brother in law) were ethical and well-informed people.

I'm not saying this to point fingers at the medical profession and say "they're the problem". Almost every medical professional I know is a responsible, ethical, and dedicated person. I am trying to say that sometimes the ethical complications of a particular medical situation might be simplified by taking up the ethical considerations a bit earlier than the point of extremis.

[Sunrise]

Living in Florida for the past seven years, I, also, was aware of the Schiavo case long before it became national news, and my husband and I were in prayer about it constantly. We were quite devastated with the outcome.

You guys have all made great points - I think one thing that cannot be overstressed is the importance of having a living will. In the Schiavo case, there was no indication of "what Terri would have wanted" except for her husband's word on it - and, strangely enough, he didn't seem to remember the relevant conversation until AFTER he was awarded the lawsuit monies that were to be spent on her rehabilitation (most of them went to court and attorney fees instead as he fought his multi-year battle to end her life). His statement that Terri "would not want to live this way" never came up in the original lawsuit, during which he claimed plaintively that he needed money to go to nursing school so that he could take care of Terri for the rest of her life.

Logic just never seemed to apply in the whole case. One detail that stuck with me was how the family begged to try to feed Terri with a spoon, because by law, if she could swallow, she MUST be fed. The judge refused this request, on grounds that if she could not swallow, she might choke to death. Since she was going to be "allowed to die" anyway, why on earth would a fear of her choking to death (which was unlikely, given that she was in a hospital where there were procedures in place to clear her airway if needed) stop anyone from attempting this treatment? Not a single ruling in this whole torrid affair made sense.

I also find it hard to swallow that it was Michael's compassion for Terri that drove him to his final actions, when by the time of her death he had been living with another woman for several years and had two children out of wedlock. His spiteful subsequent treatment of her family - not allowing them to be in her room at the time of her death, not allowing them to have even a lock of her hair, and refusing to reveal where he planned to bury her - was irrational and suggested vindictiveness. Why?

[Lawrence]

For the life of me I will never be able to understand his (Michael Schiavo's) actions. The parents were willing to take care of her, all she needed was a feeding tube left in which no one would consider a heroic measure.

When in doubt (What were her wishes, did she leave a living will, no one knows) I say err on the side of life.

This was a sad day for the Schiavo's and the country in general. I will not get into politics here other to say that the party that is supposedly "pro life" did nothing more than spin their wheels in congress making speeches.

Pax to Terri, and to all,
L

[-Forever_Young-]

This was a big issue I heard on the radio nearly every morning. On the Glenn Beck program, a woman called and said, "She was a vain woman; she wouldn't want to look like this." I completely disagreed with this, as did Glenn. He told her, "Of the 90% of her brain that got damaged, I'm sure the vanity percentage was part of that." And as for her husband, I know a lot of people who thought he did the right thing, and he didn't have to divorce her or anything. That was totally injustice and inhumane, in my opinion.

Some people...

[jesuschick]

i think that if the person is totally brain dead it should be close familys decision if not totally brain dead thay should keep working with her.

[Aitoren]

I wonder if anybody happens to know. What was the Church's official stance on the issue? I know that extraoridinary (or 'heroic', as was mentioned here earlier) measures are not necessary if the persion does not wish for them to keep happenning, (well, after the few attempts the Church asks that one attempts), but another thing the Church said is that there are some things a person may never be deprived of, one of which is food. Terry could have lived on her own, with the exception of the feeding tube, or her food, but if you can never deprive a person of food they can have, does this count as an extraordianry measure? I never heard the official stance. Someone let me know if they know anything!

[cubs]

In answer to your predicament, I would have to strongly agree with what EveningStar said. First of all, I cannot remember if he stated this in his reply, but I think the decision of Schiavo's life should have been up to the parents. The husband brutally made Schiavo's family watch her slowly die without their consent. Now, what I have a problem with is that she was slowly and surely recovering from her brain damage. She could recognize people walking in and speak a couple words. Knowing that, I think it was totally wrong for her husband to let her family watch her slowly die while they sat there helpless. Now, the way that I would agree with EveningStar is if the scenario was a little different. First, I don't think he got the facts straight, that Schiavo was progressing slowly. If he had known that, I am sure he would agree with what I have said on this topic. However, if there was a scenario involving a patient with mental damage and on life support but not recovering for quite a while, I would say let that person go. I say this because that person is silently suffering, and you cannot know what mental torment that person could be going through. Living on an artificial support is no way I would want to live the rest of my days. I would choose the way the Lord intended. However, as I said earlier, Schiavo was improving but the husband deliberately took power by law and let her slowly die in front of her family. I will leave you with one parting thought: How would you feel as a mother if your baby was slowly recuperating under life support and your baby's husband silently killed her? That was a great question. Thanks for asking it. God Bless.

[Siren]

Ironically it is my conservative Christian beliefs that say "turn the machines off" where others say it is their conservative Christian beliefs that say "do anything you can."

Life is a game and the body is our uniform to play the game. We were meant to live in this world and then, after the doorway of death, to experience eternal life. The idea of being trapped inside a non-functional body is more horrifying than solitary confinement in a jail cell. You might even be having a permanent nightmare from which there is never an awakening. Who knows what thoughts, if any, went through her mind.

God did not design the human mind to endure the rigors of never communicating, never moving, never ANYTHING for year after year. I see keeping people in that condition as a form of cruelty and a direct negation of God's will. It was not a condition that existed until man brought it about.

Just exactly why leaving the tube in became so strongly associated with conservative Christianity must be answered by the right to life movement. They seized upon this poor woman's plight as a means to further their agenda that every life must be preserved.

Look at human cloning. Conservative Christians are angry because medical science is playing God. Why aren't they angry about these witch-doctor tactics that suspend people in some sort of living death because they are too cowardly to admit they can't treat the condition? Medical ethics today, as in the time of Hippocrates, begin with the phrase "First do ye no harm to the patient." Not considering death a part of life and treating it with dignity and respect is an abrogation of that code and flies in the face of what medicine officially stands for. I'm sorry, it makes me upset even thinking about it.

Ironically, I felt nearly the same way about the whole thing. Everyone has such hate for her husband. But out of all of the family, he was being the most realistic because he was listening to what the doctors were saying. There was no hope she would ever live a normal life again. I have a will, at age 27, yes, because of her. I have it where it says that if I have to live on lifesupport, I rather be dead. Not only don't I want to live like that, but it would be selfish of me to force my family to care for me in that state. No one can say for sure what Terri's thoughts were on the subject. But seeing as strongly as her parents feel about life support, maybe THAT'S why she never told them she would rather die and instead told her husband. There are things children don't tell their parents, even into adulthood, and instead share with a spouse, and this is one of them that is likely to be shared. I think it selfish to force a body to go on, when a brain (and/or soul) doesn't wish to.

[Aravis Kenobi]

POTW, I agree with all of your posts, especially your first. Terry Schiavo was in even more anguish and pain because of the fact that her husband made the doctors and nurses and family starve and deprive her of food and nourishment. That is what I find horrible about this. He starved his own wife to death. Unless my spouse, or someone else had a living will saying that if they're in that state or disabled and want to be euthanized (or whatever it's called), then, I guess you have no choice but to go along with the patient's choices. You still need to pray about it, and make sure where God's leading you. I wouldn't allow anyone to do that to my child, or my husband.

[echoscot]

Ironically, I felt nearly the same way about the whole thing. Everyone has such hate for her husband. But out of all of the family, he was being the most realistic because he was listening to what the doctors were saying. There was no hope she would ever live a normal life again. I have a will, at age 27, yes, because of her. I have it where it says that if I have to live on lifesupport, I rather be dead. Not only don't I want to live like that, but it would be selfish of me to force my family to care for me in that state. No one can say for sure what Terri's thoughts were on the subject. But seeing as strongly as her parents feel about life support, maybe THAT'S why she never told them she would rather die and instead told her husband. There are things children don't tell their parents, even into adulthood, and instead share with a spouse, and this is one of them that is likely to be shared. I think it selfish to force a body to go on, when a brain (and/or soul) doesn't wish to.

If she were truly vegetative, brain dead or what not I would have agreed with you, but Michael Schiavo was not listening to her doctors. As Prince posted long before the media blitz, he ordered her therapy stopped, even though progress had been made towards helping her eat with a spoon and eventually have the feeding tube removed. Several of her therapists testified under oath that this was the case. When the therapy was stopped for so long, it became more certain that the tube would have to remain. When it was finally removed, she was not euthanized, she was starved to death. There is nothing humane or decent about that.

Second is the contradictory testimony he gave. First during the lawsuit in which he was court-ordered to pay for the therapy, mid-90's, he testified that he "needed the money to go to nursing school so he would be able to care for her the rest of her natural life." Why would he say that if she had told him she didn't want to live that way? It speaks of lies and deceit. His whole manner was of such.

Of course there is no way any of us will know the whole story, and ultimately for God to judge the situation. Only He knows what was in everyone's hearts. We can't undo it anyway at this point, even if we wanted to.

[Siren]

I never said it was a humane way to go. Please don't act like I did. I know she was starved to death and I don't agree with the way she was allowed to die.

Eating with a spoon isn't proof she had the mind there. The nurses and family had to catch her mouth as she tossed her head around. When the food hit her mouth, she may or may not have realized what it was. Swallowing it could be a reflex. Believe me, it was a good thing that she was eating, but it was hardly on her own. And her mind wasn't there to likely understand what was going on.

Bottom line is: None of us are Terri Schiavo. We do not know for a fact whether or not she was making actual progress or it was just a shot in the dark. We can sit here and say what we each feel was right and wrong, but unless you were in her mind at that time, we don't know. You had some doctors saying she'd never come out of it and other's saying there was a minute chance.

About his testimony, perhaps he felt sorry for her parents. And wanted to help them out. And as the years went by and she wasn't getting better, he finally came to grips with reality. Again, same thing, we aren't in his mind either. So accusing him of deceit and lies isn't really fair, since we don't have facts on his frame of mind then or now and likely never will.

[LifeMaiden]

I had an aunt, as well as my grandfather, who was on life support and both were in intense pain as the result of cancer. They were lying there suffering in a vegetative state, and pulling the feeding tube was the most humane thing that my father and his siblings, as well as my aunt's children and her siblings, decided to do. Yes, my grandfather and my aunt starved because their feeding tubes were removed, but that short suffering was nothing compared to the pain they were in previously with cancer.

[LifeMaiden]

i think that if the person is totally brain dead it should be close familys decision if not totally brain dead thay should keep working with her.


Well the media is part of the problem. Their slant seemed to take Terry's husband's side. He continued to say that he 'knew' Terry would never have wanted to live in such a state. The thing is, Terry HAD NO SAY in the matter, period, as to whether she wanted to live, or die. And appropriately, as related to the abortion discussion we have here in this forum, a fetus neither has a say in the matter when abortion is performed...but we assume that given the choice between living and dying, a person would want to live.


I cannot speak for Terri Shiavo, but I know that I would not want to be living as she did. As my parents have their own will stating specifically what I am to do when they are in a vegetative state, coma, or brain-dead, at least I have their permission and their approval to do what THEY feel is the most humane. When you don't have a will or have the person's permission stated as such then things become really tricky.


What if Terri had specified in a will or a statement that she wanted Michael to stop the feeding tube? How would her parents have responded? Would they have respected her wishes, or would they have fought to keep their daughter alive?

[Sunrise]

Nobody can answer that except the parents, of course, but I would think in that kind of clear-cut case, they would have let it go.

That was the whole problem. She had no living will, and the whole thing transpired based on her husband's testimony - which, in my opinion, was suspect.

[Rhyanidd]

I wouldn't want to live in that condition, and I believe her husband stated that she said long before she ended up in that state that she would never want to live like that. Why are her parents more 'able' to make a decision than her husband?
.
Two points on this.

1). Her husband claimed that, he had nothing in writing. Her husband, I don't think, really cared what happend to her, if she died he got money because he had insurance thing (forget what it is called) saying when she died that he would get so much money. He had motive for wanting her dead to help his own selfish ends. Also he was living with another woman and had children by that woman, quite honestly I don't think I'm gonna be trusting him on that.

2). Shiavo was not completely brain dead. She was responding. And could understand things.

I think that the judge should have not allowed them to take her off the feeding tube. They starved her to death, that is just wrong. Starving is painful and just cruel.

Personally I think they should have allowed Shiavo to live. She was making progress and no matter what how much brain power she has got its wrong to put somebody through so much pain.

Also this discussion hits really close to home for me. I have a little brother who is 10 years old but functionally is only 6 months old. Someone said that swallowing may just have been a reflex for her? Well, my brother is prob'ly less functional then Terri was. But I think he knows what food is.

Example: Caleb has a lot of food allergys, so many that my mom keeps track of what he ISN'T allergic to. When my mom tries to feed him a new food he knows if he is allergic and my mom won't give it to him because he'll refuse to eat. Terri was more fucntional than my brother and I can't say 'starve my brother' so I can't say 'starve Terri'

[LifeMaiden]

Part of the problem is the culture we live in...ParthianKing called it nihilism. You know, believing somebody is 'better off dead anyways' or 'better off never being born in the first place...' not a good way of thinking!!

I don't hate her husband for what he did, because I was not taught or raised to hate anyone, regardless of what they did. I have no idea whether he got insurance money or not. I feel for both he and her parents. I think to him, he had lost the Terri he once knew and loved, and for her parents, having her feeding tube pulled was losing her forever.

[Siren]

Also, who's respondsibilty by law was she under?

Once someone reaches the age of 18, parents no longer can decide what is best for their kids. That includes how late they stay out, who they marry, and what kind of car they drive, etc.

Once someone marries, it becomes a life-long (hopefully) partnership. Yeah, there is love, or should be, but its also business.

Strip away the religion, morals, and what you and I feel is right....her husband had much more say in what to do then her parents.

And for those who look for a reason why she died....I think the reason is to open our eyes. That her death will make others rethink their own lives. And how they want to live. And how important putting it in writing really is. So hopefully, there will never be another Terri Schavio. Hopefully the next time someone is seriously injured like this, they had a living will that said, "I want to remain on life support/I don't want to remain on life support."

[narniarox]

I think It was wrong because life is sacred to God and only He has the right to take it away. Her mind may have been gone, but her soul wasn't. And I believe that the husband didn't give up on her as much as he gave up on the Power and Love of God.