The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I assume many of you have read of, if not followed, the case of Terri Schiavo. While the Nation debates on whether Mrs. Schiavo should be starved to death as a means to an end, I wonder...is it the decision of the husband, or the decision of the parents ? Whose opinion should weigh more ?
I'm not talking about "Letter of the law". I mean, you personally.
There is no living will in place. Her own wishes are muted by her vegetative state. Who would better know her preference ?

Who would better know her preference ?

I'll start with the easy question. Probably, her husband knew her preference, at least as of when she went into the vegetative state.

Should he make the decision? Ideally, the husband and the parents should decide together. They disagree.

Who, then, should make the decision? I don't know, but I don't believe anyone who claims they have special expertise in the subject. How could anyone really be an expert on the decision? I mean ethicists of all sorts: I don't believe there is a clean answer in the way that there is one clean answer to a math problem.

(Medical people can describe her state, estimate her prognosis, probably estimate pretty accurately what her future will be like. Those are just technical answers, ones that someone else has to use to make the decision.)

What I know is that I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.

What decision should they make? Again, I'm glad I don't have to decide. Given that her eyes are open, that they move, that she almost, sometimes, seems "here", I don't think I could remove the feeding tube. Certainly, not if it were my daughter.

But to leave her, as is, with no hope that the might improve? With no hope of having rational brain functions? Is that more cruel, when drawn out over years and years? I don't know.

I think it will be best for a judge to hear all opinions, all the medical estimates, and decide. Since the parents and husband cannot agree, maybe a single, impartial, thoughtful judge is the best person to decide.

But I would hate to be that judge.

welch wrote:... maybe a single, impartial, thoughtful judge is the best person to decide.

They are just other human beings with the same biases and flaws than many of us. There is no magic cure.

I am intersested in the outcome of this situation butnot only for her but for our own future as a society.

welch wrote:What I know is that I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.

You can say that again!

I saw my grandmother live her last days on a ventilator, and I know for sure it's nothing I want to go through. She even had a living will, but the way things played out, my grandfather had them intubate her, and then the prognosis was that she would come off the tube shortly. Anyway, the point is, even with the best intentions of our family and the medical staff, things didn't go as planned -- in fact, they went way off course in a matter of days. So, I can see how, after 15 years, things with Terry Schiavo could get so complicated.

From what I hear, even if she had a living will, it may not have been any less complicated to carry out her wishes. There are groups that do nothing but go around litigating withdrawl of care cases to keep people "alive."

One thing to keep in mind here is that this case has been before a judge and been decided 50-something times, even turning over a law the Fla. legislature passed to keep her sustained. And, remember that all those courts had all the information available, unlike you and me.

If someone can articulate that the legal and moral thing to do is one and the same, then and only then can the decision be made.

You're right about the living will not being enough. Many times they are contested, but more commonly, they simply can't be found. Someone fills one out, files it away in their home, and when the time comes, the family doesn't really remember what the will said to do.

If you want to help avoid this problem for yourself
1) Make a living will. There are programs you can buy, but I think this site lets you download the forms for your state.
https://www.legaldocs.com/htmdocs/livin_st.htm
2) Give a copy of your living will documents to all your family members.
3) Designate one of your family members as a health care proxy. It's a separate document that puts one person in charge. It gives them limited power of attorney with regard to health care decisions if I remember.
4) Make sure your health care proxy is directed in writing to expressly follow your living will.
Don't put your proxy in a position where other family members will try to argue as to what should be done and sway his/her opinion. Try to spell it out so the decisions will already be made for them.

Ok you guys are forgeting some key facts in this case. First of all is anyone aware that the first 7 years that Terry was in this state her husband never said Boo about removing her feeding tube. Has anyone heard the fact that Mr. Schiavo has fathered two children by another woman since and is looking to marry this woman. To me those are extraordinary circumstances causing him to be unable to make an impartial decision. Therefore this man has no right deciding her fate.

I would not want to be in this decision but you cannot take back the decision if the tube is removed and she doesn't make it.

NikiH wrote:Ok you guys are forgeting some key facts in this case. First of all is anyone aware that the first 7 years that Terry was in this state her husband never said Boo about removing her feeding tube. Has anyone heard the fact that Mr. Schiavo has fathered two children by another woman since and is looking to marry this woman. To me those are extraordinary circumstances causing him to be unable to make an impartial decision. Therefore this man has no right deciding her fate.

I would not want to be in this decision but you cannot take back the decision if the tube is removed and she doesn't make it.

If I recall, he did not make the decision, but instead petitioned the courts for a decision, and was given it more than 50 times, including twice by Supreme courts (Florida and US).

I don't claim to have all the facts in this case, but I would think it is safe to say that at least some of the judges that heard this case did have all the information.

First, I have to admit I have not been following this case that closely. I find it offensive that the Republican party is trying to gain political points with this family's tragedy.
Does anyone delude themselves into thinking that taking this case to the federal level and bypassing Florida courts is nothing more than political grandstanding?
This from a political party that tells me big government is bad.

Enough of that.

I think the husband has the most to say, actually. If he loved her and married her, he would know more about her wishes as an adult than anyone else.

It's not like this happened last year. It's been 15 years. 15 years of being brain dead and unresponsive. He has a relationship and children since his wife's heart attack. He still could be the best person to ask about her wishes. That is what the court spent all that time trying to figure out.
There are a lot of things to argue over in this case, and it becomes very emotional for people, but all the slander of the husband is just wrong.

NikiH, are you implying that he wants her dead so he can marry another woman? He could just file for divorce. Is he doing it for money? Apparently he was recently offered 1M which he turned down, and I think he turned down 10M. (Offering money to buy him off is kind of foul anyway)

This is interesting reading: http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_ ... louzos.php

[Disclaimer: Random Google-found site. I have no idea about the reliability of this source, but you should be warned that it seems to be a leftist site.]

I wouldn't want to live in the condition she's in, however, I do have a few points I'd like to make:

1) As regards the "husband's" fitness to determine this woman's fate, I find that questionable. He's living with another woman and has sired one or two children with her. Why wouldn't he turn over legal guardianship to her parents? Might it be because he stands to collect on the remainder of the $1.5M, if/when she dies, from a malpractice suit he won on her behalf?

2) She's not in a coma. She may be in a "vegetative state", but she's not unconscious. It blows me away that a convicted murderer at least gets a needle. This woman is being deprived of food and water until she's dead. Please.

Redskin Don wrote:I wouldn't want to live in the condition she's in, however, I do have a few points I'd like to make:

1) As regards the "husband's" fitness to determine this woman's fate, I find that questionable. He's living with another woman and has sired one or two children with her. Why wouldn't he turn over legal guardianship to her parents? Might it be because he stands to collect on the remainder of the $1.5M, if/when she dies, from a malpractice suit he won on her behalf?

I heard a sound bite of him on the news saying he will not recieve any money when she dies -- for whatever that's worth. I might be worth looking into before labeling him a greedy bastard.

Redskin Don wrote:2) She's not in a coma. She may be in a "vegetative state", but she's not unconscious. It blows me away that a convicted murderer at least gets a needle. This woman is being deprived of food and water until she's dead. Please.

Most of her cerebral cortext has been replaced by spinal fluid. From what I've read, reliable medical sources agree that the signs of life she shows consist of certain reflexes.

You're trying to put words in my mouth. I don't believe I called him a "greedy bastard". You did. For someone who claimed they weren't up on all the details you sure did turn into an expert mighty quick.

I've also read where he's denied her antibiotics and dental care leading to the extraction of some of her teeth.

If you, as you state, aren't aware of all of the facts, then perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to criticize others.

All of the pictures they've shown on television and all of the articles I've read indicate she is NOT unconscious.

I understand, though, how it makes liberals feel better to imagine she's just laying there. I repeat, monsters like Ted Bundy are afforded more mercy than this poor woman.

Redskin Don wrote:You're trying to put words in my mouth. I don't believe I called him a "greedy bastard". You did. For someone who claimed they weren't up on all the details you sure did turn into an expert mighty quick.

I've also read where he's denied her antibiotics and dental care leading to the extraction of some of her teeth.

If you, as you state, aren't aware of all of the facts, then perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to criticize others.

All of the pictures they've shown on television and all of the articles I've read indicate she is NOT unconscious.

I understand, though, how it makes liberals feel better to imagine she's just laying there. I repeat, monsters like Ted Bundy are afforded more mercy than this poor woman.

This has been through the courts more that 50 times. On examining all the evidence, it has been decided on behalf of Mr. Schiavo.

However, you feel like you know more than the people who have all the information. Good for you. How righteous of you.

You said he wants to "kill" her so he can get $1.5 million. That's not greedy? That's not a bastardly deed?

You said he wants to "kill" her so he can get $1.5 million. That's not greedy? That's not a bastardly deed?

I repeat, your words, not mine.

This has been through the courts more that 50 times. On examining all the evidence, it has been decided on behalf of Mr. Schiavo.

The courts have been known to be wrong especially when the judiciary is packed with liberals. Take the Florida Supreme Court, for example...

Redskin Don wrote:

You said he wants to "kill" her so he can get $1.5 million. That's not greedy? That's not a bastardly deed?

I repeat, your words, not mine.

This has been through the courts more that 50 times. On examining all the evidence, it has been decided on behalf of Mr. Schiavo.

The courts have been known to be wrong especially when the judiciary is packed with liberals. Take the Florida Supreme Court, for example...

More than 50 times this has been decided by people with all the information!

I didn't see this in here but the husband has denied her physical treatment since her origional injury.

I fully believe there is a right to die, but this woman is not brain dead and she's not a vegetable. She's gone from fully functioning to being mentally handicapped, if we allow her to be starved to death then what about all the other handicapped people who are less functioning than her?

Also, she's a devout Catholic, isn't starving to death technically suicide? What about the religious implications?

Still, as to the origional question, I don't know who ought to have the final say. The husband is biased one way, the parents are biased in another way... I just think you should choose life first and only allow a patient to die when all other means are exausted.

I don't see how a doctor, in good confidence can actively starve a woman to death. There are plenty of people with medical problems, like the lack of an esophagus who have to be fed by tube daily. Unless a person has a living will, you can't take an active role in killing them. That's my 2 cents.

What about that baby in Texas that was "killed" (by your definition, and over the mother's objections) because the mother didn't have the money to pay for his care? Support was withdrawn under a law that was signed by President Bush when he was Governor of Texas.

Give me a break RD - lay off the "liberal" bashing for one minute and look at this thing objectively, same for you Skins81, don't presume it's a Republican hidden agenda.

I am so sick of the polarization in this country - conservatives did that, liberals do that. Listen MORE and we may actually come together and figure things out instead of driving each other away.

You can be in a coma and have your eyes open, you can be in a veg state and appear responsive. Do we go with medical science that says there is no hope, do you hold onto hope that a miracle will happen.

I am not going to slam the parents or the husband in this situation because I haven't a clue as to what they are going through or have gone through.

I have however had to watch my mother cover my dying father with her own body and a living will to prevent doctors from putting him on a respirator. Because of this I feel I do have some sense of the pain and suffering that goes on with this type of situation.

What's the humane thing to do, starving a person or keeping them alive artificially? I only know what I would want, and that is to die versus being kept alive as only a shell of my former self.

I am not studied in that case, but if they had just cut off the baby's food and water as a means of killing it... that is horrible.

If they cut off a respirator or a device that led to immediate death, then that is humane.

I believe the parents should have the say so in this situation. If I'm not mistaken, Terry and her husband were only married for 4 years. There is something shady about the husband. The parents and the sister said they are willing to take care of her. Why does the husband want the tube removed so badly? Is he really fighting for what Terry really wanted? Give me a break. Some are saying that nobody knows the true reason why Terry collapsed in the first place. There has been talk of it being a heartattack, but I believe there are many questions that are still unanswered. Her sister says the husband may be afraid that Terry may one day wake up and explain what really happened to her the night she collapsed.

I think it's horrible that a piece of dung judge can have the authority to allow murder. Terry is not a vegetable. The news has shown video of her. Her face lights up and she breaks a slight smile when her mom rubs her face and kisses her forehead. Has anyone seen the videoclip with the balloon? The doctor would move it over her head and Terry would follow it with her eyes. Vegetables don't do that. Vegetables are brain dead and are hooked up to machines that breath for them. Vegetables have no sign of awareness. Terry simply has a feeding tube because she can't chew food and swallow. This is an awful situation. I guess we should just round up all retarded and mentally handicapped and destroy them like Hitler did. This is really humane, depriving a helpless person of food and water and let them slowly starve to death.

Brandon,
You are wrong. Read up on the facts of Persistent Vegitative State.

By the way, that is persistent as in "not temporary."

cville can I remind you that several medical conditions were once thought incureable or irreversable. How would you feel if you made this decision and then next week they figured out that brain damage can be reversed using stem cells or something similar. I think her parents are holding out hope. And that's what parents are supposed to do.

NikiH wrote:cville can I remind you that several medical conditions were once thought incureable or irreversable. How would you feel if you made this decision and then next week they figured out that brain damage can be reversed using stem cells or something similar. I think her parents are holding out hope. And that's what parents are supposed to do.

Are you aware that the majority of her cerebral cortext has been replaced by spinal fluid?

Are you saying that sometime soon the technology will be available to regenerate brain tissue?

listen... the fact is as cvillehog as stated, the courts have ruled on this 50 times... if she told her husband she wanted to die in that state well then he should do everything in his power to see her wishes through. this is all about perception.. some people feel it's murder some feel it's merciful. for some who think starving her to death is cruel well it is. but if the govt. (republican or democratic) would stay out of individuals lives then she could be given a better end. dr. kovorkian (spelling) was labaled an evil person but all he was doing was putting the power of one's death in their own hands. if terry schaivo told her husband she never wanted to be kept alive in that state well he needs to fight for her. just as ony of you would fight for your spouses. yeah, so what he has a G/F? NONE of you know the facts there. who knows how that relationship was spawned? how many of us have had to go through this with a loved one? he has seen his wife like this for 15 years! he could have easily divorced her, he could have easily had her parents taken full custody of her well-being and given them full financial burden. i can't fault the man for seeing this through for 15 years. i don't know this to be true but i am sure the lawyers for the husband arent doing these court appearances for free and the hopsital care hasnt been free either. it is on him if he is not telling the truth. it not for you or i or the politicians to decide her fate. if you beleive in god, then he will get his in the end, won't he? i have told my wife several times to do what he is doing if this were to happen to me. almost every husband and wife have had this conversation. why is it so hard then for people to believe that they had this conversation and he is trying to see this through?

sorry for the choppy post, at work and tried to write somehting in a jiffy.