Terry Schiavo

First -

The law in Florida (and in most other states, I believe) is very clear.  "Living wills" are very explicitly provided for.  If in fact Teri told her husband to pull the plug (let's all believe him for the moment and assume she really did this), then the law would pretty clearly require that we follow her request.

I know for certain that my living will (yes, I have one) would specifically direct my trustee to end life support in this type of situation.  Who are we to overrule Teri on this matter?  This is what she wanted.  I would certainly be pissed if somebody overruled my living (except that I would be vegetative).

Second -

This IS what vegetative looks like.  Yes, she moves and blinks.  Did you guys see the video clips of that Egyptian(?) girl that had an extra head removed from her skull?  Creepiest damned thing.  This head had eyes and everything - they eyes would blink, they would trace, and the mouth would occasionally smile.  But that head had no upper brain.  Just because there are movements doesn't mean it isn't a vegetative state.  When there is no movement, we call that a coma.

Other than doubts about what Teri did or did not say, this whole thing is a crock.  There is a law on the books, which was being enforced as written, until Congress and Jeb Bush came along to meddle.

AdmiralSenn wrote: I haven't confirmed this yet (pending some spare time) but supposedly there are recordings within the last week of Terry conversing. I have the links, but haven't played with them yet. I'd rather keep her alive. I imagine this: My dad is a diabetic (true). Say he was in the hospital, in a coma and hadn't spoken for weeks, and was by all accounts going to die. Removing life support would stop what pain he is aware of. Would I do it? No. There is always the possibility that there will be a cure, or a person will suddenly snap out of their condition, and they may go on to do great things with their added years (incidentally, this is very similar to part of my stance on abortion). Even if they do allow her to die, starvation is one of the more cruel ways to do it that isn't barred by the Geneva Conventions. It's essentially euthanasia, except that the doctor isn't directly killing the patient, but it amounts to the same thing. If it's legal to allow someone to die after a medical procedure that if left undone would help the person to survive, then euthanasia is next. Within fifty years we could see the death penalty enforced for even minor crimes, then aborting any children not in our population quota, etc. (If this sounds extreme, keep in mind that Clark Kent and I still occasionally argue over a document quoting Thomas Jefferson's personal correspondence. That document is still used as a legal precedent for actions. A decision like this is even more concrete. If a personal letter can lead to what some consider a double standard in religious policy, a court decision could do the things I have outlined much more easily). Remember that I don't expect any of that to happen, but they become substantially more likely as cases like this crop up. From what I have read, Terry is not vegetative and even if she did state her wish to die, it was only if she was vegetative. Pending my listening to these files, I contend that she should be kept alive. (Note: The information contained in this post is not intended to start a debate. If you want to, send me a PM, don't hijack this thread).

1. Part of the reason that the judge ruled in favor of pulling the tube is because a team of doctors had pronounced her as vegetative with no hope of recovery. I do not believe that she has been conversing.

2. No, there is no possibility of a cure for her in her lifetime. Her brain went without oxygen when she went into cardiac arrest. Brain cells (neurons) do no re-form. You are born with all that you have. I see this all of the time in the ICU; people go into cardiac arrest, are resuscitated, and lose their short term memory forever due to lack of oxygen.

3. Pulling her feeding tube, which is inserted through her belly is not the same as starving her to death. She cannot survive without artificially-supplied nutrition (LIFE SUPPORT). Without that tube she dies a NATURAL DEATH.

It is what she wanted, she did not want life support (feeding tube), and doctors have confirmed that she is a vegetable. Her husband stood by her for three years before starting his life over with another woman, so let's all cut him some slack.

Question: Why is the U.S. congress getting into this family squabble?

Answer: So Bush and the GOP can secure more do-gooder votes in the next election.

ScarFace22 wrote: BS BS and more BS. First off she never pysically said that she wants to die, there is no proof of it at all. The only person who wants her to die is her husband because hes afraid the police will find out how he abused her and controlled her life like the psycopath he is. He also wants her to die because he'll get 1.3 million dollars.

And you know this... how?

Clark Kent wrote: ScarFace22 wrote: BS BS and more BS. First off she never pysically said that she wants to die, there is no proof of it at all. The only person who wants her to die is her husband because hes afraid the police will find out how he abused her and controlled her life like the psycopath he is. He also wants her to die because he'll get 1.3 million dollars. And you know this... how?

Not only that, but her husband has been offered millions of dollars by multiple parties to just walk away and hand control over to her parents. That would seem to be a much easier way out.

Sorry for the political comments, but it really is none of congress' business.

Let me answer your post by number:

1. I can go either way on this issue, because children with cerebral palsy cannot take care of themselves, have a PEG tube for their feedings, and we do not pull the plug on them.

2. Not in your or my lifetime is there any hope for a cure to brain injuries. The only hope on the horizon is stem cell research, but we cannot even come close to curing the simplest of disease, such as diabetes that involves only creating one type of cell in the pancreas. Making a network of neurons that can function as a brain is another thing entirely.

3. I agree that it is up to the individual. I deal with these situations daily as an ICU nurse. There are people that we maintain on life support and run up million dollar hospital bills before they die. There are others who see the futility in their situation and pull the plug.

A. I do not know about Florida law, but if she were in Ohio, we would have pulled the plug 15 years ago when the husband said to.

B. Yes, doctors have been wrong before. But not in this case, it is a brain injury and neurons (brain cells) do not repair or relace themselves. Bad news for the ongoing stoner thread, they are a smart as they will ever get, but not as dumb.

ScarFace22 wrote: Are you that stupid! How can she not be in pain shes freaking starving to death. Your a moron.

Becuase her brain has the functioning power of tapioca pudding. And shes not getting any better.

Why not just let the poor woman die. Im tired of seeing the government use this situation to further its agenda. The family and others have offered the husband money to walk away. Trust me, here in Florida this story has been big before CNN and other big networks got ahold of it. Not to mention that parents are more attached, but the husband was closer. If you can show me some proof of the 'Abuse' then fine, but if not then just shut up about it.

Also I love the fact that you cant manage to get through one post without calling somebody a name. Becuase we all know calling somebody 'stupid' and a 'moron' gets your point across so much better.