OT: Terri Schiavo.

[DaveMunger]

I've been uncivil elsewhere (where it seemed appropriate), but I really want to be careful not to ruin the sense of comradery I feel at this particular board. Man, that sounded sad. My online Mothera discussion buddies have become important enough to me for me to get all delecately vulnerable.

None of the sites I linked to claim to be objective. Abstact Appeal does, and the guy's a lawyer, that's two reasons not to trust him. Any site on this subject could, IMO, easily be characterized as propogandistic, but the pretense of scientific objectivity while omiting relevant information is much more characteristic of propaganda than are self-admittedly partisan advocacy efforts.

The linked page gives the impression that the sole means being used to kill the patient is withdrawal of the feeding tube, when the court has also forbidden any attempts hydrate her by mouth (I think it's Yahoo news that published pictures of people being arrested for trying to bring a glass of water into the hospice).

A layman watching a video is hardly qualified to give a medical diagnosis, but some of what has been asserted is so plainly false that it can be seen as such at a glance. If she were unable to swallow, she would be drooling copiously, and dehydrating much more rapidly.

Hypothesis III and IV from the Wolfson Report present a scenario contrary to the usual argument that the patient is already dead, and thus dehydrating her can't cause her to suffer.

[blkrider]

Generally, I think it should be left to the spouse.  Marriage usually should supersede all other relationships, but there are exceptions.  My in-laws for example are separated and my wife is basically the responsible party who makes decisions in case of an emergency with her father.  She had to do so when my father-in-law had a brain hemmorage and my mother-in-law was hesitant to allow the doctors to operate.  

I just don't think it's the government's domain to make these decisions.  Or the parents, for that matter.

[ulthar]

blkrider wrote:

> Generally, I think it should be left to the spouse.  Marriage
> usually should supersede all other relationships, but there are
> exceptions.  My in-laws for example are separated and my wife
> is basically the responsible party who makes decisions in case
> of an emergency with her father.  She had to do so when my
> father-in-law had a brain hemmorage and my mother-in-law was
> hesitant to allow the doctors to operate.  
>
> I just don't think it's the government's domain to make these
> decisions.  Or the parents, for that matter.

That's fair enough, but let's take a hypothetical.  Let's suppose the husband WANTED the wife dead, and even caused her original injury to put her in the vulnerable state?  In this case, would you still leave the decision solely to the spouse?

The problem with the Terri Schaivo case is that that are an awefully large number of 'unknowns' and inconsistencies.  Here's just a few, and these are not my "opinion," they are verifiable fact:

(1) The Dr. charged by the State of Florida to examine her to determine her mental status concluded that she is *NOT* in a persistant vegatative state; indeed, the PVS diagnosis is known BY ALL DOCTORS to be medically unsound - it's a guess.

(2) This same doctor has stated in an officially reported opinion to the court that it is his expert opinion that her original injuries are consistent with abuse, and are not consistent with those sustained in a fall.

(3) Several of her nurses, from earlier in the situation, have given sworn affadavits stating that she could drink water and soft food (like jello) without aspirating.  Several were fired after confrontations with Terri's husband regarding her care.

(4) During the malpractice lawsuit, Michael Schiavo testified that he was getting a nursing degree to provide long term care for Terri.  Within months of getting a multimillion dollar award, he ordered the care facility to withhold care and petitioned the court to have her feeding tube removed.

(5) Taking the issue to the court was initiated by Michael Schiavo NOT the family.  The family has kept the case in court.

(6) After ruling that the tube can be removed (I believed the first time), Terri's parents pleaded for the opportunity to see if she can eat and drink.  Judge Greer ordered no attempt me made to nourish her orally on the grounds that she might choke, which could kill her.  (Recall that several nurses had previously gotten her to successfully take nutrition by mouth).

(7) Michael Schiavo is the ONLY person who claims to have heard Terri's wishes were she in an unrecoverable state.  She may have said it, she may not have.  Getting her wishes from his testimony depends on his credibility.  The judge has consistently ruled he is credible.

(8) Terri's family CLAIMS she was physically abused prior to the incident leading to this.  I don't know if there is any evidence of this (police reports, etc), but it is being said by more than one person (to my knowledge, all are her family members).  Again, this is a question of credibility.

(9) Terri's parents have pleaded with the court to allow them to take over the physical care of her, and to have Michael granted a divorce so he can 'get on with his life.'  The court refused.  For some reason, the ONLY option the court sees is to kill her.  Again, this has to be based solely on the basis of Michael's unquestionable credibility and that he is speaking on behalf of his wife's true wishes.

(10) The judge has refused to allow evidence in his court that might contradict Michael's testimony.  In one instance, he was even overturned by an appellate court in this regard (the video of her interacting with her Mom).  His response to being overruled was to issue a court order forbidding the collection of new evidence regarding her mental status.

(11) In the state of Florida, you can be JAILED for allowing cattle to starve to death.

(12) Michael Shiavo's attorney is a known "assisted suicide" advocate.  For all those accusing various parties to be involved for less than altruistic reasons, you have to include this attorney.  He MAY not want what's right for Terri (or her wishes)...he MAY want another case under his belt for his "cause."

As for her parents (and family) being unstable, well, they might be.  But, their case is joined by many medical professionals (doctors and nurses) who were involved her Terri's healthcare over the years, and they stand in start contrast to the image presented by Michael Schiavo.  Are all of these people nuts, too?

Now, to me the issue has always not been "let's save Terri because DNR's and Living Wills don't matter" but rather, IN THIS CASE, there are questions and inconsistencies.  To an outside observer, the court does NOT APPEAR to be objective and acting in the best interest of the vulnerable party.

And more fundamentally than that, I have to ask the question: Why such adament fervor to kill her? If the family is willing to provide her care and relieve Schiavo from responsibility, what is the big deal?

To me, the whole thing smacks of the exact beginnings of the Adult Euthanasia Program and ultimately The Final Solution.  The court, ONE JUDGE, in the face of much contradicting evidence, has ruled this woman is not worthy to live.  Period.

Where do we go from there? Once the court establishes itself as arbiter of the right to life or not, what is next?

[DaveMunger]

I was going to post a some more stuff here, but I think Ulthar's covered most of it. This thing about what Ralph Nader has to say about the case is interesting:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44858

[Brother Ragnarok]

I'm done talking about this case.  I don't want to p**s anyone off, either.  The people on Fox News calling her husband a Nazi and bringing in TV "psychic" John Edwards as an authority on the matter do a good enough job of that.  Ulthar, just know it was those kinds of morons I was referring to as douchebags, not you.

[Mr_Vindictive]

Calling the husband a nazi and brining in John Edwards!?  That's genuis fair and balanced news reporting!

[odinn7]

Yeah, no crap. Now with John Edward involved, I'm so gonna pay attention to Fox.
How ridiculous, Edward is a fake and even if he wasn't, what is getting him involved all about?

[trekgeezer]

I'm not commenting any more after this, but I have to say it is shame that this has been turned into a circus. Fox News is just proving what everyone says about them.

No matter his motive is, being true to his wife's wishes or something else, Michael Schiavo is always going to be seen as a murderer in some peoples eyes. The entire news media and all the law makers involved  should hang their  heads in shame over this whole mess.

[ulthar]

Brother Ragnarok wrote:

>  Ulthar, just know it
> was those kinds of morons I was referring to as douchebags, not
> you.
>

Fair enough.  And I'll admit that there ARE some douchebags shooting off at the mouth on this issue; I'll also admit that at the very least, SOME of the politicoes and probably MOST of the reporters are in it for the spotlight.  After all, they've had 15 or so years to get involved and have not said a word.  To get involved at the 11th hour sure does smack of using the issue for some sort of gain.