okay, sincere question for those who favor reinserting TS's feeding tube

[republicansareevil]

I know a lot of people are sick of the Terry Schiavo discussion. I'm NOT sick of it -- mainly because I always avoid the popular media and because I avoided all the TS threads on DU when it was at its peak. Now that the conversation has died down a bit, I have a question for those DUers who opposed removing the feeding tube. I have to admit it stuns me that there are people on the left who feel that way, but I'm not here to argue with you so much as to try and understand where you're coming from. So I'd like to know... which of the following would you say best characterizes your position?

1. No form of life support should ever be removed from a living human being regardless of that person's current wishes or wishes expressed while still conscious. (Even if a person made a living will and even if all loved ones and doctors are in agreement, life support should still not be discontinued.)

2. No form of life support should ever be removed from a living human being UNLESS that person documented in writing the exact circumstances under which he/she would want the life support discontinued. (Even if a person informed all their family members of their wishes, and the family is in agreement that the person would have wanted life support removed in their current condition, life support should still not be discontinued if the person failed to create a living will specifying this.)

3. No form of life support should ever be removed from a living human being UNLESS there is sufficient evidence that the person expressed (while conscious) his or her wish to have life support removed in their current condition. A living will is not required. Testimony from the person's loved ones could be considered evidence as long as there is not a good reason to think they would lie. -- I think if you hold this position but support the reinsertion of the feeding tube, it logically implies that you feel Michael Schiavo's testimony (regarding his wife's statement that she would not want to live in such a condition) is not trustworthy... but let me know if you disagree that this is the logical implication.

4. Other. Please explain.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. No poll?

[Solon]

2. He hasn't donated yet...

Maybe one of us could create one?

[republicansareevil]

4. If you think that would be better, please go ahead.

Maybe that is the better approach after all. If you start one, I'll ask to have this thread locked, if it doesn't sink on its own. :)

[republicansareevil]

3. Seemed a little too complicated to make into a poll... and maybe flippant?

I don't know. Not sure a no-star like me can start a poll anyway. :)

[Erika]

5. Sorry for butting in but...

The question to me is whether the law is going to uphold the sanctity of the marriage contract where the spouse speaks for the other under these conditions. I heard a high-up from the Catholic church say on cable tonight that the spouse is next of kin, not the parents. He said the roots are Biblical where a man should leave his mother and father and marry and become one with the spouse.

I believe it is great to have written legal wishes especially with the fanatics of the Republicans now in charge of the country and their party. But I don't believe the sanctity of marriage should be diluted by allowing other and the courts into this process.

[republicansareevil]

6. good point. however...

the reason a spouse's testimony is usually considered over a parent's testimony is the assumption that no one knows you as well as your spouse, and if you discussed such matters with anyone, it would likely be with your spouse. I read today that legally if it was a husband and wife who met and got married in a whirlwind romance in Vegas over the course of just a few days, and then one of them suddenly became incapacitated, that the parents' testimony about their son or daughter's wishes would probably take precedence over the new spouse's -- although the spouse would still get the estate if the person died.

[Erika]

7. That would be state by state rulings

However, Terri and Michael were married for I believe six years.

[Yupster]

8. The thing that gets me in this case

is the withholding of food and water. That just seems completely inhuman. How can you sit next to any living creature and deny them a drink of water.

On the logical side, the question then becomes "to what purpose?". So you give her food and water. That's the humane thing to do, but then what? She lives for another 25 years in such a hopeless condition. I sure wouldn't want to do that. Would anyone? If there is a heaven, I'd want to get there, not be stuck in this state for decades.

The missing piece to me is a syringe of morphine to end her life humanely like we'd do for any other loved creature.

Anyway, that's what bothers me about the case.

Oh and another thing.

I also don't like a husband speaking for a woman who is married to another woman (common-law) and has kids with her. To me you give up your rights as husband when you make a family with another wife. I don't like the idea of a man controlling his wife's body, especially when the man's currently involved in a long-standing affair. I think the decent thing to do would be to divorce before marrying another.

Anyway, those are my problems, but there aren't any solutions, because keeping her alive leads to nothing.

Hope that all made sense.

[0007]

10. Euthanasia would appear to be the logical choice in this case.

Imagine the pandemonium?

[Discord]

21. Euthenasia is not legal. It would be the more

humane way of letting her go, but the "right-to-lifers" and their staunch opposition to humane euthenasia have cause her to have to be dehydrated to death. I agree there is a knee-jerk reaction to the whole concept of being starved and having water withheld. But given they have no other legal option, this is the only method avaialable to honor Terri's wishes.

[ima_sinnic]

16. don't believe the lies, Terri is not suffering in the slightest from

hunger or thirst. she can't feel pain, numero uno -- no brain = no pain.
she can't "feel" anything. I heard that total BS on Limbaugh yesterday about the mother being denied "the right to give her dying daughter a little water." absolutely every provision has been made for Terri's comfort.
it has been documented time and again that people who are dying reject food and pass peacefully. the body is physiologically equipped to die, as it is to be born.
also, her lips have been coated with something like vaseline to keep them from drying out. perhaps someone who is a doctor or nurse or who works with hospice or dying patients can provide more details.

[johnnie]

20. There is no "common law" in Florida

Where does the husband live?

[republicansareevil]

9. (kick for the morning)

:kick:

[morgan2]

11. I think it should be reinserted for a week

then removed for a week, rinsed then repeated.

[Nobody]

12. They already removed and reinserted it once

The courts said it could be removed. About a week later, the gov (Jeb Bush) ordered it reinserted. This was a few years ago.

How many times does Terri have to go to the edge of death only to be brought back.

This is just as humane as south American firing squads taking you out to be shot, letting you see the firing squad, blindfolding you, letting you hear the gunshots, but yet they all deliberately missed or were shooting blanks. Then they say: next time it's for real.

If I were in Terri's position, I want someone to actively end my life. Quickly. Lovingly. Humanely. Painlessly. We don't treat our pets like we treat other humans.

[drdon326]

13. #3 is closest

3. No form of life support should ever be removed from a living human being UNLESS there is sufficient evidence that the person expressed (while conscious) his or her wish to have life support removed in their current condition. A living will is not required. Testimony from the person's loved ones could be considered evidence as long as there is not a good reason to think they would lie. -- I think if you hold this position but support the reinsertion of the feeding tube, it logically implies that you feel Michael Schiavo's testimony (regarding his wife's statement that she would not want to live in such a condition) is not trustworthy... but let me know if you disagree that this is the logical implication.

.................................................................

MS has AN OBVIOUS conlict of interest....While i would say early on he was very caring, after ...

a. he won the mapractice suit..in which btw he claimed he needed the money to take care of her for the rest of her life

b.met a woman and had a new family

c.then 7 years after the fact he announces 'oh...she didnt want to love like this'

I dont think his guardianship should be continued.imho.

[republicansareevil]

14. So do you think that *in general* a spouse's testimony is sufficient?

Would you agree that in *most* cases the spouse's testimony about what the person would have wanted should be sufficient even if other family members disagree?

Is it just this particular case that you feel is exceptional?

But every time it has gone to court, they've ruled on the side of Michael Schiavo. What are your thoughts on that?

[drdon326]

15. Most cases ,yes.

and yes ,this particular case is the exception. If the parents agreed with him (in fact they state just the opposite)I have nooo problem.

re. courts....courts have made mistakes.

How many innocent people hav e received the death penalty only later find out they were innocent ??

[ima_sinnic]

17. all of your misinformed arguments for "saving" the breathing husk

of what used to be a person have already been soundly debunked. so I won't bother. maybe somebody else has the energy to respond YET AGAIN with the facts.

[drdon326]

18. Sorry you feel that way.

the poster asked for an opinion and i gave it.

[ima_sinnic]

19. your opinion carries little weight because you don't have a grasp

of the facts. did you know, for example, that Michael Schiavo actually went to nursing school so as to be better informed and able to care for Terri? Or that, for years, he paid someone to do her hair and makeup on what I believe was a daily basis? Pray tell what AT ALL he has to gain by remaining married to her and seeking to let her die a natural death when he saw that all hope of recovery and any sign of cognitive ability were gone?

[Kelvin Mace]

22. Because he had a potential conflict

he asked the courts to act as proxy and discern his wife's wishes.

Please READ the Guardian Ad Litem on the matter and not the right-wing spin and lies.

A summary here:
http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/mt/archives/001986.html

Full report here:
http://www.miami.com/multimedia/miami/news/0319schiavo_finalreport.pdf

Myths about the case debunked here:
http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/mt/archives/001991.html

To reiterate, the COURT, not Michael Schiavo, determined that "clear and compelling" evidence existed that Mrs. Schiavo would not want to live in her current state. Her wishes were based on the testimony of THREE witnesses.

Michael Schiavo was found by the court to have administered the trust fund for his wife's care in a completely above board fashion, however little money remains in the fund and Medicaid is paying the bills these days. Also, when there was money in the fund, Mr. Schiavo offered to turn the money over to the courts or a charity for administration.

Mr. Schiavo was encouraged by the Schindlers to "get on with his life" and date other women. He even brought women he was seeing to meet his in-laws.

Please, read the truth, not the media lies.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Discord]

23. OK. here's the facts.

On pre-point: MS has NO conlict of intrest. If you have been watching other stations besides FAUX, you would have seen that even his new fiance has been very supportive of MS and Terri, she has even helped in the care and treatment of Terri. (more on this will be covered in reply to point C)

On Point A: Yes, he won the malpractice suit. Terri was awarded $500,000 to be put in a trust fund to be used for her care and medical expenses. MS was awarded $200,000 for his loss. This all began after the malpractice suit BECAUSE Mr. Schindler told Michael that he wanted part of the money. When MS refused, Mr. Schindler was quoted on the record as telling MS he was "going to make his life hell.". He is sucessfully doing that. So yes, he did suffer a loss, he was NOT with his SO at the time of the suit. He deserved the money. But it is entirely unrelated to other aspects of this case other than understanding the motives of the Schindlers.

On Point B: Yes, he is now with another woman. Do not forget a couple major aspects of this part. One, he ONLY did so, long after he was told by MANY medical specialists that Terri was never coming back, and there was no possability of recovery. He spent 5 years attempting to rehabilitate her, in several medical institutions. He even continued for 2 years after meeting his SO to try to find her the best medical care. Two, the Schindlers pressured Mike to move on with his life. They even took part in setting him up with dates and at this point, were amiable with MS. (remember, the battle didn't start until AFTER the malpractice suit, when Mr. Schindler felt snuffed) It does not change the fact that he is honoring Terri's wishes, and has stated on the record that he DIDN'T get divorced BECAUSE he knew that the Schindlers intended to ignore Terri's own wishes. He stayed married to her so he could continue to defend her rights legally.

On Point C: The issue of "oh, she didn't want to live like this" is based on the way that it is being presented by the media. It was, in fact, not like this at all. MS was trying in every way he could, from standard medical procedure to alternative medicines, to find a way to bring her back somehow. It wasn't until after 8 years of attempted rehabilitation that he finally was able to come to grips with the fact that she was beyond medical sciences ability to do anything more for Terri. So, up until this point... her wishes wasn't an issue, because up until this point, they hadn't exhausted all avenues of medical care. When Michael, who had already been awarded guardianship of Terri under Florida state law, finally made the very difficult decision to allow her wishes to be fulfilled. This was litigated in court many times over the next several years. I understand your misunderstanding of the timeline, because, as like most people, we hadn't heard about it until a couple weeks ago. Since the medial and legal documents have not been released to the public or the media, they have failed to portray a accurate timeline of the series of events. They have chosen instead, to pick and choose ASPECTS of the case rather than the case as a whole.

Michaels guardianship NEEDS to be continued as he is the ONLY one in all this who is actually fighting FOR Terri, to protect her rights, and to protect her wishes.

[onenote]

24. self-delete

self-delete

[onenote]

25. and what about the "conflict of interest" in every other case

where there is no written living will. In most of those cases, the spouse/parent/child/sibling who would testify is the beneficiary of a will or estate or insurance policy of the patient. Should testimony from any of those folks be disqualified too? Should there be a dollar threshold ("if you get less than $8.96 from the death of the patient, its okay to testify that they wouldn't want to be kept alive")?

Michael's "conflict" is no greater than the "conflict" that exists in 99% of the cases.

onenote

[tammywammy]

39. But doesn't everyone have a conflict of interest then

If my both my parents are in a car accident, my mother dies but my father's on life support. Well, now, he does have life insurance, that I would get upon his death, would that mean I shouldn't make decisions about my father's care (as his only child). I'm sure his sister could come out and say I was wanting to remove the life support so I could get my inheritance, when in reality, I'm doing what he would have wanted.

Everyone has some conflict of interest, including the Schlinder's. They've stated that even if they knew what she wanted they would fight it. So isn't that their conflict of interest. They want to keep her alive, even though it was her wish to pass on (in this scenario we're assuming that it was her wish).

[republicansareevil]

40. yeah, that's part of what I'm trying to get at

I mean it seems like *most* spouses in this country would benefit financially from losing their spouse. Same goes for the claim that Michael Schiavo's testimony is hearsay. Isn't that the case *every* time a spouse or next-of-kin must testify about the patient's wishes when the patient does not have a living will? I'm trying to find out what, in people's minds, makes this case so exceptional... assuming they accept the basic living will/right-to-die premise. Or is it the entire premise they object to? It makes a big difference.

[tammywammy]

41. I think a lot of the objection does stem from an objection to the

right to die. I read, not here, someone stating that replacing Terri's feeding tube, would help in the step of stopping all DNRs. And this person was all for that.

And I don't think that you can dismiss him for dating someone, when her parents encouraged him to do just that.

[republicansareevil]

26. I know there's more than one.

I know drdon326 isn't the only one on DU who thinks Terri Schiavo *should* have the feeding tube. How would the rest of you answer the original post: 1, 2, 3, or 4?

[drdon326]

27. RAE....

They are all too intimidated to speak out.

I have received at least 10 pms saying they agree with me but dont want to get slapped down.

[republicansareevil]

28. but I have seen many state the pro-feeding tube position on DU

Anyway, this is not meant to be an argumentative thread so much as (for me) an informational thread. Basically, I'm just trying to understand why some people feel as they do. I want to identify the underlying principles or see whether it's just pure emotion.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. I don't agree with you,

and I doubt anyone's about to "slap down" anyone else. If someone doesn't tolerate differing opinions, and can't defend his or her own opinion, I daresay DU is not a place for them.

Like it or not, Mr. Schiavo is her legal guardian, legal husband, next-of-kin, and has done a remarkable, commendable job of taking care of his wife.

He is not married to anyone but Mrs. Schiavo. There is no such thing as common law marriage in Florida, so don't listen to people who are trying to practice law without a license.

This is a legal matter, not a religious one.

No food is being withheld. The last time Mrs. Schiavo tasted food was when she puked up her last meal during her last purging session. She's had a mixture of chemical nutrients piped directly into her gut for fifteen years because she can't eat, can't chew, can't swallow, so that voids the concept of "food" and "starvation."

Face it - her course was set 15 years ago, and after all reasonable attempts at rehabilitating her failed, her husband realized there was no point in her being put through anything else. He made arrangements to do the thing he'd been avoiding, but, out of respect for his wife's wishes, he was duty-bound to do.

It's a story about love and honor and loyalty and respect. That's Mr. Schiavo's story.

It's also a story about control and rapacious greed and lies and meanness, and that's the Schindlers' story.

Everyone will look back on this in years to come, and marvel in disgust at how horribly the Schindlers behaved, how cunning and exploitive they were, how they sold their daughter's (illegally obtained) image for a mess of potage, and how dignified and respectful and loving Mr. Schiavo was where his wife's interests were concerned.

[sundancekid]

42. and, from a clinical standpoint, a manipulative & controlling environment

like the Schindlers continue to display to this day (would not fulfill Terri's wishes EVEN if there were a WRITTEN advance directive) is exactly the most typical basis for eating disorders early in a youngester's life -- where the hell do we think the whole bulimia thing during Terri's high school days originated?????

I am completely with you on this one. IMHO, Terri will bless MS for at least giving her wishes a true voice and legal standing.

[opihimoimoi]

29. 4 Nature is forgotten. She has given us ample examples of how

to deal with life.

The weak, the unlucky, the unwise, the slow, the unconcious are culled from the living through various mechanisms.... Like it or not, for the most part, this is true.

We Humans fight to disturb the Laws of Nature for reasons we rationalize.... when enough of this Violation re the Laws of Nature occur, the price is usually steep.

We see this in our dire times. We seem to wallow in distractive shit when the real focus should be on ways to improve the Lot for all of us Humans. Because we cannot coalese into a force to reckon with the Large, we go for the small. Sad

[republicansareevil]

31. Can you clarify that?

Are you saying that you opposed the removal of the tube because... why?

:shrug:

[opihimoimoi]

35. Like it or not, she will die....one way or another...in 5 hours, perhaps

5 years, or more....she will die. Sad.

Nature would not want it this way that we prolong her dependency in such a PVS. We should be moving on to larger issues....like helping those that can be helped...like the HOMELESS, the DESTITUTE, the IMPROVISHED, etc

And how bout those of us who are healthy weathy and wise? Would we not want this to expand so others may want to like us, including our children and theirs too? If so, then we should be looking for Larger solutions to the challenge... and thus far...the results of any kind of effort has been dismally absent....

Come, its time to expand our views to new levels.....

[XemaSab]

30. I'm not so opposed to pulling the

feeding tube, but I think there's a slippery slope between disabled and literally brain dead that bears looking at, and Terri's clearly perched somewhere in between these two states.

I think her wishes are fairly clear, that she would not want to be kept on in a hopeless state (or at least that's what the courts have upheld), but personally, I would not forsee myself in a future where I had say, severe brain damage that made me a drooling vegetable, but with some capacity for response. I'd want the plug pulled on myself in that instance, but it's impossible for anyone to know what Terri's feeling right now. Many people, such as Christopher Reeve, after becoming disabled, have said that they would not have wanted to go on before their accident, but after the accident life suddenly seemed worthwhile.

It's just not a clear-cut case, and I think anyone who denies the complexity of the case hasn't fully thought it out.

[republicansareevil]

33. Are you saying that people's expressed wishes should be ignored...?

Are you saying that people's expressed wishes should be ignored because a person cannot possibly know what it is like to be disabled/brain damaged/flat EEG ahead of time and might have a change of heart later? I mean Christopher Reeve may have wished for death at some point and then later embraced life, but he was conscious and could express that change in his point of view. Living wills and other expressions of "I wouldn't want to live that way" are made when a person is conscious and then relied on when the person becomes unconscious as an indication of what they would want if they could express themselves. To me it seems *more* dismissive of the disabled and/or unconscious to start second guessing their intentions after they can no longer communicate. If you think people may not appreciate how valuable life can be even after a disabling event, wouldn't it be better to try to educate them about that *before* the fact instead of second-guessing them *after* the fact?

[XemaSab]

34. It's too late for Terri

But I think it's good that people are thinking about it and talking about it.

[republicansareevil]

36. but do you agree or not that what matters is the patient's wishes?

And that when a patient has said "I wouldn't want to live that way" we should take them at their word -- even while realizing that what seems unbearable to one person may seem entirely bearable for another?

[XemaSab]

38. I agree that what matters

is the patient's wishes, and therefore removing the feeding tube was the right thing to do.

I don't think the government should have been involved at all.

[ScreamingMeemie]

37. I think when a person's brain is gone, when there has been no evidence

of God performing this type of miracle ever, when the parents are strictly in it to win at all costs...then I think enough is enough. Actually, I think tubes should be pulled long before then...I'm just answering for this case. No hope...no cure...equals let. it. go.