[en]Sickening!

[LegolasD]

As long as we are talking about such things as Red Lake, I might as well bring up a topic that is deserving the coverage it is getting in the media (American, at least). This is the first time in history that a pair of judges has sentenced a woman (who is not persistently in a vegetative state, at least before the tube was removed) to death by starvation for no crime. ( Of course, even if she had committed a crime, this would be far greater than cruel and unusual punishment as it were. ) I am referring to the Terri Schiavo case. Terri's husband (who claims to love her very much) believes that wetting her lips with ice chips is therapy, and thinks a feeding tube is extraordinary therapy for keeping Terri alive. This is by far one of the greatest crimes that is slipping thru the cracks in our society, as Terri starves to death.

[FrankishKnight]

Don't. Be. A. Moron.

It was PROVED that the woman WAS indeed in a vegetative state by THREE second opinions, and "starving her to death" is more human then leaving her alive.

[Dobber]

This has also been discussed in the Red Lake thread, so maybe folks should check that one out to see what has been said already before we get repetitive in this one.

[Moryarity]

As I mentioned in the Red Lake threat, I think, that if she could eat on her own, she should live..if she can´t eat on her own, not talk, not do anything, that been fead by a tube, it is like Frankenstein bringing a monster laive.....peolpe should accept deatha s a part of life..to keep death away is not for the best of Terri..it is just selfishness of her parents, who don´t want to have the pain of letting her go.......she was a beautiful woman...her husband said, she wouldn´t have it that way....and all judges agreed with him..so let it be.

for all still alive, think in time to write a advance directive, so you and your relatives need not to share this sort of troubles

[Dobber]

Just a thought, I am not saying I am an advocate, but Jack Kevorkian tried to pioneer an effort to help those with no quality of life bypass pain and suffering. Terri could have painlessly left 13 days ago.

[binchen]

Exactly. I don't know whether Terri was feeling anthing or not, but I think that let someone starve is more cruel than end her life in a faster way.

[RoadRunner]

When I read about this case, my first impression was that it was unnecessary suffering for Terry for all the twelve years, and that she can now die and have peace. Or, to be more precise: that her body can die, as it is supposed that there is no conciousness in that body anymore.

But a few days later, I got some problems, and I am not that sure anymore if the decisions of the judges were right:

Her husband claims that he speaks in the interest of his wife. But he lives now with another woman, and he (or Terry's family) has to pay for the "artificial nutrition" (sorry, but I don't know the proper English word for that). What I read was that this procedure is quite expensive, and that there might be pure monetary calculations behind his efforts to stop her treatment.

He also states that she never wanted to live in such a situation. But how comes that her parents do not know about that? And that there is no such written statement from her? - If I was at the place of Terri, and if I could take into consideration today's situation (especially the life of her husband), I would prefer not to depend upon him. And if I was her husband, I would rather fight for my divorce than for her death - living with another woman and pretending to be a loving husband does not fit together, at least not for me.

And now the medical aspect. I am not a doctor, but AFAIK the "persistent vegetative state" is not understood up to now. There is the opinion that in that state, Terri has no concious anymore, but who knows that exactly? Now that she is dead, her brain will be scanned to find out if she was conciousness or not. But if noone can say exactly if there is an "empty body" which can starve to death or if it is an ill person which will be killed by her husband (!), the safe side would be not to stop artificial nutrition.

The other side is of course the question what life that should be, if Terry was conciousness. If her brain was working, if she could think, but not speak, if she could hear, but not express herself by a single gesture. That must be hell on earth. But... that is my impression, and I am quite "normal" and healthy. Who knows, maybe she was even happy in that state (which I doubt) - noone will ever know that.

[Angryminer]

The clergyman that was in the same room when Terry Shivo died said that all Americans should pray that there will never be such a murder again in the USA.
Did anyone think of the fact that the USA still sentences people to death?

Killing people is okay but killing people should be forbidden. :go:

Angryminer

[Helen]

the mind is still a great mystery to us, you can't say for sure as frank said - but as far as we know now.. I would say it's was best for her. even if she was "consious" to a point where we can't apperehend - lying in bed for 15 years really is not a way to live.

they would have come with better solution then to starve her to death though.


He also states that she never wanted to live in such a situation. But how comes that her parents do not know about that? And that there is no such written statement from her?


well, it can be true. disussing that you want to donate your organs when you die with your husband/wife, the next day you're hit by a bus. your parents never got the information, only your other half... who knows if it's true? *shrugs*

[Moryarity]

Did anyone think of the fact that the USA still sentences people to death?




I thought about that and I was asking myself, how it can be that a country where people have no problems to sentence children and mentally disabled persons to death (the US are one of 8 countries world wide, where that is possible) can have such an argumentation about death.......sure, to give her a high dosis morphium would have been a better way, but I still think, that it was the right decision to let her die.....about the husband I cannot say something, I only know, what was mentioned in TV, which was not quite full of information...maybe his new girlfriend had an influence, maybe not..

[RoadRunner]

I thought about that and I was asking myself, how it can be that a country where people have no problems to sentence children and mentally disabled persons to death (the US are one of 8 countries world wide, where that is possible) can have such an argumentation about death...
If I am not mistaken, the Supreme Court qualified the death penalty for children and mentally disabled persons as cruel; these persons cannot be sentenced to death anymore. But I'd suggest to discuss the death penalty not in this thread...

[Moryarity]

I didn´t know, that it was changed...but I agree with you, that this is not the thread to discuss it.

[mamayourpeoplearehungry]

I side with continuing the feeding tube. I side with her parents on this.

How can a husband have the best interests of his wife at heart when he has another woman and 2 children by the other women?

As to the money for Terri's care, her husband won a large settlement for malpractice that provided the money to care for her. It was a little after the money was awarded that he and his family members remembered that she had said she wouldn't want to live that way. Also after he recieved the money for her rehabilation, he ordered that she not get the rehabilation. This did not sound right.

The husband also would not allow her to be fed. She was able to take communion on Easter. She could swallow.

I also think our courts got into a battle with our representatives on this issue and the cost was Terri's life.

I think this needs to be investigated further but it should have been done while she was being fed and alive. Now nothing can be done to help her.

[Moryarity]

How can a husband have the best interests of his wife at heart when he has another woman and 2 children by the other women?


I don´t know...if my wife had been in that situation for 15 years, I my have met another woman and have lived with her and still I wouldn´t have my former wife to suffer...maybe it is possible to start a new life, but still wanting the best for the other person....some people divorce and get best friens afterwards..which they would have nver achieved by remaining a couple..who knows, what exectly is going on in another persons mind.....


The husband also would not allow her to be fed. She was able to take communion on Easter. She could swallow.



If that is true it was not right..if she could eat, then she should be given food..but it always sounded as though she could not swallow......but I still believe it was better to end..and as you see struggling goes on,abo0ut where she should be burried, so I ask mysekf, if this is truely about the woman or just because the parents and the husband love to argue..

[RobinBanks]

By now everyone should know that Terri died yesterday morning, about two weeks after her feeding tube was removed.

And about Michael Schiavo? Why is an unrepentant, serial adulterer, presently living with a mistress, who has sired two children out of wedlock, who has had no compulsion violating the law of God and his marriage vows, still reluctant to divorce his wife and be free of the burden of her care? Why not simply transfer her guardianship to those individuals (her family) who love her and want to care for her for till death do them part?

Is it the insurance money? The book and movie deals? Or the trust fund which has been depleted due to Mr. Schiavo’s legal efforts to kill his wife?

At the time of his marriage to Terri, Michael Schiavo vowed to care for his wife “in sickness and health till death do us part.” He made the same statement to a jury. In fact, when Michael Schiavo promised a jury that he would spend the rest of his life taking care of Terri, he was granted just under a million dollars that was placed in a trust fund for her care. Yet Michael, “said nothing about Terri wanting to die until seven years into her disability. For the past 14 years he has denied Terri any therapy. Thirty allegations of abuse, neglect, or exploitation were filed in court by the Florida Department of Children and Families. But the judges disregarded all that.” American Family Association E-mail Update, March 29, 2005, Don Wildmon, “Terri’s Case: The Roe v. Wade of Euthanasia.”

The jury also awarded him $300,000 for loss of consortium. Mr. Schiavo then took the money and sought consortium through adultery. Additionally, while more than $700,000 of the trust fund remained, he sought a court order in 1998 to have Terri’s feeding tube removed. He has now spent most of the money on attorneys’ fees trying to keep it removed.

Michael’s disdain for his wife is well-documented. In 2003, National Review Online reported, “In the mid 1990s, according to...[registered nurse Carla Iyer’s] affidavit filed under penalty of perjury, Michael was overheard saying things such as, ‘When is she going to die?’, ‘Has she died yet?’, and ‘When is that ***** going to die?’” National Review Online, September 5, 2003, Wesley J. Smith, “Schiavo’s Date with Death:A Florida Woman Needs Non-Dehydration Intervention.”

Under biblical law, a man who claims to be committed to his wife’s best interests, but commits successive adulteries (resulting in multiple children sired out of wedlock), and who then urges his wife to be torturously dehydrated and starved to death, is both a liar and a murderer. This is the record of Michael Schiavo.

One thing is clear: This “husband” has consistently acted against the best interests of his wife. In his commitment to the death of Terri, Michael Schiavo has:

1) Denied her speech, swallowing, and other rehabilitation therapy;
2) Denied her parents visitation with Terri for as long as five months at a time;
3) Had her two cats euthanized in preparation to move in with his girlfriend who had a dog;
4) Admitted in a deposition that he took Terri’s engagement and wedding rings and made them into jewelry for himself;
5) Brought girlfriends to Terri’s bedside
6) Refused to permit doctors to give Terri antibiotics when she developed a urinary tract infection
7) Refused to have her teeth cleaned for several years and five had to be pulled as a result; and
9) Refused to have her wheelchair fixed and permit Terri to be taken outside.

Oh, and for the record: there is a difference between preserving life and prolonging death. There is a difference between killing a dependent person (baby, elderly, sick, etc.) by depriving them of the basic elements needed for sustaining life versus taking “extraordinary” medical measures to attempt to extend the life of a person in the midst of systemic and persistent organ failure. Depriving a person of food, water, oxygen, and shelter is an example of the former. Experimental heart transplant surgery on a ninety-year-old is an example of the latter. The former is a cut-and-dry ethical question. The latter has greater complexities.

[RoadRunner]

I don´t know...if my wife had been in that situation for 15 years, I my have met another woman and have lived with her and still I wouldn´t have my former wife to suffer...maybe it is possible to start a new life, but still wanting the best for the other person....
Sure, but in that special case, her husband should have better refrained from taking steps to end her life. Even if he was convinced that it was in her interest, he had (in my eyes) no moral right to speak for her anymore.

if she could eat, then she should be given food..but it always sounded as though she could not swallow......but I still believe it was better to end..and as you see struggling goes on,abo0ut where she should be burried, so I ask mysekf, if this is truely about the woman or just because the parents and the wife love to argue..
Swallowing is a reflex. It has nothing to do with conciousness - that is at least what I know. I had a boss who could not swallow at all (he got his food through his nose), but he was certainly quite normal and alive.

But concerning the arguing about the funeral of Terri: Personally, I would also prefer a cremation, but as you know, this is the safest way to get rid of a body...

And... it takes two for arguing and not finding an agreement.

[Moryarity]

And... it takes two for arguing and not finding an agreement.


Sorry, by rereading my post, I found, that I have written wife instead of husband in the last lines.....sorry, but that was a fault an made that sentence very unligocal....


I agree with you Roadrunner......and what Robin said, was very interesting....we didn´t get so much information about that case here.....