Life or Death

I do not envy the task of the judge in that case but he/she is at the sharp end of a heritage of considered judgment from all the jurists before him. So he/she is not alone in that sense. Having considered a career in law myself I sometimes reflected that while lawyers are practiced in formulating and presenting argument; it is the judges who must hear each argument out and actually decide.

Is she braindead, or just in a coma? Is there no way of MRIing her to see if she has "normal" sleep-type brain activity?

If she's in a persistive vegetable state, surely "turning her off" is best for everyone in the long run???

Terri Schiavo is neither brain dead nor in a coma. A person who is brain dead needs artificial help with their breathing. Someone in a coma cannot react to other people or the environment which, I believe, she does. She has brain damage.

Michael Schiavo (the husband) has repeatedly refused to consent to an MRI scan.

Regards
Steve M

Terri Schaivo is severely brain damaged. The brain is not dead and she is not in a coma.
It is a fair assumption that if she hasn't made any progress in the last 14 years she is not gong to now.

The only person that matters in this case is Terri Schaivo, not her husband, her parents or anyone else. The courts should rule in her wishes only and I seriously doubt whethr she would have wanted to have remained in this state for the rest of her life.

Regards

NB

My father and me spent hours talkin' about that.
I think that we are not in presence of euthanasia.
As Terry is not able to speak her minds she is not able to say if she wants to live or die and a tutor can't, in my opinion, take that decision.
Switchin' off the machines that provide her food and water is not euthanasia but murder.

Hope for her.

Gianluigi

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
Terri Schiavo is neither brain dead nor in a coma. A person who is brain dead needs artificial help with their breathing. Someone in a coma cannot react to other people or the environment which, I believe, she does. She has brain damage.

Michael Schiavo (the husband) has repeatedly refused to consent to an MRI scan.

Regards
Steve M

Nonetheless it is hard to construct an argument for keeping the poor woman alive, despite the semantics. The basic argument for NOT allowing her to die is that she is a human being and should therefore be kept alive for as long as possible, at all cost.

This argument has some clear limitations. My only concern is that I can think of more humane ways of bringing her unhappy existence to a dignified end than starving her to death.

I don't think this is the first time I've voiced the opinion that the world is a shithole. But we have to live with it, if you'll pardon that unfortunate pun.

Best wishes,

EW

Yes.
But we are talking about someone who can't decide.
We are talkin' about food and water.
She is not going for a bad illness but because they do not feed her anymore.
That's orrible.
One of my two grandfathers got a cancer in his spine and after 3 months of pain and morphine he decided to go.
But that was his decision.
That was a conscious mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:
One of my two grandfathers got a cancer in his spine and after 3 months of pain and morphine he decided to go.
But that was his decision.
That was a conscious mind.

Okay, but the fact that one cannot voice (or even hold) an opinion of one's own is not an argument for prolonging a miserable and pointless existence.

If you're going to use whiz technology to keep an unconscious person alive, who has no prospect of regaining consciousness, then I think you've got to take a careful look at your motives: why are you doing this, and for whom?

EW

I know that in Family Court cases in New Zealand when custody, or some other such thing, of a small child is being disputed the Court usually appoints counsel for the child and that lawyer then represents the child's interests to the Judge.

I wonder if the Courts in America appoint counsel for parties that cannot speak for themselves? Or is the Court hearing only from the family and the husband?

In any case, I read in the newspaper this morning that it has been ruled that the parents "had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial on the merits of their arguments" (Christchurch Press March 23, 2005.) The decision is being appealed.

Deane

quote:

If you're going to use whiz technology to keep an unconscious person alive, who has no prospect of regaining consciousness, then I think you've got to take a careful look at your motives: why are you doing this, and for whom?
EW

Because it's such a hard decision to take.
Only that.
I do think that in this case we are not in front of someone who can't breath without machines.
In this case they are taking away her food and water to make her die!
I would not like being there and watch her consuming in that way for days.
My god!
IT COULD TAKE 15 DAYS!
I'm disgusted for such a way to solve such a situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:
In this case they are taking away her food and water to make her die!
I would not like being there and watch her consuming in that way for days.
My god!
IT COULD TAKE 15 DAYS!
I'm disgusted for such a way to solve such a situation.

I agree.

I don't think she should be kept alive, but starving her to death will surely traumatise onlookers even if the woman herself is beyond suffering. I can't believe there isn't a better way.

EW

Dear EW.
Both of us will keep different positions and that's the inner meaning of debating.
So thanks for your thoughts and replies.

Frankly i can't say if she is really suffering.
This comes from our minds when we see her.
Maybe those who suffer more are all those who love her.
I don't know.

quote:

As Terry is not able to speak her minds she is not able to say if she wants to live or die and a tutor can't, in my opinion, take that decision.

Her nearest and dearest should know the answer to that question and they should be strong enough to make that descission for her.

I agree that taking away food and water is the wrong way of doing it but legally there is no other way. Any other way would be clearly murder, removing food and water is the only natural way.

This is very painfull for all those involved but its beter to let her go naturally than force her to live anothre 14 years in hell.

Regards

NB

I must have missed something because I must admit to being a little unsure as to the premise of this thread.

The last I heard about this tragic case is that a bill was passed at high speed through Congress and quickly signed into law by Bush to make it illegal to allow Terry Schiavo to die.

I take it that removing her food and water supply is the only legal way to circumvent this new law then?

ISTM that the new law was a typical right-wing 'pro-choice'-style attempt to basically ride rough-shod over Ms Schiavo's and her family's rights, by saying that as long as she's alive we must keep her alive at all costs. Of course this appears to show complete disregard for the actual situation. Now I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the patient's situation but from my perspective it seems to be a (relatively) straightforward argument between letting her live (and prolonging her suffering) and letting her die (because it is widely believed, I would guess, by her doctors and those close to her that death is the only way to prevent her suffering any further).

The complication, it now transpires, is that Ms Schiavo is in a coma/vegetative state and therefore not in a position to make a decision for herself. So who decides her fate? Who ultimately makes the decision on which her very life will hinge?

One thing's for sure - I'm glad I'm not a member of her family right now. However, if I was, my only wish would be to do whatever it takes, and I mean whatever it takes, to ease her suffering for good.

Regards,

Jon

quote:

Originally posted by NB:

Her nearest and dearest should know the answer to that question and they should be strong enough to make that descission for her.

I agree, but in this case i understand the nearest and dearest are not in agreement. This must add considerable pressure to all involved.

My wife has a terminal illness and i know at some point in the future we will have to let her escape her suffering. The decision will be eased by the fact that we have discussed her wishes in advance, but others are not so lucky. My heart goes out to them. That said a decision to end a life under any circumstances is a tough call, factor in the impact of that decision on say an innocent daughter too and thats some strength requirement..

Rgds

Hawk

Hawk

My sympathies and my best wishes to you and your wife.

Deane

It is my understanding that the special law only had the power to force the matter into court again - not decide the issue once and for all. The Court re-heard the application and denied it again. Apparently there is a push to have Ms Schiavo put into the custody of Jeb Bush.

Hawk

First. I am sure that it is safe to say that you have all our best wishes.

On thesubject of lifeor death. This has to be one of the most difficult decisions any one could ever face. My first thought, rightly or wrongly, is not to let un-necessary suffering from continuing.

But then the voice of reason says but what if there is no real suffering (ie how do we know that there is suffering), but what if there is a cure (medical advances). And then I revert to my original thought. Difficult is an understatement. I pity anyone having to consider this let alone having to make a decision.

Mike

This matter has apparently been litigated for the last fifteen years and has been heard by something like a dozen different judges.

Hawk,

my sympathies go out to you and your family.

Its a very difficult position to be in. I was sadly there with my mother. All I can say is do your best for your family and be there for each other.

Regards

Nigel

The case of Terri Schiavo seems to have divided opinion on this board so I wonder whether George W Bush's instincts are right in this matter.

Dubya stated that, if there is doubt in a case like this, one should choose the 'life' option.

Therefore, I put two questions:

1. In cases where there is doubt, should we choose the 'life' option?

2. Is there some doubt in the case of Terri Schiavo?

Regards
Steve M

My two questions would be more like:

1. Is the law an ass when it comes to medical questions?

2. Is it right that the law allows next-of-kin to make decisions on behalf of the kinfolk who are incapacitated?

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
The case of Terri Schiavo seems to have divided opinion on this board so I wonder whether George W Bush's instincts are right in this matter.

Dubya stated that, if there is doubt in a case like this, one should choose the 'life' option.

Therefore, I put two questions:

1. In cases where there is doubt, should we choose the 'life' option?

2. Is there some doubt in the case of Terri Schiavo?

Regards
Steve M

I was under the impression that Dubya's late night signature gave a Judge the right to decide. and speed things up so to speak, which seems pretty reasonable at face value I suppose ?

Fritz Von And the Law won

From what I have read and remember...

(Please excuse the spelling)
Her husband has had her flown all over the US to different facilities in the hope of finding rehabilitation. All of these facilities have stated that she is in a persistant vegetative state. She has autonomic functions so can breath and blink on her own. The last tests show that the areas of higher thought have atrofied.

The parents state that not all avenues have been exhausted. They also state that she responds to verbal stimulation. The doctors and husband have stated this is not the case. Any facial movement is unconcious.

W's brother Gov. Jeb, passed a law making it illegal to remove her feeding tube. This law was challenged and found to be unconstitutional.

Next step was W and Congress. The resolution is only supposed to apply to Terry. Pundits have said that this act is a political move to appease the religous right whose support is needed in upcomming elections.

I have read so much on this that the spin is getting pretty bad.

But to boil it down.

Husband tried various clinics.
Doctors have said she has no high brain function, just enought for her to breath on her own.
Parents do not beleive the doctors.
Husband petitions to have tube removed.
Court battles ensue.
Husband wins the caaes to have tube removed.
Parents get injuction to keep tube in place.
Back to court, and repeat at least a dozen times.

One note, the parents say the husband is "evil - my words ) and does not care...even though he has moved on and has a live-in girlfriend and children, he still visits multiple times per week and his girlfriend has accompanied him.

My feeling is that if over 15 or so years, if all the top specialists say "sorry" then it is time to let her go.

Just points out the fact that we should all think a minute about what we would want if in the same position, and make a living will or other document that lets your wishes known.

Take care all of you.

michael

quote:

Originally posted by mykel:

Husband tried various clinics.
Doctors have said she has no high brain function, just enought for her to breath on her own.
Parents do not beleive the doctors.
Husband petitions to have tube removed.
Court battles ensue.
Husband wins the caaes to have tube removed.
Parents get injuction to keep tube in place.
Back to court, and repeat at least a dozen times.

Looks a lot like due process to me. The Courts have continually found for the husband. I am beginning to wonder if Terri Schiavo has any importance at all to those campaigning on her "behalf" - or whether she is merely a soapbox for them to stand upon. As for Congress - well, I would trust the ethical judgement of a physician or a judge over a politician any day.

Deane