The Black Republican

I don't know if anything Terri could have previously recorded would have changed the outcome in this case. The judge seemed unswayed by anything other than sympathy for a cheating husband. Zero chance for her to receive "justice" in that court, apparently, nor mercy - either, IMHO.

You are absolutely correct to point out that sooner than we think "living wills" will cease to be effective once one's ability to communicate is ruled to have slipped away.

I believe when we arrive at that point there will probably be fewer and fewer seniors allowing themselves to be placed under medical care, thus likely hastening their demise - but at least allowing them to pass away with some modicum of dignity (if that is possible).

I have to agree with you. What you will find on an autopsy, is whether or not she had been beaten up. However, if while Terry was alive, they had done a PET Scan or an MRI, they could have watched the blood flow and seen the activity.

But then, letting her starve to death was totally immoral and her ex-husband with another wife, should be tried and put in prison for wrongful death.

I just came across your thoughtful and intelligent article on the Terri Schiavo tragedy. It expresses my views exactly, which I find most comforting and encouraging. During the height of the controversy, while Terri slowly ebbed away from thirst and starvation, I lost numerous so-called friends who expressed your fall-away Catholic friend's views, and I began to feel as though the entire World had gone completely mad and there is no such thing as collective wisdom in a morally and ethically corrupt nation. Our only hope then is with the precious few individuals with a conscience, wherever we might find them. You, Richard, are one of those precious few. May God continue to bless your endeavors.

While I do think that you made some good points, I completely, totally, and utterly disagree with you. Although I don't necessarily think that she should have been denied food and water, that is the only method by which it is possible to accomplish the same goal in today's society. Unfortunately, we are more than willing to put sick and dying animals out of their misery quickly and allow violent murders die by simple lethal injection; however, we can't give that same right to someone who has as much chance of ever truly living as a sack of potatoes. That simply makes no sense to me. In my opinion Terri Schiavo was not living, she was simply existing and her parents were holding on to the false hope that she would somehow miraculously start thinking, walking, and talking again. I would possibly allow them to hold on to that hope had she been comatose, but she was fully awake (and consequently should be functional) for 15 years. If there hasn't been any significant change in 15 years, it is by far time to accept reality that you could wait another 15 or 50 for that matter and the chances of any change occurring are slim to none. I am also completely offended by the fact that the president tried to circumnavigate the system that we, as a country, have in place for one specific case. How, as president of a nation, can you pick and choose which cases are "worthy" of your time and energy trying to change the system? For him, it was definitely a matter of his religion clouding his better judgement. I would like to him take time to examine every single issue in this country on a day to day basis. If he can handle taking the time to research it and fight for the side he feels is right, then I think that he should have the right to try and change the system. Until that point, he should let the system work the way it was intended to. I praise the judicial system for knowing and understanding their place in the matter and choosing to do the right thing by not intervening.

S.O.R., as an obvious proponent of Science I would expect the facts would be important to you?

You said:
"the only method by which it is possible to accomplish the same goal in today's society",

That "goal" I take it is to end the life of an innocent person? For, Terri was neither sick, nor dying, and certainly she had not been even accused of a capital crime. And when you speak of the, "judicial system....not intervening", you clearly do not understand that is was the judicial system which ordered Terri's death. Judge Greer ordered this method for Terri's death because he wasn't willing to actually execute a formal death sentence upon her and instead chose this way to nuance around the homicide (check the definition) label by letting appear that Terri was being allowed to naturally expire. Of course, you, I, and even Judge Greer would also naturally (in this sense of the word) expire if a court ordered that we not be given food ever again. If you don't believe me, try it, be sure to let us know how it goes.

And, when you speak of Bush's involvement, you fail to recognize that the President signed legislation which he did not author; Congress passed the law, and it is not only for Terri, it allows the same review for others as well. The law speaks to a situation, of which Terri's matter is an example, but it is not Terri's law as it has been popularly described.

As for your contention that there " hasn't been any significant change in 15 years", those facts are not in evidence, as the testing which could answer to that hypothesis were never performed. Your belief that she was not improving is an opinion, just as is your belief that Bush's motivation for signing the legislation into law was religious is your opinion; neither point do you prove in a scientifically verifiable way. Perhaps you just learned science, for it seems to have lost its integrity lately.

I offer this theorem: It is possible to believe it is best to err in favor of preserving life without arriving at that position based on a religious viewpoint.

If you don't agree with that proposition then what are you doing still living? If it is provable that such a philosophical position exists absent of religion, then, considering that the end is more important than the means of getting to that end, what difference does it make if one arrives at that point based on religious thinking? The result is the same; and arguing that it is not valid because of the method of calculation is a bit like saying 1+2+3=6 is not as valid as 3X2=6. An obsession with proving the method of calculation to be incorrect, when the repeatable result is the same, is stupid, not scientific.

It's ironic that you call yourself ScienceOvrReligion and yet have the arrogance to think that somehow you have the right to play God and determine who lives, who dies, and how best to terminate their life.

You're confusing irony with arrogance, Steve. "SOR" says just what it means, so it's not ironic at all.

No confusion at all. The irony is that someone who claims, by way of their moniker, to put science ahead of religion sites absolutely zero science to support their positions, but rather relies on omnipotent (and yes, arrogant) "I don't think..." or "In my opinion..." statements. Actually, most people like SOR who try to claim the primacy of science usually only pick and choose the science they want to use - the science that fits their world view. The irony in this is that SOR believes this "primacy of science" ideology with such blind faith that it has become their religion. And, in this case, a religion of death. I do believe a more appropriate moniker would be MyReligionOvrYourReligion.

And SOR, I feel I must warn you, be careful what you wish for. Because as you get older and more infirmed, or if you ever become an inconvenient burden to your children, you had better hope that they don't have the same attitude you have.

come on, terry schiavo died 15 years ago. any opinion to the contrary is just wishful thinking

I wonder how it was hurting anyone else for Terry to live?
To those who believe she was brain dead and felt no pain, who was it bothering that she was alive? If she was brain dead and in no pain then it certainly didn't bother her to be here. Supposedly, she didn't even know she was here? right?? She was completely unaware? right??

How can anyone other than Terri feel she should die? Feeding tubes do not force the will to live on anyone, they simply feed those that have the will to live. If she had lost the will to live, should would have died, with or without the feeding tube. Didn't her ability to live through the last 15 years prove she had the will to live and therefore prove she didn't want to die.

Had the situation been turned around, could the court have ordered Terri to live even if she had lost the will to? The court simply took away her ability to live, not her want. Proof of that was the 13 days it took for her to die. The proof of the pain she felt was that the hospice gave her morphine (n : an alkaloid narcotic drug extracted from opium; a powerful, habit-forming narcotic used to relieve pain [syn: morphia]) because she was moaning and crying. How her mother stood and watched her die for 13 days is beyond me. I could not and would not have been nearly as civilized about my child being so slowly and brutally murdered by this country, as she was. I am still shocked and horrified that this happened here in "my" country.
Why did she have to die?? why?

Sherry

mhl, even her guardian, the petitioner who sucessfully had her starved to death never made that claim!

Richard - When the feeding tube was removed, Terri Schiavo was simply given the ability to feed herself by herself. Since she was unable to do that or ask for assistance, she died. Hence, I think that making the comparison between Terri and Judge Greer, you, or myself is not quite an even comparison since clearly both you, Judge Greer and I have the ability to nourish ourselves. So, the courts can go right ahead and pass legislation saying that no artificial means can be used to keep me alive...I'll be fine for at least a while. Also, you say that Terri was not sick, ok, maybe I'll give you that. But, there is no way that you can honestly say that she was well...she was unable to sustain life on her own, what exactly do you consider that?

Steve - I only hope my children have the same attitude that I have, that way, I will never end up on life support forcing my loved ones to watch me sit there unable to truly interact with them.

Now the autopsy results are out as well, take from them what you will.

SOR, By your logic you shouldn't even have children because, since an infant would not have (to use your exact words) "the ability to feed" themselves by themselves, and would be "unable to do that or ask for assistance" they, like Terri, would have starved to death. If you do have children, how do you justify feeding them and not allowing Terri to be fed? Can you explain that hypocrisy? Oh, that's right, I forgot. In your omnipotence, you deemed Terri's life "not worth living!"

Come on, at least use logic that's satisfying. To say that Terri deserved to die because she lacked the ability to forage for food in order to sustain her life is to say that a newborn child deserves to die as well.

The reason Terry Schiavo did not have a recent MRI or PET scan is because early on after she arrested she was taken to California and experimental treatment was done that involved placement of a metal chip in her pituitary gland. Therefore, MRI or PET scans could not be done after that. She did however have CT's that did not involve a magnet.

OK...I've been diabetic since the age of 6. I have been on dialysis for 3 years due to kidney failure and got a kidney transplant last year...sigh. Now due to my continued diabetes and the drugs needed to keep my kidney alive and not rejected by my bodys own defences I spend soooo much money monthly and that is with medical benefits from work and the medicare which for some reason I am forced to have for the next 3 years because of some escape clause for the insurance industry which says that once someone gets kidney failure after a certain amount of time medicare (which I have to pay for) become primary and your normal insurance becomes secondary. So I pay for my health insurance through my work (my labor) and deductions from my pay as well. I pay co-pays and deductables. I pay for medicare basically I am bleeding money and you know what for everything I pay for all I get at best are patchs that only last a month before I have to spend again..ie my medications. Patches...stinking patches.

But that is hardly the complete story. I was born poor in Maine (Nice state to visit and have a lobster and see the scenic sea side villages) but hardly a place to live and work year round and no place you want to live poor. I was born to a weak mother who married my biological farthe a criminal drug user who abused his wife and children. Then after he was taken out of our lives after some sort of gun battle my mother in her infanite wisdom married an abusive alcoholic. Now in this mix add some babysitters who did things like lock myself and my siblings in closets tell us we would run out of air and die. Pretent to get phone calls from the police telling her that my mother had died in a car accident, and chased me around the apartment with a large kitchen knife...oh and that is but one of many similar babysitters.

Now I could go on an on with hundreds of individual stories of my life that follow a similar vein.

Now all I want to say is NO life was not a gift to me. Being aborted would have been a BLESSING!!! If I happen to slip into a coma PLEASE oh PLEASE just let me die or do me the further blessing of simply killing me!!! Now get this even "IF" I might come out of a coma someday I can assure you that with all the anti embryonic stem cell research crapola going on in this country I have NO future to awake to and the further wear and tear on my body from my disease ie diabetes would leave me in a trully horrible state and nothing I would want to awake to. As it stand all I have to look forward to is a long, slow, painful and humilating death that to add insult to injury will be extremely expensive....that is what I get for my money. Thanks all!!!

Oh and has it occured that much of the money coming into the anti embryonic stem cell research movement just might be coming from the Pharmacutical Industry? How odd would that be?

James Quinn
(Not impressed with the gift of life)

James Quinn, aka, Laff; I am convinced, your upbringing has left you damaged. In some ways your confession reminds me of the accounts I have heard for years from the friend who inspired this post. He too feels that those who should have given him love and support let him down, at best, and utterly ruined his chances for a fulfilled life. But, as I have told him many times, he now has the choice to change his fate. He, and you, are old enough to recognize that forces not in your control affected you in terrible ways; and being old enough to recognize the effect, you are also old enough to choose to transcend the crap that was forced upon you.

I sincerely hope that you will seek out a new path for your future. And, without question, I hope you succeed in accomplishing that new future. My friend has told me many times that my continued acceptance of him in spite of the revelations of the abuse he has endured in his past has helped him feel worthy. I hope you can find a friend who is sincere, if that will help you embrace living, most people are more understanding than you may expect.

Good luck, stop in any time.

Tango, I believe you are correct with respect to an MRI, I don't recall the implant being an issue with regard to a PET scan.

I checked my bookmarks for a source on the matter and came up blank (http://www.terrisfight.org/ is under reconstruction).

My recollection is that it would have been possible to perform the tests which would have illustrated which areas of her brain were receiving blood and functioning. And, had they been done repeatedly, could have shown whether any regeneration was occurring.

The presence of the implants is not news to me.

I'm glad they let her die. How many of you have known other in a vegetative state? I live with a family that had a family member is a similar state of existence. Seeing what the family went through, most of all those in denial is downright depressing. A son that considered his father dead watching his mother care for him every day, trapped in her own house by a man I originally thought was a corpse (they didn't tell me about him when I first went over to her house)... terrible.

The day I heard that he died I was so happy that his wife was finally set free and that his son could finally know what life is like without having to care for his mother, caring for her husband.

I never, ever, want any member of my family to ever go on thinking that by keeping my body alive that they'll keep me alive as well. It would be more humane to end my life for the well being of my family so they can grieve but at least be given a chance to return to a normal life, minus me. I also couldn’t imagine watching my child or my wife continue to be like that. I think I would lose my mind and not be able to stop crying because, to me, it would be like visiting that person’s corpse.

Once they’re gone, they’re gone.

What a poor pitiful soul you are, with such a narrow, limited understanding of the beauty of compassion and love.

No, sir, I think you do not understand the hardships others go through. Too many of us have too many of our own beliefs and agendas to dictate upon others. You do not understand my meaning or, perhaps, wish not to understand. It is through love that I do not want my family to linger in an extended period of grief over the dismantling of my mind. If the essence of who I am is eradicated then my body should be allowed to follow suit.

It baffles me that there are many in denial that just because you keep the person's body alive that they will keep the person alive as well. It was sad to watch the family I speak of go through what they did. The grandson, my closet friend was indifferent to his death because he never knew the man. There was nothing for him to connect to.

Can you imagine having your grandchild being introduced to you in such a state and having him grow up with the knowledge that all he knew was an empty vessel that once contained his grandfather? He described it to me as "seeing a live version of a photograph, but with less character."

I don't think it's fair for you to label me devoid of understanding of compassion and beauty when you cannot see how it affects people up close and on a daily basis.

What a barbaric line of reasoning: "You have no idea how hard it is to see a loved one dying, so you can't possibly understand how it's better just to kill him off." Even if I was ignorant along those lines, my own experience has nothing to do with my ability - my potential - to love.

But since you require such obligatory experience for the sake of discussion, I'm a member of the club you're trying to champion, but you don't even belong to. It's not a thrice-removed situation for me, pal - for me, it was direct contact, and it was personal. For the record (again), my father spent seventeen years dying. Not one, or two, or even ten. SEVENTEEN. Almost exactly half my life. I was a snot-nosed teenager when he had a stroke and half his body fell to the consistancy of instant pudding. It was six months before I could even understand a word he said. He attended my high school graduation stooped over almost in half, looking for all the world like a shriveled raisin. How's that for "hardships to go through"?

I won't go into more details again because they're on the site here and there and I don't feel the need to repeat myself. But that situation dragged out for seventeen long years, and I eventually had to move back in with my parents to help take care of Dad for the last eight years of his life.

It never occurs to selfish, ungrateful people like you that compassion isn't about sparing anyone from pain. That's just a cop-out. Compassion is about loving someone no matter how painful it is to open your heart to them. It's about loving one another so completely, you're willing to share the pain and embrace it as a symbol of the love God has for us. Because He made us that we could suffer. For without the suffering, there is no free will - and without free will, there is no life. And with His own will, He chose to become one of us, that He could share in the suffering too. That's how much He loves us. And when we have compassion for one another is when we come closest to that Perfect love.

If you really loved your family, you wouldn't deprive them of the gift of loving you when you're at your most vulnerable. That you're not willing to do this is a sign that you're just a pitiful coward, making up an excuse to prevent yourself the embarassment of being at someone else's mercy. Or maybe you're afraid they wouldn't love you enough, that you're worried - much to your embarassment - they might agree with you and decide they ought to kill you rather than having to put up with caring for you. So you take a position that's so safe and so "modern" - you're not going to bother waiting around for the answer, and you willingly give up what God sacrificed of Himself to give to you.

Wake up and break out of that so-carefully-constructed shell of lies you've surrounded yourself with.

Raindog, Terri's case isn't about your life, or your friend's life; it is about her life. In her life she had family who were willing, nay, eager to continue her care. For them it was not a burden.

Your argument would better suit the situation if the pro-Terri supporters had been insisting that Michael continue as her care-giver. That was not the case, it was well understood that he did not wish to be in that position, and so with a better option available, her natural family, it should have been a win-win situation for everyone. Michael could have removed himself and her family could have taken up the care which they desired to provide. Nobody was forcing an unwilling care-giver to continue to provide care.

Everyone in power was preventing willing care-givers from providing care. They, like you, all wanted to tell other people how to live their lives.

I expected to see this kind of posting on a Republican site...let us remember that this issue was not about politics, it was about the life of Terri and those around her.

Terri lost her life 15 years ago. All arguments the Schindlers have made have now been debunked...and almost all of them were out of spite because they were denied money in the malpractice suit in the first place. But there is a wise saying that says "one must die so that others may live on". And let us also not forget our own Constinution, which gives us the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happiness. Terri's life had all but expired...but those around her were now being robbed of these three basics rights afforded to them: Michael couldn't move on, the Schindlers couldn't move on, and none of the family could move on because of this power struggle that literally wasted their lives for the past seven years. Yes, seven years GONE that can never be recovered. Now, we can all sit here and lament over her death and keep pointing fingers and spreading hatred, or we can celebrate her life and remember the good things, not only about her and her life but also any wisdom that may be drawn from this case.

Richard...your friend was most certainly correct on almost every point you refuted. Now I am to assume that you are the same Richard who passed judgement on Laff in this thread, which was completely uncalled for. Chris...the beauty of compassion and love also involves realizing that your own life has not ended simply because someone else's has. This wasn't a coma, people...this was one small step above brain death. And Sherry...the fact that it took 13 days for her to expire is nothing out of the ordinary...that's a pretty average time for someone to die of dehydration. If she had held on for a month, then yeah...that would have been something, but she didn't.

"If God had wanted her to live, He would have made it so."

Richard, excellent point. If you have a relative that ends up needing care, it is pretty plain to see who cares and who doesn't. Those who don't care disappear. Those who do care make themselves available to take care of or to help taking care of the relative. Neither should be forced to do any different.

RAINDOG YOU SAID:
"The day I heard that he died I was so happy that his wife was finally set free"

No she finally lost the man she loved and the partner she vowed (and desparately wanted) to keep in sickness and in health. She lost the love of her life and her reason for living.

"that his son could finally know what life is like without having to care for his mother, caring for her husband."

Having to care for?? I bet no one had a gun to his head. I bet he simply learned about love, caring, commitment, devotion, family values, etc. from his mother and father who quite obviously knew about those things. Maybe while living with this family, you should have paid attention to such things.

YOU SAID:
"I live with a family that had a family member in a similar state of existence."

I would love to know how you came to live with this family. It was apparently not your family. I must say that if they were the type of family to kill off family members that were inconvenient that they would have probably also refused to take in a non-family member who didn't approve of their lifestyle. It comes to my mind that they cared and helped you just like they cared and helped their own family. Did it ever occur to you that your presence could also be regarded as causing the woman to be "trapped in the house". And did your exit from this family do the same as you claim the man's death did in freeing the woman and the son from you, as they were freed from the man? I bet they didn't see it that way and I am guessing you learned nothing from their care of and for you, their excellent example of family values, nurturing, love, care, giving, compassion...

YOU SAID:
"Too many of us have too many of our own beliefs and agendas to dictate upon others."

DID YOU MEAN:
"Too many of us have too many of our own beliefs"

(like your wanting those who are incapacitated to be killed)
"and agendas"

(like you trying to forcefully take a burden from a stranger by killing their loved one)

"to dictate upon others"

(like you want to dictate over Terri's mom and dad?"

OR

DID YOU MEAN:

"Too many of us have too many of our own beliefs"

(like Terri's mom and dad believing in caring for their child because of the exsisting and natural unconditional love a parent feels)

"and agendas"

(like Terri's mom and dad taking care of family in times of need, voluntarily willing to sacrifice the rest of their lives (however short or long) to the needs and care of their child)

"to dictate upon others"

(like Terri's parents wanting to dictate what can be done by free Americans in their own homes in this so-called free country, trying to force this country and government not to kill their ill child? trying to dictate to this country that they have the right to take their ill child home and care for her in their own home, by their own efforts and with their own finances?

If anyone knows anything about life, it isn't you.

Sherry

Well, nodtveidt, I hope your life is free of all inconveniences like parents, children, spouses, annoying relatives, etc. and I hope it is full of all the important things that really count in life, like a career, endless fun and laughter with strangers in bars and one-night stands, meals in front of great tv shows and movies that you picked out without being interupted with the chatter of other life forms, etc.

Thank goodness this is a free country and your kind can tell our kind how to live, otherwise poor Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would be surrounded by ALL their family members, trapped by love, loyalty, devotion and family values and would still wasting time with that overburdening body they were forced to call a daughter.

You missed my point entirely. Someone who has lost the will to live, dies, with or without a feeding tube. Focus on that.

Sherry

nodtveidt, I did not pass judgement on Laff. Where did you get that idea? He explained who he is ("Not impressed with the gift of life") and how he came to be that way, (abuse at the hands of others): I accepted what he told us and sought to encourage him to believe things can get better. Sincerely.

I do not know what you thought you read, or what assumptions you made, but you are dead wrong if you think I passed judgement. I hope Laff did not see it that way.

nodtveidt, you said:

"your friend was most certainly correct on almost every point you refuted"

Is that statement based on the autopsy report? Because, only two of the list were addressed by the autopsy: #1 & #2.

On #1, he contended that her head was nothing except a bag of fluid; the autopsy says she still had half of her brain.

On #2 he said Terri's parents were unfairly critical of her husband Michael. The autopsy did seek to address the cause of her collapse, without success, and did report (according to the press reports) that the questions about strangulation, an insulin injection, any physical attack, were without merit. (I remain curious about the reports of broken bones found in the year after her collapse but not revealed to the family until years later. The autopsy must have addressed this issue, I will read it as time allows.) So, the criticism he had of the family with regard to their suspicions as to whether he induced her collapse does seem to be correct. At this point, (the State of Florida will be holding a further investigation into the cause of her collapse).

At any rate, those are only two of the eleven I noted, and he can only be credited as correct on one of them. Hardly, " almost every point ".

Sherry, great observation on the pointwhich began:

YOU SAID: "I live with a family that had a family member in a similar state of existence."

I would love to know how you came to live with this family.

Thanks Richard.

Did anyone notice that in 1998 when Michael Schiavo petitioned to have the feeding tube removed, that it wouldn't have been legal at that time. In October, 1999 the Florida Civil Rights law was changed as far as it's definitions, which made it legal and it was court ordered 4 months later in January of 2000. (If anyone is interested I put the comparison of 1998 and 1999 showing the changes at the bottom of the page, plus the links to find it on the Florida government site.)
Does that look like it was directed at Terri Schiavo or is it my imagination.

It looks like corruption to me. Especially since one the co-sponsors of the bill was Gus Bilirakis, member of the Hospice of Florida Suncoast board of directors which owns Woodside Hospice where Terri lived her last five years (although not eligible for hospice care), admitted at a time when Michael Schiavo’s attorney, Felos was also a member of the hospice board with Bilirakis. King, who was in the House of Reps through 1999 then elected to the Senate, received the Hospice Hall of Fame Award and is a member of Florida Hospice Board of Directors.
He owned a temporary staffing company, I think I will look to see if he supplied that hospice with temp staff.
So much corruption.

Changes are as follows

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=CH0765/sec101.htm#0765.101

AMENDING #9 WHICH IS NOW # 10 FROM
1998-(9) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention which:

(a) Utilizes mechanical or other artificial means to sustain, restore, or supplant a spontaneous vital function; and

(b) When applied to a patient in a terminal condition, serves only to prolong the process of dying.

The term "life-prolonging procedure" does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0765/SEC101.HTM&Title=->1999->Ch0765->Section%20101#0765.101

TO 1999'S #10(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

Plus creating #4 in 1999 as follows:
"End-stage condition" means a condition that is caused by injury, disease, or illness which has resulted in severe and permanent deterioration, indicated by incapacity and complete physical dependency, and for which, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, treatment of the irreversible condition would be medically ineffective.