Terri Schiavo's Parents Seek Divorce on Her Behalf

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by tw

Well, that is not what they told us - quite vehemently.

I'm sorry to hear that, tw. I'm born and raised Catholic from descendants of Eastern Europe Catholic and I never heard anything like that. My mother (as old-world Catholic as they come) has made it clear that she wants her remains donated to science/medicine and then cremated.

Its sad how many people in positions of religious authority (Catholic and other Christian denominations) have utterly and completely fucked up generations of people by interpreting and "adding value" to Jesus' teachings instead of just passing them along.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Beestie

Its sad how many people in positions of religious authority (Catholic and other Christian denominations) have utterly and completely fucked up generations of people by interpreting and "adding value" to Jesus' teachings instead of just passing them along.

amen

[Happy Monkey]

And here is the ultimate goal of the Shiavo hooplah:

DeLay Wants Panel to Review Role of Courts

[vsp]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And here is the ultimate goal of the Shiavo hooplah:

DeLay Wants Panel to Review Role of Courts

And whaddya know, there's already a bill in the <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1070:">House</a> and <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00520:@@@L&summ2=m&">Senate</a> that would remove all jurisdiction from federal courts (including the Supreme Court) on any and all cases involving religion!



More substantial rant on it <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?p=154731#post154731">here</a>. It's a religious-right wet dream and rather unlikely to pass, but that it is even being _considered_...

(And it's not just DeLay calling for hearings and remedies like these. If we Pennsylvanians can't get Santorum out of office next year, we might as well close the state down, give the keys to Roy Moore and emigrate to neighboring areas. I have my eye on the suburbs of Wilmington, myself.)

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I don't understand what the problem is.

If I were the husband, I would arrange for the parents to take over all care and custody, (and financial responsibility), get a divorce, and be done with it. Move the hell on already.

Unless Terri had a living will (which I don't think she did or this wouldn't be an issue) then IMO, he has no grounds to want to kill her - I mean - let her die. If her parents want to keep her alive and accept that responsibility, then let them. What's the harm in that?

Because if she told her husband what she wanted and they were still married; I feel he should respect her wishes. Sure we feel sorry for the parents and siblings, but at some point you have to let go.... I feel sorry for those all involved. However, I don't think there are many as mean, as to just continue to fight as long as Mike did to have his wife's wishes carried out just to prove a point. The harm is the lady would have lived in a vegetative state possibly for years to come. Some are convinced there is something better in the afterlife. I may be wrong, but I thought you were one that believed in that theory.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And here is the ultimate goal of the Shiavo hooplah:

DeLay Wants Panel to Review Role of Courts

I think DeLay's mother needs a retroactive abortion.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher

Because if she told her husband what she wanted and they were still married; I feel he should respect her wishes. Sure we feel sorry for the parents and siblings, but at some point you have to let go.... I feel sorry for those all involved. However, I don't think there are many as mean, as to just continue to fight as long as Mike did to have his wife's wishes carried out just to prove a point. The harm is the lady would have lived in a vegetative state possibly for years to come. Some are convinced there is something better in the afterlife. I may be wrong, but I thought you were one that believed in that theory.

I'm of two minds.

(1) Michael, as her husband, has complete and total legal rights here.

but

(2) We have no proof she really wanted the right to die other than "She said so."

I think that's the crux of the issue for most people (hence, why the importance has been placed on living wills. A living will isn't just about if you want to be DNR, it's also about if you want to continue medical treatment long after you're declared brain dead or whatever.)

If Terri had a living will, there would have been much less issue with this.

But she didn't. All we have is Michael's word. Legally, that's all he needed, and I 100% support that, and think it was wrong of the parents to drag it out this way.

As far as better in the afterlife, yes, I believe there is something better. But let's lay down some what ifs. What if Michael was lying? What if Terri said no such thing, but after it's clear she's PVS, he decided she wouldn't have wanted to live like this, so SAID she made those statements? Doesn't that mean that pulling the feeding tubes is wrong? Clearly, if that is the case (and we'll never know) then Michael is guilty of murder. THAT's what the parents have a problem with. And I don't blame them for that.

So both sides of this issue make sense. It all comes down to if Michael is lying or not.

Our legal system doesn't provide the death penalty for criminals unless 12 people find them guilty without any reasonable doubt, yet it takes one man's word (with no proof) to kill his wife?

There is something very wrong with that.

[Undertoad]

One thing I don't get OC.

You say, if she DID want to be kept alive in a PVR state, but Michael said she DIDN'T, that's MURDER...

Why does that change if she DOESN'T want to be kept alive in a PVR state? If I sign a paper saying I want to die, and you kill me, that's still murder, right?

[OnyxCougar]

If you choose DNR, and the medical staff DNR, that's not murder. That's (1) letting nature take it's course and (2) Your legal and binding wishes.

To answer your question:

If she didn't want to be kept alive in PVR, AND SHE HAS DOCUMENTATION TO THAT EFFECT, no problem.

But that's not what happened, Tony.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Have you ever heard ANYBODY EVER say they wanted to be kept as a veg?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Have you ever heard ANYBODY EVER say they wanted to be kept as a veg?

I've heard people say that regardless of their physical state, if they can be kept alive, they want to be.

Is that the same thing?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I've heard people say that regardless of their physical state, if they can be kept alive, they want to be.

Is that the same thing?

I heard somewhere that Ted Williams is being kept as a vegetable.






In the frozen section.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I've heard people say that regardless of their physical state, if they can be kept alive, they want to be.

Is that the same thing?

You're one up on me, every single person I've ever talked to about this said no. If they were in a condition where they would never leave that bed, pull the plug. In fact, it was usually Pleeeeeease pull the plug.
I feel anyone that would want to be tended like potted plant is just selfish or at least too stupid to realize the strain they put on everyone else to no end.

[Troubleshooter]

For myself, I'd want to to have a window of say a month to allow for testing and hypothesis. After that, without a plan, pull it.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

For myself, I'd want to to have a window of say a month to allow for testing and hypothesis. After that, without a plan, pull it.

I might pick a month or two longer to be sure, but I agree with you. This past week I downloaded a living will. Marci and I are going to fill ours out, our friends are going to fill theirs out, and we will act as each others witnesses.

If you look at the Nazi's T-4 euthanasia program, you can see where the line goes to murder. If you look at Terri Schiavo, you can see where the line maybe went too far the other way.

I don't want to bring money into it, but one reason for the Texas Futile Care Act amending the Texas statutes was economic. Health care providers did not want to be responsible for terminal patients.

(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining
treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review
process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall
be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer
under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs
incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The
physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide
life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written
decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient
or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the
patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).

....snip

(f) Life-sustaining treatment under this section may not be
entered in the patient's medical record as medically unnecessary
treatment until the time period provided under Subsection (e) has
expired.

Now if a family is willing to pay, the good news is that there will be someone to care for that patient until the money is gone. And under our new bankruptcy laws, it will be easier to borrow against the house and all other assets for treatments because lenders will now be assured that there will be no chapter 7 and that they will be able to foreclose.

The thought that I might be in a PVS for years and that my wife would flush everything down the tubes towards the nonexistant possibilty of my recovery really scares me.

I know how the pope felt about all of this, but it would have been interesting to see the Vatican respond to him being in a PVS for 15 years. My understanding is that it is a lifetime appointment, so I guess that no new pope could have been elected. Here in the US, we can probably keep a large number of people alive indefinitely if they do not have a degenerative condition like cancer.

The reason that the term 'medically unneccesary' treatment is in that law is that even the most pro-life doctors have some point at which they know that the treatment will not help.