I wonder how much the media paid the medicine nobel prize candidate to say that she could possibly recover from her brain damage. Geez, he must really have needed the money...

Aurel

Eating keeps me alive. If I'm not allowed to eat I would die too. In that sense, I'm not able to sustain my own life either.

Is the test now, that a person must swallow the food, else be starved to death?

I'll say it again... I KNOW that I don't know the answer to this problem. But, there are a few things that bother me with the arguments I've seen so far...

For the folks that ARE sure of the answer, and that she should have the feeding tube removed... Why the opposition to letting her live?

Is it b/c the republicans have gotten involved? Or is it a husband's rights issue? A right to death issue? A medical resources issue? Something else???

The problem I have... it seems people are arguing that she was dead a loooong time ago, she's in a vegetative state, that there's nothing left of her mind, etc, etc. BUT, if she's in fact essentially dead, then what does it hurt to allow her to live via feeding tube? It can't be a sympathy thing to end her suffering... because she's brain dead, right??? You don't suffer if your brain dead. IF you can suffer, maybe you're not really "dead".

The fact is, no one knows what's in her mind. Experts can give their opinions, but it's just that, an opinion. No one knows for certain.

We still don't know what goes on with coma patients, but they're starting to find that some may be aware. If we're not sure, why would we starve her, with the aid of a morphine drip to ease the pain? What's the harm in giving her nourishment?

If Terri Schiavo's life is deemed unworthy of sustenance, and starved to death, then who or what is next? This WILL be a legal precedence.

Can anyone explain this?

- Skip

It's a government should stay out of people's lives as much as possible issue.

Even after 10 courts and 19 judges have ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo's request to let the remains of his wife to slip in to full death, we have congress saying; 'oh wait a sec . . we are for life. :rolleyes: puh'lease.

oh, and her brain IS MUSH!

fwiw.. There is a difference between brain dead and brain damaged.

bryan, this case has been litigated up and down and through the Florida courts for years and years. The decision (to remove feeding tube) has gotten more judicial review than practically any capital sentence, and much more than most.

Look at it this way. Assume the facts are that (a) the woman is indeed irretrievably brain dead, and (b) she indeed did not want her body to be kept alive if she were to deteriorate to such a state. I think you, and most people, would agree that life support should be withdrawn.

Then the question is, who decides if those are indeed the facts? The family can't agree. The state court has to decide. And it has. As in all litigation, one side won and one side lost, and the losers don't like it. But a decision has to be made.

Now the question is, why should the Florida legislature, or the US Congress, or the US President, or the federal courts, get to butt in, take over, and make the decision? Is there a rational and compelling reason for it? Is this a uniquely federal matter? Has it been shown that state courts cannot competently decide these sorts of cases?

As I've said before, my view is there is no rational and compelling reason. There is a political motivation, that is unfortunately all.

Approaching this from another angle.

Last year my 98-year old grandfather became ill and was admitted to the hospital. He developed pneumonia, deteriorated, went on a ventilator, and became comatose. I and my father, cousins, aunts, and uncles were at the hospital with him the whole time. About two weeks after he was admitted, we had to decide whether to take extraordinary steps to prolong his life. It was a very painful decision. We didn't all agree. It took some days to decide. In the end, we decided privately, and that was the best way to do it. The thought of having demonstrators, preachers, activists, politicians, talking news heads, etc, all weighing in - that would have been incredible and horrific.

skipdup, the thought of having my grandfather's body kept "alive" in that bed for decades, as some sort of symbolic trophy aka rallying cry for politicians and activitists and other people who never knew him nor had any business interfering in his life or his death - would have been equally horrific.

I didn't really care about this case, until I thought back to my own experience of last year.

SKip - I don't think anyone here wants to let Terri die. I don't want Terri to die; at the same time it is not my decision to make and if I were in this situation that the Husband is in I would hope that I Would have the support of my wife's family. I know that I would depend on their support. It is unfortunate that they are not working towards an amicable resolution that could benefit their daughter/wife. The facts remain that she is alive but that the quality of her life is in question and that question is subjective. All we have to go on is hearsay as to what her wishes were and due to the nature of that hearsay they are at this impass. Her life is not unworthy and what has happened is a tragedy but to what end do you keep her through technology? To what end - when is enough enough and when can we let dignity take its course? When she can't breath on her own? When the bed sores that she WILL get turn into infection again and again? More often than not I believe that this is the reason a lot of people die in nursing homes. Not from the illness so much but from the infection that their bodies can't fight. I'll admit I don't have that statistic to back me up but I experienced it with my wife's father recently. The morphine is so that we feel better - it isn't for her.

Don't fool yourselves - this release that Michael has been fighting for is just as much for himself as he claims it is for her.

I may not be able to explain it but I can start to understand it.

I feel really bad for her parents - this is obviously very hard for them.

I agree. I'm referring to the folks that say she's brain dead, mush, etc...

As for brain damage...
Had a friend in high school that was in a horrible car crash. In a coma and was never supposed to recover. They almost pulled the plug on him. A year or two later (can't remember for sure), I saw him at the beach... surfing!

My wife knows TWO people with very similar stories.

- Skip

It's the topic of the week, and the Republicans are hopping all over it. Too bad when she's dead next week, this will all be academic nonsense.

Here's what the Republican short-sightedness has left them blind to: this is not about WMDs or whether Iraq is a justified war. This is an invasion of privacy by the government - a general fear throughout the U.S., particularly since 9/11.

I look for the Republican powerbase to begin a steady loss of constituency from all but the most vitriolic bible thumpers - and even if this party is god-sent, it can't maintain a dynasty with just bible thumpers as its support base.

Mikester- Excellent points - maybe best I've seen. Still not really comfortable with the answer.

- Skip

Does anyone else find this just a tad ironic? What "side" is Bush on?



Bush's Texas Life-Support Law

And in what many liberal bloggers are calling an example of outright hypocrisy, Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 that created a legal mechanism to allow attending physicians and hospital ethics boards to pull the plug on patients -- even if that specifically contradicts patient or family wishes.

As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week -- with a baby's death.

Leigh Hopper writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

"Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now. . . .

"Texas law allows hospitals [to] discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54002-2005Mar21.html?sub=AR

Very well said.

Well, they had me for the first 5 years, but I'm finally beginning to wonder about those Republicans. When NPR radio played sound bites of the President, I actually muttered the word "Moron." My doggie nearly jumped out the window of the pickup, and for a few seconds I thought of changing my username from turbo6bar to "Aurel Wannabe," "speeder Jr.," or "widefiberglassbody." :D

Of course, this too shall pass, and I'll forgive the Republicans, but I will be sure to view their actions and words with scepticism.

cool_chick, the Republican stance is hypocritical. I can only assume they're looking for power or diverting attention.

Judge Greer is blind maybe he should be dropped off in the center divde of the freeway.
He has never even been in the same room as Terry.

I think President Bush should issue a PEO ordering her to be feed.

Carla Sauer Iyer is a nurse that took care of Terri. this is her signed affidavit. Why would she lie about this? She gets nothing out of the deal and has no reason to lie. Her "husband" on the other hand, stands to gain quite a bit, and hasn't gone under oath of any kind.

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/CIyerAffidavit090203.htm

Neither has DeLay or Frisch.

Please quantify and cite; anectdotal evidence would indicate he had more to gain by walking away. And why should he be under any oath?

Anectdotal miracles to the contrary, the safe money is that Terri Shiavo will never do any surfing; ocean, web, or otherwise.

Ya got me :o. . . I should NOT have said "her brian is mush. That, apparently, wasn't accurate on my part. (It was those darn MRI's.) The MRI's show that, actually, her brain has turned to liquid. (my bad) :rolleyes:

So true.


I was surprised and happy to see our (State of Washington) Republican rep Dave Reichert vote against the Pres on this one.

So, it seems that the "good' of this whole issue, is that we really get to see who speaks their mind on issues, and who just follows whatever the Prez says. Republicans are supossed to be for less gov't!

I suspect that the Libertarians just gained some constituency, on this one.

I think a whole lot of generally right leaning people (Steve and Bryan excepted, apparently) are looking at congress' actions and asking, "What the f--- are they doing?!?"

Curious that they see this as a great issue to make a stand on. Kinda like stem cell research. We cut them some slack because we know that the religious right wackos need a certain amount of pandering--big tent, throw them a bone, etc.

But really--this whole thing trades Republican principles so cheaply for a quick emotional knee jerking.