Terri Schiavo

Terri Schiavo (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

sweetpleaser -> Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 2:14:43 PM)
I know this is a heated debate, but what do you think of this case? There are different polls out there and one in Florida suggested 60% agree that the feeding tube should not be reinserted. I've heard about this case off and on for years now. I hate the idea of the poor woman starving to death, but I feel more strongly about government not being a part of this kind of decision. Michael Schiavo has every legal right to order that tube removed because there were no advance directives written at the time Terri collapsed. PS: This is a good time to work on your own advance directives; I have mine.

sub4hire -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 2:26:17 PM)
Personally I think she should be allowed to pass on. I'm sure her time was many year's ago. It isn't like this just happened and they are giving up too soon. They know the brain damage is very bad. I'd let go. As far as advance directives go. Over the past couple of year's I lost my mother and my sister. Both passed on in hospitals. Three month's apart. Two different hospitals. I had power of attorney over both. Both had advance directives. Both had DNR order's. Long before they went into coma's. Well, mom had a heart attack while in ICU. They could'nt bother themselves to get into her room before brain damage set in. The extent was never known. However with the DNR order intact they resuscitated her. Put her on a ventilator. She sat on the ventilator for 3 days until I could know for myself that the brain damage was so severe she was not going to come back. I unplugged her and sat with her until she took her last breath. 3 month's later. Same orders. Different hospital. My sister's husband had been long declared a paranoid schizophrenic. Never at any given time in the 3 month's she had been sick did he ever desire to visit her. The doctor's knew he existed they also knew he was not capable of making the decision when the time came. I was in another state that evening. The hospital called my father. My father made her husband go under diress. She died before they got there...resuscitated her and brought her back. We had court orders. Along with the advance directive. He stood up and said I want her to live. DNR order no more. Or course when I got back into the state she was unplugged as she had told me and half of the free world her wishes. However, point here is. Advance directives really don't seem to work. What good does it do if they are going to do what they want anyway? They even hang signs over the beds that say DNR. Yet they still do it. I don't understand the whole concept. Same thing this past year when Doug's father passed away. DNR order hanging over the bed yet they did it anyway. It wasn't until someone was actually in the room and his heart stopped they followed the families wishes. I think if no one from the family had been there they would have resuscitated anyway.

quietkitten -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 2:37:29 PM)
I am sorry for your very bad experiences. I never understand why this happens. The last really bad one I had was resuscitating a 90 year old lady because her family refused to make a decision about her DNR order. I was the "lucky" person doing the CPR and felt her ribs break on my first compression. It was completely disgusting and I felt like scum for weeks. I think the thing that bothers me the most about Terri's case, is the fact that politicians feel the need to get involved in it. It is obvious to me that she is not going to recover, and clearly the doctors and the husband feel the same way, so why do we suddenly need to pass a bill allowing others to make decisions about a persons right to be allowed to die?

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 2:38:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sweetpleaser I know this is a heated debate, but what do you think of this case? I think she should be allowed to pass on; If I were living like that, I would consider my family extremely cruel for allowing it, but my family knows this and they would never permit it. M

perverseangelic -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 2:46:27 PM)
I believe she should be allowed to die, but not through slow starvation. This is one of those things that makes me wish we had a law legalizing physician assisted death.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 3:02:27 PM)
Staying in character my anger isn't for any of the reasons mentioned. I'm angry that I know about Terri Schiavo. I'm angry that Congress decided that this woman was more important than any other issue facing the United States and wrote a Bill to have the case reviewed. This is not limited to the Republicans. The vote in Congress was across party lines. I'm angry that our President fired up Air Force One and flew it across the county to sign the bill. I'm angry that most of the sheep like populous of the US doesn't see that this is one more example how the Religious Right has infiltrated the Federal Government to the detriment of individual rights. If Congress wants a better cause to take up that's effective us all how about the illegal aliens. Just this week there was a report that there are 11 Million currently in the US. Here's just one story link http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/11196889.htm . This situation not only effects National Security, but illegals are straining our social resources to the breaking point. Here in California our schools and hospitals are suffering, and many hosipals have closed because the Federal Government doesn't think this is a priority worth addressing. No, instead Terri Schiavo generates a weekend special session of Congress. It was bad enough that the Religious Right wants to take control of what you can see on TV, hear on radio, or read. It is bad enough that they want to control what you do in your bedroom. Now they also want to control your death, or the death of your loved one. Would any of you want to live as this poor woman is displayed? She has existed like this for the last 15 years. Now she is a political football. People sit and speak for her who don't know her, have never seen her in person. They won't allow her the same compassion we give our dogs and cats when their quality of life dictates termination of a painful existence. We should not be talking about this. The government should not have made the private pain of this woman and her husband a national point of debate. Creeping "Big Brother-ism" is now at a walking pace, getting ready to jog. The only good to come of this is if people finally wake up. Hopefully people will put themselves in the place of Terri Schiavo or her husband and get angry that their difficult personal choices can be discounted so easily by the Federal Government. When are we going to be "Mad as Hell - and NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE!!"

quietkitten -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 3:06:49 PM)
quote: We should not be talking about this. The government should not have made the private pain of this woman and her husband a national point of debate. Creeping "Big Brother-ism" is now at a walking pace, getting ready to jog. The only good to come of this is if people finally wake up. Hopefully people will put themselves in the place of Terri Schiavo or her husband and get angry that their difficult personal choices can be discounted so easily by the Federal Government. I couldn't agree more. Thank you.

sub4hire -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 4:01:43 PM)
quote: I think the thing that bothers me the most about Terri's case, is the fact that politicians feel the need to get involved in it. It is obvious to me that she is not going to recover, and clearly the doctors and the husband feel the same way, so why do we suddenly need to pass a bill allowing others to make decisions about a persons right to be allowed to die? I do not claim to know anything about politics other than my own stance. My own dislikes and likes. However, if you believe that Bush won the election fair and square. You also have heard the reason he won it is because of his religious stance. Up to you what you believe and what you do not. If you go strictly by religion we do not take her life. Religion doesn't exactly work for all of us on all counts. Which is why there are so many religions in the world. Anyway, myself I believe politicians are involved because of her parents. They are not ready to let her go yet. For whatever reason that may be. In legal terms her husband should have all rights to take out the tube. Yet, because they are so loud on this stance the politicians have become more involved.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 4:11:48 PM)
quote: If you go strictly by religion we do not take her life. Which religion is that? The Catholic's? - No wait, there is that little episode called the Crusades The Protestants? - Not if your Catholic in Northern Ireland. The Jews? - Not if your Palestinian. The Muslims? No comment needed. The Hindus? Not if your on the wrong side of the India / Pakistan border. Or is it similar to the gun lobby. Religions don't kill - religious people do when you disagree with their religion.

proudsub -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 4:23:20 PM)
quote: I believe she should be allowed to die, but not through slow starvation. This is one of those things that makes me wish we had a law legalizing physician assisted death. That's how i feel too perverse. There should be a way to do it without any suffering. I had to make the decision to take my mother off of kidney dialysis. It was the hardest thing i ever had to do but the doctors and my brother agreed with me, and she had a DNR directive but it wasn't clear if dialysis was included in that. Her kidneys weren't her only problem but the dialysis is what was keeping her alive. She had a lot of complications.

stormsfate -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 4:43:58 PM)
While I think congress has no business advocating on behalf of a single person, I do not believe the feeding tube should have been removed in the first place. First of all, I do not believe that Michael Schiavo is the appropriate person to be her guardian. He has a long time girlfriend and small children with this woman. There is a conflict of interests in my opinion. He has apparently used almost $600,000 of a $1.2 million medical trust for Terri's benefit on legal expenses in fighting to allow her to die. If her parents want to care for her, and bear the expense involved in sustaining her life, I feel they should have that option, barring written instructions from Terri to the contrary. All we really have is Michael Schiavo's statements that she would not want to live this way. He is far from an unbiased party here. Given that Terri was a staunch Roman Catholic, I find it difficult to believe that she would have chosen this. Additionally, after viewing several video tapes of Terri, I find it difficult to believe that she is in a persistent vegatative state. I'm not a doctor, and I'll be the first to admit I have no medical training, but if I were that much alive, I would not wish to starve to death. She is not in a coma...she is not on life support. Brings to mind that lady who was in a coma for 20 years ( or twelve...can't remember) recently who woke up. The brain is an amazing thing, and I feel it may be possible with therapy for improvements to be made in Terri's abilities. She has apparently not had therapy since 1991 and there are doctors who state they think they could help her. I feel we should err on the side of caution, barring written directives to the contrary. I don't feel that a man who knew her for only a short part of her life...husband or not...should be the one to determine her life or death. I am furious that this is the third time this woman has had her feeding tube removed for days at a time. If she is to die, why not simply stick a needle in her arm? Would that not be much more humane? This whole situation is beyond sad and I ache for her parents. Were she my child, I cannot imagine the horror involved here. If she could eat without the tube, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Just very, very sad. f

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 5:40:15 PM)
Mercnbeth.... all I can say is thank you for putting into words the emotions I feel. At the risk of sounding as old as I am... Right on Bro... keep it comin'! Jewel

onceburned -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 5:44:04 PM)
quote: I am furious that this is the third time this woman has had her feeding tube removed for days at a time. If she is to die, why not simply stick a needle in her arm? Would that not be much more humane? I think the doctors are saying that she is unresponsive to stimuli, so she does not feel pain. She doesn't register food as pleasant, and she doesn't register that lack of food as unpleasant.

CitizenCane -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 5:45:33 PM)
I think most of the posters have made a lot of sense so far. It seems to me that, politics aside, there are two basic possibilities regarding Terry Schiavo herself: 1) She isn't aware. 2) She is. In the first case, there's no rationale reason to keep her body alive, except to keep up the cashflow at some care facility. In the second case- LET THE WOMAN DIE! A little spot of sensory dep or mummification may seem exciting to some people, but can you honestly imagine 20 years of it, without consent? I don't think any close approximation of sanity could possibly survive long under those conditions. This is nothing but torture.

stormsfate -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 6:35:35 PM)
For those who haven't seen them, but are interested.... Swab Test Terri and her mother Terri responding to music Following a Balloon Asked to open her eyes How's your cold? Before I saw these videos, I could have accepted persistent vegatative state. Its just very difficult for me to accept now. In college I did a paper on infantacide and this brings up so many similar questions. Will this open the door to removing care from anyone who isn't able to speak for themselves? Where does the line get drawn? What does this say about us as a society...if we do not protect those who aren't able to protect themselves? Suicide is illegal...lol...and yet it is acceptable to allow someone who cannot indicate choice to starve to death. It just feels so wrong to me. My apologies for posting again on this thread...its definately an empathy thing :::sigh::: f

ruffnecksbabygir -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 6:40:56 PM)
i just feel so sorry for her family that have to sit and wait for their loved one to dehydrate (sp?) and starve to death. I commend our president for trying to help this poor woman and her family, i won't get into the politics of this case because it is really not about the government or the courts, it's about this disabled woman and a desperate family that at this point have no hope. If it was a dog the left would be up and arms about this and would never allow it to be starved to death.

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 7:36:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sub4hire As far as advance directives go. Over the past couple of year's I lost my mother and my sister. Both passed on in hospitals. Three month's apart. Two different hospitals. I had power of attorney over both. Both had advance directives. First, am sorry you've experienced so much loss in a relatively short amount of time. Advanced directives are good pieces of paper for helping ambivalent families come to a guiltless resolution; they are not good if I am very sure I don't want to be kept alive while braindead while my very religious family thinks I should only die when God stops my heart, because anyone alert after me can change my wishes since they are deciding for me once I'm no longer able to. As for hospitals, it depends largely on who is caring for the patient when pt runs into trouble (nurse or doctor), because if one is comfortable with letting go as per patient's wish, than one wouldn't fret when death seems eminent. It is actually very wrong for hospitals to do otherwise, so important to communicate with doctors and nurses who may not be comfortable with death, to allow it and not prolong family suffering. M

onceburned -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 7:51:50 PM)
quote: Will this open the door to removing care from anyone who isn't able to speak for themselves? Actually, George W. Bush in 1999 signed a law in Texas which allows hospitals to discontinue life support if the hospital ethics panel approves... even if the family wants life support to continue. This law was put to use last week when an infant was removed from life support despite the family's objections. For some reason this case got little attention in the media. But you can listen to a Nationa Public Radio news report about it if you would like: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4555268

phoenix52 -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/22/2005 10:23:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onceburned Actually, George W. Bush in 1999 signed a law in Texas which allows hospitals to discontinue life support if the hospital ethics panel approves... even if the family wants life support to continue. This law was put to use last week when an infant was removed from life support despite the family's objections. For some reason this case got little attention in the media. But you can listen to a Nationa Public Radio news report about it if you would like: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4555268 You want to talk about a heart breaking case, this was it. What i read made it sound as if the baby would not have live, and taking him off the respirator was just hastening the inevitable. But it still breaks my heart that the mother couldn't accept that. Of course, how could she, really? [:(]

sweetpleaser -> RE: Terri Schiavo (3/23/2005 4:04:16 AM)
quote: I believe she should be allowed to die, but not through slow starvation. This is one of those things that makes me wish we had a law legalizing physician assisted death. I agree with you on this. Frankly, before Dr. Kevorkian went a little too far, I admired him for what he was doing. If I was in a state like Terri Schiavo I would want my husband to find a doctor who would do this for me so I wouldn't have to starve to death (provided the hospital ignored my advance directives). Just a note about Michael Schiavo. He has a common law wife and children, yes, but remember he has been battling this for 15 years--way before he started his new family. He should not be discounted because of that.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125