Terry Schiavo

I wonder how they determined that a feeding tube is not a "life support" machine. Was it the doctors? Or the insurance companies?

Without either, the patient dies. The only pertinent difference is the length of time required for death to come.



Robostilzkin said he left, so does anyone else know about the alleged abuse he mentioned? In a case this widely publicized, his comment was the first time I've heard that. I can't believe that the media would miss the opportunity to throw that out into the morass if it is true.

 

That is pretty much what I have said in a nutshell. However, certain people here do no seem to grasp the idea of a being taken off of life support verses having a feeding tube removed.

I love how everyone assumes that they know how the woman feels. Every time one of her family members walks into the room, her eyes light up and she tries to communicate with them. It is not as if she is lying in a bed, comatose.

Life support is used to keep people who are dying, from death. Terry is not on life support, hence, she is not dying. She is being fed from a tube because she cannot feed herself. By removing that tube, the judge/doctors/her husband, will be inflicting death upon her.

Last time I checked, causing someone to die was called murder.

 

And without the feeding tube she would not die? What's the rub then? People on ventilators can't breath for themselves. Again the difference is the time it takes for death to come.

And the removal of a ventilator is not inflicting death?

 

i know ill be tellin my family to make sure they never pull life support.
i dont want to die.

 

The difference is the fact that a person on a ventilator had their heart stop beating, hence, they were already dying and would have done so on the spot without the use of the machine. Death was already upon them. Up until the source of nutrition was removed, death was not upon this woman, as she had not been on the ventilator in years. If she was already dying and the use of life support was the only thing keeping her alive, then pulling the plug would simply be letting death finish the job it was doing before intervention. However, that is not the case. What is being done now is the act of causing death.

Lack of intervention upon one who is already in the process of death -vs- Causing someone who is not in the process of death to die. That is the issue.

 

Anything else I say will just be a repeat (again) of what I've already said.
Out.

 

life support - medical equipment that assists or replaces important bodily functions and so enables a patient to live who otherwise might not survive;

That's the definition. A feeding tube is medical equipment which assists important bodily functions, enabling her to live when she otherwise would not survive. Therefore, a feeding tube is a form of life support system.

 

There is a great deal of speculation that Terri Schiavo was physically abused prior to the incident by her husband. Investigations revealed head trauma and broken ribs as well as other injuries. Being as it happened so long ago, and that judges and D.A.'s cite statutory time limits, the truth may never be known one way or another. I wonder myself why the media does not mention this, or other facts. Bias? Who knows. They also rarely mention the fact that her husband changed his story many times about what her desires would be, in this case. Here is a link that gives a pretty good overview, I think, and touches on many aspects of the case, including the potential domestic violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
These articles specifically address the alleged D.V.:
http://www.theempirejournal.com/alleged_schiavo_abuse_florida_of.htm
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0347,hentoff,48738,6.html
I don't think the truth will ever really be known about this or many other aspects of the case. It definitely makes people feel better to think that this woman really would want to be killed, and really was not abused
. Hopefully, this is the case, because it seems pretty clear that's what's going to happen.

 

The above article addressing the DV is an EDITORIAL, just so everyone knows - not a subtantiated news article. An excerpt: The stated cause of Terri’s injuries is said to be an alleged cardiac arrest resulting from a potassium imbalance due to an eating disorder.

That's what every NEWS article I have read has said. There has never been any mention of a murder investigation in any of them.

 

I also found the wikipedia site and read it top to bottom. I also read top to bottom the report of the Guardian Ad Litem
It is a PDF file, forty pages long, and is the report to the court and Governor Bush of the investigation into the Schiavo case. The author, Jay Wolfson, holds doctorial degrees in medicine and law. It is compelling reading, and contains information that I had not heard. It also touches on some points made in this thread - the Noble Prize-winning doctor, for example, and "life-support" equipment. Additionally, it reveals that Michael Schiavo was, in the beginning, very committed to finding any therapy that would bring Terri back. He even moved to California to try a treatment there. Doesn't sound like someone who would commit violence to me. It says he finally gave up his efforts after a doctor convinced him there was nothing more that could be done. It goes on to say that Michael was obssesive about Terri's care in the advanced-care facility; so much so that the facility administrator dubbed him “a nursing home administrator’s nightmare”. It is interesting to note that in the thirteen plus years she has been confined to a bed, she has had not a single bedsore. You aren't going to get that care from nursing home employees, sad to say. I know this from personal experience.

Follow the link and spend some time to read the report.

 

The NEWS never lies or omits, does it? You are right that it is important to consider the source no matter what the information. I found the wikipedia and village voice article pretty straightforward and unbiased. I think the point is, no one knows what really happened. If there is any merit to these accusations, and according to the pathologist this cannot be ruled out, they should be investigated. I understand the FL dept of health and welfare or some such agency is currently investigsting and considering whether she should be taken into their protective custody. This may be, and in all likelihood is, some sort of end run to put the feeding tube back in, but if there is any truth to this interpretation of these injuries, they may be investigated if this move is successful. Nothing will probably come from it, however, because no one was looking for this type of evidence at the time, and it is probably too late to determine one way or the other now. If he is not guilty, it would be good to put doubts to rest. If he is, he should be held accountable.

 

Well, there is differences in news articles and editorials, is my only point. They are held up to different standards. News is not supposed to be an opinion (I know that they fail at times), but that's all an editorial is. Trying to pass one off as a viable, substantiated news account is not ethical. I have never read anything mentioning any of the alleged abuse until this week, and now it is in every emotional plea and editorial, but is still not mentioned in any news articles I have read or heard. IMHO, if there was any creditablity to this abuse the news would be all over it - they love that stuff. Can you post a credible news story relating the abuse allegations at the time of her injuries, for our information?

 

you know woman, sometimes you impress me

 

ok let me see

a friend and I were discussing this and she made a valid point

the agruement used to defend taking this woman's life is basicly this: she can't feed herself so her life is not worth living? by whose standards?

And if its so damn important to feed yourself: would you defend someone that refused to give an infant a bottle and watched the baby starve? would you accept the person's explaination that they "just removed the baby's life support"?

she's human, they can call it a "vegative state" all they want. She is not a vegetable, she's person. And if a person is a person, no matter how small, then shouldn't a person be a person, no matter how damaged?

 

sorry about the spelling

i need sleep

 

missfontella,
After you rest (and I suggest that you do cuz it's not easy reading) use the link in a previous post of mine to get the Guardian Ad Litem's report on his investigation into the case. It will quickly make clear what "persistant vegetative state" is and how this poor woman can in no way be likened to the example of not feeding an infant.

 

Like I said, I can see both sides, but I find it interesting that a lot of the people who want to keep her plugged in often seem to imply that her husbands uncaring, and that if Terry 'woke up' she might say something that he might not want her to say.

This is ludicrous as it is insensitive... just because the man decided to live with somebody else after ten years of grief, doesn't mean he doesn't care deeply for his wife.

If you think she should be kept on life support, and it is life support fine, but shes not getting better.

Her cerebral cortex is essentially gone, This is the part of the brain that controls planning, memory, emotion and personality... all of which is iirrecoverable in the case of Terry.

Terry's case has recived more medical examination then about any such case in history, and any doctor will tell you that all she has left are invoulantry reflexes as the result of brain stem activity.

This woman is not capable on conscious thought, despite what her parents wish to believe.

I feel for her parents, but they're blind to the condition her daughter is in is severe and irreversible.

I can still see why they want their daughter to live though.

 

The guardian ad litem is also the judge who has presided over the case since almost the begining, Greer. That seems a conflict of interest, filling that dual role. He dismissed the previous guardian ad litem who recommended against removal of the feeding tube, and expressed concern over potential conflicts of interest her husband may have. Does this prove anything in itself? Not really. But it is very strange, and highly suspect. It stinks, I tells ya, it stinks. The problem is, there is some merit in both sides of this case. I personally think killing her is wrong, but this is a bad case, tha will surely result in bad law.

 

This is just exactly what I wanted to say. It is just a horrible situation. If they kill her it seems cruel. But it doesn't seem as if she could be even remotely enjoying life as it is. It's just really sad no matter what.

 

If you had read the PDF file, you would know that is not the case. The Guardian Ad Litem is a man named Jay Wolfson. There has been far too much speculative information, conjecture, and outright lies spawned from this issue. Whaddaya say you try to start limiting it right here and now and READ THE PDF FILE before you engage in misinformation again. Don't you think Terri and Michael Shiavo deserve at least that?