Theresa spent two and a half months as an inpatient at Humana Northside Hospital, eventually emerging from her coma state, but not recovering consciousness. On 12 May 1990, following extensive testing, therapy and observation, she was discharged to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility. Forty-nine days later, she was transferred again to Bayfront Hospital for additional, aggressive rehabilitation efforts. In September of 1990, she was brought home, but following only three weeks, she was returned to the College Park facility because the Òfamily was overwhelmed by TerryÕs care needs.Ó On 18 June 1990, Michael was formally appointed by the court to serve as TheresaÕs legal guardian, because she was adjudicated to be incompetent by law. MichaelÕs appointment was undisputed by the parties. The clinical records within the massive case file indicate that Theresa was not responsive to neurological and swallowing tests. She received regular and intense physical, occupational and speech therapies. TheresaÕs husband, Michael Schiavo and her mother, Mary Schindler, were virtual partners in their care of and dedication to Theresa. There is no question but that complete trust, mutual caring, explicit love and a common goal of caring for and rehabilitating Theresa, were the shared intentions of Michael Shiavo and the Schindlers. In late Autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing, formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months and returned to Florida with her in January of 1991. Theresa was transferred to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Brandon, where she received 24 hour skilled care, physical, occupational, speech and recreational therapies. Despite aggressive therapies, physician and other clinical assessments consistently revealed no functional abilities, only reflexive, rather than cognitive movements, random eye opening, no communication system and little change cognitively or functionally. On 19 July 1991 Theresa was transferred to the Sable Palms skilled care facility. Periodic neurological exams, regular and aggressive physical, occupational and speech therapy continued through 1994.
Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.
life-prolonging procedures were redefined as Òany medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function.Ó It is noteworthy that the general principle of artificial nutrition as artificial life support that may be removed in terminal and even vegetative state conditions is reflected in nearly all stateÕs laws and within the guidelines of end of life care enunciated by the American Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious denominations.
Three, independent sets of swallowing tests were performed early in TheresaÕs medical treatment: 1991, 1992 and 1993. Each of these determined that Theresa was not able to swallow without risk of aspiration (and consequent infection). The recognized gold standard test is the modified barium swallowing test, generally done in a hospital or at a facility that has radiology equipment. TheresaÕs three previous tests were barium swallowing tests. Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate.
It is torture. Plain and simple. to force anyone to die in such a manner. It makes absolutely no difference if the person does or does not respond to pain. Who knows what the body may or may not feel. Terri is being used as a ritual sacrifice. to see just how much abuse and torture americans will allow. Obviously it is quite a bit. She is a sacrifice to the demons, who will benefit from this prolonged torture. That is how they get their power. Evil is looking folks in face and you wont take your blinders off or your heads out of the sand to even acknowledge its presence. Planned ritual torture and execution. America has sunk.
It just came over the news,Terri has died,so now she is at peace.Unfortunetly,I doubt that this issue is any where near to being over with.I just hope that there has been something learned out of all of this bullshit.That is also doubtful,since humanity has never really payed any attention to the errors of the past.Any way Terri is at peace,now the media will have to find some other sensationalism to stir up the general public.
Actually, I do in many cases. You hear it far to often how they were abused before they were married and then they say the typical BS!! "But, I loved him". Same ol shit different couple! I see it every day. Some girl is always whining and complaining that her boyfriend is a dickhead and treats her like shit and then gets a cell phone call... "Oh high honey.. how are you.. I love you.. kiss kiss... cya tonight". Then tells her girlfriend.. "I know he's a prick sometimes, but I love him". In Terri's case, no she didn't know she would be in this situation and have her abusive husband deciding whether or not she lived. But you know what? That's why you don't make stupid choices in your life like marrying an asshole. Or maybe after you make that stupid choice, you make a smarter choice and divorce the asshole before the abuse gets worse. Marriage is a still a choice in this country Maggie. Divorce is also still a choice in this country. She was Catholic so divorce isn't a choice? well that's not true because the church does grant seperation under abusive situations and many other bad situations.
Grant, I can see where you are coming from. (But AFAIK the Catholic Church does not allow killing by dehydration, but I'll have to find out. My FIL is on a feeding tube. We will never let this happen to him.) But I still can't sanction killing someone with dehydration. It is just TOO cruel. I don't think any of us can say this with certainty. I didn't know she just died. The poor womyn. I feel for her mother and father and siblings, too.
It's not just sinister right wing fundies who see the dangers inherent in the mindset that deems the lives of severely disabled people as unworthy of living: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0322-20.htm http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0328-26.htm http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0328-25.htm
Removing a feeding tube when death is truly imminent is very different than starving/dehydrating someone who is not dying from any other malady. You previously asserted that Terri was "in ending stages of disease" but you never told me what disease she was allegedly dying from or how long she would've lived if she had not been killed by dehydration.
By Tim Drake http://educate-yourself.org/cn/wedontstarvehumans25mar05.shtml March 25, 2005 http://www.spiritdaily.com/starvation.htm Dr. Chris Kahlenborn is an internist in Altoona, Pennsylvania. He serves as president of the Polycarp Research Institute (www.polycarp.org). He spoke with Tim Drake about the dynamics and ethics of denying a person nutrition and hydration. What happens to a person when he or she is denied food and water? The first thing is that after 2-3 days you get extremely dehydrated. That results in a lot of changes in the body. Your mucous membranes and your skin get very dry. Your mouth cracks. It’s very uncomfortable. Your urine becomes very concentrated and acidic, making it uncomfortable to urinate. Then your heart rate increases, your blood pressure decreases, and after about the third day, your kidneys start to develop problems. When the kidneys are damaged enough, they cannot get rid of the poison in the body. Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) builds up. The effect that this has on the body is to give you a type of lethargy, and has an almost anesthetic effect. It can also result in seizures. The poison builds up and drives the person towards unconsciousness after a period of days. The cause of death is usually seizures or cardiac arrhythmia because of an electrolyte imbalance. That sounds painful. The initial part of the process is pretty painful. Imagine playing a tennis match and not grabbing your Gatorade. Try not drinking anything for a day or two and you would get a sense of what it would feel like. You could say that the person eventually gets comfort, but it’s after a lot of pain. Is the denial of nutrition and hydration a standard practice in health care? It’s happening daily in hospitals, in hospices, in homes. It happens most often with patients who have Alzheimer’s or who have suffered bad strokes. It’s happening, yet no one is doing anything about it. Patients are often being denied stomach tubes per the family’s request. Medical professionals are using the term “artificial nutrition and hydration” to say it’s not natural. They are arbitrarily calling it artificial partly because the means of getting food into you require assistance. Yet, if you use that definition, babies should be starving too, because every baby needs our help in order to be fed. Are Catholic medical professionals condoning this? They are split. The Catholic Medical Association (www.cathmed.org) has an excellent statement currently on their web site: it reads: In March 2004, Pope John Paul II addressed an international congress of health care professionals convened in Rome to discuss the scientific advances and ethical dilemmas in the vegetative state. In the statement by the Vicar of Christ, “Life Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State,” he declares clearly and unequivocally that “the sick person in a vegetative state still has the right to basic health care…the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act…Its use furthermore, should be considered in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory…Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.” This papal statement makes it absolutely clear that the withdrawal of food and water from Mrs. Schindler-Schiavo constitutes euthanasia, a gravely immoral act. We would add furthermore, that it represents a violation of her constitutionally protected right to life and a violation of her religious freedom as a Catholic. They would argue rather strongly that food and hydration should be provided unless it’s harmful or death is imminent. Some physicians have a pretty loose definition of imminent. For some that’s an hour or two; for others it’s six months. Death is imminent for all of us. Are there times when the denial of nutrition or fluids is permissible? The way I see it, there should always be some form of hydration. There may be a time in medicine when you don’t have to place a stomach tube, but fluids should be continued to keep a person comfortable and to assist in hydration. If someone has metastatic cancer and has only a few hours or days to live, you wouldn’t have to put in a stomach tube, but the person should be kept comfortable with I.V. fluids. About the only case I can see where you might withhold fluids for a certain time would be congestive heart failure, but that’s only temporary. It would be pretty hard to find a case where you wouldn’t give a person fluids. In almost every case, nutrition should be given. If a person has an injury, such as a chemical burn of the esophagus, and cannot eat any more, everyone would say that the person should be given a stomach tube. Yet, when you have a person with Alzheimer’s, some people will say that they have lived their life and can slowly die of starvation by failing to place a stomach tube. When you do that, you’re basing the entire decision upon intellectual ability and worth. If you take IQ out of it, you would treat the two people the same. If you argue that someone can’t process the food otherwise, they should be given a stomach tube, then you need to give it to everyone. I’ve never seen anyone who could challenge that argument. Many of these arguments are similar to the abortion argument. What is the Catholic Church’s position with regard to nutrition and hydration? Nutrition and hydration should always be given, unless it’s directly harmful to the patient as noted by Pope John Paul II above. Advance directives and living wills have become quite common. What do you see as the danger of such directives? They are greatly misunderstood and greatly abused. My feeling is that the legal profession takes advantage of people’s fears to rack up the money. Most lay Catholics have no clue what the Church’s teaching is. They sign living wills all the time. Such directives often go against Catholic Church teaching. When you have a 30-year-old’s directive saying he or she doesn’t want food or water, or antibiotics, or blood products, that usually represents a gross misunderstanding of Church teaching. Most of the time, you should be getting those things. So many times people are signing something that is against Church teaching. I’m not saying they are always wrong. You could have a carefully thought out “loving will” that focuses on the things that you do want, rather than the things that you don’t want. It’s better not to get into specifics, or there is the potential to be taken advantage of by lawyers. I helped one gentleman who was slowly dying to create a positive “loving will.” It said that he did want food and hydration and consultation with someone before he died. In the case of Terri Schiavo, why is the denial of nutrition and hydration wrong? It’s wrong in any circumstance, regardless of whether she said she didn’t want it or her husband says she didn’t want it. It’s inherently evil to deny food and water to anyone unless it’s going to make the person worse or death is within a few hours. It’s independent from what she or her husband has said. What of someone in a “persistent vegetative state” (PVS)? Even in the case of someone in a persistent vegetative state, the Pope has said that the person should get food and water. The definition of the persistent vegetative state is basically a person whose brain has been affected so that they make or perform no conscious or purposeful action. You can’t make them follow a command, in theory. They do not talk. My problem is that you don’t know what is happening inside a person, of if they will be changing. Some people in a vegetative state have progressed to higher levels. The Pope has said that you should receive food and hydration, even in that state. There is a real black and white there. Do you know whether it’s permissible to starve an animal in the state of Florida? That would be considered cruelty to animals. The Nazis tortured St. Maximilian Kolbe by trying to starve him. I think he lived for about 12 days. In the end, they gave him an injection of carbolic acid. Most people would say that you wouldn’t do that to an animal. Tim Drake -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Drake is a staff writer with the National Catholic Register, and author of the book “Young and Catholic: The Face of Tomorrow’s Church” (Sophia Institute Press, 2004). He writes from Saint Joseph, Minnesota.
He is right. I am a bleeding heart liberal, and FAR from a fundy. Huck and I usually disagree about a lot! I still think this is about a person being killed. Grant, I do respect your opinion, you know that, but as for her being "terminal" we ALL are........
Maggie, like I said in the other thread, I also respect yours. I can't remember a single instance we have fundamentally disagreed. I am very grateful for members of this site, like you and Huck, who I can disagree with, and not be flamed. I can truly understand both sides of this argument. I think it is a very personal decision, though. I don't know, and will never know what Terri Shaivo wanted to happen. If it were me, I would prefer to die. That is a chilling conclusion to come to, but thats honestly how I feel. To me, the main point this experience underscores is everyones responsibility to declare there own wishes, in writing. I can understand if you would not want hydration/nutrition discontinued. Conversly, I can understand anyone who does want them removed. At my age, I have NEVER even thought about a living will. I have now downloaded one, and spoken with my family about it. Everyone should have one . . . its not fair to leave such a gigantic decision up to your family, including your spouse or parents. . . and much less the media and courts!
I did read, in the report by the court appointed gaurdian, that three doctors declared she was in end stage disease. That was all of the detail about that included in the report. . .
Sould we be obligated medically to keep a person alive just because we can? How far should we go with this?
I think a general misunderstanding of the diagnosis, "persistent vegitative state" is fueling a lot of the controversy (or at least, some of the controversy). Here is the definition: The persistent vegetative state has been accepted as a formal diagnosis in modern American medical practice and it is recognized by American Academy of Neurology as: The vegetative state is a clinical condition of complete unawareness of the self and the environment, accompanied by sleep-wake cycles, with either complete or partial preservation of hypothalmic and brain stem autonomic functions. In addition, patients in a vegetative state show no evidence of sustained, reproducible, purposeful, or voluntary behavioral responses to visual, auditory, tactile, or noxious stimuli; show no evidence of language comprehension or expression; have bowel and bladder incontinence; and have variably preserved cranial-nerve and spinal reflexes. We define persistent vegetative state as a vegetative state present one month after acute traumatic or nontraumatic brain injury, or lasting in least one month in patients with degenerative or metabolic disorders or developmental malformations. The Multi-Society Task for on PVS, Medical Aspects of the Persistent Vegetative State, New England Journal of Medicine, 330:1499-1508, May 26, 1994. A particularly disarming aspect of persons diagnosed with persistent vegetative state is that they have waking and sleeping cycles. When awake, their eyes are often open, they make noises, they appear to track movement, they respond to deep pain, and appear startled by loud noises. Further, because the autonomic nervous system those brain related functions are not affected, they can often breathe (without a respirator) and swallow (saliva). But there is no purposeful, reproducible, interactive, awareness. There is some controversy within the scientific medical literature regarding the characterization and diagnosis of persons in a persistent vegetative state. Highly competent, scientifically based physicians using recognized measures and standards have deduced, within a high degree of medical certainty, that Theresa is in a persistent vegetative state. This evidence is compelling. Terri is a living, breathing human being. When awake, she sometimes groans, makes noises that emulate laughter or crying, and may appear to track movement. But the scientific medical literature and the reports this GAL obtained from highly respected neuro-science researchers indicate that these activities are common and characteristic of persons in a persistent vegetative state. In the month during which the GAL conducted research, interviews and compiled information, he sought to visit with Theresa as often as possible, sometimes daily, and sometimes, more than once each day. During that time, the GAL was not able to independently determine that there were consistent, repetitive, intentional, reproducible interactive and aware activities. When TheresaÕs mother and father were asked to join the GAL, there was no success in eliciting specific responses. Hours of observed video tape recordings of Theresa offer little objective insight about her awareness and interactive behaviors. There are instances where she appears to respond specifically to her mother. But these are not repetitive or consistent. There were instances during the GALÕs visits, when responses seemed possible, but they were not consistent in any way. _____ * GAL stands for Guardian Ad Litem
Exactly! Either way, this is a "slippery slope"! _____ If persons unable to speak for themselves have decisions made on their behalf by guardians or family members, the potential for abuse, barring clear protections, could lead to a Òslippery slopeÓ of actions to terminate the lives of disabled and incompetent persons. And it is not difficult to imagine bad decisions being made in order to make life easier for a family or to avoid spending funds remaining in the estate on the maintenance of a person. There is, of course, the other side of that slippery slope, which would be to keep people in a situation they would never dream of: unable to die, unable to communicate, dependent for everything, and unaware, being maintained principally or entirely through state resources Ð and for reasons that may relate to guilt, fear, needs or wants of family members, rather than what the personÕs best wishes might otherwise have been.
To illustrate, I am quoting myself from a previous post, in case anyone missed it. . . This is REALLY scary!
