posted on October 18, 2003 05:43:38 PM new
I personally think it is mercy. She has been like this since 1990 and after 13 years it is time to let go...
It does look bad for the husband because he is seeing somone else and has fathered at least one child with her, but he should not be expected to hang on forever.
I do feel sorry for the parents, but it will help them grieve and heal.
posted on October 18, 2003 06:04:31 PM new
She was taken off yesterday or Thursday... the parents have asked Gov. Bush to intercede but the court has made its decision and won't change its mind.
Parents are understandably upset, but the husband has a right to be happy too
posted on October 18, 2003 06:25:24 PM new
After 13 years in a vegetative state, it time to let her go. There is no medical hope she will ever recover.
Her husband as her legal guardian is doing the correct thing. I can understand her parents not wanting to let her go, but all they are doing is prolonging everyones misery.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on October 18, 2003 06:27:52 PM new
Karen Quinlen was taken off life support and lived for 10 or so more years.
Life support should only be necessary for maybe 6 months max. It's weird how the medical community/government will go to unlimited expense to keep a virtual vegetable alive, yet older folks have difficult times getting health care.
posted on October 18, 2003 06:55:23 PM new
The neurologist testifying at the trial stated that the CT scan indicated that much of her brain tissue has died and has been replaced by spinal fluid. He was careful to state that his diagnosis was not solely made on that basis:
"Now you don't make that diagnosis on the scan alone. You make it in conjunction with the history and the physical findings and you have to put all three together. The scan supports the clinical findings of a patient who has only reflex behavior and no awareness, therefore, no consciousness."
posted on October 18, 2003 08:17:46 PM new
It is the correct decision. There should be no further medical intervention. Replay is correct this is the reason to have a living will and to also consider having a DNR on file with your medical records.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on October 18, 2003 08:22:51 PM new
Wow. Has anyone seen the videos of her.
Its really bothersome. To me, I don't know, its tough after viewing and listening to these.. she obviously recognizes and tries to speak
posted on October 18, 2003 08:27:37 PM new
What you perceive as an attempt to speak is a pronounced tremor. She is in a vegatative state. Basically the lights are on but nobodies home.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on October 18, 2003 08:34:51 PM new
When I watched one of those, she reminded me an awful lot of my younger sister, she was on life support for about a year? she then went through intensive therapy. She tries to talk, but sounds like this Terri does in the video. Though she can understand you, and communicate through a computer gadget she wears around her neck, she can't walk alone. But it was the intense physical therapy that got her this far. No, they are not alike, but very similiar.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on October 19, 2003 06:06:39 AM new
I 100% agree with replaymedia's statement:
This is a good reason to get a living will. BEFORE you need it. ----------
I disagree with most who have posted here. I do not think a husband should be able to make that decision for his wife, WHEN HER PARENTS disagree. One has to go back to the beginning of this tragedy. From the beginning, the husband objected to the recommend therapy for her. At that time, money and his [accused] lack of committment to his marriage were big issues. Now there is no more money left but the parents have agrued, and have the support of doctors, who say IF given some therapy her life stands a chance of improving.
I would have hoped she'd would have been given that chance.
If the husband wanted out of this so he could proceed with his own life, a divorce would have accomplished that years ago.
Again....the arguments between the husband and her parents are both understandable....but who to believe? A living will would have cleared it all up.
posted on October 19, 2003 07:25:21 AM new
William Federer, a Catholic, presents an interesting slippery slope argument here, that sanctity of life should prevail in cases such as this. He compares it to the Nazi adoption of "quality of life" concept and how that belief led to nazi atrocities.
From The Court-Ordered Death of Terri Schiavo
"The transformation followed thus: the concept that the elderly and terminally ill should have the right to die was promoted in books, newspapers, literature and even entertainment films, the most popular of which were entitled Ich klage an (I accuse) and Mentally Ill. One euthanasia movie, based on a novel by a National Socialist doctor, actually won a prize at the world-famous Venice Film Festival! Extreme hardship cases were cited which increasingly convinced the public to morally approve of euthanasia. The medical profession gradually grew accustomed to administering death to patients who, for whatever reasons, felt their low "quality of life" rendered their lives not worth living, or as it was put, liebensunwerten Lebens, (life unworthy of life)
Terri's husband won a 1.3 million dollar malpractice suit and 750,000 was put in trust. If Terri dies, Michael will inherit what is left of the $750,000 (if any remains). Throughout the years, lawyers have probably received a good portion of that money.
I can understand everyone's position and thoughts on this case. What a sad delimma.
Even a living will can fail at times but I agree that in the long run, it's the best option.
posted on October 19, 2003 11:49:39 AM new
I agree with having your own Living Will, but to be real, most young people wouldn't think of doing it. This girl was only 26 when this happened, just starting life, thats about the last thing people would think of at that age. It is sad
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on October 20, 2003 08:31:06 PM new
most people don't even think of getting a living will at the age of 40 threw 60.After the age of 60, then it is on more minds.
I am in my 40's and with the death of my mother and my son, I have givin it alot of thought, but I have not done so in print.
My mother had one she was 57, but I think she had one only as she made my grandmothers have one.
It is very sad for all sides of this situation. For Terri, the husband and for the parents.
posted on October 20, 2003 09:54:53 PM new
NearTheSea & wrightsracing - What you say is true....about not thinking about it until you're older. Wish more family doctors would encourage people to do so when they come in for any reason.
And wrightsracing, I wanted to send hugs your way. [hope you don't mind] I hope you're doing a little better now....you've been through so much. I think often of the statements you made to me....and I know you understand. Thank you. Linda
The parents are devout Catholic, when their Priest when into give her the last rights, the husband made 2 police officers go with him to make sure he would not give her the communion wafer!
I think the guy should have divorced her long ago.
just my opinion
but I still believe in the Living Will
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on October 20, 2003 10:37:05 PM new
This is a tragedy to everyone no matter which way it goes. What would I do? You can;t know until you face it and it took the husband 13 years.
The living will would have been the best way to go, but how many of us have done that?
posted on October 20, 2003 10:38:25 PM new
The wafer...that's curious. Wonder what his reasoning behind that decision was. Did they say?
As far as this part of the article you posted:
In his statement, Schiavo detailed his efforts to rehabilitate his wife, including three tests that concluded she could not learn to swallow on her own.
I had read, years ago, just the opposite. He wouldn't allow any of the rehabilitative treatments the doctors were recommending...and that's what started the battle between her parents and him.
Also on ..."the three tests that concluded she could not learn to swallow." There are thousands of people who can't eat or drink. One doesn't have to enjoy the ability to eat via their mouth in order to be glad to be alive.
Just so sad. Would have been so much easier if the family could have reached an agreement. I have three people I know who's family had to make a decision like this and they chose to let their loved one go. But they were all in agreement.
posted on October 20, 2003 11:47:23 PM new
Thanks NTS - This is very close to what I'd read years ago.
from your article: Schindlers had been fighting their son-in-law for 10 years over the lack of care and therapy Schiavo as her guardian provided for their daughter
Something stinks here. So he claims he's doing this because it's what she would have wanted huh? [Not live in this condition] But now it sounds to me like he's saying, that as a Catholic, she wouldn't have want to receive late rites? I don't believe that for a minute. And since she was already off the 'nourishment' and being allowed to die...starving to death...then what would it hurt for this tiny piece of bread to be placed on her tongue
to properly follow her religious beliefs.
posted on October 21, 2003 02:22:08 AM new
It all comes down to money and the inability to divorce... now more money will be spent on lawyers and doctors to reinsert the tube... and to fight the reinsertion...
No one is going to win here... sad
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on October 21, 2003 01:29:42 PM new
Oct. 21, 2003, 3:19PM
Bill passed in move to save comatose woman Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Lawmakers sent Gov. Jeb Bush a bill today that will give him the power to order a feeding tube reinserted into a brain-damaged woman at the center of one of the nation's longest and most bitter right-to-die battles.
Bush said he will immediately sign the bill and order the tube to be reinserted into Terri Schiavo.
The woman's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, want her to live. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, says she would rather die.
Doctors have said the 39-year-old woman will die within a week to 10 days without food and water.
Lawmakers were already called to the Capitol for a special session on economic development when they decided to intervene in the case.
Bush said he did not think lawmakers were motivated by politics.
"This is a response to a tragic situation." Bush said. "People are responding to cries for help and I think it's legitimate."
Sen. Tom Lee said Schiavo would "essentially starve ... to death" without intervention from lawmakers and the governor.
"It's a pretty awful way to go," Lee said.
Opponents said government was stepping in where it had no business being.
"I do not believe the governor of Florida should be making a decision of life and death rather than the next of kin," said Sen. Steven Geller.
The House approved the bill 73-24 after the Senate passed it 23-15.
posted on October 21, 2003 01:43:03 PM new
bear - It may be hard hearted to say it, but isn't Michael Schiavo entitled to go on with his life?
I don't find that hard hearted, but would ask you why he couldn't have just divorced her years ago? People do that all the time, say when their spouses are sent to prison for long periods of time.
For me, I think we have to watch 'intent'. He was against her being given the recommend therapy from the beginning. WHY? Wouldn't you do almost anything the doctors recommended to see if your wife could be brought back to more normal function? I'd bet you would.
On the bill paying. Years ago it was said the funds were coming out of the settlement. But I'm sure they've most likely been all used up by now.
posted on October 21, 2003 01:51:01 PM new
No, they are not all used up yet, but there is only about $750,000 in trust, that when he got it, over malpractice, at the beginning of this, apparantly a dr screwed up, the money is in a trust. The money is for her medical treatment. I have been reading this at the .org site (which I don't have right at the moment)
Yes, he could have divorced her, long ago. But then the trust money would go into the hands of her parents for her treatment.
and I am pretty sure, that her parents would use it for just that.
Why didn't he divorce her? Thats the question, that amount of $ is not enough to wait this long for, or go to lengths of court battles to 'pull the plug'.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on October 21, 2003 02:03:07 PM new
NTS - which I don't have right at the moment. well...beat you with a wet noodle.
I don't know after this long a time, even with now allowing treatment, how much she'd be able to function. Maybe it's too late.
I used to read all these articles to my husband, whenever I'd come across them, about all these men that we're being arrested for the murder of their wives. Asked him, 'if they want out so badly, why don't they just divorce them and get on with a new life?' His answer was always ..'they don't want to split the money'.
So now I'm always suspicious of the husbands motives.
Then the 'Situation' section, which explains the money. I know when money is put in a trust, that it gains interest, and he is probably paying the hospice with the interest, but I do not know that for a fact, could be paying it on his own? But it does say that he is 'maintaining' her.
posted on October 21, 2003 02:31:56 PM newROFLMHO @ I never asked Mike that question...and believe me, I am going to
Maybe every hospice is different, but I've always understood that they're free. Usually only intended for the 6 months prior to the patient dying. Ours here is funded by donations from the community and our local hospital fundraising activities. The one at the HMO I worked for was funded under the patients medical insurance plan with them. Again though, just for the last 6 months of life.
With the one we had here, they'd bill the medical insurance until it ran out and then the family was no longer obligated to pay anymore. But...with this settlement her hospice might be receiving funds from that. Or they may have insurance. I'll have to go read the link since you were so 'gracious' to find it for us. [thank you]
posted on October 21, 2003 02:35:11 PM new
The husband probably knew her prognosis years ago when the battle began to remove the artificial equipment. I don't think that he is being motivated by her money. If there is any money left, it will be better spent in caring for his new family.
