A simple debate..Re Terri Schiavo

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Tigers2B1

Considering that Terri’s parents think differently in regards to Terri’s wishes, and considering that Terri’s parents are suffering over this, and considering that Terri’s parents will assume responsibility for their child — and considering Terri’s husband’s position that Terri is physically and mentally unaware –---- what’s the harm? Unless, of course, you take the position that Terri’s husband’s position, as you’ve expressed it above, is unfallible – sort of like the Pope’s -

OK, first let’s assume that Terri is completely unaware and could not tell if she were dead tomorrow, kept alive for 60 years using the support of hundreds of machines, or put on a spit and slowly roasted over a fire… Let’s also assume that Terri would not have wanted to live this way, but face the facts that it probably does not matter as we could slowly roast her over some hot coals and she wouldn’t know.

Next, let’s accept that Terri’s parents are suffering because they don’t want Terri to die. They believe that if they try diligently for the next 15 years, that some of Terri’s abilities will recover. Or whatever, I am not sure what they believe, suffice it to say they have convincing reasons for wanting her to remain on life support and the thought of it being removed is painful for them.

Finally, let’s also accept the fact that Michael believes that he is honoring his wife’s wishes. He believes that Terri told him clearly that she did not want to live in a state similar to the one she in and can he make sure that her wishes are carried out. For him, the thought of letting her stay on the life support machinery/feeding tube is a betrayal and is probably painful in its own way for him. He would probably fell guilty that he had failed his wife.

What’s the harm in keeping her on the support? What’s the harm in letting her go? Hmmmm… I actually see no way to value Michael’s pain over Terri’s parents or vice versa. The harm is equal in that one of the parties will be in pain/uncomfortable/grieving/guilty/what have you regardless of which way things go. With this, I don’t really care which way it goes.

Now for this question: Should the government force Michael, who does care and does not want to feel the pain/guilt/what have you and who wants to respect the wishes of wife, to give up his responsibility? Should the government ignore the wishes of this woman (who is now past caring) and legislate the removal of the rights and responsibilities of her spouse. Should the government (the legislature) take sides in this issue and choose the parents side over Michael’s side and thus chip away at the sanctity of marriage?

Granted, Michael could be wrong. He could be mis-remembering his wife’s wishes. All the doctors could be wrong and the parents correct; Terri may regain some function. If there is any possibility this is the case, we should get a fair hearing from an unbiased third party to determine what a good course of action would be. Maybe we should go to a court in Florida and ask their opinion… :smack: Wait, this has been done. Over and over and over again. Everyone who has examined the case has determined that Michael is probably not mis-remembering his wife’s wishes and that she has no chance to recover. Everyone has agreed that Michael is within his rights and is properly taking responsibility as a spouse.

So where would be the harm? The only harm would be forcing this decision on Michael. If he made this decision freely, then more power to him and no harm done. But if the government (legislatures of Florida or the US) coerces him into doing what he believes in wrong and immoral, a great deal of harm is done to marriage (and the rights it entails), to family, and to the way we choose to die. If the government sets the precedent that it can make these kinds of decisions over the protests of spouses, guardians, next of kin, family, friends and even the wishes of the effected person a great deal of harm will be done. Will my wife have any power to oversee my family the way we agree it needs to be taken care of? Will the government void my marriage? If you can’t see this harm, you are blind.

Now, what harm would there be in letting her pass away in accordance to her wishes and the wishes of her next of kin, husband and guardian? The pain/grief of the parents? Is there any other harm done?

[Mycroft_H]

@BwanaBob

Thank you for the reference to the name I couldn’t remember, and the clarification.

At least you are a decent human being who actually sought out the information I was referencing.

There are too many others on this board that feel every Great Debate exists for the sole purpose of being a showcase for their superb debating techniques.

You are most welcome, Good Sir. This is actually my first oposting in GD because I have crap debating techniques - but I do like combatting ignorance where possible. [Note that I indicate ignorance of a particular topic, not stupidity.]

As for others, if I may direct you to something someone over in the Pit linked to. This is a very comprehensive report completed in December 2003 by Jay Wolfson. He was appointed Guardian Ad Litem for Ms. Schiavo by Jeb Bush. He was directed to review all of the documents, interview many people, and he spent many days with her.

Wolfson was appointed to take an unbiased look at the whole situation and produce a report and recommendation. He was trusted by all parties until he was ready to make his recommendation. As it went against the parent’s deep-set wishes, they suddenly decided they didn’t like him any more. It makes good reading and clearly explains what procedures Michael and the parents took at the beginning to try to rehabilitate Terri. Michael’s decision to let her die was not a quick one.

The report really gets beyond a lot of the biased rhetoric that comes through many of the on-line reports. Warning – The report is a 40-page .pdf document that is 1.8 MB in size.

[Tigers2B1]

@Eyer8

…Now for this question: Should the government force Michael, who does care and does not want to feel the pain/guilt/what have you and who wants to respect the wishes of wife, to give up his responsibility? Should the government ignore the wishes of this woman (who is now past caring) and legislate the removal of the rights and responsibilities of her spouse. Should the government (the legislature) take sides in this issue and choose the parents side over Michael’s side and thus chip away at the sanctity of marriage?

Granted, Michael could be wrong. He could be mis-remembering his wife’s wishes. All the doctors could be wrong and the parents correct; Terri may regain some function. If there is any possibility this is the case, we should get a fair hearing from an unbiased third party to determine what a good course of action would be. Maybe we should go to a court in Florida and ask their opinion… :smack: Wait, this has been done. Over and over and over again. Everyone who has examined the case has determined that Michael is probably not mis-remembering his wife’s wishes and that she has no chance to recover. Everyone has agreed that Michael is within his rights and is properly taking responsibility as a spouse.

So where would be the harm? The only harm would be forcing this decision on Michael. If he made this decision freely, then more power to him and no harm done. But if the government (legislatures of Florida or the US) coerces him into doing what he believes in wrong and immoral, a great deal of harm is done to marriage (and the rights it entails), to family, and to the way we choose to die. If the government sets the precedent that it can make these kinds of decisions over the protests of spouses, guardians, next of kin, family, friends and even the wishes of the effected person a great deal of harm will be done. Will my wife have any power to oversee my family the way we agree it needs to be taken care of? Will the government void my marriage? If you can’t see this harm, you are blind.

Now, what harm would there be in letting her pass away in accordance to her wishes and the wishes of her next of kin, husband and guardian? The pain/grief of the parents? Is there any other harm done?

The question posed isn’t about the courts – and it’s not about “forcing” Michael Shiavo to do anything - nor are Terri’ “wishes” as clear as you make them out ---- it’s about Michael Shiavo and why Michael Shiavo refuses to allow Terri to be cared for by Terri’s parents. Especially if there is no harm done. Especially if, as Michael Shiavo insists, Terri knows nothing and feels nothing. We all know Michael Shiavo’s position. Michael Schiavo has stated his position. No one will blame Michael Schiavo. Some may think Michael is in possession of absolute knowledge on this matter – but he isn’t. Michael’s perspective isn’t the only perspective out there. So what’s the harm in allowing Terri to be cared for by Terri’s parents – parent’s who are fighting only like parents will for their child?

Look, there is no written evidence of Terri’s intent on this matter, in fact, we’ll probably never know Terri true intent. No one and no institutional body is infallible. Michael Schiavo can come out of this looking like the guy who is interested in Terri’s interests without putting Terri’s parents in the sad – sad position they are. Without forcing Terri’s parents to stand by while Terri dies. He choses not to do this ---- a situation that has lead to a great amount of suffering that no one can deny.

[Tigers2B1]

@Tigers2B1

The question posed isn’t about the courts – and it’s not about “forcing” Michael Shiavo to do anything - nor are Terri’ “wishes” as clear as you make them out ---- it’s about Michael Shiavo and why Michael Shiavo refuses to allow Terri to be cared for by Terri’s parents. Especially if there is no harm done. Especially if, as Michael Shiavo insists, Terri knows nothing and feels nothing. We all know Michael Shiavo’s position. Michael Schiavo has stated his position. No one will blame Michael Schiavo. Some may think Michael is in possession of absolute knowledge on this matter – but he isn’t. Michael’s perspective isn’t the only perspective out there. So what’s the harm in allowing Terri to be cared for by Terri’s parents – parent’s who are fighting only like parents will for their child?

Look, there is no written evidence of Terri’s intent on this matter, in fact, we’ll probably never know Terri true intent. No one and no institutional body is infallible. Michael Schiavo can come out of this looking like the guy who is interested in Terri’s interests without putting Terri’s parents in the sad – sad position they are. Without forcing Terri’s parents to stand by while Terri dies. He choses not to do this ---- a situation that has lead to a great amount of suffering that no one can deny.

Oh — and who knows, if Michael Schiavo takes this position – maybe he and Terri’s parents will mend the hatred that must exist between them now. Something that Terri probably would have actually wanted.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Tigers2B1

The question posed isn’t about the courts – and it’s not about “forcing” Michael Shiavo to do anything - nor are Terri’ “wishes” as clear as you make them out ---- it’s about Michael Shiavo and why Michael Shiavo refuses to allow Terri to be cared for by Terri’s parents. Especially if there is no harm done. Especially if, as Michael Shiavo insists, Terri knows nothing and feels nothing. We all know Michael Shiavo’s position. Michael Schiavo has stated his position. No one will blame Michael Schiavo. Some may think Michael is in possession of absolute knowledge on this matter – but he isn’t. Michael’s perspective isn’t the only perspective out there. So what’s the harm in allowing Terri to be cared for by Terri’s parents – parent’s who are fighting only like parents will for their child?

Look, there is no written evidence of Terri’s intent on this matter, in fact, we’ll probably never know Terri true intent. No one and no institutional body is infallible. Michael Schiavo can come out of this looking like the guy who is interested in Terri’s interests without putting Terri’s parents in the sad – sad position they are. Without forcing Terri’s parents to stand by while Terri dies. He choses not to do this ---- a situation that has lead to a great amount of suffering that no one can deny.

No harm. There is no harm in letting Terri be cared for by Terri’s parents except the guilt that Michael may feel for betraying his wife. Who knows though, he may not even feel that as I am sure he grieved for her death years ago (just as I believe her parents have not grieved yet and are living in denial.) No harm.

But he must make the decision. He cannot be coerced without a lot of more harm being done. If he makes the decision, fine. If he doesn’t and allows her to pass away, fine. It is HIS decision.

[Zakalwe]

@Tigers2B1

So what’s the harm in allowing Terri to be cared for by Terri’s parents – parent’s who are fighting only like parents will for their child?

Terri’s parents are also on record as saying that if Michael divorces Terri and they become her guardians that they will seek alimony payments from him. So Michael will be forced to “care” for Terri to some extent for as long as they wish.

[Tigers2B1]

@Zakalwe

Terri’s parents are also on record as saying that if Michael divorces Terri and they become her guardians that they will seek alimony payments from him. So Michael will be forced to “care” for Terri to some extent for as long as they wish.

Really? I always wondered why Michael Schiavo just didn’t get a divorce. The plot thickens.

Anyway – I’m sure there is enough interest in this story now that Terri’s parents would have very little trouble starting a fund and raising enough money to care for Terri without Michael Shiavo being done any financial harm -

[jayjay]

@Tigers2B1

Really? I always wondered why Michael Schiavo just didn’t get a divorce. The plot thickens.

Anyway – I’m sure there is enough interest in this story now that Terri’s parents would have very little trouble starting a fund and raising enough money to care for Terri without Michael Shiavo being done any financial harm -

Oh, right. At this point I’m sure they’ll just let him be if he hands her care over. No matter what happens, these people are majorly delusional and I expect they’ll try to take retributive measures after it’s over, one way or another. Wrongful death suits, harassment, pestering the DA to charge him with murder, and the constant slanderings that they’re already doing.

Appeasement never works with crazy people.

[cj_finn]

@Tigers2B1

Really? I always wondered why Michael Schiavo just didn’t get a divorce. The plot thickens.

Anyway – I’m sure there is enough interest in this story now that Terri’s parents would have very little trouble starting a fund and raising enough money to care for Terri without Michael Shiavo being done any financial harm -

And you would likely be very wrong. Terri’s care requirements would likely outlast any charitable feelings that any potential donors might have. She’s already lasted 15 years. She could possibly go another 15. Given the attention span of the American public, and the vast number of competing charitable causes, its very likley that both Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers would be bankrupted by the costs if they had to pay them themselves.

[bubba_jr]

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

I’m usually not up for Great Debates, but this whole mess has me interested, a lot of the misinformation floating around is really quite amazing. This site was really good, it gave a timeline along with links to piles of court documents.

  With all the talk of why doesn't he just give her over to her parents, I don't think it would do a lot of good.   The original trial/hearing determined what Terri would have wanted and anything since then has just been motions and appeals.  According to the law, it has been determined that Terri would not have wanted to live like this, regardless of what other people think or think she wanted, to the court that was proven.   

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/March%2016,%202005/2D05-968.pdf

From the Florida second district court of appeal, march 16, 2005

The trial court’s decision does not give Mrs. Schiavo’s legal guardian the option of leaving the life-prolonging procedures in place. No matter who her guardian is, the guardian is required to obey the court order because the court, and not the guardian, has determined the decision that Mrs. Schiavo herself would make.

[rocking_chair]

i believe the '96 ct scan is what decided michael schiavo. once you see that you realize how bad the damage is.

her parents do not want to bury their daughter. they do not want that final touch… that final door (lid) shut.

there was a very interesting interview with mrs. quinlan, karen quinlan’s mother this week. in answer to one question mrs. quinlan said she grieved for 10 years, the time the ventilator was removed and karen was in a nursing home. she went every day. she said when karen died she was hit very, very, hard. 10 years she cared for her, held her, kissed her, brushed her hair, and grieved for the karen that wasn’t there.

when karen died, she held her for the last time, she kissed her for the last time, she brushed her hair for the last time. she was hit very hard with the finality of it.

this is what terri’s parents are dealing with. this is why in the pecking order for these kind of decisions; it is spouse first, adult children second, parents or next close relative, friend, last. that order is there to protect parents from having to make an impossible decision about their child.

[Frank]

@rocking chair

there was a very interesting interview with mrs. quinlan, karen quinlan’s mother this week. in answer to one question mrs. quinlan said she grieved for 10 years, the time the ventilator was removed and karen was in a nursing home. she went every day. she said when karen died she was hit very, very, hard. 10 years she cared for her, held her, kissed her, brushed her hair, and grieved for the karen that wasn’t there.

when karen died, she held her for the last time, she kissed her for the last time, she brushed her hair for the last time. she was hit very hard with the finality of it.

It is interesting to note that in the Quinlan case, it was the parents who instituted the lawsuit to remove her from life support.

[CurtC]

@Tigers2B1

Considering that Terri’s parents think differently in regards to Terri’s wishes, and considering that Terri’s parents are suffering over this, and considering that Terri’s parents will assume responsibility for their child — and considering Terri’s husband’s position that Terri is physically and mentally unaware –---- what’s the harm?

If I put myself in his position, if my wife were to be like Terri, then no amount of pressuring could make me shirk my duty to her, to make sure that her last wishes were carried out. I would go to the ends of the Earth to see to it that her life support would be removed. My wife also has told me what she wants done with her ashes, and no amount of pleading from her parents to keep them in an urn on the mantle would make me consider going against my wife’s wishes. What’s so hard to understand about this? Would you expect me to simply say “fine, you take them, there’s no harm”?

[Synthesis]

I think some people (and not neccesarily in this thread) are arguing over what the parents want, the husband wants, Bush (both) wants, ect when the real issue is this: What did Terri want?

The court feels like Terri did NOT want to be kept alive in this case. Her husband has been the main source of information reflecting what she believed. This leads to two scenarios:

1. Terri’s husband knew and understood what she would have wanted and is trying to fulfill this wish.

2. Terri’s husband is a schmuck that wants to kill her off. She married the guy, so she must have felt like he was someone she could trust and believe in at some point. And there isn’t a while lot of evidence that he is gaining anything from this mess aside from bad press and some money to pay off her medical bills.

The bottomline is that nobody was in their marriage and shouldn’t we error on the side of someones partner and soulmate?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Eyer8

I don’t think there are any “starve her to death advocates” in this case. What, you think everyone here that thinks she should be allowed to die is chanting

KILL, KILL, KILL

while they are composing replies to this thread?

I don’t think that. I just want honesty. We, as a society, are killing this woman, in my opinion inhumanely. If this starts a greater dialogue about assisted suicide or euthanasia in this country, I’m all for it. But don’t soothe your conscience about it by saying that she can’t feel pain or is unaware of what is happening. Just step up to the plate and tell it like it is.

So now we have the legislative branch of the federal government rallying behind some (IMHO misguided) right to life christians trying to override a spouses befief on what is best and negate the likely wishes of an individual who can no longer express herself. It is none of their business.

Agreed. Congress has no business in this.

I know you and Robin have been through some tough times that were similar to this.

Actually, what you’re referring to happened before we met, and is not very similar to what we’re talking about here in any case. We’ve discussed this, and she understands where I’m coming from. Now, were this to happen to me I would hope for my family’s sake that my son is fully grown and adult, because with the current laws the way they are I would be going to jail for a long time. There is NO way that I will let any of my family suffer. If, somehow, the time comes, I will be merciful. They will not starve to death, not while I am around.

My grandmother passed away a couple of years ago with in home hospice care. She, like Terri, “starved to death”. She did not want any morphine. She did not want any food or water. She just wanted to pass away and she did. With all her family around her. With dignity. I can’t even imagine what I would have done if the government had tried to get involved and keep her alive.

That was her choice. Terri allegedly made the choice to die according to her husband, who I have no reason to doubt. It’s the manner of her death that I find heinous and objectionable.

And finally the fact that many Americans of the “conservative” (my ass) bent are behind these precedents is the most disturbing thing of all. Where did all the true conservatives go (that want the government out of our lives)?

I don’t want the government in our lives. I want humane treatment of humans in the same way that other people want humane treatment of animals. Starving them to death does not pass my smell test.

[Guinastasia]

Thing is, Airman, Terri isn’t the only one being taken off of a feeding tube. These things happen every day, to thousands of people. Some are conscious, some are not.

And yes, I agree with you that we treat dying animals better than dying humans in some cases.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Airman

Starving them to death does not pass my smell test.

Fair enough…

[rocking_chair]

it is interesting how the quinlan and schaivo cases touch each other.

quinlan gave us the right to decide on life support.

the quinlans decided to remove breathing support but not nutritional support.

terri’s parents and some family members are baseing their claim “terri would want to live” on discussions during news reports on the quinlan case. at that time terri would be 12 ish.

terri’s husband, some family, and friends are baseing their claim “terri would want all support stopped” on discussions after viewing various movies, tv shows, and the funeral of a grandparent. at that time terri would be mid to late 20ish.

as time goes on, how hard you would fight changes. your understanding of what your condition would be and how and what you could live with changes.

resusitation and support instructions would be different for a child under 10, 10-20, 20-40, 50-70, 70-90. age, health, prognosis… very variable.

[edwino]

Airman Doors

I respect your perceptions and I would never disparage you from using them in making decisions on your domain. But, the legal system and the medical system cannot work on perceptions. We must work on evidence. All objective evidence states that withdrawal of feeding tubes and cessation of IV fluid is not a painful way to go. I’m not saying that doctors and judges are right; I’m saying we make decisions applicable to the whole based on the best evidence we have. Terminal patients don’t report pain; none of the measures of pain changes in these situations.

Bad laws and bad clinical practice are made on subjective perception and not objective evidence. I respect that you find this distasteful. It is not the legal or the medical system’s job to make decisions based on yours or anybody’s opinion. The objective evidence disagrees with you and we must act on only that.

[David_Simmons]

@Airman Doors

I don’t think that. I just want honesty. We, as a society, are killing this woman, in my opinion inhumanely. If this starts a greater dialogue about assisted suicide or euthanasia in this country, I’m all for it. But don’t soothe your conscience about it by saying that she can’t feel pain or is unaware of what is happening. Just step up to the plate and tell it like it is.

I agree that there ought to be some way to avoid witholding food and water as the only means to end the residue of life that Terri Schiavo has, but under our current federal administration there isn’t.

The people of Oregon did just that in their Death With DIgnity initiative. However, the Federal Department of Justice states that it will prosecute under federal drug laws any physician in Oregon who acts on that law. I think that makes if highly unlikely that the Oregon law will be used, and in any case even that wouldn’t help in the Schiavo case.

It seems that we are faced with the following situation. Schiavo has no detectable electrical activity in the higher parts of what is left of her brain. Based on our current understanding she has no consciousness. However we don’t know everything there is to know about consciousness. Therefore there might be something that we can’t detects that gives her some consciousness.

That leaves two cases. She has no consciousness in which case witholding food and water doesn’t cause any discomfort. Or she does have some consciousness in which case keeping her in her present state with food and water for possibly another 20-30 years can’t be very pleasant for her.

And as to active euthanasia, if she is conscious, as you claim and as is possible, we can’t know that is without pain or discomfort either.

There are truely no good choices.