One has to rely on sound medical judgement, so that people who are merely disabled are not denied proper treatment.
The slippery slope argument does not wash in this case, when it was clear that the body in question had no brain.
The only thing Terri Schiavo was doing was metabolizing her liquid food. Her brain was essentially gone; there was little left in the skull other than cerebrospinal fluid.
And we also need to keep improving our methods of determining whether or not someone is conscious and to what degree, and make sure people are not assumed to be vegetables when they are not. If someone can’t speak or move, for example, many people would assume they have no functioning brain, but that isn’t necessarily the case - and sometimes those people wouldn’t even be tested to determine their status. This wouldn’t apply to Terri Schiavo, but you might have seen this story last month.
Nope, unless you count feeling even stronger that it was her husband’s right, and that he made the right decision as “changing my mind.” I even told my parents if they EVER did to me what the Schindlers’ did to Terri, when I did die I’d come back and haunt them until they day THEY died.
I have not changed my mind. The wishes of the parents were understandable, as was their desperate need to believe that Terri was still “in there,” to somebody return to them. I feel for them.
But they had no right to supersede the wishes of Terri herself (known by her husband and friends) and of her husband who was attempting to carry out those wishes.
Quite agree- and thanks for the link - I had not seen that.
First we need to clarify right from the start thatSchiavo had nothing to do with the rights of the disabled. Terri Schiavo wasn’t disabled, she was brain dead.
This is flatly false. There is no movement or “crew” who advocates for decidng when a person is “better off dead.” What they advocate is that individuals have the right to decide for themselves, not have the government or sanctimonious 'pro-lifers" decide it for them.
None of this has the slightest relevance to the Schiavo case since the husband took sole responsibility for her care (even angering the parents by using her isnurance money to pay for her care rather than giving them a cut), and Terri wasn’t just brain-injured, she was brain dead. Qlaity of life did not play into this case since Terri Schiavo had no ability to experience anything. She had no consciousness. She had no brain.
This is utterly and wildly false. She got exquisite care, via Michael Schiavo until the day she died.
There is no such legal standard. “Quality of life” had nothing whatsoever to do with this case or any other case of the same nature. You appear to be rather grossly misinformed. The legal issue was what Terri’s own wishes were. There is absolutely no legal standard that complels people to be taken off life support based on their quality of life. Where are you getting this stuff?
My position remain. She was under no extraordinary care (feeding tubes are not extraodinary) and had people who would bear the financial burden.
It was clear that the husband had moved on with his life, I’m not saying he didn’t care, Terry was no longer his #1 priority.
It took her days to die, not minutes or a few hours. She died of hunger and thirst. Like all of us would in the same position.
I too, did not care for the political spectacle on both sides.
Maybe. But Karen Ann Quinlan (for those old enough to remember) was also a body with no brain, who lived nearly a decade after she was removed from a ventilator. Nancy Cruzan on the other hand was also a body with no brain, who was also starved to death.
It’s not really a slippery slope argument, as I have no argument to speak of. I am troubled by these and other cases.
My mind has not changed. Michael did the right thing. Her parents were wrong for interfering. The political mess was disgusting.
I have not changed my mind either. Having spent a nerve wracking week beside my husband’s hospital bed only a few months ago, I understand more now than I did then.
Immediately after giving us the news of my husbands diagnosis, the doctor asked if we had any legal paperwork and/or a living will in place. When I admitted that we had neither, his response was scary… “Get it done, and get it done now. We don’t know what will happen tomorrow.”
Luckily, we have an attorney in the family and it did not take long to have two durable POA documents drawn up and notarized.
The political spectacle was only on one side, she did not feel any hunger or thirst and it was her own wish not to be kept artficially alive.
It took her days to die because the law does not allow anyone to make it quicker by killing her outright. People do have a right to refuse medical traeatment, though, and pro-life meddlers don’t have a right to force them to accept medical treatment they don’t want. That’s all this ever amounted to – do-gooders trying force somebody to accept medical care against her will.
She had a brain. She was in a PVS, but she had a brain. Terri Schiavo literally had no brain. She had a brainstem and a skull full of fluid. Quinlan also never recovered from her PVS. She kept breathing when she was taken off a ventilator. So what? She was still a vegetable. That never changed.
She exercised her right to refuse medical care. That’s the big thing that seems to be sailing past you. This is about the rights of individuals to refuse care, not about external parties trying to kill them. Do you think people have a right to say no to medical care, yes or no?
She was doing something, as after her feeding tube was removed she lived for some time. Whatever was in her skull. Sometimes I wonder whether it would not be better, if we are going to kill someone based upon their physical condition, to just go ahead and do it.
I agree it would be best, once the choice is made, to give the person an overdose of barbiturates (or whatever they do) to speed them along. When everyone knows the end result will be death, period, then it is simply shocking that they think the best way to achieve this is to starve the person.
As for her “doing something” her body had autonomic functions. That is it. She could breathe and poop. That’s about it.
Yes, she was dying. That was all she was doing. I’m not sure I understand your point.
Nobody is killing anybody here. What are you talking about? As has been said numerous times this is a case about somebody having the right to refuse medical treatment. It’s about someone letting themselves die naturally not, as you keep saying, be killed. That’s a big distinction.
Yes, her metabolic and respiratory processes continued for a few days. The questions is what that means about her existence as a person. There’s no answer to that that satisfies everybody or somebody would have figured it out by now.
My views on this case haven’t changed, but I did want to say that my views on life support have. At the time I said I was going to work out a living will with my family. I haven’t done that, but my family and my long-term girlfriend know how I feel about it. Five years ago I’d never even visited a hospital except for when my brother was born; since then I’ve had to spend way too much time watching the aftermath of surgeries and medical treatment, and I found the respirator especially horrifying. I wouldn’t want to be on one and at this point I’d hesitate before consenting to long-term medical treatment or debilitating surgeries.
I believe now exactly what I believed then, that Terry Schiavo was brain dead, that taking her off the feeding tube was exactly what’s done in thousands of similar cases every year, and that the Republican case against doing so was a farce. Try going to any Republican websites and seeing if they’re taking note of this anniversary. The Republicans are no more likely to shine light on the Terry Schiavo case than on vote counts in West Palm Beach, the Iraq War, Tom Delay’s fundraising practices, Michael Brown’s performance as head of FEMA, Medicare Part D, Dick Cheney’s hunting record, or anything else that they accomplished while in power.
That’s fair, I am not sure I do either. But it seem to me that refusing to feed someone until they die is not the same thing as allowing them to die naturally, or ending life support. Possibly it is the same thing, really – certainly food is one of the things one needs to live-- but there seems to me to be a distinction there.