# The Schiavo Case **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 12, 2005, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917 "2005-04-12T03:32:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/81 "2005-04-14T18:39:49Z")
> [@wonderwench](#): > > Then are we justified in withholding nutrition from disabled people who require a feeding tube? We are not justified in forcing people to accept feeding tubes against their will. > [@](#): > > The FL law has been sorely lacking in common sense and decency - nor should it be our moral yardstick. We are a nation of laws, not personal “moral yardsticks.” And what Florida law do you think should be changed? Do you think the government should be allowed to stab tubes into people against their will? Do you think people have the right to refuse medical treatment? ---
**Author:** ![wonderwench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@wonderwench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderwench)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/82 "2005-04-14T18:42:54Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > **lekatt** , as I understand it, the witnesses were available all along; it just took 7 years for Michael Schiavo to give up hope that his wife would recover. If I wind up in a PVS like Terry Schiavo 20 years from now, I still hope my words on this message board as well as what I’ve told my friends will stand in evidence that I most emphatically do _not_ want to continue to exist in such a state so that people like you and **wonderwench** don’t try to impose your will on me. > > You spoke of tyranny two posts ago. Surely there is no worse tyranny than to insist one’s body remains tied to a world one’s soul has long departed? You speak of the importance of spirit and soul. What is the sense of sustaining an empty shell? You impose a truly horrendous tyranny on me if you tried to do to me what Ms. Schiavo’s parents tried to do to her. > > Frankly, posts like yours and **wonderwench** ’s frighten me because you would override my will because it doesn’t suit what you want, prolonging the suffering of those who love me and, given the way healthcare works in America, possibly bankrupting them. > > How many people must I tell before you and people like you will leave my body the hell alone?! > > CJ You are completely misinterpreting the values I am applying to this issue. I do not want the state to decide if someone should live or die. Without an understanding of the patient’s will - beyond a reasonable doubt - we should err on the side of life. This is very consistent with the Right To Be Left Alone, which , to me, pretty much sums up the intent behind the Bill of Rights. Your comment about sustaining an empty shell and putting the disabled person out of his or her misery is horrifying without evidence of the individual’s wishes. ---
**Author:** ![wonderwench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@wonderwench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderwench)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/83 "2005-04-14T18:44:18Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > We are not justified in forcing people to accept feeding tubes against their will. > > We are a nation of laws, not personal “moral yardsticks.” > > And what Florida law do you think should be changed? Do you think the government should be allowed to stab tubes into people against their will? Do you think people have the right to refuse medical treatment? Absolutely not. My issue with the manner in which Terri was treated is that we did not have evidence of her wishes beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, people have the right to refuse medical treatment. No, the state should not make that decision for them in the absence of definitive proof of their wishes. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/84 "2005-04-14T18:45:18Z")
> [@](#): > > I do not want the state to decide if someone should live or die. Without an understanding of the patient’s will - beyond a reasonable doubt - we should err on the side of life. This is very consistent with the Right To Be Left Alone, which , to me, pretty much sums up the intent behind the Bill of Rights. I’m confused to how you missed the part where that’s exactly what happened, ---
**Author:** ![wonderwench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@wonderwench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderwench)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/85 "2005-04-14T18:45:43Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > Those people would be taking the same view if she had left a living will in a large number of cases. I am not one of “those people”. Thank you very much. ---
**Author:** ![wonderwench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@wonderwench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderwench)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/86 "2005-04-14T18:48:09Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > I’m confused to how you missed the part where that’s exactly what happened, Your confusion lies in the fact that you have decided to believe that Michael knew Terri’s wishes better than her blood relatives. You can decide who is more credible to you. I get to decide that for me. A recollection 7 years after the fact and soon after a major malpractice award without corroboration by her family is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt for me. If it is for you, then groovy. Reasonable people can agree to disagree. I strongly suggest you read the Harvard Crimson piece to which I linked earlier in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/87 "2005-04-14T18:48:11Z")
> [@wonderwench](#): > > Then are we justified in withholding nutrition from disabled people who require a feeding tube? If that person does not WANT nutrition from a feeding tube, then yes, we are. Terri was not just “severely disabled.” She was in a persistant vegetative state, and most of her brain was GONE. No, she wasn’t terminally ill, but in her state, she was extremely vulnerable to dying by bacterial infections, gangrene, etc. Her parents stated they would have had her LIMBS CUT OFF if she had diabetes, and insisted on open heart surgery if she had a heart attack (which would surely kill her!) They even said-“Even if she didn’t want this, WE DO.” In other words, they didn’t care about what SHE, herself, may have wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/88 "2005-04-14T18:49:06Z")
> [@wonderwench](#): > > Facts: > > Terri was not terminally ill. Not really true. PVS is almost always terminal. Terri was unusual in how long her body stayed alive…mostly that was due to the equisitely good care provided by her husband. More to the point, though, it’s irrelevant. People don’t have to be terminally ill in order to have the right to refuse medical treatment. You don’t get to stick feeding tubes into people against their will no matter what you think your god is whispering in your head. > [@](#): > > Terri was not brain dead. Yes she was. She had a flat EEG for 15 years. That’s brain dead, sweetie. And once again, it’s irrelevant. She was not required to be brain dead in order to have the right to refuse a feeding tube. > [@](#): > > She was severely disabled. She was brain dead. > [@](#): > > Issue: > > How should we treat severely disabled people? Strawman. The only issue is whether people should be forced to accept feeding tubes against their will. ---
**Author:** ![wonderwench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@wonderwench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderwench)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/89 "2005-04-14T18:51:01Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > If that person does not WANT nutrition from a feeding tube, then yes, we are. > Terri was not just “severely disabled.” She was in a persistant vegetative state, and most of her brain was GONE. No, she wasn’t terminally ill, but in her state, she was extremely vulnerable to dying by bacterial infections, gangrene, etc. Her parents stated they would have had her LIMBS CUT OFF if she had diabetes, and insisted on open heart surgery if she had a heart attack (which would surely kill her!) > > They even said-“Even if she didn’t want this, WE DO.” In other words, they didn’t care about what SHE, herself, may have wanted. I do not believe that Michael adequately established proof that Terri would have wished to have nutrition withheld. It is also important to note that he refused to have antibiotics administered and the physical therapy given which may have improved her functioning. Again, as a society, when there is a reasonable doubt, should we err on the side of life or death? This is really the basic issue, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. ---
**Author:** ![wonderwench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@wonderwench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderwench)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/90 "2005-04-14T18:52:44Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Not really true. PVS is almost always terminal. Terri was unusual in how long her body stayed alive…mostly that was due to the equisitely good care provided by her husband. > > More to the point, though, it’s irrelevant. People don’t have to be terminally ill in order to have the right to refuse medical treatment. You don’t get to stick feeding tubes into people against their will no matter what you think your god is whispering in your head. > > Yes she was. She had a flat EEG for 15 years. That’s brain dead, sweetie. > > And once again, it’s irrelevant. She was not required to be brain dead in order to have the right to refuse a feeding tube. > > She was brain dead. > > Strawman. The only issue is whether people should be forced to accept feeding tubes against their will. She was not brain dead. She could breathe on her own. If she were brain dead for 15 years, honey-bunch, then how did she breathe on her own\> Please read the Harvard Crimson commentary. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/91 "2005-04-14T18:56:40Z")
> [@wonderwench](#): > > Agreed. If Terri had left a Living Will making her wishes known, then we would not be having this discussion. > > For many people, there is enough doubt about what her true wishes were that the case for removing the tube was not justified. Really? I think you’re wrong. Why? I live in Oregon that has the Physician Assisted Suicide law. This law has been under attack starting with Ashcroft and following along with his replacement. The arrogance of the ‘Right to Life’ movement allows them to decide that they and the book they wantonly misinterpret are on a holy mission to make sure that everyone stays alive until the bitter end. Unless they’re poor, in Texas, and have no ability to pay. And who made that law which allows babies on life support to be _ **PUT TO DEATH** _? Why, George W. Bush, Champion of Life™. From [The U. S. Government](http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/155321.htm) > [@](#): > > In 1999, Texas became to first state to pass a law establishing an ethics board review of when to disable life support, according to the Chronicle. The bill, which was signed by then-Governor George Bush, “gives hospitals the authority to remove patients from life support, but requires they give the family 10 days notice to find another facility.” From [http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21571/](http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21571/) > [@](#): > > There is one bit of context, however, that seems particularly salient, and it involves a six-month old boy named Sun Hudson. On Thursday, Hudson died after a Texas hospital removed his feeding tube, despite his mother’s pleas. He had a fatal congenital disease, but would have been kept alive had his mother been able to pay for his medical costs, or had she found another institution willing to take him. In a related Texas case, Spiro Nikolouzos, who is unable to speak and must be fed through a tube because of a shunt in his brain – but who his wife says can recognize family members and show emotion – may soon be removed from life support because health care providers believe his case is futile. > > The Hudson and Nikolous cases fall under the Texas Futile Care Law, which was signed into law by then-governor George W. Bush. It’s all about kissing ass and publicly capitulating to a massively vocal minority that the reigning party wants to keep in their corner. I have read through your previous posts, wench. You may be a lapse Catholic, but you parrot a party line that is borne of indoctrination. You parrot a line of absolute disinformation and deception that ignores the facts and reality for a construction that supports a perverse belief in life of any type at any cost, including the cost of ignoring the wishes of the patient and their care provider who is attempting to honor it. If there was an advance directive there might have been a lesser amount of controversy and public furor, but there still would have been one. The public thinks that not only should they have an opinion, but like a biological version of American Idol that their uninformed opinion should be heard and followed. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/92 "2005-04-14T18:59:47Z")
Well, true, she wasn’t technically “brain dead.” Of course, she didn’t have much of a brain anyways. I would think that her HUSBAND would know her a lot better than her parents. Either way, the burden of proof was on her husband, and they found adequate evidence that she did not want to live like this. EVERY SINGLE TIME. By how many freaking courts? Her husband denied her therapy? Hello, in the first years, he did EVERYTHING he could, until he finally accepted it wasn’t going to work. There was nothing that COULD have been done. She was not going to get better, most likely she’d just get worse. If Michael didn’t care about her, or didn’t help her, then how was it she never even had one bedsore, in all of fifteen years? Not ONE. The man became a NURSE in order to help her. ---
**Author:** ![wonderwench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@wonderwench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderwench)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/93 "2005-04-14T19:01:28Z")
> [@Mockingbird](#): > > Really? > > I think you’re wrong. > > Why? > > I live in Oregon that has the Physician Assisted Suicide law. This law has been under attack starting with Ashcroft and following along with his replacement. > > The arrogance of the ‘Right to Life’ movement allows them to decide that they and the book they wantonly misinterpret are on a holy mission to make sure that everyone stays alive until the bitter end. > > Unless they’re poor, in Texas, and have no ability to pay. And who made that law which allows babies on life support to be _ **PUT TO DEATH** _? Why, George W. Bush, Champion of Life™. > > From [The U. S. Government](http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/155321.htm) > > From [http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21571/](http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21571/) > > It’s all about kissing ass and publicly capitulating to a massively vocal minority that the reigning party wants to keep in their corner. > > I have read through your previous posts, wench. You may be a lapse Catholic, but you parrot a party line that is borne of indoctrination. You parrot a line of absolute disinformation and deception that ignores the facts and reality for a construction that supports a perverse belief in life of any type at any cost, including the cost of ignoring the wishes of the patient and their care provider who is attempting to honor it. > > If there was an advance directive there might have been a lesser amount of controversy and public furor, but there still would have been one. The public thinks that not only should they have an opinion, but like a biological version of American Idol that their uninformed opinion should be heard and followed. Your arrogance makes further conversation meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![wonderwench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@wonderwench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderwench)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/94 "2005-04-14T19:04:08Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Well, true, she wasn’t technically “brain dead.” Of course, she didn’t have much of a brain anyways. > > I would think that her HUSBAND would know her a lot better than her parents. Either way, the burden of proof was on her husband, and they found adequate evidence that she did not want to live like this. EVERY SINGLE TIME. By how many freaking courts? > > Her husband denied her therapy? Hello, in the first years, he did EVERYTHING he could, until he finally accepted it wasn’t going to work. There was nothing that COULD have been done. She was not going to get better, most likely she’d just get worse. > > If Michael didn’t care about her, or didn’t help her, then how was it she never even had one bedsore, in all of fifteen years? Not ONE. The man became a NURSE in order to help her. And then that man started a new family after earlier pledging to stay with her until death due them part. He defacto abandoned her for another woman - which, should have caused him to cede his guardianship. That would have been the decent thing to do. He did not do everything possible. The hospice staff were ordered to do the basic minimums to keep her alive. She did not receive physical therapy. Her testing was stopped. He would not allow food or water to be given to her orally. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/95 "2005-04-14T19:05:59Z")
> [@wonderwench](#): > > Your confusion lies in the fact that you have decided to believe that Michael knew Terri’s wishes better than her blood relatives. You can decide who is more credible to you. I get to decide that for me. 1. It wasn’t just Michael who testified as to her wishes. You have been told this more than once. You no longer have an excuse to keep repeating falsehoods. 2. Are you married? I guarantee my wife knows me better than my parents do and vice versa. Why the hell would you think that would not be the case? 3. When a person signs a marriage contract, he/she is making a conscious legal decision to designate his/her spouse as the person to make these kinds of decisions. To suggest that spouses should be ignored and all power of attorney should revert back to the parents (who were NOT chosen by the patient) is not only asinine but completely disingenuous. If the roles were reveresed - if the parents wanted to pull the plug and the spouse did not - you would be singing a completely different tune and you know it. > [@](#): > > A recollection 7 years after the fact and soon after a major malpractice award without corroboration by her family is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt for me. This is just more lying on your part. There was no sudden “recollection,” and Michael Schiavo gained nothing from the lawsuit. All of the money went to Terri’s care and to legal fees. A small amount was spent on nursing school so Michael could take better care of Terri. There is nothing left of it and there was never a monetary motive in this for Michael. he also turned down offers totalling $11 million to give up guardianship. Why did he do that if he was interested in money? It wasn’t seven years after Terri’s collapse but about four years before Michael (after years of attempted therapy and treatment) was finally convinced by the doctors that Terri had no chance of recovery. At that point he asked the Florida courts to determine what Terri’s wishes were. After hearing the testimoney of five different witnesses the court found “clear and convincing” evidence that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive on a feeding tube. > [@](#): > > Reasonable people can agree to disagree. Disagreeing is one thing. Misrepresenting the facts and slandering people is another. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/96 "2005-04-14T19:07:41Z")
> [@wonderwench](#): > > And then that man started a new family after earlier pledging to stay with her until death due them part. > > He defacto abandoned her for another woman - which, should have caused him to cede his guardianship. That would have been the decent thing to do. > > He did not do everything possible. The hospice staff were ordered to do the basic minimums to keep her alive. She did not receive physical therapy. Her testing was stopped. He would not allow food or water to be given to her orally. Wow. Still spewing judgemental condemnation based on bile spewed in the attempt to spin Michael into a monster and Terri into a victimized saint. You aren’t going to be content until we set our brains aside and mindlessly agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/97 "2005-04-14T19:07:35Z")
I read the “article”, which was actually an opinion piece. It was a horrible, fallacy-ridden appeal to emotion, not the facts. Nobody wants to deny disabled people the right to live. We’re talking about the right to refuse medical treatment. There is a huge difference. They didn’t want to “kill her” because she was “disabled.” Her husband said he wanted to let nature take its course because she wasn’t going to get better, only worse, she was in a PVS, which is so different from that young man’s cerebral palsy that we’re beyond apples and oranges. We’re talking apples and corn chips, or beef jerky and oranges, here. ---
**Author:** ![wonderwench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@wonderwench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderwench)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/98 "2005-04-14T19:12:03Z")
You are selective in the facts to which you give weight and ignore the ones which do not support your version of the case (which is what most of us humans tend to do). There is plenty of evidence which counter-indicates Michael’s side of the story. Terri was also Catholic. There is no Living Will. The evidence was tenuous and disputed by her family. Yes, I am married. I would not want my husband to make life or death decisions for me if he were living with another woman by whom he had children. What Terri’s case has done is demonstrated flaws in the law and the fact that the law cannot cover all of the moral implications of very human tragedies. But again, I must ask, as a matter of public policy, do we err on the side of life or death? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/99 "2005-04-14T19:14:52Z")
> [@wonderwench](#): > > He would not allow food or water to be given to her orally. Oh brother. I think this just shows your absolute ignorance of the matter. Of course she couldn’t be given anything orally-she was unable to swallow and would fucking CHOKE to death! Michael was right NOT to allow that. Jesus Christ! How much more testing should have been done? SEVEN YEARS, they tested her-but her cerebral cortex was GONE. That’s it. Kaput. NOTHING can be done about a brain that’s half gone-you can’t get it back. ---
**Author:** ![wonderwench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@wonderwench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderwench)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917/100 "2005-04-14T19:17:13Z")
Sorry, there is evidence that she could swallow - he did not allow her to even try. You have decided to believe Michael’s side of the case. I have decided to believe the family’s. I don’t insult you for your beliefs. Why are you compelled to insult mine? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-schiavo-case/298917.md?page=6)