[QUOTE=wonderwench]
If he was trying to follow HER OWN wishes, then yes, I do believe she would have wanted that.
Seems we have to wait a bit for that answer (dunno why):
That our society now sanctions the murder of disabled people based upon the bigotry of “normals” - who pass judgement that the disabled should be put out of their misery because nobody would choose to live like that.
Terri did not leave a Living Will. We would not be having this discussion if her wishes had been documented. We have nothing but Michael’s very suspicious and 7 years too late recollection.
As a society, we are now erring on the side of death instead of on the side of life.
Twist and spin it any way you wish - this is what is at bottom.
If she wasn’t brain dead, then withholding nutrition was euthanasia. She was alive. Removal of food and water killed her.
Or we could call it murder.
What is it exactly when someone who is not terminally ill is denied the sustenance to keep her alive?
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Why didn’t he mention her wishes during the seven prior years (before the malpractice award was completed)?
For years he was emphatic that she be kept alive and he would stick by her till death did them part.
What he forgot to mention is that he would hasten her death when it was convenient for him to do so.
To expand in this the Schindlers likely had to deny her bulimia because they asserted that Michael abused his wife. If they allowed an alternate explanation it would have been harder to place blame at Michael’s feet.
If you can’t be bothered to read all the other threads, at least read this one. Of course she was alive. If someone’s dead, you don’t need to discuss whether they be kept alive.
Removal of artificial life support is not illegal.
That was done, in accordance with Terri’s wishes, as established by the court.
Then it gets down to what the definition of life support is.
If food and water are life support - we are all “on it”.
A feeding tube is life support, not food and water.
[QUOTE=wonderwench]
Because he was hoping that she would recover. For years, he tried everything he could, took her to every specialist he could find-he even became a nurse to try and help her. Eventually, he accepted the doctors’ conclusion that she was not going to GET any better, and if that was the case, she wouldn’t have wanted to live that way.
As for his dating, he didn’t start seeing anyone else until after it was concluded that she wasn’t getting better, and HER PARENTS are the ones who encouraged him to do so. For godsakes, it was fifteen years, there was nothing wrong with him moving on after seven years of his wife being in a PVS.
Look, maybe he WAS an asshole, but that’s all speculation on our parts. The courts have found conclusive proof that Terri would have wanted the tube removed. I don’t presume to know better than they do, so why do you?
I’m not getting mine through a tube directly into my stomach.
Florida law is clear on the definition of life support AFAIK.
It’s called honoring a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment. If a person doesn’t want a tube in her stomach, the government doesn’t have a right to jam one in there.
What?
At the outset (i.e. shortly after her collapse) the extent of the damage to her was unknown. It took several years before it became blindingly obvious to everyone she was in a persistent vegatative state and would never, could never recover. Her brain did not turn to goo overnight but in the end that is what it was (or more accurately spinal fluid). Eventually Michael realized the obvious…Terri was gone and all that was left was a shell.
It is also worth noting that while Michael was not the only one the court relied upon to “remember” that Terri would not want to be kept alive in a persistent vegatative state. Many witnesses were called from friends and family (including the Schindlers). The court did not merely here Michael make the claim and then deem it so.
FWIW someone explained here in another post that “brain dead” has a specific connotation that means apart from no noticeable brain function the patient also cannot breathe on their own. People in this state are already legally dead although they may be kept alive to harvest organs (if they are an organ donor) and the death certificate will reflect time of death as when the artificial means of support are removed. There is no legal wrangling over removing life support as the person is already dead in medical and legal terms. Terri was in a persistent vegatative state that while seemingly close to brain dead allowed her to breathe on her own (she still had enough of her brain working to keep autonomic functions working). Her legal status was clearly not the same as that of a brain dead person.
Except, Schiavo was not given “food and water”. What she had was a tube implanted surgically in her abdomen, connected to a pump that supplied nutrients and chemicals straight up. I doubt that the solution would even be considered edible to anyone who is able to eat normally. BTW, the device she was on has only been in use since the 1970s, the area WHERE the tube is connected to her body has to be highly monitored, because it’s so open to infection.
Any medical professionals here, who could tell me about the substance given to people like Terri Schiavo? Would it be something that a normal individual could consume?
That’s so off base it’s not even in the ball park.
Every doctor who examined Terri at any length has concurred. Every court-appointed physician has agreed. All scans and EEGs have supported it.
There is absolutely no doubt that Terri Schiavo was incapable of conscious thought and feeling. Period.
So, why don’t you stop twisting and spinning this to get across your point which defies reality and ignores all of the facts?
We have the testimony of three witnesses spanning seven separate conversations. You really need to read the court record, you are betraying your ignorance of the facts as determined by the court every time you post.
Not that I feel I rank as part of the collective posting “we” on this board, but, wonderwench…if you were at all informed, had you bothered to take the time to inform yourself, you would not be asking the questions you are asking and the good people on this board (many of whom spent days on end supplying information) would not be so obviously wasting their time correcting you. There are Schiavo threads here in GD. There are Schiavo threads in the Pitt. Might I suggest you bother yourself to read them instead of asking others to cover ground that has already been worn dirt thin?
regards,
widdley
As I understand it, it will take approximately 6-8 weeks for the full autopsy report (lab samples, etc) to be processed and released.
regards,
widdley
Thanks, I thought my request got lost in all the craziness. I sure as hell wasn’t going to jump into it.
Heck, by the time the reports become available, if they are ever made PUBLICLY available, few people will still care.