From the AP:
he Supreme Court on Thursday refused to order Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube reinserted, rejecting a desperate appeal by her parents to keep their severely brain-damaged daughter alive.
The decision, announced in a terse one-page order, marked the end of a dramatic and disheartening four-day dash through the federal court system by Bob and Mary Schindler.
Justices did not explain their decision, which was at least the fifth time they have declined to get involved in the Schiavo case.
There was no indication of how the individual justices voted.
UPDATE: GOVERNOR BUSH’S LAST-DITCH APPEAL DENIED.
Unsurprising, but still sad.
Terri has been declared sub human, and thus “putting her down” as a eugenic inconvenience has been affirmed.
It’s official: everybody hates life now and we might as well blow up the fucking planet and let God start somewhere else.
Or I could watch the NCAA tournament. OK, planet, you’re spared for now.
eugenic inconvenience?
Eugenics didn’t even play a role…PVS and myriad related issues/questions, yes…eugenics…nope.
I don’t think she was declared sub-human anywhere. Anyone who wants to prolong her ‘life’ by use of machines has obviously never had to watch a loved one do the same. She’s not going to sit up in that bed someday and begin talking. This isn’t a Lifetime Original Movie.
Eugenics refers to the genes, which aren’t related to the issue of brain damage due to anoxia.
The least they could do is find a painless way to kill her. Oh wait, that’s what they put Doc Kevorkian in jail for.
So….does this decision mean we can start killing all brain damaged individuals—like Teddy Kennedy?
Shank, the idea that Terry Schiavo’s life is being prolonged by “machines” is an attempt to have people envision her on the full panoply of life support equipment. That isn’t true. The issue is the supply of water and food. While by artificial means, this is not the same as the concept of “life support” which ABC News used in its biased poll.
Further, as I’ve actually had to watch a loved one in a terminal condition on the full life support regimen, I’ll thank you not to lecture me.
Ted cant be killed.. he’s immortal..preserved (pickled) in alchohol.
I’ll drink to that, Wanda.
She’s still living an artificial life. A ‘life’ that is basically inhumane. We wouldn’t treat our favorite pet like that, stringing it along in hopes that somehow the brain damage would just go away. Sometimes death doesn’t deal you a swift blow, it’s a process not an event. And sometimes people need to understand that just because the light switch was left on, doesn’t neccesarily mean someone is home.
Gail
The eugenics movement does indeed involve “breeding” to standard, but part of it is an ethos dedicated on who/who is not “worthy” of full personhood. 50 years ago mentally and physically disabled people were sterilized with abandon. Now the court lets stand that even if a person is
~not brain dead
~not terminally ill
~not in severe pain
~not in need of extraordinary medical procedures
~not on life support
~IS minimally conscious
~NEEDS only ordinary care including food and water
~Has family members willing to provide such care
such a person is not worthy of life but can be “put down” despite of no documentary evidence that the person would want to be euthanized.
IMO, the family members of profoundly disabled people should be very afraid.
She’s still living an artificial life.
Where do I begin to address such inanity?
This is truly a very sad and emotional circumstance for the immediate family. The press and political coverage has been quite disgusting.
There is a time to cut the umbilical cord to allow this poor soul to rest. Should have happened long ago.
The least they could do is find a painless way to kill her. Oh wait, that’s what they put Doc Kevorkian in jail for.
Hey, didn’t you read the LA Times, starvation is painless!
Researchers Discover More Pain Means More Euphoria
Everyone who has written in defense of Mrs. Schiavo’s right to live has received e-mail blasts full of attacks that appear to have been dictated by the unstable and typed by the unhinged. On Democratic Underground they crowed about having “kicked the sh– out of the fascists.” On Tuesday James Carville’s face was swept with a sneer so convulsive you could see his gums as he damned the Republicans trying to help Mrs. Schiavo. It would have seemed demonic if he weren’t a buffoon.
Why are they so committed to this woman’s death?
They seem to have fallen half in love with death.
What does Terri Schiavo’s life symbolize to them? What does the idea that she might continue to live suggest to them?
Why does this prospect so unnerve them? Again, if you think Terri Schiavo is a precious human gift of God, your passion is explicable. The passion of the pull-the-tube people is not.
here
How soon after the damaging event do we cut the umbilical cord, Diana? 5 years, 5 months, 5 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, or 5 minutes?
How is it that convicted rapists and murderers are granted stay after stay? If this was a criminal trial and the initial lawyers for the defense screwed the pooch on the findings of fact, wouldn’t all those oppossed to a stay for Terri be screaming for a new trial for the disenfranchised criminal?
Diana
Terri is not being allowed to die, she’s being killed.
Usually when parents/guardians lock their charges up and starve them to death we prosecute them, not glorify them.
Fersboo
Injunctive relief happens many times in capital cases.
Too bad Terri didn’t kill anyone before her “incident”.
hey-
go here: http://www.surveysaintlouis.com/marchmadness/sweet16.php
and support the REAL CONSERVATIVE Tom Coburn over that moderate Bill Frist.
Thanks
Don’t try to taunt me. I have DNR tatooed all over my body.
Ridiculous diatribe.
Not based on objective fact.
You been there? I have. So fuck off.
Oh god. This is SO not about political orientation.
Darleen. It’s kind of shitty that you would personify me and others as ‘pull-the-tube-people’. But whatever.
And it’s not about what she’s being allowed to do, becuase no one knows what her choice would be. Which is a whole other problem. But in the absence of her own opinion, others are beginning to drive the debate, and they’ll never win, because each argument is debunked by the great equalizer: “You’re not Terry! You can’t possibly know…” blah blah blah. And so these people come to the impasse of closure, because it can only be done once and they can’t decide on a way to do it. She’s got to die. She has to, because if she doesn’t, her parents and her husband will never move on. They will stay locked in a prison. Their lives frozen in time along with their daughter/wife. Keeping that damn tube in her arm is not life. It’s not a way for her to grow and change and interact and be the best parts of a human being.
Diana
Like you know where I’ve been? Thank you for assuming.
If you have a Living Will and DNR, fine FOR YOU. But there are lots of people who ARE guardians/parents of the profoundly disabled who are now just a tad more fearful of this movement to euthanize the “inconvenient.”
Terri is NOT brain dead and she is not allowed FOOD and WATER, even by mouth.
What harm does Terri do YOU by being allowed to live with her parents?
And it’s not about what she’s being allowed to do, becuase no one knows what her choice would be.
Good God, Shank, then why KILL her when there are family members willing to care for her????
I have absolutely NO problem with adults DIRECTING their own medical care with WRITTEN instructions, but in situations like Terri’s if our Law is a vehicle to the moral good then it should err on the side of life. Terri isn’t an “incovenience” to them!
Darleen – “Terri is NOT brain dead”
Prove it.
.. and Darleen
“movement to euthanize the “inconvenient.” ”
Bullshit!
Darleen, my disagreement was over your use of the word “eugenics.” Since you mention the eugenics movement, I understand what you mean–you’re talking about the Margaret Sanger, et al., movement, which was a bit loose in its interpretation of what eugenic meant.
Diana – which side should have that burden of proof? Those accused of crimes must be proved to be guilty before they are sentenced. Terri – is seems to me -has the opposite presumption. Some proof, has been given … but people say it is not enough. Reasonable doubt, apparently, is an assumption we only give to accused criminals.
Eating does not define a human life. Consuming nutrients = alive, it does not = a life . That woman is alive, but not living. She doesn’t communicate with others, she doesn’t interract. You wave to her, talk to her, touch her; she doesn’t move, talk, or touch back in reply. Keeping her alive so that her parents can take care of her is not benfiting this woman. She doesn’t recognize her parents anymore than my houseplants recognize me. My houseplants do not have a life. They don’t communicate or react to emotion. They need water and that’s about it.
What does this debate say about us? That the Schinlders want their daughter to be alive so much, that they don’t care if she’s living? That they need her in their lives so much they don’t caare about Mr. Schaivo’s need for dignified closure? Or does it say that Mr. Schaivo is just a tube-puller as you’d put it earlier? That he just wants his wife, the woman he’s loved for so long, to go away from him forever?
Or does it say that this is no longer about Terri, but the argument is about death, specifically our own? How would you react if you could be surrounded by everyone you ever loved, but they were held in the balance by a feeding tube? If that would make you happy, then you are the Schindlers. If you would rather face a world with only memories of your loved ones and not have to see vacant shells of them, then you are Mr. Schaivo. This argument asks more than anything not what this woman wants or what the Schindlers and Schaivos want; but want each of us wants, more than anything.
Diana
Brain dead means no brain waves. It is the MEDICAL standard by which one disconnects LIFE SUPPORT which has been ARTIFICIALLY maintaining heart, lungs, etc.
Terri is not brain dead. She was not terminally ill.
All Terri needs is Food and Water and ordinary convalescent care.
My husband’s late uncle and aunt adopted, loved and cared for many profoundly mentally and physically disabled children. The type of children that people like Dr. Cranford and George Felos believe are “inconvenient” and should be “put down.”
If Terri had been allowed to live with her parents, how would that harm YOU?
And there’s no way I’m going to enter into this fray except to clarify a point. For one thing, it’s absolutely futile for us to argue with each other since none of us has the ability to do anything whatsoever about the situation and everyone’s emotions are too stirred up. The issue will not be resolved based on emotional reactions to one individual situation, however well justified, but on subsequent rational debate when people are not souped up to the gills with adrenaline.
Consuming nutrients = alive, it does not = a life . That woman is alive, but not living. She doesn’t communicate with others, she doesn’t interract. You wave to her, talk to her, touch her; she doesn’t move, talk, or touch back in reply.
Geez, Shank, are you advocating starving to death the severely autistic? You’ve certainly described it pretty well.
I guess all those parents who care for and love profoundly disabled children who only consume nuitrients but rarely interact with their environment are pretty stupid, huh?
(BTW, Terri DOES move and react.)
Carin – your equation of “crime” with the circumstances cannot be proved. There is no “crime” here.
What people?
Surely, the courts have adjudicated the issues, based on the facts known, over, and over again. And, don’t try to quote any emotional statements made after the Supreme court has declined to visit the issue.
Gail
I hope Terri’s imposed death stirs people to truly consider how we treat the lesser amongst us. And to have laws that would both recognize Living Wills and uphold ordinary life in the absence of a living will.
And I’d like to see people really consider what they are saying when they support euthanasia without such documented wishes.
Darleen – have you visited with her? Have you discussed the medical prognosis with her doctors?
terri moves and reacts much like my plants. They’ll move towards the sun if they need it, or go limp if the breeze blows as a storm is coming in. But they don’t react in a human manner. Terri doesn’t smile when a family member walks into the room. Terri might react if you touched her, but she wouldn’t react in a human manner, in an emotional feeling, knowing manner. She would react to stimuli. In a physical feeling, instinctual manner.
And that autistic thing was a low blow. Autistic people do interract with others, they just don’t understand or pay attention to social constructs. And autistic people are born that way. They don’t live half of their life, suffer a head injury and become autistic.
Diana
There was only one finding of fact..at the original trial with Greer as finder of fact.
A de novo review would have been the first time to actually REVIEW the proceedings from “fresh eyes.” That kind of review was rejected at the 11th Circuit and passed on by SCOTUS.
If this were a capital crime case where the original finding of fact was under suspicion, the roar from the MSM/anti-death penality/Hollywood crowd would have been deafening.
In Terri’s case, they are just deaf.
“Free Mumia, kill Terri”
Darleen, I commend your husband’s late uncle and aunt for their love and care of those in need. I’m not about to discuss my own circumstance, which was pretty horrific.
Your attack on shank was unwarranted.
Darleen, I think what we come back to (what the entire thing ALWAYS comes back to) is that Ms. Schiavo’s husband says they had a verbal DNR agreement. Terri said – in effect – if anything bad ever happens, just kill me; don’t keep be alive in a vegetative state.
My wife and I have the same verbal agreement. It’s obvious that we need to get it written down on paper and signed in light of this Schiavo circus.
So you can argue that Terri’s husband is lying, but the fact is he gains very little from her death. He risks becoming a pariah because he’s simply doing what Terri asked him to do. That or he’s lying. Terri said this is what she wanted, to the one who loved her and knew her best. Who are we to pass judgement on that?
Diana
What is so hard here for you to answer?
How would Terri’s living with her parents harm YOU?
HER PARENTS say she reacts, nurses that have been on her case have filed affidavits to that affect.
MINIMALLY there is controversy on the state of her consciousness, but she is NOT “comatose.”
With that kind of controversy, why KILL her?
WHO, here, said that?
BLT
Michael seems now to be Larry King’s co-host so I don’t think he’s risking much.
Shank
Not a low blow but trying to alert you that your definition of “personhood” can get a little complicated when you start looking at all the profoundly disabled people living around you.
I hope Terri’s imposed death stirs people to truly consider how we treat the lesser amongst us. And to have laws that would both recognize Living Wills and uphold ordinary life in the absence of a living will.
I completely agree with Darleen on this point. The notion of the husband, wife, or parents of an adult as ultimate interpreter of his or her wishes simply cries out to be abused in at least some cases. In the absence of a living will, there should be some neutral party to oversee any guardianship to avoid conflicts of interest and to act as a legal representative of the incapacitated person.
YOU Diana
Terri is being EUTHANIZED (though I wouldn’t call death by starvation/dehydration a “good death”) with no DOCUMENTED evidence. No LIVING will.
The emotional identification seems to go like
~~I wouldn’t want to live like that
~~NO ONE would want to live like that
therefore
~~Terri wouldn’t want to live like that
YOU DON’T KNOW what Terri really wanted. She left no DOCUMENTARY evidence. In the face of such controversy, her guardianship should have been awarded to people willing to care for her.
Darleen, so you are saying Michael’s a liar, then. That he’s not carrying out her wishes – Terri’s own directive on this subject – he’s just killing her for the pleasure, profit, or whatever motive you assign to him.
Her final wish is really what’s in question here. Michael says they talked; you say let others decide. Others who weren’t privvy to that private conversation between man and wife.
You’re trying to make this about Terri’s parents and their wants/demands. This is about Terri. Her wishes are clear: kill me. That or Michael is lying.
Darleen – YOU don’t know what Terri Shaivo wanted, either.
I DO NOTadvocate for euthenasia.
You been there? I have. So fuck off.
Well that was constructive.
You mean you’ve been in a situation where someone you love was brain damaged, and their ex spouse suddenly wanted to pull the plug after he was awarded money, even though her doctors said she was only retarded and could go through rehab?
And people wonder why we are against universal healthcare.
Turing word: expect: as in, I expect no different from people who call themselves “liberal” but don’t know what the words mean.
Ummm, yes you do.
euthenasia
The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.
Darleen, so you are saying Michael’s a liar, then
I’m saying there is reasonable doubt about Michael’s testimony because his clear conflict-of-interest behavior.
Shank wrote:
And sometimes people need to understand that just because the light switch was left on, doesn’t neccesarily mean someone is home.
Shank, we do understand that. But we are not convinced that this is one of those cases. The fact that several of her doctors agree that someone is indeed home, and she can go through rehab and get some of her life back, should give us all pause to consider what we are doing.
I think this debate is getting a little cyclical, you guys are already having the “You don’t know what Terri wants” conversation I alluded to earlier. I’m kind of spent, everyone knows how I feel and I’ve got a meeting in a few minutes so I’ll just close with the following quote:
My dick is so big, they sell popcorn in small, medium, large, and my dick.
Diana
Darleen – YOU don’t know what Terri Shaivo wanted, either.
I have never said I did. Go ahead, look through my comments.
What I have been consistently saying is SINCE WE DO NOT KNOW than the Law SHOULD ERR on the side of life.
If I saw a capital crime trial as flawed and controversial as this was, I would certainly be arguing for a stay of execution of the defendant.
What was Terri’s crime?
Darleen – I truly empathize with your reaction to the recent events. It’s a very distressing situation.
Please don’t accuse me of sentiments, of which you know nothing.
My own visceral reaction is to the media and political attention. Again, I am disgusted.
BTW BLT
If you think “marriage” is some sort of guarantee of purity of motives, I got just STACKS of domestic violence case files I’d like to show you.
I’m saying there is reasonable doubt about Michael’s testimony because his clear conflict-of-interest behavior.
I think one thing that should happen is if you take a common-law spouse, move in with a lover, etc, your legal guardianship should immediately be revoked and placed back in hands of the nearest blood relative. Even if you are good and really care, it is still a conflict of interest.
What was Terri’s crime?
Best I can tell, it was suffering brain damage without having it in writing in a “living will” that she wanted to be kept alive. Of course, until the last few weeks, nobody knew you needed a “living will” if you wanted to, like, live.
But now that the rest of us know, I know exactly what mine is going to say.
What if Terri were remanded to the care of her parents, received extensive speech therapy and eventually said, “Please, let me die.” Would the issue then be endlessly litigated as to the degree of mental acuity necessary to accept her “decision?”
This is a thorny, unfortunate situation, and I appreciate all the thoughtful comments. As usual, I have nothing to bring to the table when serious matters are under discussion, except to underscore how important a living will is.
In this individual case, it all seems to boil down to whom you believe or sympathize with. I think most of us could agree though that a situation could arise in which a person who has ulterior motives for wanting a severely disabled person dead could misrepresent his or her previous wishes. That possibility alone is enough for me to want the courts to rule in favor of continuation of life if the matter is disputed by another family member in the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary. None of us will ever know the truth behind the Terry Schiavo case, but a rational consideration of the potential for abuse of the severely disabled leads me to support some kind of legal bulwark against it (such as the automatic appointment of a neutral arbiter if disputes arise over the person’s actual will and a preference for life if no consensus can be reached.)
gail – the courts have done that.
gail – the courts have done that.
Apparently not well enough.
So, change the process.
Oh, Please! I was staying out of this one but this bashing her husband for moving on with another woman is one of the things that has been pissing me off the most about the pro-life side of this. The only reason his common-law wife is even an issue is that this has been dragged out in court for the past fifteen years. What, was the poor guy supposed to have had nothing but work and lawyers in his life since 1990? He’s not entitled to have children while he’s young because Terri’s parents are dragging this out as long as possible? Even if Terri magically could always respond at some level, the woman he married was gone forever before he met his common-law wife
One of the things I’ve been disgusted with is that the majority Christian right to lifers seem to keep projecting the worst possible motives on to this guy, which seems pretty unchristian to me. Is it maybe just possible that yes, she told him that she would rather die than live this way? My wife has said the same thing and one of her main reasons is the indignity of living that way after most of her mind(what makes her, her) has been lost. This guy can’t be upset that his wife has been hauled through this without her wishes? He can’t be upset that whatever dignity Terri once had has been stamped out by the ridiculous circus that this has turned into? <sarc>No, he must be in it for the money. He can’t possibly still care deeply for his wife if he didn’t wait more than fifteen years after she was lost to him before moving on.</sarc>
I’m very conflicted about this case and I lean against euthanasia, but the way the right has been treating this guy has been terrible.
Mgehee,
I know. In the past you had to have a DNR or they would resusitate you. And you needed a living will to be taken off life support.
Now it seems it is all changing. Instead of the benefit of the doubt going to keep you alive, now the “benefit” of the doubt is to allow you to die.
Very disturbing. It should be to all of us, that the state can stop caring for you if you did not indicate that’s what you wanted, on the word of someone with questionable behavior and a clear conflict of interest.
Sean
I don’t blame Michael for “moving on”. I blame him for not giving up guardianship of Terri when he DID move on.
That is a huge conflict-of-interest.
He seems particularly cruel to the parents of the person he claims he only has the “best interests” of at heart.
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/03/terry_sciavo_co.html
Plutos and Darleen…wow, nicely said. That’s some of the best pro-Terry arguments I’ve read.
Actually, all of these posts made for good reading.
Later,
bbeck
My theory is that Michael didn’t turn the guardianship over to the Schindlers because he knows they’re too crazy to act in Terri’s best interests.
He’s in no conflict of interest at all – he has his own life, and he knew what Terri wanted.
Darleen,
Sorry to take so long to respond, I had to come in to work. Also, I want to be clear that I wasn’t pointing fingers at anyone in here, but at the Right in general on the news and in the ‘sphere this week. I’m not looking to debate the whole issue because like a lot of folks I’m just not sure, but I do think Michael Schiavo is getting beat up unfairly.
There are at least three possible motivations that he may have here:
1. He is carrying out her wishes and trying to keep her family and a big chunk of the government from forcing medical treatment on her against her will.
2. She never stated her wishes, but knowing her better than anyone else(I’ve only been married 2 years, but nobody knows me half as well as my wife) he is sure she wouldn’t want this.
3. He wants the court to kill his wife for whatever nefarious reason.
My problem with all of this is that the religious right seems awfully quick to discount any possibility that he is acting in her interest and to jump to what amounts to accusing the guy of murder or at least seeming to magically know that he doesn’t care for her any more.
It’s not at all clear to me that there’s a conflict of interest in his remaining her guardian. Just because he’s moved on with another woman doesn’t mean he cares for her any less than he ever has. If she told him she wouldn’t want to live this way then he would also be betraying her by turning her guardianship over to people he knows are going to violate her wishes.
okay, I’m back. missed out on everything since then. I put my final thoughts on my blog here. Honestly, I think a lot of these arguments have missed the mark. We all react outwardly, and some people never seem to make the connection between why this woman is so important to them.
Peace out biatches.
Sean
I’m more than willing to entertain the premise Michael is sincere and that so are her parents (and other Shindler family members who wish for Terri to live). But when it comes down to a conflict from equally since parties, one that says “she wants to die” and the other that says “she wants to live” and in the absence of any clear written wishes, I’d have to rule for life in this case. This is not a case where Terri was on life support or in pain or even in the process of dying from a terminal illness. This was a braindamaged human being. It makes her vulnerable and it is actually the Laws responsibility in this case to protect her, not unnecessarily hasten her death when her wishes are in dispute.
Michael could be lying about his testimony and STILL be sincere because he believes that is what she wanted.
And I would still argue for Terri not being actively killed as she is now.
The legal default position USED to be life in the absence of a living will. Now it looks like the default position is death if your guardian wants it so.
A lot of people like living, even if their life is “broken”.
I’m not quite sure why y’all are trying to make the discussion about me. Nothing’s about me.
It’s all about that dear lady, Terri Schiavo.
I happen to have had some, possibly, different and unique experience that has affected my life and family. It’s personal. I strongly affirm the ”right to life”, but I also believe in a ”right to die” that isn’t impeded by politicians or the media or groups pushing a specific agenda, or a television audience. My right to live or die is between me and my immediate family.
I deal in facts. I believe your courts do too. I don’t trust the media, because it plays with conjecture and opinion, not facts. The testimony heard on television has certainly been emotional and the press is only lunging at the most provocative of the protesters. The legal process has been served, as your current laws allow.
Darleen’s been yelling at me (in caps), PlutosDad has made some wild assumptions,
then, something to do with universal healthcare?
Fersboo says ”yes, you are!”, convicting me of what he/she calls a crime, without any shred of evidence or even habeus corpus.
What can one possibly reply? That’s it for me.
Darleen,
I share your concerns about the lack of a living will in all of this mess. I wasn’t trying to argue that she should definitely die I just think that the far right has gone way overboard demonizing Michael Schiavo. I’ve got some problems with both sides of this argument and at the same time I can understand and sympathize with both sides.
I’m very uncomfortable with euthanasia or assisted suicide and anyone that isn’t needs to take a look at some of the stories from Europe of doctor’s killing or refusing treatment to people without permission and even children against the wishes of parents.
But stopping life support is entirely different morally than euthanizing someone. It seems like selective reasoning to me to say that Terri was not on life support. A feeding tube in this case is medical equipment to provide her body with food and water because her brain is too damaged to tell her body to take in nourishment. If her brain was too damaged to tell her body to take in air she would be connected to some kind of respirator to provide it for her body. How is one life support, but the other not? Why is disconnecting one actively killing her, while the other is letter her die?
Who’s to decide between life and death. Should we rely on mortal judgements, with thier biases and their insights, their honor and their deceit? Such a course is, naturally, frightening with it’s uncertainity. Or, should we adhere to a belief where the decisions are clear? Where they are made by powers greater than us. Oddly, such a course is, still, frightening with it’s uncertainity.
I don’t know. I wish I did. I do think I know one thing, though.
If God, alone, had been the judge in this, Terri Schiavo would have died the same day she had the heart attack. Her husband, her parents, her friends, would have been spared so much heartache. But God, alone, did not make the decision, we intervened, and now it’s not as simple. It seems God, alone, would have been more just, more merciful.
Like it or not, it’s not just God, alone, anymore. We don’t have the luxury.
There is a vast difference between stopping medical intervention to honor a patient’s wishes, and the active killing of a patient. The first is allowing nature to take its course, while the second is a flagrant violation of the Hippocratic Oath. I am very much in favor of the former, and very much against the latter.
This all comes down to Terri’s wishes. Most people probably recoil at the thought of living 15 years in Terri’s state… so why is it so hard for them to believe that she might have communicated that to her husband? Does it really take that much suspension of disbelief to consider that Michael Schiavo might actually be carrying out her wishes? If he isn’t, we’ll probably never know… but absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have to go with it. To do otherwise would overturn 30 years of right-to-die jurisprudence and written law.
Objectively speaking, her parents probably need to be removed from this decision-making process. If you’ve reviewed their trial testimony, you understand why. They testified that even if Terri had told them of her desire to not receive tube feeds, THEY WOULD STILL FEED HER. Read that again… that’s how non-objective and non-deferential they are, even acting against their own daughter’s stated wishes.
I’m sorry… but when it’s their day to die, they can choose what they want for themselves. In the meantime, it is horrifying that they have engaged in this campaign of character assassination against the husband, and prolonged the suffering of their daughter. Sadly, I can’t really blame them, because I’m sure they believe they are doing the right thing, which makes this even sadder. The husband seems to have progressed through the stages of grief… her parents, however, can’t seem to get past “denial.”
Uh, Diana? You’re the one who keeps bringing up your “unique experience that has affected my life and family”. In practically every of your posts. Talk about it or don’t talk about it. Unless you really believe the whole of the world should defer to your judgement based on your say so.
Beyond that, how much does this really have to do with “that dear lady, Terri Schiavo”? She may once have preferred not to live the way she is, but she can’t possibly care now. She isn’t capable of it. This is all about the husband who either has or hasn’t moved on, or both vs. the parents who obviously haven’t, no matter how certain shank is that they ought to have.
That the law favors Mr. Schiavo ends the argument only if we believe ourselves to be governed infallibly.
Ok, bokonon42. You justify to me, based on the following, whether you would give guardianship to the Schindlers:
P. 14 of the Guardian Ad Litem 2003 report:
ed. only for emphasis