Rolled Out On: 3/18/2005 3:10 PM

What I find supremely ironic in all this is that her vegetative state may have been brought on by an eating disorder, and WE ARE STILL TRYING TO FORCE HER TO EAT!

Anyway, I'm in complete agreement with you on the quality v. quantity issue, and deplore the opportunistic bambast being employed by all the usual social parasites regarding this situation.

Rolled Out On: 3/18/2005 6:57 PM

Hopefully the statements you just made would hold up in court if you had family members doing everything they could to oppose those wishes.

A living will wouldn't be a bad idea for anyone. I think you could write one up and sign it with witnesses to ensure total legality. I should do something like that myself; as I hold the same thoughts you just expressed.

As a side note, I just say that I'm noticing a somewhat ironic simliarity between the (I hate political dichotomies, but I'm going to use them JUST for the sake of the humor here) liberal hippies from a few decades ago and the conservative folks (hippies?)protesting the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. The prior with "sending people to war is murder!" and the latter with "not feeding Terry is murder!". The important thing being that either group fails to acknowledge that not everything is black and white.

Rolled Out On: 3/18/2005 7:32 PM

Yes. The multitudes who hold vigil for extending the meaningless and demeaning life of Terri Shiavo are all about themselves, not her.

Rolled Out On: 3/18/2005 9:40 PM

I think it is important to remember that just because YOU may not want to live in such a way... that doesn't mean Terri doesn't. There is no proof that Terri truly wishes to die. She would not have survived this far if she hadn't fought to survive in the first place! I have a unique perspective on this because I have spent years working with people in similar states as Terri's. Some of them became disabled via brain injuries and some were born with genetic disorders that rendered them in such a state. But it is clear to note that Terri is NOT in a vegitative state. A vegitative state means that you do not respond to things around you and that any movement is purely reflexive. There is proof on medical reports and videotape that Terri responds enthusiastically to those she knows and loves... like her parents and siblings... and she is terrified when her husband is left alone in her room with her. There is also videotape evidence that Terri is aware enough that she can follow movement with her eyes and she makes facial gestures and expressions that indicate how she is feeling. This is NOT at all what a person in a vegitative state is capable of. Terri is FAR more high-functioning than that. And if her pig husband would have allowed her any of the rehabilitation that he won money for... she might be even higher functioning than she currently is. No one is giving this woman a voice... they are drowning it out. Since there is no proof that Terri truly indicated that she would not want to live like this... then the answer is simple. It is common sense. We must err on the side of LIFE. Just keep that in mind. Would you want your daughter to starve to death if she were in a state such as I just described... or would you provide rehabilitation so she could improve her quality of life as much as is possible? I should hope the answer is clear.

You are entitled to your opinion... but I feel that it is a crime against humanity to kill this woman who cannot speak for herself. Starving animals to death is a crime... but starving a handicapped woman to death is not? What a friggin' joke! What kind of world are we living in?

Rolled Out On: 3/19/2005 6:29 AM

Rolled Out On: 3/19/2005 9:30 AM

What Janna said.

In spades.

Rolled Out On: 3/19/2005 10:12 AM

I with you, Marble. I've already had this discussion with my husband...last night...in a tirade.

Rolled Out On: 3/19/2005 11:28 AM

Janna, what I'm saying is even if I was in Terri's state, I would not want to live. There is no hope of her recovering, and she'd have to spend the rest of her life trapped in a body that she cannot control nor communicate. While I love my wife, simply hearing her voice without being able to truly interact would be eternal torture.

There's cruel and unusual punishment, but there's also cruel and unusual compassion. Of course, if she's truly brain dead, then there's no reason to not let her parents take care of her because she'd not be aware of her condition. My fear is that she is aware, and to me that would not be worth living.

Rolled Out On: 3/19/2005 4:25 PM

I completely respect your opinion and your personal wishes if you were in Terri's shoes... but we don't know what Terri wants. There is a very good possibility that Terri DOES want to live... and what is being done to her is cruel and horrific... it is murder. She does have a very good chance of making considerable progress in recovering if given the proper treatment and rehabilitation... but she has gotten none of it. I have worked in school setting for children and young adults who are in similar physical and mental states as Terri is... and they make GREAT progress if you give them a chance. They respond extremely well to loving and compassionate people and they bring joy to the lives of those they know. Terri lights up when she sees her loved ones, obviously finding joy in the presence of their company, and she brings joy to their lives. Her limited physical and mental abilities do not keep her from enjoying those who mean most to her.

Furthermore, there is a website, which I found from the terrisfight.org website, that lists the ongoing (and previous) abuse that Terri has suffered. This woman has been through hell. She deserves infinite compassion. Yet she is getting a death sentence. Truly... I am sickened by the society that I live in that wishes to see this woman dead. What does this mean now for the hundreds of thousands of other disabled people in this country? Are they tomorrow's trash? I just can not for one second see how throwing someone's life away can be justified... especially when there is no proof that Terri wanted to die. But there IS proof that she was abused by her husband.

http://www.zimp.org/abuse/

I agree that this situation would be different if there was proof that Terri would not want to live like this... but there isn't. Therefore... I'll say what I said before... we MUST err on the side of life. Not doing so is stealing this woman's life from her... and that is called murder.

Rolled Out On: 3/19/2005 7:55 PM

I agree with Janna. From what I understand, there is actually a lot of hope for improvin Terri's quality of life, even if her husband's control has attempted to squash that as much as he can. I cannot understand why he doesn't just let her family take care of her, as they obviously care more about her than he does. And yes, I agree with Janna that it is far better to "err" on the side of life than it would be to do otherwise.

Rolled Out On: 3/19/2005 11:05 PM

I'm trying to avoid discussing the Schiavo situation here, but let me just say that removal of a feeding tube doesn't sound like a desirable way to go about ending your life.

Rolled Out On: 3/20/2005 2:57 AM

Janna,
You state that there is a very good possiblity that Terri DOES want to live. However, is it beyond the realm of possibility that she DOES NOT want to live, as her husband has stated?

There seems to be this immediate rejection of any such claim by those who believe they are righteous in their beliefs. Yet, by denying the possibility that her husband is telling the truth, you are quite possibly condemning Terri to prolonged suffering she did not wish to endure.

You state that there is no proof she did not want to live like this, which is categorically untrue; her husband has indicated as much. That is easily as sure a sign of proof as any.
In fact, by the very absence of any indication to the contrary by anyone in a legal position to make the claim, she did not voice any desires to the contrary of what Michael is claiming.


Emily,
You state that, because Michael has not done exactly what the Schindlers, or the fanatical Christians, want, that "they obviously care more about her than he does". You are in no position to make that statement.
Consider this scenario;
your significant other, who is aware of his/her mortality, expresses a desire to not be kept alive should they become severly disabled, or become a "vegetable". They impress upon you the importance of these wishes being tantamount to the vows you shared.
A disastrous accident happens (the reason they are there is irrelevant for the purpose of this excercise) making them disabled, possibly permanently vegetatively so. You pass the previously explained wishes on to the physician, at which point, the deal is done. Now, the parents step in and state unequivocally that you would never have indicated a "wish to die". You, out of the love you shared with this person, feel strongly about following through with that which you promised you would do. You are stuck between the parents and your love for your mate.
What do you do? Could YOU just walk away?

Rolled Out On: 3/21/2005 9:24 AM

It seems fairly clear to me that Mr. Schiavo has not acted in a way consistent with having Terri's best interests at heart. In fact, his behavior would be considered grounds for divorce by abandonment under other circumstances.

While I support the idea that a spouse is the most appropriate voice/guardian for someone unable to speak, I think it is also justifiable to argue Mr. Schiavo is no longer her husband.

SaaM,
Where there is life, there is hope. If you ever found yourself in that situation, and there was a 1% chance you might recover and be able to see your daughter get married, don't you think your wife might delay to make darn sure you absolutely are in a persistent vegetative state?
In any case, if Google could help end your life, I hope you realize the irony: Terri Schiavo told absolutely no one else that she wanted to die in this situation. You realize that life should be preserved if there is any ambiguity, and so you are taking steps to publicly tell anyone who might listen, and you are putting it in print that you wouldn't want to live like that.

She didn't. The only evidence that this is her wish is someone who stands to gain with her death; someone who may have actually put in her in this situation (extensive evidence of broken bones); someone who promised to use a sizeable settlement to preserve her life and get therapy, but did not; someone who did not even recall this wish of Terri's until more than three years after she was stricken.

I think that's plenty of ambiguity to be worth the preservation her life.

Rolled Out On: 3/21/2005 10:37 AM

Nathan, 1% is not enough. A 50% chance is not enough. And my post said nothing about Terri's wishes, it is all about me. There is no irony because I do not want to be in her shoes. I am publicly stating this because I want to ensure that if I am ever at that point, my wishes will be carried out. No one knows for certain about her wishes.

Now, as to my feelings on the Shiavo case - look at her. Does it look like she's enjoying her life right now? Does she look happy to you? Content? If you ask me, it looks like hell on earth. I don't want her to suffer, and I cannot help but think that, if there is any hope for her to somewhat recover (and her chances of that are low) that she is in excruciating pain right now. Mental pain, mine you, maybe not physical.

If I were in her shoes, I'd want to die. I'm sure God will let me watch my daughter's wedding from Heaven.

Death isn't the worst thing that can happen to you. While I feel sorry for everyone involved in this case, I think too many people are taking it personally and putting their own emotions into it. I cannot, with a clear concious condemn that woman to an enternal suffering when there's little to no possibility of her ever getting anything resembling a normal life.

But even then, if the case was up to me to decide, I would refuse to let her starve to death. I would require Mr. Schiavo to stand by his convictions and personally administer a lethal dose of morphine to her, ending it quickly. This slow death is a cop out so that no one thinks they had anything to do with it.

I've read the reports from both sides. I see only ONE doctor who will say she's not in a PVS, and even if there are more, the majority of doctors say there is no hope. As valuable as I find life, there are limits. I've watched relatives waste away to cancer, and slow death is horrible. There are times when death is preferable to life and for those of you who feel like I do about God, you should know she'll end up much better than she is now.

Rolled Out On: 3/21/2005 12:40 PM

Vern, no one would be sentenced to death based on the testimony of one person... yet Terri is being euthanized (in a very painful way) just because her husband says she would want it that way.

Terri responds with joy to her family and reacts with fear to her husband. I think it is clear that Terri's best interests lie in the hands of her family (i.e., her parents and siblings) that love her... instead of her husband who has proven time and time again that he has a huge conflict of interest in this case.

But there IS that possibility that Terri might have said that she would not have wanted to be kept alive artificially to her husband at one point... but there is also NO proof (besides his questionable word) that that is true. So, if you take her life, you are murdering her.

Therefore, to err on the side of LIFE is the only way to go.

Case closed.

Rolled Out On: 3/21/2005 1:19 PM

"And my post said nothing about Terri's wishes, it is all about me."

Thanks for being so upfront and clear on that point, SaaM. There probably is a good deal of "if it were me" informing people's attitudes and opinions about the Schiavo case in a harmful way.

I wouldn't count on Google, though, if I were you. There are really two elements to the question, and this post only answers one. The aspects are (a) do I want to live if I'm helpless or incapacitated (which you answer), and (b) what do I consider helplessness/incapacity? Without clear answers to both questions, the decision will still pass from you to others.

The case against removing the feeding tube, by the way, rests on the assertion that neither of the above questions has a clear answer in reality, yet the process continues. (The complication is that legally the answers are "clear" because of the initial trial and the findings of fact with their fatal flaws. Of course, the judge in that case is the same judge who's being requested to admit he was wrong lo those many years ago.)

One final bit: I think I've heard about the one doctor who declared no PVS, but I've also read about the several doctors who think no PVS but won't say without actually examining her (the professional, cautious opinion.) If the husband would actually let some of those doctors in the room, the numbers might just change.

Rolled Out On: 3/21/2005 1:46 PM

Slarrow - I cannot define adequately what the line is because I'm not competent enough in medical terms to describe it. The best I can do is say this -

If there is a question as to whether or not I would want to continue living and I am not capable of making that decision known to others because I am incapacitated, then I would wish to die. I would resent those who thought keeping me alive was what I wanted. If I cannot blink once for yes, twice for no, then my wishes are to remove life support. If I can blink, it will be the same answer.

That being said, the question could be asked - "Is he 'unable' to let us know? Can't we wait to see if he can tell us in a year?" My answer to that is screw it. You get a month. If I don't show signs of improvement, please end it for me.

And yes, I now realize Michael has not allowed enough people to examine her. I don't think he's a saint and I feel he's doing this for his own reasons, but as that is only my personal opinion, I'm not ready to cast a guilty verdict on a trial I've not sat through.

But to claim that this is what Terri wanted is horse shit. We don't know what she wanted. Period. Hardly anyone thinks that one day they could be considered a vegetable so we don't discuss it. So the ultimate finality is 'how you personally feel about this?' not, 'Terri wants this outcome.'

Personally, I'd rather die. There's several billion more people on this planet, you can do just fine without me. So, in my opinion, death would be better than what she's going through. Even though theres a one in a billion chance she can become coherent again, it wouldn't be without massive agony.

If you have a zest for life that you'd wager living in hell for the better part of it just to come back, then you'd think she should live.

But everyone needs to get it out of their minds that they know what Terri wants. It's best to admit that what you want for her is based on your own personal preferences.

I see this whole sad affair as simply a lack of information. We don't know, so we're basing what we think should be done on our own opinions. And since our own opinions are not something that can be measured and predicted through any scientific process, we're going to disagree with each other. If I were the sole person making the decision, I would flip a coin because it is just as accurate.

Rolled Out On: 3/21/2005 4:09 PM

But even then, if the case was up to me to decide, I would refuse to let her starve to death. I would require Mr. Schiavo to stand by his convictions and personally administer a lethal dose of morphine to her, ending it quickly. This slow death is a cop out so that no one thinks they had anything to do with it.

amen to that.

Rolled Out On: 3/21/2005 8:34 PM

Vern: I agree with what Nathan said:

"It seems fairly clear to me that Mr. Schiavo has not acted in a way consistent with having Terri's best interests at heart. In fact, his behavior would be considered grounds for divorce by abandonment under other circumstances."

and

"The only evidence that this is her wish is someone who stands to gain with her death; someone who may have actually put in her in this situation (extensive evidence of broken bones); someone who promised to use a sizeable settlement to preserve her life and get therapy, but did not; someone who did not even recall this wish of Terri's until more than three years after she was stricken."

To me, these are grounds for believing that Terri's parents care more about her than her so-called husband who should have granted her a divorce years ago. And I also agree with dorkafork in that even if</> she did want to die, starvation/dehydration is definitely not a comfortable way to go. There are far less painful and more "humane" ways to die.

# RE: One Day, Google May Be Used to End My Life - Robb Allen

Rolled Out On: 3/22/2005 8:53 AM

comment added to close tag.

Rolled Out On: 3/22/2005 2:46 PM

SaaM,
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I did indeed miss your point; I thought you were saying that since you would want to go ahead and die, we should go ahead and let her starve to death. Your clarification made it much more, um, clear to me.

So even though my agreement means little, I see what you are saying and largely agree. Death is not the worst thing; in fact, for a Christian it is gain. But to live is Christ, too. So definitely no heroic measures, and yeah: if I can't even blink once for yes and twice for no, then nobody's home and you might as well give me a lethal dose of morphine.

Rolled Out On: 4/3/2005 4:37 AM

Rolled Out On: 4/11/2005 3:47 PM

Dude, this is the coolest thing I've seen all week.